@dx100uk - Isn't the truth that we don't really know enough to make any assumptions or to make definite statements about what might or might not be owed? All we know is that the OP moved in sometime in December 2018 and shared an electricity supply and meter with the chicken farm next door. Twenty months later the OP got their own supply and meter. During that 20 months there was an agreement ( that no one seems to know the details of ) that the OP would pay an "appropriate contribution" towards electricity consumption measured through the chicken farm's meter. We don't know how that appropriate contribution was to be calculated or who it was to be paid to - although I assume it should have been paid to their vendors as I assume electricity bills would have gone to the vendors. (But I don't actually know that.) The OP has also been a tiny bit vague* about what they paid in respect of electricity consumption in the 20 months between moving in and getting their own dedicated meter. They initially set up a DD (although I'm not sure how that would have fitted in with paying an appropriate contribution to their vendors - if that's what the agreement was), and also paid "bigger sums" upon receiving "random bills", and throughout this time neither they nor E-on were able to access the chicken farm meter to take readings. So at the moment I'm not sure if even the OP is certain what bills they received and what readings those bills were based on, and what they paid during the time they were using electricity through the chicken farm's meter. (The OP did say back in December that they would collate all these bills and payments but I don't know if they did or not. At the moment they could equally well have overpaid as underpaid, and if I were them I would want to check!) And apart from not knowing how much electricity in total was consumed via the chicken farm meter during that 20 months, we don't know how much of that total was used by the OP - was it as little as 10% or was it as much as 90%? I would certainly agree that it's highly unlikely that the OP and her husband have used £3000 worth of electricity that they weren't aware of between December 2018** and the end of July 2020, but without seeing all the readings (estimated or actual) and bills and payments for the period, nobody can be sure. I wouldn't want to tell the OP that they definitely don't owe the money, or that there's nothing E-on can do about it, or that there's nothing to worry about, and then find myself a couple of months later possibly having to backtrack and apologise. I'd rather have more information now. As regards the other point - I'd never heard of back-billing before and didn't know that energy companies weren't allowed to do it, so this thread was the first I've heard of it when BankFodder and you raised it. Am I to understand you to be saying that a consumer can only take advantage of any "prohibition" on back-billing by an admission that they owe the money? Are you saying the OP should not attempt to take advantage of it? *Not being critical of the OP but it is light on detail! ** I know the revised final bill says it covers a period of only 45 days, but it starts off with an estimated reading and I bet this £3000 has its origins in under-estimates dating back a lot further. @autumn53 - ok, we cross-posted while I was responding to DX100UK Hold on the back-billing as DX100UK seems to be suggesting it's not a good idea because you can only take advantage of it by admitting the debt(?). From what you've said above - are you saying that the root of this problem is simply that you have been unable to get E-on to understand the simple fact that you and your husband are (1) different customers from the ones who own the chicken farm and from whom you bought your house in December 2018, and (2) that you have never had any connection with the chicken farm? (Apart from sharing the meter for 20 months that is). Is that all that the confusion is about. (Apart from the fact that you never ensured you got proper meter readings on completion and thereafter). Well - I think that must be quite good news and quite easy to resolve with e-on... @autumn53 - I'm going to have to ask some really stupid questions so I can make sure I understand something !!! In your post #79 there are extracts from agreements relating to your house purchase. Your solicitor would withhold a retention until your sellers had arranged the provision of a separate electric supply to you and a meter. This they did but took about 20 months to complete. (Is that all correct so far?) During the period between you moving in and the separate supply and meter being installed, you and your husband agreed to pay an "appropriate contribution" in respect of your consumption through the chicken farm's meter. But the agreement said nothing about who was responsible for providing readings from the chicken farm meter during that time or - indeed - on the original completion back in December 2018. (Still OK so far?). So - some questions: 1. Was it only your property that was drawing electricity from the chicken farm meter, or was the chicken farm drawing electricity too? (It's not clear from your posts whether the chicken farm was run-down and no longer operating, so that you were using all the electricity through that meter, or whether the farm may have been using even more electricity than you). 2. What did you and your husband think an "appropriate contribution" meant, and how did you think it would be calculated and paid, and to whom? (I am assuming that because the meter was not situated on your property the intention was that your sellers would remain the account holders with E-on in respect of the meter, that E-on would continue to bill them based on meter readings, and that you and your sellers would then apportion the bills between you on an "appropriate contribution" basis. Your sellers would pay the total amount to E-on and you would reimburse your sellers "appropriately". Is that what you understood?) 3. Why did you immediately set up a DD with E-on in December 2018 and why did you pay subsequent random bills from them? (I ask this because if - and I stress if - it was intended that your sellers would remain as the account holders and you would reimburse them an appropriate contribution for your usage, I don't quite understand how you could set up a DD on an account that wasn't yours. Or why you would want to set up a direct debit on an account where you did not have access to the meter. It's asking for trouble... ) 4. Is it possible that when you set up the DD in December 2018, that you and your husband somehow inadvertantly allowed yourselves to take over responsibility for the totality of the electricity account associated with the meter on the chicken farm? Were you receiving bills between December 2018 and July 2020 and if so, to whom (and where) were they addressed? ( I wonder whether when you set up the DD, E-on thought or assumed that you were taking over the chicken farm account. Presumably you or your husband would have had to reference the meter and/or account to be able to set up a DD on it, and E-on would have transferred the account from your sellers to you) What I think might have happened is that the chicken farm account has been running on estimated electricity bills for a very long time, and that the reading on or about 28 July 2020 was the first actual reading for ages - perhaps years - and that E-on have charged you the accumulated underestimates because they think you've been the account holders for the chicken farm since December 2018. Or it might be that E-on have been billing both you and your sellers for the same consumption. Or it might be that E-on simply can't read electricity meters properly. If E-on are going to dig their heels in and insist that you owe them the money, I think you'll need to consider the above questions and dig out all the old bills and paperwork you can find. You need to provide a paper trail showing that you can't possibly be responsible for this bill. Which I'm sure you can do. Incidentally, where are your sellers in all this and why were you relying on their estate agent to provide meter readings? I'd sya all this mess was foreseeable and your solicitor should have seen to it that the sellers were respeonsible for providing actual meter readings etc between you completing on the property and having your own meter and supply installed. I'm sure all this could have been avoided if your solicitor had thought more about the implications of buying a property where the electricity meter was located somewhere else. Also you (or your solicitor) really ought to have ensured that you got a meter reading on completion. If you can answer the above four question it might help make more sense of things. (I won't comment on the back-billing issue until DX100UK explains about the debt admission issue)

As I don't buy anything from Amazon and as I don't use or buy gift cards myself, I wouldn't know ... But thanks.

@autumn53 - before you send anything off, can you just remind me whether you have actually raised the issue of backbilling with E-on yet? Because to me that really ought to be the first thing you draw to their attention in any communication. I wonder if at this stage* the SAR stuff is a bit of a distraction from the main issue - which is that they are too late to try to recover this money either from you or from the previous occupiers? Because it seems to me that if you win the backbilling argument it's game, set and match to you and your husband. So have you raised it with them yet? *The SAR stuff will become important if E-on won't accept the backbilling argument, but I'm not sure how they could reject it...

Sorry - but I'm a very linear person and need things spelling out to me as in "Point 1... point 2... point 3... " etc, whereas I think you are assuming I should understand something that really doesn't make sense to me. I'm afraid just repeating what the OP posted previously isn't really helping me. I think I just need a straightforward answer to a simple question like "So it's possible to use a credit balance on a Sainsburys gift card to buy a JL gift card?" The answer to that might seem obvious to many people but it isn't obvious to me. I have always thought that a credit balance on a Sainsburys card could only be used to purchase goods and services from Sainsburys. I wasn't aware that one could be used to buy goods and services or gift cards from a third party, or that Sainsburys sold JL gift cards. It seems to sort of defeat the purpose of a gift card as I understand it, which is to tie you in to that supplier. But as I say, I'm not at all familiar with buying or using gift cards so maybe that's why I'm at a loss... ?

So in order to clear up some confusion for me, are we saying the OP did not in fact buy the JL giftcards from Sainsburys? (Sorry if that's a stupid question, but I never use or buy gift cards or vouchers myself. It seemed a bit odd to me that anybody would buy JL giftcards from Sainsburys, but it also seems equally odd to me that anybody would use a Sainsburys gift card to buy JL gift cards. Am I being hopelessly stupid and missing something obvious?)

? But the OP has not bought any cards from JL - they were bought from Sainsburys. Are you trying to say that buying the cards from Sainsburys is the same as buying directly from JL, and therefore the claim should be against JL and not Sainsbury? Isn't the issue here the validity or otherwise of the cards sold by Sainsburys? They appear to have sold to the OP giftcards which - according to JL - have already been redeemed. I'm not sure you can treat a card or voucher like money in these circumstances.

Isn't it Sainsburys the OP needs to be dealing with and not JL? The OP bought the giftcards from Sainsburys.

Perhaps I'm misreading the bill or I'm suffering some mental block... but haven't you got that wrong by a factor of 1000? Isn't it 14872 kwh at day rate over 45 days, which 333kwh per day, not 333 watts? That's why the amount over 45 days is > £3000 ... @autumn53 - OK, so if the late billing rule referred to by both BankFodder and dx100uk applies to this bill, then you don't owe it because it's clearly(?) out of time. However, if for some reason it doesn't apply (although I can't see why it wouldn't - it wasn't your fault meter readings weren't supplied) there are a couple of other points to bear in mind: Well - I agree that that is what should have happened (and your solicitor should have ensured, in my view) but I bet your sellers didn't pay for all their consumption. I suspect a large part, if not all, of the bill you have received relates to the previous owners. What should have happened is that a meter reading should have been taken and agreed when you took possession of the property and started consuming electricity on it. Your sellers would have paid for all consumption up to then. There should then have been an agreed basis for apportioning consumption through the original meter for the interim period between you taking possession of the property and your own meter being installed. That apportionment would have been between your consumption in your house and consumption on the "chicken farm". I note that para 11(b) of the agreement you posted says that you "shall pay the appropriate contribution [my emphasis] for the supply of electricity to the Property in accordance with the meter reading until completion of the Works." So who decided what "the appropriate contribution" was, and how was it calculated? Did you say previously that you and your husband just paid whatever electricity bills you received during the interim? I'd have thought those bills should have gone to the then account holder - the "chicken farm"/your sellers? - and they should then have billed you for your share of consumption. However that was calculated. I suspect that what has happened is that either (a) E-on have got the meter readings completely wrong, which is not impossible, or (b) that until 28 July 2020 there had not been a proper meter reading for months or even years* and that your sellers had been significantly undercharged over that period and it is they who owe the money and not you. But without knowing the meter reading history or having sight of several years worth of bills, it's impossible to be sure. For now - if I were you - I think I'd go down the "you're trying to bill us for consumption from over 12 months ago - you can't do that" route. But if E-on try to dig their heels in (and I have no idea if they might have grounds for that or not) you might need to dig deeper into the history. * I know for a fact that our electricity meter has not been read officially for several years. I make sure I supply a customer reading at least every year or if our estimated consumption is significantly different from actual. E-on have happily relied on my readings for years.

OK. So the bill is dated 01 December 2021, but it covers a period ending 28 July 2020 - so it's clearly trying to charge you for electricity that you consumed* over 12 months ago. So according to the link provided by BankFodder on page 1 right after your opening post, they can't enforce it(?). * I say "you consumed", but I note that the detail on that bill only starts off with an Estimated and not an Actual meter reading. It finishes on 28 July 2020 with an Actual reading. What would concern me with an estimated reading as the starting point, is that (without knowing the meter reading history) you might be getting charged for electricity consumed either before you bought the property or that has been consumed by the "chicken farm". So the bill presumably relates to an apportionment of the electricty consumption while you shared a meter with the chicken farm? If your solicitor withheld a retention of £10k regarding the electricity supply, I presume you had some agreement with your vendors as to how bills would be apportioned prior to installing your own meter? And presumably you must have had - or your solicitor would have asked them for - an actual meter reading when you took possession of the house? To me it would seem essential that your solicitor should have asked for that because of the shared supply issue**. If it was worth withholding £10k in the first place, I wouldn't have finally released it to the vendors without a verified meter reading - otherwise you run the risk of hitting problems exactly like this. I also would have wanted an agreed basis for apportioning consumption in the interim before your own meter was installed. Have you checked your paperwork from the house purchase? Is there no mention of an agreed basis for apportioning electricity prior to your own meter being installed? Have you asked your solicitor about this bill? It may all be a moot point if they can't pursue you for the debt anyway because it goes back over 12 months ago. I suspect dx100uk and BankFodder are better placed to advise on this aspect. ** I don't know about the UK (as I said it's nearly 30 years since I bought a house here) but in the Isle of Man the apportionment of utility and rates bills used to be a normal part of the conveyancing process. I suspect it used to be done to justify fees by demonstrating more work had been done

@autumn53 - you haven't explained what period this disputed bill is meant to cover. You've successfully posted the front of the bill twice, but you haven't shown the reverse where there ought to be an explanation of how they have arrived at the billed amount - and what period it covers. How is the amount broken down? As others have said, they shouldn't go back further than 12 months unless you have been obstructive or uncooperative in providing readings or have prevented readings. Doesn't sound as if you have been. And, presumably, although the disputed bill shows "the chicken farm's" address, it also has your name or your husband's name on it? When you bought the house back in December 2018, did neither your surveyor nor your conveyancing solicitor draw your attention to the lack of a meter on the property and the potential problems this might cause? (It's nearly 30 years since I was last involved in buying a house so I'm a bit hazy on the details but I'd have expected this to have been highlighted at the time). After you moved in and set up a DD with E-on, did you not think to provide a meter reading to E-on, and when you couldn't access the meter in "the chicken farm", didn't you think to address the problem at the time? Presumably E-on were unable to access* the meter too? And before setting up your own account and DD you just paid "random" bills as they turned up? And after over three years you still don't know who owns the property next door where the meter that originally supplied your property is situated? Apologies if I sound critical - I don't mean to be. I'm just trying to understand what has happened and how it could have happened. And what steps you have or have not already taken to resolve this. Ignoring the back-billing issue for the moment, if the bill is based on a correct* meter reading (and that may be a big "if") then I'd have thought it more likely that the debt is owed by the owners of the "chicken farm", unless your own electricity consumption is exceptionally high**. Who else but the owners of the chicken form would have been consuming electricity via that meter before you? (Who occupied your house before you?) *If the disputed bill is based on a correct meer reading, it sort of raises the question how E-on got access to the meter. Has the original meter been replaced with a smart meter at some stage? ** Is your electricity consumption ridiculously high?

The town centre of Basingstoke is a Controlled Parking Zone and SYL are in operation from 8am - 7pm Monday to Saturday. (The time restrictions should be notified to you by signs at the entry points to the CPZ.) If Eastfield Avenue is within the CPZ that would be why there were no signs on the road itself. Parking Enforcement WWW.BASINGSTOKE.GOV.UK

Well obviously that's being made redundant. What have I said that makes you believe I would think otherwise? If the employer can't offer suitable alternative employment then it's redundancy, isn't it? But until the employer actually says "Take the new job or else... " I don't see that it's yet a grievance. Potentially, perhaps, but not yet. The OP doesn't appear to have reached that point yet?

Might going in with a grievance be a bit premature at this stage? The OP has so far just asked if they can be forced to take the new job - I don't see any suggestion that they have yet come under any pressure to take it. Indeed, what the employer has told them so far seems simply to be information: I don't necessarily see anything there to raise a grievance about? From what the OP has told us so far I'd be suspicious that the employer is trying to push them into a position where they really have no choice but to take redundancy, rather than the employer trying to avoid making them redundant. I've seen that happen. I'd have thought the time to raise a grievance is when the employer actually comes out and says: "We consider this offer to be suitable alternative employment and if you don't take it you won't be eligible for redundancy". Until then I'd await developments. Although if a union said they'd definitely support me on this, I'd definitely join. Can an employer do that to avoid paying redundancy? (If they could the OP would be daft to accept an offer of re-employment if they aren't being forced to take it?)

Fair enough then - but I'm surprised. I worked in the NHS for 25 years and was in Unison, and I've known people who tried to join a union for help with a pre-existing issue (including potential redundancy) and got none - even if there was no existing grievance. Out of interest, what would the grievance here be?

A £7k drop in salary!?!? On the face of it - and I haven't taken in all you've said - I'd have thought that did not sound like a suitable alternative.

If the OP joins a union now, the union almost certainly will not advise them on any problems that already exist - which this problem obviously does. (Which is not to say it isn't a good idea to join a union in case of future problems).

When you say your post has been "deleted" from the structure what do you mean? Has there been simply a reduction in the number of posts needed to carry out a particular function, or is the function you have previously carried out no longer required? Do you see the difference?* When you say your daily hours will increase but you are being switched to a term time only contract, are your annual hours changing or just how they are distributed across the year? How much is the drop in salary? I worked in the NHS and when looking at re-deployment issues it was pretty much accepted that a move either up or down one pay band was considered reasonable when looking at whether or not a particular new post was a suitable alternative. In terms of pay bands or grades, what does the drop in salary equate to? I presume you are not in a union? *If you are in effect being offered re-deployment into a completely new role that is different from the old one, then I think you could argue that it isn't a suitable alternative employment because of the changes you mention. But if you are simply doing what is in effect the same job in a different part of the structure and you're being "slotted-in", I think it's not so clear-cut.

If they give you a full refund, why would they be liable if anything else goes wrong? How would you be able to pursue a claim against them for the plumber getting scalded? That's got nothing to do with you, has it? The only person who can sue in respect of that is the plumber - not you.

Can I also ask about your claim figure? Have you got quotes to back it up or is it plucked out of the air? I appreciate it's a "vintage" sofa from the 70s and that its design and choice of fabric make it unusual and possibly of particular interest to some purchasers, but £5000+ to replace or to recover? I ask because we are currently getting quotes to repair (springs broken on all three pieces) and recover a 3 pce suite that is 20+years old (we love its classic design - The Sunday Times had it as top ten design of the decade 20 years ago - and it's no longer available) and none of the quotes do far have come to £3k. Its quite possible that your figure can be justified, but if you can't back it up it might be best to be realistic about the amount before issuing a claim. (Also I'm not 100% convinced how you would assess the damage anyway. The sofa was, after all, stained when you bought it, and while the cleaning company might have made them more prominent, it wasn't pristine when they took it... )

If the suggestion is that the OP withdraws this claim and submits a new one claiming the correct amount, is there an issue at all regarding the question of "damage" to the item - as opposed to it just being lost? As I read the first communication from Marybeth Smith, dated 1st December, Hermes are saying they lost the parcel. Yes - the second communication from Farhan Hussain dated 23rd December does say "However, as this parcel was damaged whilst in our care... ", but I don't think he's actually saying it has been damaged. That just reads to me like either a typo in the text or a template response that hasn't been edited properly. Other than that one email, is there anything else from Hermes confirming it was damaged as opposed to lost? Maybe it makes no difference (I'm not sure that it does) but if the OP is going to make a new claim after withdrawing the first one, it would seem to me to be sensible to make sure that the claim is as accurate as possible. All the OP really knows is that the parcel was not delivered and that he has two emails: the first confirming it was lost; the second suggesting that it may have been damaged. I'd have wanted confirmation from Hermes as to whether (a) it had been lost or (b) it had been damaged or (c) they didn't know. Of course it's possible the OP has sought such confirmation but nothing more has been forthcoming from Hermes. Just one other point - the truncated defence from Hermes in #52 and the extract from the Particulars of Claim in #61 both seem to refer to a contract claim only. Doesn't this claim go beyond the contract? Whether lost or damaged isn't negligence an alternative?

I don't know the answer to the question about whether all photos need to be disclosed by them before the trial. My previous question came from MITM's comment in #43: I sort of thought that it was an accepted principle of law that if charged with a crime then the prosecution have to disclose the evidence they intend to rely on to the accused. (Plus any evidence they have that they don't intend to use, but which may assist the defence). Of course, as MITM points out, no photos of anybody other than your wife driving can exist. If I'm wrong about having to disclose any other photos that exist, I'm sure MITM or someone else will correct me. I'd also suggest again that you pay attention to the last part of MITM #32 here,

Well I personally can't see anything from those photos which justifies them questioning your response. I can barely make out the outline of the driver let alone have a view as to their age or sex.

@Bad lad - I think you should do exactly as Man in the middle says in #43 and play this with a perfectly straight bat. I bet he doesn't often get to tell people dual charged with speeding and failure to identify that they will probably have an opportunity to submit "no case to answer" at half way. It would be a pity to cock that up and possibly end up snatching defeat from what should be almost certain victory by deviating from the obvious path. If some antagonism exists between you and the police and they are perhaps trying to provoke you in some way, the best way to give them satisfaction is to allow yourself to react to that provocation. I'd suggest that after you have successfully defended the case would be a better time to question how they have handled this and to ask how they came to the decision to prosecute at all - which on the face of it seems a strange decision and a likely waste of public resources I may be wrong (I'm sure Mitm will put me right if I am) but I think the the thing for you to take from that Scottish court decision is that Parliament must have put a time limit on prosecution for a reason, and that the police/prosecuting authority can't get around that time limit simply by re-issuing new s172 requirements at a later date just because they don't like what you've submitted. Otherwise they would be subverting the clear intention of Parliament that there should be a time limit on prosecution. That might or might not amount to "abuse of process", but I don't think it's necessary to mention that to the court - just that it clearly isn't what Parliament intended when they passed the law*. *I'm not sure whether the 1988 Act referred to by the Scottish court is the same Act that applies to England & Wales or not. The legal requirements will be the same, it's just that the Act that applies in Scotland might be different from the one that applies in England. I think it always helps to persuade magistrates if you can demonstrate to them that you look like you know what you are talking about and don't make obvious mistakes! I'm sure @Man in the middle can confirm which Act you may need to rely on - if you get so far as having to present a defence that is - you may not need to do so...

OK. Have to see what happens. I suggest you take careful note of Man in the middle's suggestions in the last paragraph of #32

As per Ethel Street, dont accuse anybody of theft. Just state it went missing while in the possession of Wetherspoons (or their licensee if appropriate). Have you got evidence (something in writing, like an email or text) confirming that they had it and that it went missing from the safe? I suppose putting it in a safe could go either way. It might be evidence that they took reasonable care of it - but, on the other hand, if it went missing without trace, the safe obviously was neither safe nor secure