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.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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 .
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.
