Now that I am retired having been many years a magistrate with a long awareness of the declining freedoms enjoyed by the ordinary citizen and a corresponding fear of the big brother state`s ever increasing encroachment on civil liberties I hope that my personal observations within these general parameters will be of interest to those with an open mind. Having been blogging with this title for many years against the rules of the Ministry of Justice my new found freedom should allow me to be less inhibited in these observations.





Comments are usually moderated. However, I do not accept any legal responsibility for the content of any comment. If any comment seems submitted just to advertise a website it will not be published.

Friday, 16 August 2013

WARRANTS OF ENTRY & UTILITY COMPANIES//SIX OF THE BEST





I`m obviously pleased that since this blog`s inception almost four years ago at WWW.THE JUSTICEOFTHEPEACE.BLOG.CO.UK it has had almost half a million  viewers.  However continuing techie problems there persuades me that a permanent switch to this site at BLOGGER will enable me to continue posting in a trouble free environment.

Amongst the most commented upon subjects in the last four years has been that of utility companies and their threats of cutting off electricity or gas supply to ordinary consumers.  In order to do so they generally must have a warrant of entry signed by a magistrate. The following six posts are on this topic and were published between December 2009 and April of this year.  
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 19. Dec. 2009. – 11:40:29
We hear a lot about "Human Rights" these days. I am not referring to our rights as human beings but to a particular consequence of The Human Rights Act of 1998. Until that became a part of the English legal system utility companies after due process including the obtaining of an entry warrant at a magistrates` court could cut off the supply of electricity at an address where there appeared to be no possibility of obtaining payment of money owed by the consumer of electric power. Depending on the diligence of individual benches the power companies` representatives, occasionally employees with some local knowledge of the situation, but usually bailiffs, could seek a warrant of entry from a bench offering only the scantiest information regarding the individual concerned and forcibly enter the premises and cut off the power supply. Since the above act became law power companies have had to comply with strict guidelines prior to going to court; eg making personal visits and attempting to talk to the account holder, ascertaining whether or not vulnerable people [elderly or young children] live in the property etc and above all sending out letters warning of the intention to seek a warrant and advising the householder of his/her human rights under the legislation. Upon making an application at Magistrates` Court a diligent bench can ask many questions to ensure that entry is warranted.....eg have there been previous attempts to obtain a warrant at the same address, has there been a broken payment agreement, how much is actually owed in unpaid bills, has there been a dispute over the amount claimed, is the person responsible for the debt still in occupation at the address or is somebody new living there, and many other other questions depending on the individual case. Only after a bench being satisfied the request is in order will or should a warrant be granted. And even so rarely in domestic cases will the power be disconnected. A pre-payment meter will be installed.
Seems quite straightforward. The householder can`t or won`t pay the bill and the supply company can`t cut off the supply unless there is a health risk. But you`d be quite wrong. Many organisations rely on their superior knowledge and menace the individual citizen into compliance when these empty threats have no basis in law and are just the tactics of a bully. It happened last week to an aquaintance of mine. He had had his place refurbished before renting it to a friend. After receiving estimated bills for part of the period he informed Southern Electric by phone and letter of the dates for which he was responsible and informed them again when his friend moved in. Meter readings were sent at the changeover date. A couple of days ago he received another bill of the same estimated unit usage and across the bill was written, "NOTICE OF ELECTRICITY DISCONNECTION"...."unless we receive full payment immediately we will have no alternative than to disconnect the supply of electricity to...."
Advised by me my friend knew it was an empty threat. But consider a harrassed single mother or father without the ability to ascertain her remedies in such a situation. Stress and worry piled on increasing hardship and other tensions. Or an elderly person on her/his own in poor health and with lonliness an only companion or somebody new both to this country and the terror tactics used by some businesses to intimidate customers. Hang your head in shame SOUTHERN ELECTRIC.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 23. Mar. 2010. – 17:51:54
Amongst the "extra" matters dealt with in Magistrates` Courts I have recently commented on statutary declarations.  Another common function for all JPs is deciding whether or not to grant Warrants of Entry for utility companies either to disconnect supply gas or electricity [usually at vacant or business premises] or to replace a regular meter with a pre-payment meter.  It has been and might still be the norm for these applications to be "rubber stamped" without too much investigation.


However with many colleagues in various courts all over the country I have been consulting a "good practice guide" which encourages courts to take a more inquisitorial approach to these applications in spite of the time taken when there is a crowded list.


A magistrate from a neighbouring court told me recently that when he was sitting outside his own court he was surprised at the novel questioning of the applicants by the chairman.  It had never happened when he was sitting at his own court.  In the session one application was to disconnect the landlord`s supply in a block of flats the tenants having no say in the matter.  In practice it would probably have meant no lighting to the common parts eg entrance hall and stairways. In view of the possible danger to infirm or elderly occupants falling down stairs that bench refused the application and suggested no further application be made until there was a firm refusal from the absentee landlord to pay the outstanding bill of c£300.  He also described an application to fit a pre-payment meter [always a higher tariff] to an occupier he discovered was two weeks late in an arrears payment previously agreed.  This history was discovered he reported  by the chairman`s questioning the bailiff in quite some detail.


He told me that he had never previously sat on a bench which had refused an application to disconnect and fit a pre-payment meter.  Information from that episode he said would be conveyed to his "home" court.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 01. Jul. 2010. – 16:43:24
On 19th December 2009 I reported how Southern Electric, one of this country`s major utility suppliers, was sending threatening letters to overdue payers. These "red" bills had a message which was in effect pay now or your supply will be cut off. The actual wording [unless it has been changed] is "NOTICE OF ELECTRICITY DISCONNECTION"...."unless we receive full payment immediately we will have no alternative than to disconnect the supply of electricity to...." This is an empty threat and has no power. A domestic supply cannot be cut off for non payment of a bill without a warrant having first been obtained by the supplier or its agent at a Magistrates` Court. It is an absolutely disgraceful example of practices which for the most part retailers and suppliers have stopped using. But it seems to have gone from bad to worse for Southern Electric and they are still disregarding approved practice.

I sit on a bench where I personally [with colleagues] deal with applications about once every three weeks from utility companies. Our strict inquisitorial approach to such suppliers or their agents when applications are before us for dis-connection, or as is most likely, installation of a pre-payment meter has been extremely worthwhile insofar as they usually appear with most of the information and answers we require to ensure as far as we can that not a single case of entry could have been avoided. That is all but Southern Electric who still seem to think that all they have to do is appear before a bench of magistrates and say, "at 1111 Main High Street, the occupier owes £xxx and here is a warrant of entry for you to sign." Last week that is exactly what took place except of course these scanty details were on the information document presented. The agent was unable to supply any real information at all, answer any question on detail and in one case confirm the identity of the account holder. He was told politely to get lost and not to return until he had the information available for each warrant as might be required under the agreed Best Practice Guidance on this topic.

Millions of households are in difficulties paying gas and electricity bills. That is no excuse for Southern Electric pursuing such payments by threatening actions which can cause such distress and which they know they cannot carry out against these vulnerable people . 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 16. Nov. 2011. – 08:07:39 



I had thought I had written all that had to be written about utility companies and J.P.s and their previously long held attitudes that in order to secure a warrant to enter a customer`s home or business to disconnect supply or fit a pre payment meter all they had to do was to turn up at court and ask for the bench to issue such. At my court owing to pressures made to our senior staff this is no longer the case and many of my colleagues are now following the Best Practice guide. By so doing this ensures that warrants are not showered upon the companies` bailiffs like legal confetti. But thanks to information from commenter Tianc there is much more to be said on this topic.

Ofgem is the organisation which regulates the electricity and gas markets in Great Britain. As such it stands between suppliers and consumers. It is or should not be allied to either side of the market in energy. “Colleagues” is a word that could be defined as fellow officials or workers in an organisation, business or profession. Colloquially I would assert that the connotation of the word denotes those whose objectives are similar or collaborative.

On 16/08/2010 a letter was sent by OFGEM to “Holders of Gas and Electricity Supply Licences, consumers and their representatives, consumer bodies and other interested parties”. That letter addressed the recipients as “Dear Colleagues”. Pedantic I might be but that form of address in a letter which can be accessed here in the circumstances to be outlined gives perhaps some cause for concern that the poor consumer who pays for everything at the end of a long supply line is an afterthought. The essence of the letter is the increasing distribution of smart meters. With these in situ remote changes can be made to a customer`s supply. Tariffs can be changed including changing to pre payment meters and supply can be cut off. Pre payment meters are a bone of contention; when fitted they are designed to use a portion of the payments made to collect unpaid balances. It is a source of disquiet to some colleagues that J.P.s` legal powers are not those to authorise debt collection in these matters. What is of more significance in OFGEM`s letter with regard to cutting off supply is that nowhere do they discuss the current legal requirement for a magistrates` warrant of entry to be issued before forced entry can be made. If remote disconnection is contemplated, more likely for business rather than domestic premises there is an important question as to how the application is to be investigated prior to any direct action by the supplier unlike the current position with the requirement of a personal appearance at court by applicant to be questioned by the bench on the particulars of the application. If there is being contemplated a diminution of the guidance particulars as currently being increasingly practised every day in every magistrates` court in England & Wales that will be a very bad day for individual consumers.

 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 26. Jan. 2013. – 17:06:43 



It seems that some utility companies still can`t get into their corporate heads that it is only under very limited circumstances that they can switch off the gas or electricity to a domestic property. I have posted here more than once on warrants of entry and indeed that subject is the source of very many page views to this blog.

Recently for the first time this year I sat in such an applications court and the representative of a major utilities supplier presented us with two dozen warrants of entry the wording of which subsequent to the stated intention of fitting pre-payment meters was that the company retained an alternative of cutting off supply. This was of course after his repetition of the “human rights” mantra including words to the effect that the company would not disconnect. Usually the applicant will state in open court that any households with a vulnerable* person will not be amongst the applications. Despite some initial observations from our L/A we scored through the offending words re disconnection, initialled at the side and then signed off the warrants.

There is no doubt in my mind that including in the warrant words as above is no more than a threatening posture. Such actions will only cease if all colleagues take a similar forensic action and closely question such applications according to the Good Practice Guide.
*
Industry Vulnerable Customer Safety Net
In September 2004 the Energy Retail Association (ERA), the dedicated trade association for the six major UK energy suppliers, published a report on the issues of debt and disconnection in the energy sector following a challenge from Ofgem to industry to develop measures to protect vulnerable customers from being disconnected. This report presented the definition of a vulnerable customer which member companies will seek to abide by, that “a customer is vulnerable if for reasons of age, health, disability or severe financial insecurity they are unable to safeguard their personal welfare or the personal welfare of other members of the household.”
References to ‘customer’ in the Standard Licence Conditions refer to the bill payer. The ERA has stated that industry’s intention is to protect all those who are vulnerable and at risk from disconnection, which has prompted the inclusion in its definition of vulnerability that the bill payer must also be able to safeguard the welfare of other members of the household.
In order to ensure that genuinely vulnerable customers are not excluded from the definition the ERA has also produced guidance to suppliers on identifying vulnerability, noting five separate circumstances which, if applicable, could lead to energy suppliers determining that the customer is vulnerable. These are:
1. A customer is caring for an elderly person in the household;
2. A permanent member of the household is disabled and unable to support themselves or has a long-term medical condition;
3. A carer, social worker, health visitor or physician has indicated that a member of the household may be vulnerable;
4. Households on a low income/state benefit with young children; or
5. A customer dependent on medical equipment that is operated by electricity e.g. a stair lift, electric wheelchair, defibrillator or dialysis machine.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 25. Apr. 2013. – 12:24:56 



Blog analytics show that among the most visited pages on this site by what I assume are non legally minded viewers are those concerning entry warrants by utility companies or, as often is the case, by bailiffs appointed by them.
As a newbie magistrate I was concerned at the rubber stamping of such applications without so much as a cursory inspection of the warrants` terms or inquiry in any individual case. To a certain extent that situation has improved and more of my colleagues are taking an inquisitorial role in their questioning of such applications. There is no doubt that since the requirement to send out “human rights” letters many utility companies consider that there is no other investigation required on their part prior to an application to install a pre payment meter for those who have an outstanding debt. Searches here will produce many previous posts on this subject. I had thought that the “message” was beginning to get through to the companies and their representatives; this court applies the principles enshrined in the “Good Practice Guide” for utility companies. I have been over optimistic.

A bailiff before our bench not so long ago was simply that; a bailiff. Unlike the companies who employ their own staff to make application and who have visited every address on their list of warrants this person had absolutely no knowledge of any individual case except that some were domestic and some commercial and that each owed a certain amount which in one case was less that £150. She had no knowledge of when any previous payment had been made, denied that a person opposing in person a warrant being applied for on the grounds that she was making arranged payments to clear her account had indeed been on a payment arrangement scheme, All she had to support her applications was an address, sometimes without an occupant’s name and an uncorroborated outstanding amount. In addition the warrants` wording was such that an application to cut off supply not exclusively on health and safety grounds was included. After some brief discussion we scored through the offending words where required and returned unsigned about half the applications.

I would hope that colleagues throughout the country are being thoughtful enough about individuals` rights to be strong enough to consider carefully such warrants even in the face of some legal advisors` impatience to get on with the morning`s list.

23 comments:

  1. Utility companies often claim to have warrant when they don't, and use intimidation/coercion get their feet in the house and change credit meters to prepayment/pay as you go meters. Even when they know the customer has not agreed to the change of meter payment type

    ReplyDelete
  2. Last year, Npower sent me an email while I was abroad on holiday stating that their previous attempts to inspect a meter had been unsuccessful, that they would apply for a warrant in seven days and charge me a minimum of £150 for forcibly entering my home. They had made no previous communication and had inspected their meter only three weeks earlier. It is absurd that their legal powers require only one days notice before applying for a warrant and that consumers who leave their properties for even short periods risk forcible entry. Ofgem had precisely zero interest in this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Later on this month a Utility company will be making its 6th, YES 6th attempt in two years to obtain a warrant of entry, So far it's 5-0 to me, But even though i attend and oppose the warrant and the warrant is refused, Due to pure common sense by the Magistrates they see through the sheer bullying tactics by the Utility company,

    What the Magistrates cant refund is the £250 fee each time the application costs, Which is added to my bill and thus the amount "Owed" is increased at each of these applications,

    I hear you asking why don't i make contact with the Company prior to the application, I have a folder full of letters, emails (which i bring with me each time) outlining a company that does not know what it's left hand is doing from it's right. That lie's. Will not release transcripts of calls. I write down... day. time and who i spoke to, every time. That will assign a new 'Manager' just for me who has left, been promoted, is on holiday, on another call or even on lunch and will never call me back.

    What goes in my favour is one magistrate will never go against what another magistrate has done as long as i have kept my side of the ruling. This time i am going to ask the magistrate to give a further ruling that this utility company should no longer hassle me with this process unless i fail to maintain the original ruling,

    What has really annoyed this company is someone dared to question it's bullying tactics in going to court to challenge a warrant, As has been posted on here most are rubber stamped with no opposition,

    If you think you have not been treated fairly by your utility company and they have not offered you all options, Go to court, Put your side across with any supporting documentation, It's not a frightening experience and as an old hand at it now i see my sixth victory just around the corner,

    The crunch will come when i have caught up and switch companies, i have letters from me to them and acknowledgments that i insisted i will not be paying any of these court fee's and warrant fee's.

    I again think it will take a brave magistrate to over rule what a previous magistrate has done and what i have kept to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Surely they are not allowed to arbitrarily include their £250 application costs onto your bill even though the application was denied? I'd tell them to politely get fooked.

      Delete
    2. hi

      I have a similar problem can we talk my email is mtbellys@hotmail.co.uk

      Delete
    3. Only six! EON have made SEVENTEEN (17) consecutive applications for an entry warrant to my home and been refused every time. On the last three occasions EON have been berated for lying to the court and ordered not to bring the matter before the court again. Three times they just re-applied. On one occasion the bench considered the matter for 90 minutes and still agreed with me and refused the application. I don't owe them any money. My meter has been out of certification since 2002 (14 years). EON were cautioned by the court for repeatedly passing off a faked meter test and for misleading the bench with their sworn testimony. On June 1st 2016 they applied again, I wasn't able to attend court. As far as I know they now have a warrant, fraudulently gained, and I am scared to go out in case they try to break-in when I am not here. They refuse to communicate with me lately. Their last letter, received June 1st 2016, simply said, "We refer you to our deadlock letter of May 2012". They are just going to ignore the court orders made since then. Their representative even said after one appearance, "Magistrates don't have any powers to tell us what to do". Their actual words to me! I have full documentation, dozens and dozens of letters including admissions forced out of them by the court. I will have to go to the court and ask them to cancel this latest warrant but I just know they will break-in when I am sitting waiting for hours at the court with no idea how to go about getting the warrant cancelled. I have invited EON to take me to the county court so that all the evidence can be scrutinised and documents revealed. They just apply for another warrant. Ombudsman? EON just runs rings around them. Consumer Protection? What consumer protection? I can see myself taking this all the way, county court, high court, appeal court, European what-not court. What a waste of time. Maybe I should just move to Italy, push a few Euros into the right palms, everyone is happy. Life goes on with, nobody takes this sort of abuse. - mm

      Delete
  4. I had to resort to bringing matters of offences (including criminal offence) under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 SI No:1277 to the attention of the Trading Standards Service to effectively 'overturn' a Magistrates Court decision (Rubber Stampers), despite having brought the same matters to the attention of Scottish & Southern Energy (over 4 years) AND the Court ! If the TSS have Duty to Enforce those regulations then why don't Magistrates (and their legal advisers) take a blind bit of notice of same ?

    Some certainly do give impression of requiring knuckles to assist their perambulations !

    ReplyDelete
  5. The boys in blue are always willing to give the utilities company a helping hand. Google, South Yorkshire police criminal gang http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_-NPGjEKOs

    ReplyDelete
  6. Is it legal for a Utility Supplier to effect entry to a property on more than one occasion with the same warrant of entry (assuming actions carried out whilst the warrant is still valid, i.e. within 28 days from signed in court)? Someone told me that if they weren't able to fit the pre-payment meter on the first visit (e.g. due to an obstruction to the meter) they could leave the property and lock up but then return another day, re-enter the property (this time with a tradesman to remove the obstruction) and complete the work in order to install the pre-payment meter. Is this legal?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Can a Supplier apply for a warrant of entry for the purpose of conducting a search of the property (i.e. all rooms) in order to check the safety of gas or electricity appliances even though the Suppliers meter is located externally and is accessible to their employees? I've been told that a magistrate may grant the application if the intent of the Supplier is to conduct safety checks inside the premise, prior to the fitting a pre-payment meter. Is this correct?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This website might assist

      http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Warrants-Entry

      Delete
  8. I've agreed to accept liability for my "supplier's" (they are really billing agents) charges on the condition that they can prove I'm liable. Perfectly reasonable yes? Of course I'm confident I'm not liable and they have offered no proof whatsoever that I am... now they are threatening to cut me off... can they get away with this without a liability hearing?

    ReplyDelete
  9. The situation of utility companies riding roughshod over peoples' human rights is tyranny itself.

    I signed-up with Co-op energy believing them to be a breath of fresh-air - a righteous alternative to the criminal-run other utility companies.
    But I was wrong.
    Co-op got my "start" meter readings completely wrong and disregarded the readings that they specifically asked me for, getting their information from British gas instead.
    You may not realise this but the utilities companies belong to a cartel of price-fixing.
    It is Offgas that controls the cartel while at the same time, pretending to be a consumer-watchdog organisation.
    Month-after-month Co-op energy promised me that they would eventually rectify the error of my "start" readings, yet despite their promises, they never ever did.
    As strange as this may sound, Co-ops advice to me through an almost 2 year period was "Don't pay us until we get it right".
    However, after almost 2 years, Co-op energy using a "middle-man" agency applied to a magistrates court for a warrant to enter my home to fit a prepayment meter.
    I would stress that AT NO TIME did I ever refuse to pay Co-op. I merely acted on THEIR advice by holding-back payment.

    In court, several dozens of copies of e mails proved my claims of ongoing self-confessed discrepancies.
    Those e mails also proved my ongoing attempts to resolve those discrepancies.

    The magistrates despite onerwhelming evidence however, granted the application of the warrant of entry to my home based on the Co-op agents' advice that the ombusdman would intervene and had the power to anul the warrant of entry if he saw fit to do so. The magistrate foreman accepted this and the warrant was issued BASED ON that promise by the Co-ops' agent.
    The promise however was however, trickery - the onbudsman HAS NO POWER to overide a warrant of execution.

    Magistrates courts are being used by utility companies in an extremely abusive way.

    Within a few days, I fully paid-off Co-op and told them to GO TO HELL.

    Consumers will NEVER EVER see fairness when the energy market is a cartel and is a closed shop - closed especially to consumers!
    In Germany and many other countries, consumers pay a set fee for their energy regardless of their usage.
    Here in the UK however, we pay BOTH THE SET FEE for HAVING the facility - PLUS usage. Effectively, we are paying BOTH arrangements when we SHOULD be paying one, or the other.

    WE ARE BEING RIPPED-OFF. This DOESN'T happen in other countries.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I have been sent a letter saying that npower are going to court to get a warrant for entry to my house for gas and electric. I have been in dispute with them for many years as they made wrong meter readings saying i owed much more than i did and have asked for help all of which was not forth coming as they just want money now that I haven't got. I have a 4 year old son and a 16 year old son at home I don't know what to do next

    ReplyDelete
  11. Does anybody know how long I have to appeal against a entry warrant?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hello - I work for BBC Panorama - I'm investigating a utility warrant and would be interested to speak to you if possible - could you email me and I'll give you a call? I'm tim.robinson2@bbc.co.uk. Many thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your interest. I suggest you contact a current Bench chairman. Details are in the public domain.

      Delete
  13. Scottish Power changed our electric & gas meters to prepayment ones with a court authority in someones else's name - was this legal ?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hi, I am coming close to an early end of my tenancy in supported accommodation because I have recently turned 25, my support worker has advised me that once my tenancy has officially ended, I should squat my own flat because it takes them time to apply for a warrant to remove me...how long does it take to apply for a warrant? I don't wanna risk my own roof but also am not ready to lose it just yet.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I have been in dispute with Eon for some time now regarding my bills. Eon have responded stating that they will no longer discuss my dispute. As this thread depicts on many occasions, the inevitable Warrant of Entry was applied for by Eon in Portsmouth Court.
    Now, as a Justice of the Peace, I am sure you are aware of the Magistrate Court Act 1980 (and in turn the Civil Procedure Rules 1998/9). These are legislation set in place guaranteeing the rights of citizens in regards to court processes.
    One major flaw in the letters all these bloggers receive is that these invites to courts are NOT actually from the court themselves, but from the Utility Companies. The Magistrates Courts Act is clear on the fact that only a Court can summon a person to a hearing, not a company and therefore the utility company's letters are NOT summons'. Therefore, without the court actually summoning you to court personally, there can be NO court hearing?!
    When I had the 'Human Rights Letter,' I immediately wrote to the court to ask if they had a hearing on that date at that time for me. The response was negative. There never was any official hearing.
    Now in order for any warrant to be issued, the more recent 1980 Magistrates Courts Act, (which therefore has precedence over the outdated Right of Entry act 1954, is clear that there has had to have been a hearing, to which the court has an obligation by law to invite you to in order to give you the opportunity to defend yourself (i.e have a fair trial).
    Therefore, if the court hasn't actually summoned you for a hearing then there is no official hearing. Even if there was a hearing, the court is obliged to inform the defendant (us) that the claimant/creditor (Utility company) has been successful in their claim. All correspondence from the Utility companies are not official court documentation and thus are fraudulent when impersonating the courts. When a warrant is issued the courts, again, have to notify you of the warrant, and this could only ever be issued following a court appearance at a hearing which we were unsuccessful at.
    I have never been invited, by a court, to any such hearing and thus any warrant of entry made by a court is in dereliction of duty, i.e. the court / judge has not followed the correct, legal court process and failed in their duty.
    Furthermore, if we leave the Magistrates act aside and concentrate on the Rights of Entry act, in combination with the Electricity act 1989, 'if there is any genuine dispute between the consumer and the utility company, a warrant of entry CANNOT be issued.
    I wrote to the court stating this. At the supposed hearing that Eon (not the court) invited me to, the judge has an obligation, by law, to scrutinise and consider all evidence set before them in order to be completely clear on their decision of issuing a judgement (or in this case, warrant)(Magistrates act again). In these 'rubber stamping' sessions it is guaranteed that the judge seeing the applications can never be beyond any doubt that they have considered all aspects of the case in order to issue their verdict. Especially when the courts haven't even summoned the defendant to the supposed hearing to voice their case.
    In short, all Warrants issued under this old Right of Entry Act are issued illegally, as the Magistrates Courts Act, takes precedence over the 1954 act and has been disregarded.
    I conducted all correct enquiries to the courts to make certain that there was no hearing, and they agreed there was no hearing. Yet still Eon turned up one day and broke in claiming they had a warrant of entry?!
    These warrants are all illegal and it is time these courts/judges are convicted themselves of fraudulent activity and of dereliction of duty, as well as the perjury crimes of the utility companies by providing misleading information to the magistrates.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thank you for your interesting post.

    Are you able to tell us what the mechanism is for obtaining the case file or whatever information there exists relating to the application for the warrant of entry?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Actually don't worry, I've found it.

    CPR 5 and Practice Direction 5A.

    Secondly, I wonder whether it be possible to get a comment on the post above dated 26th of January as to the necessity of hearing and the lawfulness or otherwise of a warrant which has been issued without a hearing

    ReplyDelete