"We are applying for a warrant to change your meter"

I was once sent a notice of council tax liability, they quoted a liability under the 'Council Tax Enforcement Regulations 1993', it got blasted out of court when I attended, insisted on being heard by a magistrate and pointed out that what they quoted didn't exist. It should have been the Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement) Regulations 1992, these companies get lazy and incompetent, always try to use it against them.

They also use a gas agent and if he turns up and makes fraudulent claims you have someone who is fully insured to claim against, in most cases these gas agents know they are acting fraudulently which is why they back down when directly challenged. As Tiggy has already stated, they are lazy and get lazy.

Hi assassin

But doesn't a counter-claim cost money? i thought we were trying to pre-empt their request.

Cheers!

toolapcblack wrote:many thanks assassin!
What if I send them a letter/notice something like below?

Dear Sir/Madam,
I wish to thank you for your correspondence dated the xx Oct 2017.
British Gas cannot apply for a warrant to change the meter installed in a property, you can only apply for a Warrant of entry to inspect/test a supply under a safety concern, and as my property has an up-to-date Gas Safety Certificate issued on the xx of October 2017 you do not have grounds (or no valid reason) for pursuing this action.

As you have evidenced me that this is your intention in “writing” to apply for a warrant to change the meter, I consider this an act of Fraud, for which You shall be pursued for!
A Corporation as large as British Gas would be fully aware of the fraudulent nature of this action, as you have access to a wealth of legal knowledge. so your actions deem you to believe that your above the law and intend to act in any manner you seem fit! The massive amount of post I have received on this matter I consider harassment and the whole way you conduct your business has caused me a great deal of distress.
Yours

Why get confrontational with them and tell them what you have, why not let them tell you what reasons they claim to have and how they have arrived at them as this is often the best defence as any claims they make are now documented and can be admitted as evidence. If their agent goes to court and tries to obtain a warrant under different circumstances then you have a clear case of documented fraud by the conflicts of the gas agents statement and the supply companies statements.

They play this game as they expect people to react and give away their hand, if they are screwed they simply drop the case and will not take the case further, if they do go to court you can listen to their claims and say nothing, you simply drop the gas warrant on the magistrates and demand your costs as the case is vexatious.

Let them claim the meter has been tampered with and then ask them what caused them to think this and what evidence they have to substantiate their claim, and provide it. Remember that legal maxim non assumpsit.

so the letters(one for gas one for electric) received state the following:

you have an outstanding bill of xxxx etc etc

as we have not received your payment or heard from you we are applying to the courts for a warrant to exchange your current meter for a pay as you go meter....we are also entitled to recover costs.....if there is any reason why fitting a pay as you go meter is not appropriate for you please contact us immediately

thanks to you all again
j

Hi toolapcblack

OK, so take tiggy's advice and see if there's anything in that legislation that allows them to do it on grounds of payment dispute. If you care to post a link to what you're looking at i'm sure anyone not doing anything will check it out too. i'm game.

i'm pretty sure there isn't, hence their weaselly words 'if there is any reason.......' - that's your invitation to rebut what they're saying, and your letter or my letter will do that......

Cheers!

ok thanks im going to have a read through them both but sometimes the wording can through me off

gas act 1986
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/44

and from electric one(http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/29/schedule/6) it states

Non-payment of suppliers’ charges

2(1)Where a customer has not, within the requisite period, paid all charges due from him to an electricity supplier in respect of the supply of electricity to any premises or the provision of an electricity meter, the supplier may—
(a)install a pre-payment meter on the premises; or

(b)disconnect the premises,

and the supplier may recover any expenses incurred in so doing from the customer.
(2)The power of a supplier under sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (b) may not be exercised—

(a)as respects any amount which is genuinely in dispute (disregarding for this purpose a dispute under section 39 or regulations made under it); and

(b)unless not less than seven working days’ notice has been given to the occupier of the premises (or the owner of the premises if they are unoccupied) of his intention to exercise it.

(3)In this paragraph the “requisite period” means the period of 28 days after the making by the supplier of a demand in writing for payment of the charges due.

The answer is right there in front of you:

(2)The power of a supplier under sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (b) may not be exercised—

(a)as respects any amount which is genuinely in dispute (disregarding for this purpose a dispute under section 39 or regulations made under it).

So have you put in a dispute under section 39? If not, may be a good idea.

Hi guys

Tiggy beat me to it (no, i'm not surprised either), but in addition:

Section 2

1) Where it is shown......ON SWORN INFO IN WRITING....' - that's not gonna happen (valid cause?) so. ..
Strike 1

F1 (a).......REASONABLY REQUIRED.....
That would only cover the safety issue, so....

Strike 2

(b).......APART FROM THE PRECEDING SECTION.....
Ok, refer now to Section 1, (1)(a), and (3).

Strike 3.

Tiggy - even though it says 'disregarding for this purpose'?

Cheers!

You see that didn't hurt did it, reading statutes is not made easy for you for a reason, they want you to give up and think aghh fack it .... No that is as I have said before the way of mediocrity and failure.

If every one does a little no one does a lot, but Tiggy does a lot, where would we be without our Tiggy, thanks for finding the sec 39, I knew it was in there some where I just forgot where.

So this is more like it ...getting some where and not just getting angry.

Assassin is making a good point call their bluff, ask them to give their reasons, don't pull your queen out until its court time, use your pawns and knights first, administratively speaking.

Watch out for the jurisdiction switch, Kevin Mark alluded to this after his foray in the Magistrates venue, they will try for the 86 warrant under civil and try and pull your bluff as though it has the same power as the 54 act which is forced entry under HSE and Criminal jurisdiction... that's their MO.

Never a bad idea to put the Chief Con on notice and the sarge too, reminding them of the 2015 act, a friend of mine has just been beaten up, tasered and charged for assaulting two pigs after they dragged him out of his car (in his drive way) so a civil enforcement bod could tow his car away over a private parking charge, so don't trust these dolts to do the right thing or respect the law, because they do not know it, but they do know the chief Con can screw their career progression right up - make use of this fact.

Candor, you've got it, they play a psychological game and the reaction of most people is to argue the toss and give away their aces, then they decide what to do and then do it after you have played your ace card and they know what they are facing. Know thine enemy springs to mind.

Let them commit themselves first and you know what they are planning and what you are facing, then you can defend it correctly.

Hi toolapcblack,

Some really good sorted sound advice. Obviously what you do is up to you, good luck whatever you choose. As I stated previous, for me am probably not too far behind with some sort of a court appearance as am on 2nd dca trying… so lets wait & see.

1 good thing, the water seem to have run away – no pun intended. Have yesterday received a letter stating “no more correspondence will be entered into, the outstanding amount is still owed & the bank giro credit must be accompanied with cash or cheque”. Even though the Joint Giro does state “bank giro credit” & “trans cash” on it, am sick of pointing out it is a joint giro – yes those greedy buggers want paying more than 1ce. Still early days for that so again will have to wait & see.

Anyway good luck with everything

LS

what candor stated about "without prejudice":

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/without+prejudice

extract:

without prejudice a phrase written on correspondence to indicate that the contents are not to be founded upon in a court, particularly as an admission of liability. It is given effect in both England and Scotland but subject to some subtle exceptions.

many thanks Tiggy et all

so I have drafted this rough letter

Dear British Gas,
I am writing to inform you that Account  xx xx xx is in Dispute:
Nature of Dispute The Account has been paid by Endorsement on the xx xx 2017.

Therefore any court proceedings by You are Invalid under section 39 of The Electricity act 1989.
Your letter states that I owe money that I have already paid. [info about when paid, and attached copy of proof.]

Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Your

toolapcblack wrote:many thanks Tiggy et all

so I have drafted this rough letter

Dear British Gas,
I am writing to inform you that Account  xx xx xx is in Dispute:
Nature of Dispute The Account has been paid by Endorsement on the xx xx 2017.

Therefore any court proceedings by You are Invalid under section 39 of The Electricity act 1989.
Your letter states that I owe money that I have already paid. [info about when paid, and attached copy of proof.]

Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Your

to the point, precise, short & sweet - like that - good luck!

not sure how to raise the 1989 Act, this is what ive got so far:

Dear British Gas,

I am writing to inform you that The Account for Customer Reference Number xxxxxxxxxxx is in Dispute:

Nature of Dispute, The Account has been paid by Endorsement on the 23rd June 2017, by Mr xxxxxxxx, NI Number xxxxxxxxxx, Non Commercial Customer.

not sure how to word the next bit either
1 Therefore I would advise checking any proceedings you have under section 39 of The Electricity Act 1989.
or 2 Pursuant to Section 39 of The Electricity Act 1989.

Your letter states that I owe money that I have already paid.

Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,

xxxxxxxx

Hi,

to answer your question possibly 2 OR simply "Pursuant to The Electricity Act 1989."

A contributor did post yesterday stating to the affect "don't give the game away by showing all your cards" it contained wording "valid/invalid", cannot remember what was written exactly as there has been problems with goodf web site with posts missing, have seen odd times & dates appearing next to posts etc

anyway again good luck with this &please post your experiences of what happens. It will be different for us all!

Hi toolapcblack, may be this is of help? I did sent you this before.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/2010/regulation/4/made

4.—(1) An electricity supplier may not recover sums specified in regulation 3(1) by means of a prepayment meter unless it has previously entered into an agreement with the customer which complies with paragraphs (2) and (4), and, where applicable, regulations 5 and 6.

(2) The agreement must state in writing—

(a)the name of the customer;

(b)any charges that the customer will be required to pay in addition to those recovered under regulation 3; and

(c)that the electricity supplier warrants that he has, orally, provided the customer with details as required under paragraph (3).

(3) The details required by this paragraph are—

(a)other means of payment available to the customer;

(b)the operation of the prepayment meter, particularly as regards the recovery of debt and charging for ongoing consumption; and

(c)the implications of failing to make any payments in full or in part when they fall due under the agreement.

(4) The agreement must include written terms to the following effect—

(a)that the customer can give a notice of cancellation to the electricity supplier;

(b)where notice of cancellation is given, the agreement shall be treated as if it had not been made;

(c)notice of cancellation can be given orally or in writing and must be given within seven working days beginning with the day on which the customer receives written terms of the agreement; and

(d)either party can terminate the agreement on provision of 30 days' oral or written notice.

Gas

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/2011/regulation/4/made

4.—(1) A gas supplier may not recover the sum specified in regulation 3 by means of a prepayment meter unless it has previously entered into an agreement with the customer which complies with paragraphs (2) and (4).

(2) The agreement must state in writing—

(a)the name of the customer;

(b)any charges that the customer will be required to pay in addition to those recovered under regulation 3;

(c)the amount of each element of the sum owed under regulation 3 and to what it relates;

(d)the repayment rate and repayment amount;

(e)the date at which the sum owed would be fully repaid if each repayment amount is made at the repayment rate; and

(f)that the gas supplier warrants that he has, orally, provided the customer with details as required under paragraph (3).

(3) The details required by this paragraph are—

(a)other means of payment available to the customer;

(b)the operation of the prepayment meter, particularly as regards the recovery of debt and charging for ongoing consumption; and

(c)the implications of failing to make any payments in full or in part when they fall due under the agreement.

(4) The agreement must include written terms to the following effect—

(a)that the customer can give a notice of cancellation to the gas supplier;

(b)where notice of cancellation is given the agreement shall be treated as if it had not been made;

(c)notice of cancellation can be given orally or in writing and must be given within seven working days beginning with the day on which the customer receives written terms of the agreement;

(d)that the repayment rate and repayment amount has been calculated by the gas supplier to take into account the customer’s ability to pay the total of all charges to be recovered though the prepayment meter;

(e)that the customer has agreed to the repayment rate and repayment amount;

(f)that the repayment rate and repayment amount can be varied—

(i)at the customer’s request and if agreed by the gas supplier; or

(ii)by the supplier in accordance with sub-paragraph (d) and with prior notice given to the customer; and

(g)either party can terminate the agreement on provision of 30 days' oral or written notice.

The problem with the above Lionshare is if you have previously opted for a supplier (ie it says 'previously entered into an agreement with a customer'), they've sent all the requisite information and they've supplied to that property, then an agreement has been formed.

What I think it's aimed at is they can't recover by prepayment from someone who is not their customer (ie a new tenant).

Are there many others out there who have gone down the paying by Endorsement route? if so I would like to hear from anyone who has.

I'm just trying to stop the flow as I know that then money/energy travels up the chain to the evil doers(the pedos & the enslavers of mankind). I just could not live with myself knowing that I am enabling them in any way. I can live with myself and I'm sure there must be a reckoning for that scum, either that or this is one great big simulation where a few of us are being kept in line by millions of zombie simulants...lets face it, if you take a look around and try and fathom out what these Others are doing it beggars belief

Tiggy hi,

I agree to a point, please correct if am wrong. IMO I remember reading about def’ of states/acts goes something like “is a rule of society which carries the force of law when consented to by the governed”. In  that text above the word “may” is used, - as in please may pre-payment meters be fitted?

Even though they will have all details to form an agreement would they still not require my permission to fit those dreaded meters?

Also IMO & also states :

(a)that the customer can give a notice of cancellation to the gas supplier;

(b)where notice of cancellation is given the agreement shall be treated as if it had not been made;

simply cancel straight away & there is no permission for those meters to be installed?

Again please correct if am wrong. i know that you have a wealth of knowledge of this type of subject which you have demonstrated far exceeds mine, which is why after coming accross the old goodf am on here to learn & gain experience.

I've just looked a little further on the links and in the explanatory notes it says

These Regulations enable a gas supplier to collect sums through a gas prepayment meter in prescribed circumstances. Regulation 3(1) allows a gas meter to be used to collect sums relating to the supply of gas or the provision of a gas meter at premises previously owned or occupied by the customer.

Regulation 3(2) allows sums owing for these purposes to be consolidated with sums due for the supply of gas and the provision of a gas meter at the premises on which the prepayment meter is installed.

Both the customer and the gas supplier must enter into an agreement to use the prepayment meter for these purposes. Prior to entering into such an agreement the gas supplier must orally inform the customer of key aspects of the operation of the prepayment meter as specified in regulation 4(3).

Regulation 4 specifies written terms that must be included in the agreement. The agreement does not need to be signed by the customer or the authorised gas supplier.

An agreement as specified in the Regulations is not required when the gas prepayment meter is being used solely to collect sums for the supply of gas or provision of a gas prepayment meter to the premises at which the prepayment meter is installed.

Hi guys

Couple of points on the above posts:

Tiggy - am i right in thinking that (according to your last paragraph in bold) an agreement is necessary when there are sums past due?

From the posted extracts it seems to me they need your consent to fit a pre-pay meter when account is in dispute.

Also the fact that the supplier is mandated to only advise you ORALLY suggests there is very good reason (ie fraud) that they are not to put such agreements in writing.

Regulation 3 (1) ......relating to the supply of gas or THE PROVISION OF A GAS METER.....

......means you might at some point wish to ask (and have answered in writing, complete with signature) are you being charged for gas supply or for rental on THEIR meter.....

Cheers!

iamani wrote:Hi guys

Couple of points on the above posts:

Tiggy  -  am i right in thinking that (according to your last paragraph in bold) an agreement is necessary when there are sums past due?

From the posted extracts it seems to me they need your consent to fit a pre-pay meter when account is in  dispute.

Also the fact that the supplier is mandated to only advise you ORALLY suggests there is very good reason (ie fraud) that they are not to put such agreements in writing.

Regulation 3 (1)  ......relating to the supply of gas or THE PROVISION OF A GAS METER.....

......means you might at some point wish to ask (and have answered in writing, complete with signature) are you being charged for gas supply or for rental on THEIR meter.....

Cheers!

hi iamani

I think you may have misread it, it says:

An agreement as specified in the Regulations is not required when the gas prepayment meter is being used solely to collect sums for the supply of gas or provision of a gas prepayment meter to the premises at which the prepayment meter is installed.

Hi guys

Tiggy - thanks for replying, but what i'm getting at is that in that paragraph it is referring to an account not in dispute, so in effect is saying an agreement is not necessary when the account is not in dispute, which by deductive reasoning means an agreement is necessary when the account IS in dispute.

Can you see it or am i nuts?

Cheers!

iamani wrote:Hi guys

Tiggy  -  thanks for replying, but what i'm getting at is that in that paragraph it is referring to an account not in dispute, so in effect is saying an agreement is not necessary when the account is not in dispute, which by deductive reasoning means an agreement is necessary when the account IS in dispute.

Can you see it or am i nuts?

Cheers!

No sorry, I'm not reading that, I simply read it as 'no agreement required if they are solely using a prepayment meter to recover sums for the supply of gas....'