Jump to content


Shell Energy - Failure to disclose data


Recommended Posts

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 by Intrepid
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Intrepid
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Intrepid
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Intrepid
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Intrepid
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Intrepid
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Intrepid
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...