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.  

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

• THEY ARE STILL THREATENING TO CUT OFF YOUR ELECTRICITY!

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.

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

• WARRANTS OF ENTRY AND APPLICATIONS TO DISCONNECT UTILITY SUPPLY

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.

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

• SOUTHERN ELECTRIC THINKS JPs WILL RUBBER STAMP THEIR ENTRY WARRANTS

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 . 

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

• CUTTING OFF SUPPLY BY UTILITY COMPANIES AND OFGEM`S POSITION

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.

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

• APPLICATION COURTS MUST SCRUTINISE DETAILS

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.

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

• UTILITY COMPANIES STILL DON`T GET IT

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.

LAST CHANCE SALOON FOR MAGISTRATES

Regular readers might have noticed that there are two topics which appear to have more than their fair share of space of late in my weekly outpourings: the Single Justice Procedure and warrants of entry for utility companies.  The latter particularly is of personal interest because the criticisms beginning to arise to a wider audience inside and outside parliament have been apparent since I first sat as a winger in 1998.  The arrogance of various chairmen now known as presiding justices in passing a heavy bundle of documents towards me with instructions to sign and the encouragement of clerks now known as legal advisors to "press on" was against my very nature of inquiry and fair play.  However after some years research and persuasion with the assistance of a legal advisor whose ideas of justice were akin to my own my bench adopted the Best Practice Guidance as posted here 27th May 2015.   It appears that this example was not followed elsewhere.  Indeed like so many cover ups by supervisory authorities in this country, whether of errant police officers, bullying health authorities or childcare organisations to name but a few, the MOJ tolerated and in fact encouraged this practice of nodding through warrants of entry to cut power or installing of PAYG meters to those who could least afford the extortionate charges to feed those meters. The iniquity of this policy can be seen in the table below. The anomaly of the numbers refused in 2019 cf 2020  and beyond certainly points to a directive from on high to change whatever policy was previously operating.  In all probability from my own experiences this was likely to have been pressure from the gas and electricity supply industries and their bailiffs. 

YEAR        GRANTED        REFUSED        TOTAL

2019        277,142                1,824                278,966

2020        221,494                43                     221,537

2021        332,277                36                     332,313

2022        367,084                56                     367,140

In the period between July 2021 and December 2022 a total of 536,214 warrants was applied for by energy suppliers.  Of these the vast majority (536,139) were granted while 75 were refused. Assuming that such applications in my experience were held about once a month  simple arithmetic shows that each magistrates court in England and Wales on average processed almost 200 cases each month in that period. If my experience is a guide such courts were held either just prior to the main business of the court for that session or as first business at 10.00am.  In any event to facilitate the inspection of 200 warrants and to question the operatives sent to court in their applications to ensure their compliance with the aforesaid Guide would take a complete session of a court and that would add to the costs.  So once again His Majesty`s Courts and Tribunal Service sacrificed justice for cutting costs. This disgraceful state of affairs might not consume the debating time of our politicians as much as rape prosecutions or barristers` fees but  it has arguably a much greater effect on the poorest members of our society.  The government response is that in order to grant an application to enforce a right of entry a JP must be satisfied that there is a right of entry, admission is reasonably required and the requirements of the Gas Act or Electricity Act have been complied with.  The legislation [according to the government`s interpretation] does not require the energy supplier to demonstrate they are acting as a last resort in seeking a warrant to install a prepayment meter to avoid disconnecting supply. 

Assuming my comments on time involved dealing with the volumes as above it is fair to say that individual magistrates must be held responsible for failing in their duty as per their oath of office:  “I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign King Charles the Third in the office of ________ , and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.”  They truly have lost what little independence they have been left with since the turn of the millennium.  They have no body around which they can unite and offer their views on matters affecting them.  Instead they are considered as unpaid employees and when HMCTS says "jump" they not only jump but they offer to jump higher.  Their so called "leadership magistrates" are so enveloped in their abilities in using their tongues to lick unpleasant places that the MOJ keeps their identities secret from their colleagues so that they can act like stooges on any council in Hong Kong, Beijing or Shanghai.  Truly those who connive in this aberration of so called justice are nothing less than  MOJ toadies and the sooner this facade of diversity of local citizens for diversity in local justice is replaced by others with a true sense of duty the better.  This means that advisory committees must be instructed by a new cadre of civil servants who realise that unless changes are made the clamour of the legal profession for lay magistrates` replacement by District Judges (MC) will be unstoppable.  Indeed the magistracy as it has been known since WW2 is now in the last chance saloon. 

ADDENDUM  19th January 2023

On 17th January Mike Freer at the MOJ wrote to Sir Bob Neil re warrants of entry sought by utility companies.  This included the chart below.  The numbers of warrants granted and refused by magistrates courts is very revealing. Those requested at Portsmouth MC numbered 193,394 of which only 10 were refused. The next highest was at Basildon MC where of 61,117 applied for not a single one was refused.  However it must be borne in mind that HMCTS concentrates such activities at specific courts.  That does not explain the enormous differences in the numbers. 

Unfortunately resolution could not be increased

SEARCH WARRANTS AND ROOSTING CHICKENS

There has been outcry from many varied sources  over the publicity given to the search at a home of Cliff Richard.  One such critic, Geoffrey Robinson Q.C. has been critical of the lay justice he supposes authorised the warrant.  To quote from the full report in theIndependant,
 
"This behaviour is unacceptable. The lay justice system has long been the Achilles heel of our civil liberties: many of these amateurs simply rubber stamp police requests. It is not known who issued this warrant (although the High Court has held that the identities of JPs should be made public). What qualifications did he or she have and what steps were taken to protect the occupier’s privacy? What justification did the police give for this general search, with world-wide publicity? Was there any questioning of the police, so as to ensure that they could identify what they were looking for, and that it had “substantial value” for a prosecution? How was the Justice of the Peace satisfied that this whole exercise was not an improper means to publicise an uncorroborated allegation against the singer, in the hope of “shaking the tree” to attract further allegations which might give it some credibility? It is time that police were required, other than in emergencies, to obtain search warrants from circuit judges, who are alert to civil liberties”.

Whilst I have no sympathy for his belittlement of Justices of the Peace I am increasingly conscious that the establishment, meaning in this case HMCTS in the form of the Deputy Justices` Clerk,  is taking more and more control over our activities and decisions. Only a fortnight ago I had to remind a very experienced L/A to leave us to our deliberations subsequent to a trial after inviting her to enlarge on a legal point and her initial reluctance to allow us to discuss in private the areas of dispute.  On another occasion not long ago when another L/A was invited to the retiring room to listen to the reasons for our decision comment was made as to how we reached a decision with which he had some doubt.  We assured him that it was made in a structured fashion and was not open to change.  Now after some time in this job I am able to disagree with a L/A or reinforce my point of view without hesitation but I am afraid that some of my newer colleagues having been schooled in the attitude that L/A knows best are open to pressure which they should but find difficult to  resist.  Warrants are a case in point.  I have refused at least two search warrants in the last year or so.  When I have asked colleagues of the last time they have had a similar experience all too often the answer is “never”.   It was worse  with entry warrants for utility companies but I do now sense that with some education colleagues are increasingly questioning such applications.

Magistrates in their present form are, as Geoffrey Robinson Q.C. “the Achilles heel of our civil liberties: many of these amateurs simply rubber stamp police requests”.  All I can add is that the legal profession has itself assisted the erosion of the function and status of J.P.s by its continual indifference to our treatment by government.  These chickens are coming home to roost.  Perhaps when District Judges(MC) alone preside over trials the realisation will come but by then it will be a generation too late.

A MESS OF JUDICIAL POTAGE

It seems that the entry warrants scandal still has some steam in it.  The Times today features an article on pp2 revealing a letter from Right Honourable Lord Justice Edis Senior Presiding Judge of England and Wales that instructs the granting of such warrants to cease.  See below.

Of course for any thinking reader as I assume my readers are the question that comes to mind is how did this scandal arise in the first place.  The answer to that must be considered in the light of the enormous numbers of cases documented here over the last few weeks posts.  These matters of entry warrants were concentrated over a specific number of magistrates courts as noted here on 17th January.  Only His Majesty`s Courts and Tribunals Service would have this authority to instruct under the term of what I understood when active was THE Justices` Clerk who had delegated control of a number of courts where the on site boss was designated Deputy Justices` Clerk. As a new magistrate myself in 1998 after sitting as a winger a number of times on entry warrants I was horrified that very large bundles of warrants were passed for me to sign without examination. Subsequently I refused to participate in such a pastiche of justice.  My efforts, successful in the end, to change that atrocious practice ensured that all colleagues could participate in a systematic examination of all applicants` payment and social histories of those whose home they wished to enter to install PAYG meters.  Using the search box will open many posts over the last 10 years on this topic.

What dismays me most is the participation of magistrates whose compliance is an indictment of every single one of them.  They swore the judicial oath and when it mattered that it should take precedence over an in house instruction they behaved like sheep letting any conscience they might have had to be overruled by the fear of upsetting authority.  Perhaps now the reality of lay magistrates` subservience to HMCTS and their failure to confront that authority  will hasten the end of a system in which I was proud and honoured to be a participant.  Unknown to most observers in 2018 six magistrates were appointed by the powers that be to be leadership magistrates.  Their names were published here on 17th March 2020.   This is the official line: "There is 1 national leadership magistrate – Duncan Webster – and 6 regional leadership magistrates and 1 for Wales. All had to have been a Bench Chair in the previous 3 years, go through a selection process and have been appointed by the Lord Chief Justice for a period of time."  The names of the 7 magistrates subordinate to Webster are being withheld by the Ministry of Justice.  A Freedom of Information Request has been refused.  Therefore it is reasonable to suppose that with an impotent Magistrates Association held in contempt by many, these 7 appointees are acting as a fifth column on their benches and wider,  to influence policies and report on their colleagues,  taking such information high up the civil service and political ladders.  This insidious action is a danger to us all.  We think that justice (not policy) can be separated from the actions  of government.  That it can stand alone whatever the turmoil in Downing Street and Whitehall.  This seemingly insignificant policy ordered by government until its exposure, is a warning.  When those with judicial authority fail to be counted as defenders of that which they have sworn to uphold even at the lowest judicial level it will be only a matter of time before their senior colleagues are placed in the same or similar position. The problem for society is that unlike lay magistrates who have absolutely no excuses for their scurrilous actions except their own hubris judges have their salaries and future pensions to consider.  Be in no doubt there will always be those who would sell their (judicial) souls for a mess of potage. 

EVERYDAY INJUSTICE AT MAGISTRATES COURTS

I have recently had a comment from a serving JP about his disquiet in the manner in which warrants for utility companies are rubber stamped sometimes in their hundreds.  As a newbie to the bench I too was very much disturbed by the complete lack of justice for those faced with court action for non payment.  There seemed to be no interest by anybody in even recognising there was a problem from my colleagues up to the Deputy Justices Clerk.  However over a period of about two years with the assistance of a sympathetic L/A and a new DJC I persuaded him that the document copied below be placed on the bench for every such hearing. I fear, however, that since my retirement old habits have prevailed.  Search https://thejusticeofthepeaceblog.blogspot.com/2013/08/six-of-best.html  for a summary of early previous posts on this topic. 

********************************************************************************************************

Applications by utilities companies for warrants to enter premises to inspect or read a meter/install a pre-payment meter, or to disconnect the supply – Questions for Applicants


1) How many attempts were made to contact the customer before the application today and were any successful?

2) Could the customer be vulnerable?

3) Are you satisfied that no member of the household is dependent on medical equipment that is operated by electricity such as a stair lift, electric wheelchair, defibrillator or dialysis machine?

4) What is the total amount owed by the customer and what period do the arrears cover?

5) Has there been any dispute about the amount owed by the customer?  How are you sure that you are right and they are wrong?

6) Could the arrears be met by an arrangement between the customer and his or her supplier?  

7) If in receipt of benefits, has any attempt been made to enable the customer to pay off the arrears using Fuel Direct?

8) Under what circumstances, when the engineer arrives at the property, would the disconnection not be carried out?

9) Has information been provided to the customer about how they could reduce their bills in future by more efficient use of energy?

10) Are you sure that the address is currently occupied by the person responsible for the debt?

 *********************************************************

Energy Disconnection Warrants – An extract from the Best Practice Guidance

Under the Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity Boards) Act 1954 a representative of a gas or electricity supply company can apply for a warrant of entry to premises to inspect or read the meter, to install a prepayment meter, or to disconnect the supply.

Applications for a warrant of entry must be made on oath under s2(1) of the 1954 Act.  In order for a warrant to be granted, the relevant company must satisfy the magistrate that admission is reasonably required, that consent has not been given by or on behalf of the occupier, and that relevant period of notice has been given.

When considering whether to grant a disconnection warrant, you should consider asking some or all of the following questions.  

Actions before applying for a warrant.

Whilst there is no legal requirement to do so, energy suppliers wishing to disconnect energy supply should make several attempts to contact the customer – by letter, by phone and in person - before moving to apply for a warrant in accordance with voluntary guidance published in 2004 by the Energy Retail Association, the trade association for domestic energy suppliers.  They can also deal with a third party agent, though they may not always succeed in establishing contact.  If, during contact with the customer, it becomes apparent that the customer is unable to pay the bill, suppliers’ staff will attempt to obtain further information about the customer or their dependents, including such details as their age, whether they are currently receiving benefits, the number of young children in the household or any special circumstances such as whether any members of the household are disabled or have special needs. 

The typical number of attempts to contact the customer is detailed earlier in this document.  
   
Regulation on disconnections

Companies wishing to supply gas or electricity in Great Britain must hold a licence from the regulator, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem), and must comply with a list of Standard Licence Conditions.  Of relevance to the issue of the disconnection of supply are Standard Licence Conditions 35 and 37A for gas suppliers and Standard Licence Condition 35 for electricity suppliers.

Limitations on possible disconnection

 The effect of these Licence Conditions is that gas and electricity suppliers should, as far as practicable, avoid disconnecting the supply where the customer (the bill payer) is either of pensionable age or disabled or chronically sick in the period between 1 October and 31 March (commonly referred to as the Winter Moratorium) and, in the case of gas supply, should not disconnect households where, to the knowledge or reasonable belief of the company, the customer is of pensionable age and lives alone or with other persons all of whom are also of pensionable age or under eighteen years of age between the same dates.

Safeguards and duties

In addition, energy companies are also expected to offer a range of help to customers experiencing difficulties as an alternative to disconnection, and Standard Licence Condition 35(d) for both gas and electricity supply requires companies to take into account the customer’s ability to repay debt.  Suppliers have a duty to accept payment by Fuel Direct, a system whereby customers on three qualifying benefits (Income Support, Pension Credit and Jobseekers Allowance) facing disconnection can pay a defined minimum which is deducted from benefits weekly.  Suppliers are also required to offer customers a Pre Payment Meter before they move to disconnect supply.      

QUE? I KNOW NOTHING. I`M FROM BARCELONA

It had been at least two years since I had last sat on a means court.  There were over forty on the list and about a dozen attendees.  One common feature was that the “histories” as recorded on the means files of each of them were so truncated as to be almost meaningless.  That being the case where possible our L/A had to send for the original court files to be certain of the facts and chronologies.  But our usher was functioning over two other courts also so it takes no imagination to picture the pressure she was under.  We actually managed in the three hour session  to deal with eight of the attendees the remainder filling the downtime of other courts.  For the others listed (the non attendees) we sat at 2.00p.m. to decide on warrants and then another blatant inefficiency in administration appeared like Hamlet`s ghost.  In order, as we had expected, to issue warrants with or without bail we had to be sure that such a warning was written on the summonses which had been served on those failing to appear.  But lo!  No such warning had been written.  What had   been written as a last sentence was a warning to those who failed to show that “the court would consider other measures” without explicitly mentioning the threat of a warrant being issued.  My colleague and I with the consent of our L/A decided that in those circumstances it would be unjust to issue warrants and instead they would be written to again to appear at the next means court with a clearly worded threat of warrant with or without bail for those who failed to attend at that later date.  But and it`s a big “but” the original letters were signed off pp not by a legal advisor, a legal manager nor a Deputy Justices Clerk but by the Justices` Clerk; he who must be obeyed who has ultimate responsibility for an entire justice area.  If he had actually approved the wording it would appear he was not as competent as perhaps he should be.  If he had given the job to an underling and allowed the latter to have his signature attached his management skills were perhaps open to question.  The upshot of this seemingly minor carelessness was yet another hidden increase in costs associated with time wasted and future time to be allocated.  Add the myriad such situations in our court systems owing to staff reductions, staff incompetence, low staff morale, poor quality management and a box ticking mentality and it is quite clear why with an induced reduced workload magistrates` courts are almost as inefficient in practice as they were a decade ago notwithstanding all the statistics, video gizmos and grandstanding by the Ministry of efficiently having adapted to a 23% budget reduction and more to come. But what do I know?