Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • that was a good saving on an £8k debt dx
    • Find out how the UK general elections works, how to register to vote, and what to do on voting day.View the full article
    • "We suffer more in imagination than in reality" - really pleased this all happened. Settled by TO, full amount save as to costs and without interest claimed. I consider this a success but feel free to move this thread to wherever it's appropriate. I say it's a success because when I started this journey I was in a position of looking to pay interest on all these accounts, allowing them to default stopped that and so even though I am paying the full amount, it is without a doubt reduced from my position 3 years ago and I feel knowing this outcome was possible, happy to gotten this far, defended myself in person and left with a loan with terms I could only dream of, written into law as interest free! I will make better decisions in the future on other accounts, knowing key stages of this whole process. We had the opportunity to speak in court, Judge (feels like just before a ruling) was clear in such that he 'had all the relevant paperwork to make a judgement'. He wasn't pleased I hadn't settled before Court.. but then stated due to WS and verbal arguments on why I haven't settled, from my WS conclusion as follows: "11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. "  He offered to stand down the case to give us chance to settle and that that was for my benefit specifically - their Sols didn't want to, he asked me whether I wanted to proceed to judgement or be given the opportunity to settle. Naturally, I snapped his hand off and we entered negotiations (took about 45 minutes). He added I should get legal advice for matters such as these. They were unwilling to agree to a TO unless it was full amount claimed, plus costs, plus interest. Which I rejected as I felt that was unfair in light of the circumstances and the judges comments, I then countered with full amount minus all costs and interest over 84 months. They accepted that. I believe the Judge wouldn't have been happy if they didn't accept a payment plan for the full amount, at this late stage. The judge was very impressed by my articulate defence and WS (Thanks CAG!) he respected that I was wiling to engage with the process but commented only I  can know whether this debt is mine, but stated that Civil cases were based on balance of probabilities, not without shadow of a doubt, and all he needs to determine is whether the account existed. Verbal arguments aside; he has enough evidence in paperwork for that. He clarified that a copy of a DN and NOA is sufficient proof based on balance of probabilities that they were served. I still disagree, but hey, I'm just me.. It's definitely not strict proof as basically I have to prove the negative (I didn't receive them/they were not served), which is impossible. Overall, a great result I think! BT  
    • Seeking further advice now. The 33 days in which the defendant has to submit a defence expires at 16:00 tomorrow. The defendant has submitted an acknowledgement of service but looking to get the claim awarded by default in failure to submit the defence. This is MoneyClaim Online and can see an option to request a default judgement but believe that is for failure to acknowledge the claim within 14 days??  So being MoneyClaim Online, how do I request the claim be awarded in my favour?
    • Have to agree with the above Health and safety legislation is specific in that the service provider in so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees and those not in the employ of the business. You claim is like saying you slipped in the swimming pool area while taking a dip. As rightly stated by by the leisure centre, a sports hall has dedicated equipment and you yourself personally have a legal obligation in mitigating danger or injury to yourself by taking account of your immediate surroundings. Where your claim will fail is if it is reasonable and proportionate to impose liability of the Leisure Centre? The answer has to be no.
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

BES Utilities - change of tenancy issues - advice needed


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3450 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

Please

Start your own new thread

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

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

We have recently taken over a commercial property who were supplied electricity through BES.

 

After lots of hard work we've finally managed to change the electric supplier to EDF. Much better contract and much less money.

 

BES want to charge us for the period between taking over the tenancy and today. The rates they have stipulated are a £1.50 standing charge per day, and a rate of 22p per KWA usage.

 

Are the above rates fixed? Is there any way we can object and get a lower tariff? Seems harsh that we never entered a contract with BES, yet they are able to charge us these ridiculous rates, because the previous tenants dealt with them.

 

Any help much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They will be their "deemed" or Out of Contract rates and although you & I may think them very high unfortunately they get away with it. Do make sure you had a correct meter reading when you moved in and again when you change over - these people seem renowned for sending guestimated bills which are absurd in their size.

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to come in here and say that although the contract is "deemed" and you have to accept that if you are receiving electricity then they will be a contract with someone, that is not to say that BES – who are the subject of a huge number of complaints on this forum and elsewhere are entitled to impose their own unilateral rate for the supply.

 

This goes against common sense and also any basic understanding of law.

 

Although the Supply of Goods and Services Act relates only to contracts with consumers, it seems to me that there is a read across to many other kinds of contract.

 

Section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act says that where no price for services has been agreed, then a reasonable price will be implied.

 

This seems to me to be a very sensible basis for deciding the cost of an item or service where one party has been forced to contract with a supplier "a deemed contract" until such a time that arrangements can be put in place for the customer to move elsewhere.

 

This very sensible rule seems to me to be even more appropriate where the customer has no choice about the contracting partner, because it seems to me that in that case the supplier is almost in a position of trust. A supplier would only be entitled to impose an excessive tariff for electricity of other services if that tariff had been negotiated with a partner of equal bargaining power who had a real choice.

 

In another thread, I asked BES Utilities if they would like to answer some questions about deemed contracts and the cost of electricity and they did not reply although I know that they visited the thread and they are fully aware of the question. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?437765-BES-Utilities-customer-service-question-for-you-please

 

I am quite convinced that this is a route that they would rather not go down for fear of losing money which they are receiving on the basis of extortionate charging for other "deemed contracts".

 

Let me hurry to say That BES Utilities are not the only people in on this game.

 

I think that you have no basis for challenging the existence of a deemed contract. However, I think that you have an excellent basis for challenging the high price that you are being charged when you have been given no choice as to your contracting partner or any opportunity to negotiate the price.

 

If you want some help with this, we would be happy to support you in any way we could.

 

I really wonder whether BES utilities would dare to go to court for this because if they lost – and I think that there is a high chance that they would lose – they would be in a position where they would not be able to do it again and also they would have to refund a lot of money to a lot of small businesses.

 

I think that you have to decide what you are prepared to do.

 

What is the price that you are being charged so far? And what would be the price that you would be paying if you were in a position to negotiate your contract with a free hand

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...