Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • OK - thank you. I understand the concept of LIP, and the need to keep my claim as simple and straightforward as possible. The legal arguments presented in what I called my skeleton statement were already in the original template I downloaded from this site. In that document I opened with "I am not proposing to set out the sequence of events." Might it be worthwhile for me to include a very brief timeline at that point, which would perhaps then allow it to become my witness statement? Or do you consider two separate documents are required? 
    • BF do you know where the instruction for skeleton has come from? Its just WX + docs. Do you think a skeleton is needed if the only issue in dispute is the legality of the exclusion terms. it seems excessive as well as wx no?   ah yes good point with LIP wx format i didnt think about the LIP judge softhand 
    • And incidentally, the really important part of this is that when you go to court, you are totally thorough and fluent not only with the facts – but with the effect of the legal points you are arguing. The facts are broadly not in dispute but the legal effect for instance of either having insurance or not having insurance. Of requiring insurance – these are the things you need to understand fully. Preparing your court bundle and eventually refining it bit by bit is terrific revision for you and will put you in control but also understanding its content fully and being fluent with its pages in the position of every point you are making is also essential.
    • Skeleton argument/witness statement – it's just a matter of terminology and we don't need to make an issue of it. Actually the three-page document that you have posted first of all and which you have called skeleton argument – is a witness statement which would be attached to the bundle which would be part of your indexed court bundle. I haven't looked at it in detail get or how it supports your claim or how it addresses any of the points made in the defence. I'll have to do that in the next two or three days. But for the moment, it looks fine. You have posted a second document which you are describing as an anonymized witness statement and as far as I can see, I agree with Cagger @jk2054 that much of your circle witness statement is a bit of a waffle and contains irrelevant information that you haven't remedied it in your final version which you say is chopped up. Also, you have received a suggestion of a template from Cagger @jk2054 and although this is going to be confusing for you, I don't think you should bother to use it. It is far too formal. You are a litigant in person and you need the flexibility of fully informing but informal documents which is what we are providing you with. We are suggesting models which we have been using over many cases and they all succeed in some them have been, complemented by the judge for the effectiveness and their clarity. You are litigant in person and one of the things you need to do is you need to have the judge on your side and helping you if necessary and this means that you don't want to start acting or talking or writing as if you are some kind of lawyer – you aren't. Being a litigant personage a certain sort of leverage and you should exploit that. The templates that we are suggesting to you are still not the templates that a completely un-advised person would use but they are still thorough. Stick to them. I suggest that you follow the advice given by the site team here and avoid confusion by switching horses. So for the moment I would suggest that you stick to your original skeleton argument – which follows the format that we have been using on this forum. We do like to see the fully prepared bundle please. I think there should be a next step. Have you got hearing date? Have you got a date for filing your bundle? In fact I have just looked back and I see that your filing date is 8 July. That's fine
    • First of all – as has already been pointed out to you, this is not a defect in the usual way that we understand and so that means that you don't need to rely on your 30 day and six months rights to reject. You can get MOT test done and it turns out to be an MOT failure for any reason then you have the added weight that they have is sold you an unroadworthy vehicle. Who did the existing MOT? I have a sense that it was big motoring world themselves in which case this would give you even greater leverage that if you have an MOT fail and it seems fairly clear that the reason for the failure is something which existed for some time that that would also cast doubt over the MOT provided by big motoring world and this would be even more serious. In any event, the vehicle is not as described and I think that this is an immediate ground for cancelling the policy and even better than that I think it would be a good ground for resisting any deduction made for mileage used – although we will have to deal with as it comes. I have read on Facebook that big motoring world tend to insist on quite a big deduction per mile and I have a sense that they do this because they know they can get away with it because they know their customers are really just happy to get rid of the vehicle any cost. You have told us you've got to a position where they seem to have agreed that you have now drawn a blank and they are being obstructive. Maybe you can lay out a bullet point chronology of exactly what has happened so far – point by point. I don't think you've told us how much you pay for the vehicle and also we want to know a list of the other expenses to which you been put including insurance et cetera and if you cancel the insurance how much you are likely to lose. How long is it not been driven? Why is it not been driven by your son? Didn't you planned for the more expensive insurance premium before you bought it? I have a sneaking suspicion that maybe you bought it and then was surprised at how expensive it was and are now finding a reason to return it. Please be completely level with us and tell us if this forms part of your reason for wanting to return it. We need to know everything – straight dealing – so we can help you in the best way possible. Otherwise we will have surprises sprung on us and we will all be embarrassed and you may lose. In fact I see that we don't know anything about the current all – make, model, mileage, or price paid which have already asked you about. Any reason that we don't have these very basic and obvious details without having to ask for them? You refer to the two new runflat tyres – why? Are these new ones which came with the car or these new ones which you had to buy and if so why did you have to buy them and how much they cost. It will be nice not to have to cross-examine your every detail. It will save a lot of time. Please have a look at this post carefully, discern the questions and address each one please.
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.


      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Responsibility of paying default provider (EDF)?

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5051 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Morning everyone,


Here's a situation I'm new to, I wonder if anyone can please advise?

  • I moved into a flat in March
  • The flat has had extremely little use since then, mainly because I've been away a lot
  • The previous occupiers vacated 28th February. They used EDF for both Gas & Elec.
  • Early March I started receiving letters from EDF addressed to "The Occupier" or "The Customer"
  • I ignored EDF's letters. I'd used them before and didn't want to this time around. I also wasn't in a hurry to sign an alternative energy provider because I would be away for several weeks
  • In April I signed Scottish Power for Gas & Elec - a good deal, including a Quidco cashback offer. Only issue was, it would take a long time for them to officially start supply
  • In July Scottish Power finally started supply. Mid July, I provided them both start readings (from when I moved in in March) and current readings. The differences were very small - extremely low usage due to me hardly being there

  • EDF continued to send letters and bills addressed to "The Customer" (must be using estimated readings even though labelled as Actual!), although I've not instructed them and I'm pretty certain they'd not have had any access to my meters.
  • I've ignored all EDF letters/bills (Electricity bill about £150, Gas about £50) because I want Scottish Power to pick this up, not EDF.

  • 9-Aug, EDF send letter addressed to "The Customer" saying that the reading they have received (from Scottish Power presumably) is "not in line with your previous energy consumption"... they are in the process of contacting my new supplier (Scottish) to agree an accurate closing meter reading and the process can take between 6 and 8 weeks ... as soon as agreed a final bill will be sent to me, I do not have to take any further action.
  • 12-Aug, EDF send letter addressed to "The Customer"saying the Gas amount of £50 is outstanding, threatening that if I don't contact them or make payment within 14 days, they'll refer to the Collection Management Team.

I had planned to not contact EDF as I have no dealings with them, and get Scottish to absorb the consumption from when I moved in March. But now am uncertain as to how this would likely play out.


Does the "default provider" have any rights? Any advice would be appreciated - thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Scottish Power cannot charge you for electric used prior to the day you became registered with them so in essence they can only bill you from mid July onwards. You will need to pay EDf for all power consumed between the date you moved in until mid July. Hopefully you have readings for the date that you moved in otherwsie theyare going to estimate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Scottish Power cannot charge you for electric used prior to the day you became registered with them so in essence they can only bill you from mid July onwards. You will need to pay EDf for all power consumed between the date you moved in until mid July. Hopefully you have readings for the date that you moved in otherwsie theyare going to estimate.


Thanks for your reply.


EDF don't have Actual readings and neither do Scottish Power. EDF only know what the previous tenant provided on exit, and Scottish know those (start readings I provided, that match the previous tenant) and mid July readings (readings I provided).


So how would EDF know that I didn't consume *any* Gas or Elec between March & July?


Crucially: why would I be obliged to pay any provider that I didn't have an explicit contract with, regardless of who they are or how they arrange terms of charging?


Example: EDF have placed a standing charge of £14 a month for Gas (despite the fact I literally haven't used any at all), but at no stage did I agree to that - we have not entered into any agreement whatsoever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Crucially: why would I be obliged to pay any provider that I didn't have an explicit contract with, regardless of who they are or how they arrange terms of charging?


Example: EDF have placed a standing charge of £14 a month for Gas (despite the fact I literally haven't used any at all), but at no stage did I agree to that - we have not entered into any agreement whatsoever.


this is covered by a deemed contract subsequent to the Gas Act and the Electricity Act, as amended by the Utilities Act 2000. Unless an agreement is expressly entered in to with the existing supplier of the property, or another supplier is nominated and takes over the supply, by default you are contracted to the energy supplier who supplied the property prior to your moving in. Therefore you are bound by their terms and conditions.


By having the right to occupy a premises ie signing a tenancy agreement or if the property is vacant and you are the owner, you are deemed to be the occupier and are therefore contracted to the utilities and must pay.


Ignoring EDF when you moved in and not taking any action to appoint a new supplier was foolish as unpaid charges could have resulted in your supply being disconnected. The best course of action for you would be to contact EDF with your opening meter reads from when you moved in, and maybe say to them you weren't aware they were the supplier, which is why you didn't contact them. This will ensure the billing of your supply is accurate. If you don't do this, an Agreed Read Dispute will be opened and you may end up paying charges which are inaccurate as the two suppliers agree a different meter reading to end one account and start a new one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may have given Scotish Power the read that relates to when you moved into the flat therefore you stand a good chance of being billed by SPOW and EDF for the same usage i.e. EDF are entitled to bill you from March 2010 until mid July on estimated reads but as you gave SPOW and opening read for March they will bill you the same becasue they will assume the opening read was for mid July. You are complicating your life. Pay EDF what is due at their rates under the deemed contract and revise the opening read with SPOW for a read in mid-July. Simples.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you kindly for those replies. I've taken your advice & contacted EDF to resolve.


It was complicated by the fact that Scottish had my start and end readings back to front (?!?!) and also they somehow conveyed a vastly inflated estimate figure, which EDF re-translated on bills as "Actual" even though they were Scottish's "Estimate".


EDF have agreed to write-off the Gas standing charges, which they admitted were unfair, as in the normal course of events I would have gone for a dual fuel agreement which cancels out these charges.


They've a bit of sorting out to do still... but hopefully the outcome will be better this way.


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...