Shell Energy - Failure to disclose data

[Intrepid]

The ridiculousness of the situation is this.

 

Coventry County Court have a policy of re-directing callers to the MCOL Business Centre.

 

They will refuse to provide assistance unless it is explicitly evidenced that the Business Centre have refused to provide assistance.

It wasn't until I played back the recorded phone call of the MCOL Business Centre refusing to assist and hanging up before Coventry County Court agreed to contact the bailiffs remotely on my behalf.

The somewhat unclear explanation received as to why the warrant hasn't yet been enforced is the following:

The warrant was issued against Shell Energy on the 17th September and sent for execution at the County Court at Coventry. "Coventry" were unable to execute it and it was referred to the bailiffs on the 8th October for enforcement.

 

While I am unclear my assumption is that due to the low value of the claim it was first put in the hands of the courts warrant officers to enforce. For whatever reason - it doesn't really matter - this was not possible and it has been re-directed to "bailiffs" which I assume again means the HCEO.

 

If the warrant has not been enforced I have been advised to contact Coventry for an update in 2 weeks from the 8th October. I have been informed they have up to 1 year to enforce the warrant.

 

For now then I will not bank the cheque Shell Energy have provided, preserve my legal position and await the enforcement of the warrant by the bailiffs.

 

I consider if this becomes an issue I could bank the cheque on the proviso that it is only done so as payment for the claim and warrant and that I fully reserve my rights to bring a claim for Shell Energy's breach of statutory duty and any other issues they have caused me.

 

I am unclear as to whether when faced with the bailiffs at their door step if Shell Energy can attempt to turn them away by insisting a set aside has been applied for - although I am not aware of any. If this is possible and they do wish to entertain such tactics I think it will be difficult for them to explain to a judge why they first sent me a cheque equal to the exact amount of the claim and warrant but now wish to set aside the judgement.

Edited October 11, 2021 by Intrepid

[dx100uk]

only you can involve HCEO. its not automictic by a county court, you have to pay a fee to switch it up to high court and involve HCEO's

 

dx

 

 

dx

 

[Intrepid]

Be that the case I have simply relayed what I have been told. Maybe the fee is not required if for whatever reason it is was their decision to involve the HCEO's, they made no specific reference to HCEO's and simply used the term bailiffs.

I was not offered the option but merely informed that this is what has happened and no further payment was sought.

 

As far as I am concerned, I have not been informed why the original warrant has not been executed or been provided with any explanation as to why it may not be possible to execute it in future. So at the moment I consider that I am entitled to have the original warrant executed at no further expense.

Edited October 11, 2021 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

The Energy Ombudsman has provided me with their witness statement.

 

Below is a redacted copy.

 

 

EO - WS Redacted.pdf

[BankFodder]

Basically they have signed off as a statement of truth that they have supplied you with all the data they hold on you.

The court will accept this and will dismiss your claim unless you can come up with evidence that they haven't. An example of evidence might be a copy of some documents that you hold in your possession that you know that they also hold in their possession but they haven't supplied to you. If you could provide this, then it would be slamdunk.
You could then give that as an example of non-compliance and ask the court to draw its own conclusions that they hadn't complied.

 

[Intrepid]

Thank you BankFodder.

 

I was at first concerned that Ombudsman Services (OS) would not respond to me at all regarding my complaint regarding their disclosure, the fact they have signed a witness statement is in some way encouraging.

 

Unfortunately my position is that they have discussed my case either verbally or in writing and have not disclosed this to me. It is very difficult for me to evidence that something has not taken place and I agree entirely with your assessment.

 

Something rather peculiar and specific happened when Ombudsman Services changed their decision on the 2nd September 2021. Prior to this point Shell Energy had taken absolutely no action on my account. The OS delivered their updated decision to me via their messaging service within which they ruled that Shell Energy should use the meter reading provided to them on 21st November 2021. Against I stress up until this point Shell Energy had refused to take any action on the account entirely.

 

On 3rd September 2021 - 1 day after the OS revised decision - Shell Energy produced a new bill using the meter reading as per the OS new decision. Within their decision OS stated the following "We will be dealing with the remedies outside of the normal process through direct messages with Shell Energy due to the case being closed on our system."

So how did it come to be that Shell Energy were clearly made aware of the decision if it was provided using the messaging service between myself and the OS. I think it can be understood that OS communicated their decision to Shell Energy using their direct messaging service.

 

While this took place after the period covered by the SAR I sent to OS. I received no disclosure whatsoever between OS and Shell Energy regarding any communicaton using their direct messaging service and that is what gives me confidence that they have not made a full disclosure. Clearly OS and Shell Energy communicate outside of the case handling service and it has not been disclosed to me how and when this took place.

 

Whether I can convince a judge to this fact is another matter and unlike Shell Energy's incomplete disclosure this is not what I currently consider to be a slam dunk.

I have on the table the option to accept the IA's decision awarding me £100 but within it which I am not inclined to accept is their poison pill regarding their disclosure. I wonder if they will settle the matter on the proviso that their position regarding their disclosure is not accepted and does not form part of the settlement but also I may agree not to litigate the matter.

 

I have until 25th October to inform OS that I accept and wish to action the decision of the IA.

Edited October 13, 2021 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

I could send OS a second SAR and pay careful attention to whether they disclose any direct message communication which this time they clearly state they have had with Shell Energy.

 

It is somewhat concerning if Shell Energy have access to the messaging service between myself and the Ombudsman. It has not been made clear to me if this is the case and that OS allow a third party to proces my data in this way.

 

If this is the case, it is clearly designed to be an unequal control of information if OS share our messages with Shell Energy but do not share thier messages with Shell Energy to myself, except by way of SAR and even then we cannot be sure if they are simple able to deny they communicated with them.

Edited October 13, 2021 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

As the court hasn't yet acknowledged receipt of the defence from the Ombudsman I am unclear as to what the deadline will be for me to file a WS and apply to have the claim heard.

 

If there is sufficient time I will send a second SAR to the Ombudsman in order to substantiate my claim, perhaps if there is not sufficient time I will make the request under CPR 18.

Edited October 13, 2021 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

Today I will send the EO another SAR using the standard template provided. I will make an addition to the template as follows:

Please make it clear within your disclosure which data has been shared with a third party, when it was shared and to whom it has been shared with.

[Intrepid]

On 29th March the EO sent Shell Energy the following message:

"Dear Shell Energy, Please supply an urgent update on the status of this complaint to Mr Laurence Stimpson and Ombudsman Services within 7 days.Please indicate if the £100 goodwill gesture credit appears on a bill, or is due to and timescale."

Shell Energy provided the following within their disclosure time stamped 29 Mar 16:04

"Message from omb re my case EG006118-21 my case was closed all remedies done, customer dd was reassessed and he went back to omb Aziz had that one ref EG033169-21 disputed it and won he would need to deal with the dd issue. The omb have just messaged me to urgently let them know my case is resolved and
remedies completed I have responded to that. But I can see that the customer has now raised yet another omb case stating the same issues."

The EO has not disclosed to me what reply they received. Am I entitled to see such a reply? Is this sufficient evidence to indicate the EO has not made a full disclosure by failing to provide me with Shell Energy's reponse?

Edited October 14, 2021 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

Shell Energy provided the following in their disclosure time stamped 29 Mar 16:10

"Disputed on Forsetti
We wish to dispute this case file request, as the customer has had Ombudsman ref EG006118-21 where all remedies were completed. The customer then raised another Ombudsman case ref EG033169-21 for the same issue and also that the direct debit had been reassessed. This case was successfully disputed. As the initial case is resolved, the issue with the direct debit was raised on 19 March 2021. This is within 8 weeks. Shell Energy has not had the opportunity to resolve the complaint without Ombudsman involvement, as per the complaints process, we should have 8 weeks to resolve. No 8 week letter or Deadlock letter has been issued to the customer. Please can you confirm the case will be withdrawn and the case fee refunded."

The EO has made no reference to "Forsetti" in its disclosure and has disclosed none of the personal data they may have captured on such a system. If the above is understood to be Shell Energy's response to the EO's message above. The EO has failed entirely to provide it within their disclosure. I suspect there is more data that has not been disclosed from within the "Forsetti" system but am unable to evidence it at the moment.

Edited October 14, 2021 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

N180 pack received from the court regarding the case with the Ombudman, deadline for return is 1st November.

 

I sent a second SAR to the Ombudsman on 14th October, acknowledged on the same day. I wish to be in receipt of this data prior to continuing with the claim to a hearing.

 

What are my options regarding the N180?

If I fail to complete it by the deadine is the claim stayed after which a fee is required to re-instate the claim, if the claim is stayed will the defendant have the option to apply to strike out the claim?

 

If I complete the N180 with the intention of undergoing mediation will this provide extra time to recieve the data I requested from the second SAR - statutory deadline 14th November?

 

 

[BankFodder]

What is Forsetti?

[Intrepid]

I have no idea what Forsetti is, but it was referred to in Shell Energy's disclosure. I predict althought I am currently unable to evidence that Forsetti is perhaps the name of the "direct messaging service" that the Energy Ombudsman uses to communicate with energy companies. I will certainly be asking the Ombudsman at any hearing if they have any knowledge of such a term.

I appreciate you have been busy helping others with their cases which are likely more significant. I believe I am close to producing a so called "slam dunk" that you referred to earlier with regards to the Ombudsman so any scrutiny you can provide is gratefully received.

What I see happening is either in the second disclosure the Ombudsman provides data between them and Shell Energy using their direct messaging service, I then go on to use this as an example of how they did not declare this data in their first disclosure. Alternatively the Ombudsman fails to provide the communication from their direct messaging service, which they have admitted exists and that is a slam dunk on its own.

Like most companies the Ombudsman has a privacy notice which provides some vague description of how your data may be handled. In the second disclosure I have specfically asked the Ombudsman to declare "which data has been shared with a third party, when it was shared and to whom it has been shared with".
 

The template provided by CAG I believe already asks requests this but by re-stating it there is no ambigutiy whatsoever to what I am requesting and I'm not sure a generic privacy notice is sufficient for the Ombudsman to fail to disclose the above information. It is completely unclear to me following their first disclosure what data has been shared and what data has not been shared with Shell Energy, I believe this is sufficient cause to bring the claim but am not totally confident a judge will consider this in itself constitutes a statutory breach.

The issues I currently face is completing the N180. What I want to happen is to delay any hearing until I am in receipt of the second disclosure. As there is an active claim I predict the Ombudsman may not so readily provide this disclosure as the first and may put up resistance this time by either requesting more time, or attempting to insist the second request is manifestly unfounded, excessive or repetative.

[BankFodder]

When a statutory disclosure is made, they are also required to explain any codes or particular terms which might be understood by people internally but not externally.

I suggest that you write them and remind them of their duty to explain any unclear codes, acronyms, or names within the disclosure. Ask them in particular to identify what they mean by Foresetti

[Intrepid]

I will do this, this will have to be sent to Shell Energy not the Ombudsman as it was in Shell Energy's disclosure and it was only they which used the term.

Shell Energy are currently radio silence to all my communication (probably on instruction by their legal team/management) and I highly doubt I will receive a reply.

 

Sent to [email protected]

 

Quote

To Shell Energy's Information Officer.

 

In your incomplete disclosure provided on 26th May 2021 a reference was made using the term "Forsetti".

 

It is part of your statutory duty to explain any unclear codes, acronyms, or names within the disclosure.

Please can you identify what is meant by the term "Forsetti".

Sincerely,

 

Intrepid

 

 

[BankFodder]

I hope they have a reference number or some way of understanding which account this applies to

[Intrepid]

They have a name, it hasn't prevented them from responding in the past and it was sent "in reply to" their incomplete disclosure, so plenty of previous correspondence for them to refer to within the e-mail.

Edited October 19, 2021 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

Shell Energy have responded to the correspondence I sent declining to accept their payment as a gesture of good will:

"Thank you for your email. I can confirm that the cheque for £218 is in relation to the courts judgement. This should conclude the matter."

 

I am not entirely convinced this language is sufficient. I think it best to respond one final time as outlined below.

 

Quote

Dear Shell Energy,

 

Thank you for your reply,

 

Our dispute is in no way resolved. In order to unburden the court I am willing to accept the cheque you have sent me as payment for the judgement awarded against you as well as the issued warrant of control.

 

I reserve the right to bring a further claim for the on-going distress you cause me by continuing to fail to provide me with a complete disclosure of the data you hold on me, as requested and acknowledged by you on 28th April 2021.

 

Should you have any objections to this please let me know within 7 days of receipt of this e-mail. I may remove this line.
 

For the avoidance of doubt my account balance is still in dispute and no solution has been forthcoming as to how you wish to correct this.
 

Sincerely,

 

Intrepid.

 

Given their continued word games I am mindful as BF suggested to commence another claim for their incomplete disclosure but ultimately I think I prefer to move forward with the more substantial claim for mishandling my data. It is unlikely Shell Energy are going to leave another claim undefended regardless of the amount claimed.

As suggested I will list out the distress Shell Energy's actions have caused me once I have reviewed in detail any damage they have done to my credit file.

[Intrepid]

I am now preparing the completion of the N180 form in preparation for a hearing vs Ombudsman Services.

 

A1. Do you agree to this case being referred to the Small Claims Mediation Service - No
There really is little to mediate, either the statutory breach occurred or it did not. Also given the amount claimed is £100 there is little point in mediating the amount, afterall this claim is not about the money.
 

C1. Do you agree that the small claims track is the appropriate track for this case? - Yes
 

D1. At which County Court hearing centre would you prefer the small claims hearing to take place and why - My local court

For travel reasons. I can expand on this as well for personal reasons.

 

D2. Are you asking for the court's permission to use the written evidence of an expert - No

 

D3. How many witnesses, including yourself, will give evidence on your behalf at the hearing? - 1

D4. Are there any dates within the next six months when you, an expert or a witness will not be able to attend court for the hearing? - Yes
I will include all the days that I work as well as a small period for personal reasons.

Edited October 22, 2021 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

N180 for the Ombudsman case served to the County Court Business Centre first class signed for with proof of postage. N180 served to the Ombudsman first class with proof of postage.

No reply yet from Shell Energy's information officer regarding the term Forsetti. If they continue to ignore me it is likely I will submit another claim for their continuing breach of statutory duty.

I decided to leave in the line above providing Shell Energy with a deadline to respond as I consider it leaves the status of the cheque they sent me open ended and thus I am still entitled to enforce the warrant. Had I not requested a response I think it would be understood the cheque was accepted and I should therefore inform the court of its receipt.

[Intrepid]

N180 received from the Ombudsman, 2 witnesses most likely their head of legal and their information officer.

We have each applied to have the case heard at our local court, hopefully the court is still willing to facilitate remote hearings.

[Intrepid]

Shell Energy have ignored my request to explain the use of the term "Forsetti".

 

I think it is time to send them another letter before claim regarding their on going statutory breach as a result of thier incomplete disclosure as well as now their refusal to explain the use of the terms they have used.

I propose the following:

 

Quote

Letter before claim.

The response to the Subject Access Request (SAR), Shell Energy received on 5th May 2021 is incomplete.

Shell Energy has failed to provide any detail concerning the readings that were used to bill my account, as well as when they were changed or updated and continues to do so.

Shell Energy’s failure to provide this information within the statutory 30 day deadline means it is in breach of its statutory duty under GDPR.

It is of significance that Shell Energy specifically withheld data regarding the billing of my account considering the nature of our on-going dispute concerns the billing of my account.

In addition to the above Shell Energy were asked to provide an explanation as to what is meant by the term "Forsetti" referred to by you in your incomplete disclosure.

It is part of your duty when disclosing personal data to explain any unclear codes, acronyms, or names within the disclosure and to not do so further substantiates your breach of statutory duty.

Shell Energy are reminded that the SAR you received on 5th May 2021 was not limiting in its request and Shell Energy were requested to hand over ALL personal data held concerning the account.

Shell Energy’s failure to respond fully to the SAR is distressing as not having access to all my personal data you hold on me prevents me from assessing fully the extent to which Shell Energy has mismanaged my account.

If Shell Energy refuses to provide this information, please provide a detailed written response as to why.

A further complaint will be submitted to the Information Commissioner’s Office if you fail to reply and you can expect to be contacted by them in due course.

I invite Shell Energy to respond within 14 days of the date of this letter, after which I will bring a claim in County Court with no further reference to you.

Sincerely,

Intrepid

 

Edited October 28, 2021 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

On the 3rd March 2021 Shell Energy were instructed via e-mail to cease and desist harassing me for an account balance that is in dispute and in particular to stop contacting me via text message.

 

On 21st July 2021 Shell Energy were sent the following LBC:

 

Quote

Letter before claim.

Dear Colin Crooks,

Shell Energy are notified to cease and desist harassing me for an unsubstantiated debt.

If Shell Energy continue to apply knowingly false speculative invoices to my account (ref xxxxxxx) or take any further action harassing me for an unsubstantiated debt, I will bring a claim under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

I invite you to respond to this claim and expect to receive confirmation from Shell Energy that it will cease and desist its harassment.

Should Shell Energy continue to harass me for an unsubstantiated debt it is expected a claim will be brought with no further reference to yourself.

Sincerely,

Intrepid

 

Shell Energy failed to respond to the LBC however following the letter for a period of time Shell Energy ceased contacting me via text message.

 

On 11th November 2021 Shell Energy breached this instruction by contacting me using the following text message.

"Hi it's Shell Energy, we've noticed you have a payment plan which has defaulted within the last 31 days."

 

It appears that Shell Energy have defaulted my account and have also put the account onto a payment plan without my consent.

 

I intend to bring a claim as a result of Shell Energy's continued harassment.

In order to bring the claim, is the LBC Shell Energy received on 21st July 2021 sufficient to simply issue a claim or should I write another LBC giving Shell Energy an opportunity to respond prior to issuing the claim?

If a second LBC is prudent then I propose the following:
 

Quote

Letter before claim.

Dear Mr Crooks,

On 3^rd March 2021 Shell Energy were instructed to cease and desist harassing me for an account balance that is in dispute.

On 11^th November 2021 Shell Energy failed to comply with the instruction including the explicit instruction not to send text messages directly to my mobile phone.

This breach of instruction has caused me significant distress.

I invite Shell Energy to respond within 14 days of the date of this letter, after which I will bring a claim in County Court with no further reference to you.

Sincerely,

Intrepid

 

[BankFodder]

I don't see a cause of action identified in the above letter of claim.

As you know I've been out of contact with the forum for some time including the thread.

Can you just recap please – is money owed or not?