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 If any comment seems submitted just to advertise a website it will not be published.

Wednesday 27 May 2015

WARRANTS OF ENTRY BY UTILITY COMPANIES....AN UPDATE

I began this blog almost six years ago initially at  http://thejusticeofthepeace.blog.co.uk/ and laterally here.  In all that time the most widely read posts with literally tens of thousands of views have been on the subject of utility warrants of entry.  From various analytics I have deduced that these have been read not by regular viewers to this or the previous site (which is still viewable) but by one off visitors finding it directly or by references from sites dedicated to assisting those summonsed to court on the pain of applications from mainly electricity and/or gas companies for non payment of accounts.  This is not surprising nor is the headline and story in this news medium and many others.

When I was sitting in applications courts I would regularly be handed a third of the bundle of applications and told by the chairman where to sign them.  There was virtually no discussion.  I repeat.......this was the normal recognised way of processing these matters with the only consideration that of the legal advisor that we must not delay forthcoming business. Even prior to being appointed an approved chairman I made my objections where and when I could that this was a disgraceful way to approve a possible forced entry to premises whether private or business.  And then came the currently hotly debated Human Rights Act incoporated into our legal system in 1998 and a couple of additional clauses were inserted by the utility companies into the information laid before us insofar as consideration had been given as to the make up of said households eg invalids, children etc and they thought their obligation was complete. Around this time I discovered The Good Practice Guide* which is reproduced after this post.  Whilst I was still a winger I attempted with little success to persuade chairmen of the benefits of applying the "Guide". Generally it was waste of time.  On taking the chair I began to impose the document on my wingers prior to 10.00am usually without any objection.  There was a sitting where the clock showed 10.30am and I was still questioning an application when the L/A told me quite bluntly there was no more time and we had to get on.  There was a heated post court discussion.  Over the next few years I gradually persuaded powers that be that it was an utter disgrace and an injustice not to investigate these applications.  In those early days more often that not my questions were answered by the reply, "Not to my knowledge, sir."  Indeed at one sitting an applicant awaiting his turn in the open court shouted out, "This is rubbish; never had to go through this before." He walked out.  My persistence eventually paid off.  In my court on every bench there is now an abridged version of the original document** (also reproduced below) which is available for every chairman for reference.  I am pleased and perhaps if I am honest a little bit proud  that before being kicked out my colleagues and legal advisors would refer to my efforts on this topic as making me the "expert" on the subject.

In the light of the news story I would ask fellow J.P.s to consider these guides if they have have not done so and perhaps consider how seriously they apply themselves when next they sit in applications courts.



                          *  ENERGY DISCONNECTION WARRANTS





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.  An explanation for the thinking behind some of them follows in italics.



Potential questions for company representatives





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



There is no legal requirement on energy companies regarding the number of attempts to contact the customer in advance of a disconnection to assess vulnerability or discuss debt.  However, the Energy Retail Association, the dedicated trade association for energy suppliers, provided a typical example of the attempts made by energy suppliers to contact customers during the process in its report ‘Protecting Vulnerable Consumers from Disconnection’ (September 2004) as follows:

·                 Collections path duration – 5 months

·                 8 attempts to contact through correspondence

·                 2 attempts to contact by telephone

·                 2 attempts to contact by personal visit to the property

·                 1 attempt to contact by visit to court

·                 Final attempt to contact at warrant execution




2)             If the customer has been successfully contacted, are you satisfied that they are not, for reasons of their age, health, disability or severe financial insecurity, unable to safeguard their personal welfare or the personal welfare of other members of the household, and what evidence do you have for this?



It is generally accepted that defining vulnerability is not an exact science.  Energy companies currently apply the following definition, and have stated that no person who meets this definition has been disconnected since December 2003 or will be disconnected in future  – “A customer is vulnerable if for reasons of their 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”.




3)             Has any indication been received from third party representatives (such as a carer, social worker, health visitor or physician) that the customer may be vulnerable?



4)             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?



In order to avoid being overly prescriptive in drawing up its definition of vulnerability the Energy Retail Association provided additional guidance to its members to ensure that genuinely vulnerable consumers were not excluded.  This additional guidance acts as a framework within which energy suppliers should operate their debt recovery systems, and where suppliers identify households in the following circumstances they are advised to consider whether the customer is vulnerable in accordance with the definition:

·                 A customer is caring for an elderly person in the household;

·                 A permanent member of the household is disabled and unable to support themselves or has a long-term medical condition;

·                 A carer, social worker, health visitor or physician has indicated that a member of the household may be vulnerable;

·                 Households on a low income/state benefit with young children; or

·                 A customer dependent on medical equipment that is operated by electricity e.g. a stair lift, electric wheelchair, defibrillator or dialysis machine




5)             Does the application for a warrant follow a broken payment arrangement between the customer and his or her supplier?  If so, what was the arrangement made?



Energy companies are 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.





6)             What is the total amount owed by the customer?



There is no legal requirement on energy companies for debt to reach a certain level prior to disconnection.  However, Ofgem’s annual report into supplier performance in line with the regulator’s Social Action Plan showed that the average amount owed to suppliers by consumers on a debt payment arrangement as of September 2005 was as follows:




 <£100
£100-£300
£300-£600
>£600
Gas
59%
27%
9%
5%
Electricity
62%
23%
6%
7%






7)             Has there been any dispute about the amount owed by the customer?



Ofgem, the regulator, and energywatch, the energy consumer representative, produced guidelines for energy companies in January 2003 entitled ‘Preventing Debt and Disconnection’.  These guidelines were intended to provide guidance on best practice for the industry.  In this guidance, it was suggested that, in situations where a supplier has clearly been in error and the consumer is not culpable, good practice is to provide means of redress, which may be financial or otherwise, and may include reducing debts or writing off debts over a certain age (mention Super Complaint); not blocking consumers if they wish to change suppliers; or accepting repayment over an extended period at least as long as the period over which the bill has accrued (notwithstanding the obligation under gas and electricity Supply Licence Condition 35d to take into account the ability to pay).




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



The Energy Retail Association has indicated that the final attempt by energy companies to contact the consumer to assess vulnerability and discuss debt is at the time of warrant execution and that, therefore, all field staff should be trained to recognise signs of vulnerability and be empowered to halt the disconnection procedure pending further investigation by suppliers’ priority service teams.  If it is assessed that the consumer is vulnerable according to the accepted industry definition or the additional guidance provided by the Energy Retail Association, the consumer should have their record flagged and be offered the help most appropriate to their needs.




9)             Under what circumstances will a prepayment meter be fitted at the premises?



The fitting of a prepayment meter (PPM) to recover debt varies between gas and electricity, which has led to the discrepancy in the number of disconnections between the two fuels.  It is not necessary for the consumer to be present when PPMs are fitted in most cases.  However, some suppliers are reluctant to fit gas PPMs without the consumer present on safety grounds.  The Energy Retail Association has indicated that fitting a PPM is now the preferred option to disconnection where it is possible to do so.




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



Good practice as recommended by Ofgem and energywatch is for energy suppliers, when staff identify a consumer who would benefit from energy efficiency advice, to be proactive in providing that advice by passing the consumer’s details to energy efficiency specialists within the company.




11)         What steps have been taken to ensure that the address is correct in relation to the supply point?



12)         What steps have been taken to ensure that the address is currently occupied by the person responsible for the debt?



Good practice as recommended by Ofgem and energywatch is for suppliers to make every effort to minimize the extent to which billing errors lead to debt or exacerbate payment problems.  Although rare, the above are potential examples of such an error.




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



Fuel Direct is part of the Third Party Deductions Scheme operated by the Department of Work and Pensions.  It allows for a deduction to be made from benefits at source to repay debt accrued to energy suppliers.  It is limited to consumers on income support, jobseeker’s allowance and pension credit.  Suppliers are not able to control who qualifies for Fuel Direct – this decision is taken by the local benefits office.  However, good practice as recommended by Ofgem and energywatch would be for suppliers to offer Fuel Direct to such consumers who are in debt and eligible and to approach the relevant benefits office.  Third Party Deductions will only be used when all other avenues of debt recovery have been exhausted and can be used to pay any outstanding debts and maintain the supply or to prevent any further debt accruing.
















Background Information for magistrates





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.     



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.





Ofgem/energywatch guidance




In January 2003 the regulator, Ofgem, and the consumer watchdog, energywatch, produced a set of guidelines aimed at improving suppliers’ performance in debt management and recovery and in reducing disconnection, identifying six key areas for action – minimising billing errors; using incoming calls to identify customers in difficulty; using customer records to target energy efficiency improvements (these reduce energy use and therefore cost, thus reducing the potential for debt); demonstrating flexibility in debt recovery; offering sustainable solutions to customers in extreme hardship; and helping customers who are unable to manage their own affairs.  Since January 2003 all suppliers have developed strategies for improvements in these areas.













Disconnection figures

Statistics published by Ofgem show that the number of disconnections for gas and electricity in the last five calendar years was as follows:



Year
Gas
Electricity
Total
2000
16500
300
19500
2001
26088
375
26463
2002
21780
995
22775
2003
15973
1361
17334
2004
2553
727
3280



It is accepted that the discrepancy between the figures for gas and electricity are due to the fact that it is easier to install a prepayment meter (PPM) for electricity supply than it is for gas, as in the latter case it is necessary for the customer to be present for safe installation to take place.

 **

Utilities Warrants – 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?











Tuesday 26 May 2015

IDENTICAL BUT NOT THE SAME

During my time on the bench I had the enormous benefit of having had as a colleague four first class District Judges. Each one in his and her own way was a superb communicator, teacher and advisor. One common factor that each of those people emphasised to the bench as a collective and to me personally was that our powers in court were identical to theirs. This certainly boosted my confidence when I became a chairman and I have no reason to think that many colleagues did not have similar experiences.

One aspect of the job that one quickly learned was whilst not necessarily parroting pronouncements like a ventriloquist’s dummy one must be somewhat circumspect in anything one said from the bench whether eg it was the manner in which an informal warning was given about an offender`s future behaviour or an explanation in rather simple terms to somebody whose comprehension might have been slightly wanting. It would certainly have been beyond my personal remit to have followed the example of Deputy District Judge [MC] Bennett at Westminster Magistrates` Court (The Times behind its paywall) who declared from the bench a few years ago after having found guilty of careless driving a lorry driver whose offending caused very serious injury to a cyclist, that he would be writing to Mayor Boris Johnson to consider the layout of the accident location to improve safety for cyclists.

It would be interesting to know whether my reticence was common or not amongst colleagues. What legal advisors might have said in such circumstances would have been another matter indeed. In the light of court changes commented upon here recently it will become necessary IMHO for chairmen to be more forthright in handling certain court situations.  They must have confidence in their ability to determine which such situations require intervention and those when the advice would be to zip it! 

Monday 25 May 2015

PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT BY 2:1

A relaxed stay at home Bank Holiday weekend is not usually a time for profound or even not so profound thoughts but then end of season all to play for football matches are not the time for the glaring deficiencies in the game to be so rudely demonstrated. There were no debates over did it cross the line or did it not; this season cameras have seen to that. But there were debateable decisions on fouls which would and could have been beyond doubt if only the referee had had the cojones to stop play for a minute and consult a TV set on the touchline. One might say that FIFA rules do not allow for such confirmation but one day if a referee were to take such an action prior to making a decision nobody but nobody would fault him. 

And so it was that I considered the doubt that exists in juries and magistrates` benches. I can recollect sitting on the wing at a DV trial with the Bench Chairman of a joining amalgamating bench in the chair. We were split as to the defendant`s guilt. The chairman made his pronouncement which ended, “and we find the case proved beyond reasonable doubt”. Can a split bench truly justify such a verdict? Logic suggests otherwise.

Juries in Scotland differ from those south of the border in three major respects:-
1. There are three possible decisions; guilty, not guilty or not proven
2. There is an odd number of jurors…..15
3. A simple majority verdict carries the day

In England under the Juries Act 1974, a majority verdict (10 out of 12) is permitted in some circumstances. A bench of magistrates seems to be empowered with the worst of both worlds. A majority of 2:1 is not exactly overwhelming considering the “jurors” are well versed and trained in structured decision making with regard to an assessment of the facts agreed or in dispute. That majority decision cannot logically or sensibly indicate guilt beyond reasonable doubt if a third of the bench holds such doubt.

Currently no indication is given in open magistrates` court if a decision is split. English law could be aligned with that of the Scots and “Not Proven” be offered as an alternative to “Not Guilty”. Or if that were too radical surely justice would be best served if a split guilty finding led automatically to an appeal before a Judge and two Justices of the Peace at Crown Court? But on thinking about it, it is a near certaintity that this new government [or any other] would not consider justice has a priority over costs.

Saturday 23 May 2015

GOVE`S EAR

A first major test for the new Justice Secretary is looming ahead and it is the criminal bar which has fired the first salvo in  the opening skirmish in what could be termed the war for Gove`s ear the objective being a faint hope that he will listen to the objections to proposals bequeathed to him by his unloved predecessor.  

There is no doubt that the tightening of the legal aid provisions has probably already led to miscarriages of justice such miscarriages being in the lower courts.  I would opine that it is only a matter of time before more judges in the crown courts will make their opinions known.  

Friday 22 May 2015

GAME SET AND MATCH FOR THE SCOTTISH VERDICT



As an active Justice of the Peace I was asked, as are many others, to consider sitting in the family court.  I rejected the approaches on the basis that I preferred to sit in the judgement of adults who might or might not have committed criminal acts. I preferred to exercise my limited abilities where any error on my part would be balanced by the views of two colleagues and failing that by a judge and two colleagues in crown court. Thinking in a similar format I have occasionally pondered how a split bench of three justices could deliver a verdict of guilty beyond reasonable doubt or to use the recognised parlance; proved beyond reasonable doubt. But that`s a post for another time. And that leads me to consider the details published this morning of the verdict last year at Liverpool Crown Court of Martin Thomas who was found not guilty of  grievous bodily harm with intent against his baby daughter.  He was named this week by Mr Justice Peter Jackson at the family division of the High Court as indeed being responsible for the baby`s injuries. Susan Jacklin QC,  chairwoman of the Family Law Bar Association was quoted in comments on the original verdict, 'The jury did not say that he did not do it — they said: “We are not satisfied he did it on the burden of the proof”.’  In other words the jury found the case against him not proven and this is not the first and won`t be the last time such verdicts leave unanswered questions.

Game set and match for the Scottish verdict!