Hi rockape999, it would be interesting to hear specifics on the case law you mentioned... I am not aware of anything. If there was case law, you would have thought Bank of Scotland would have used it in the Roberts v. Bank of Scotland case which the bank lost. Although it was settled out of court, Ferguson v. British Gas Trading is relevant too. British Gas tried to run the argument that there was no case because their systems were automated, the similarity being that you are saying Hydron are just following instructions blindly. The onus is on each company to make sure they are acting properly, and that includes automated systems, and by extension if the debtor alleges a dispute I would expect the onus to fall on Hydron to check the correspondence they have copies of. It will be interesting to see if Hydron turn up to Magistrates' Court. It seems there's three possible outcomes for that: 1) They don't turn up/don't apply for a warrant and don't inform me, so I am there, and further building my case against First Utility for an eventual claim. 2) They turn up and commit perjury by saying there's no dispute. (Remember they've had a detailed particulars of claim from me.) 3) They back out and tell me in advance. It would be great to know which case law you are talking about though, if you can find the reference you're thinking of.

Understand your POV... but I don't agree. Definition is from the act is: The bit that I think you're referring to is "that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable." It seems like a pretty clear situation to me that they were unreasonable. I think perfectly reasonable for them to write initially, but as soon as they were informed of a dispute they should have stopped enforcement action until they'd investigated. Hydron kept on threatening after they'd been informed twice of the dispute. They have all the correspondence and didn't want to spend time reviewing it by their own admission. They have a profit motive. They didn't follow the guidelines set down by their industry body. So they will have to show their course of conduct was reasonable to rely on that statutory defence... I think that will be difficult, because I think what they did is clearly unreasonable. I may have misread the situation though, be interested to know why you disagree.

Yes... the matter has been going on for something like 5 years. So the £15-20k is 5 years worth of gas (and some electricity, although I managed to transfer that to another provider) notwithstanding the fact that the £15-20k is charged at significantly higher than market rates and no meter readings have been taken for years. I think there is a useful precedent which is Roberts vs Bank Of Scotland. That case is slightly different, in that there was no dispute about the debt owed by Roberts to BoS. The judge found that although BoS had a legitimate right to pursue the debt, they were harassing Roberts because of the action I was taking. My situation is different in that there is a clear dispute. I don't think there is any guidance on how to quantify damages for harassment - the Roberts v. Bank of Scotland was a claim for £10,000 in damages, so I used that as a starting point, and then rounded down to be safe. Although difficult to quantify, I thought the upset, lost sleep, etc., Hydron had caused was about 20% of what Roberts had suffered in their case. These issues aren't going before a court really - there is a Magistrates' Court hearing on 2nd Dec, where Hydron have said they'll be applying for a warrant of entry. I am not sure if they are still going to do this, but unless they make it absolutely clear they are not then I will be attending court on 2nd Dec. What I intend to show the magistrates if it goes that far is that there is a long and ongoing dispute with First Utility, and the appropriate forum to resolve it is the County Court.

Welcome to the board rockape999 I am not sure that's correct - Hydron are still legally responsible for their actions, there is not statutory defence to harassment of "I was harassing on someone else's behalf". The thinking runs that Hydron have extensive correspondence between me and First Utility, ignored the rules governing their profession, and decided to threaten me and visit my home rather than go through the correspondence. I think it's 99% certain that Hydron will have a performance fee from First Utility based on money recovered, so there is a profit motive for Hydron to harass me if they think they're more likely to recover the money and they can get away with it. I don't see in the circumstances why it's not appropriate to claim against Hydron... I do agree with you that it is also appropriate to claim against First Utility though.

I think key thing here is I am not seeking damages, I am just trying to limit what First Utility can do to what is hopefully a reasonable set of actions - e.g. correspondence or suing in the county court. I don't mind them doing either of those, but don't want them sending Hydron debt collectors or any others around. I am separately taking action against Hydron for damages, I have reproduced most of the particulars of claim below.

The harassment is that they know it is in dispute, and they are pursuing a course of action which is bullying me into submission rather than acknowledge their mistakes and correct them. They seem unable/unwilling to correct their mistakes, which means just another debt collector is sent around causing upset. Yes - it is Hydron currently. (They've used quite a few debt collectors over the years though.) I have actually found Hydron quite bad, I'd be happy to detail experiences in this thread but don't want to sidetrack it if that's not the correct course of action.

Yes, the original 11 months gas charged in one go was £1,784.17. The amount on the bill showed £1,774.80 due to a balance of £100.75 for electricity and a credit of £110.12 for a Direct Debit gone out.

Sorry... good point, I haven't paid the amount they claim is outstanding because it is wrong and in dispute. The amount is quite large - in the £15k-20k range. I should also point out I have had correspondence with Malcolm Henchley (Head of Legal at First Utility) who has said First Utility will continue with their "enforcement action". (My query was whether they would continue to chase with debt collectors etc., whilst it was in dispute.)

Hi everyone, I have a dispute with First Utility going back some years, and they are harassing me for the disputed debt. I don't know what to do with it so seeking some input please! First, a little history on the dispute. I had a dual fuel tariff with First Utility, with a monthly direct debit going out. Due to an error on their systems, I was not being charged for gas for about 11 months. They issued a single large gas bill which they said they would collect by direct debit - to which I emailed them asking them not to do it. The guidance in place by Ofgem at the time said that the utility company needed to spread the bill over the same period of time the error built up (e.g. 11 months). First Utility didn't reply to my email before the Direct Debit was due to be charged, so I cancelled the DD mandate and told them I had done so. This is how the whole thing started. There have been a few other strings to this matter... I can't remember all of them but a quick summary of some: 1. First Utility changed the meter, and have admitted that the meter was giving wrong information - they haven't clarified this at all. 2. The end reading from the previous supplier (British Gas) overlaps with the start reading from First Utility. I've paid British Gas in full, so I asked First Utility whether I've overpaid British Gas, or else First Utility should credit me some units. 3. First Utility wrote to me with a "your pricing is changing" letter. I said I wanted to make sure I was on the best possible deal; and they replied to say my tariff would not be changed whilst there was a dispute. I was later told the pricing was changed, but the *tariff* was not. I explained to them that I thought they'd been misleading here. 4. The biggest dispute by value is the billing rates since the dispute started. They've locked the gas account, so it can't be moved to another supplier, and arbitrarily changed my rates to much higher than are available on Uswitch etc. The electricity was moved to another provider; I don't know why they didn't lock the electricity but did lock the gas. As I haven't been buying both electricity/gas from the same company, I haven't benefited from any dual fuel discounts either. I have explained all the above countless times. First Utility haven't given a substantive response to the points, and have continued issuing gas bills (at expensive rate) compounding the problem. I have repeatedly asked them to let me change providers, and told them the matter is in dispute. The dispute has been characterised by First Utility trying to get someone to resolve it, then I assume they realise the complexity of it and they move on to something else. Looking at their public accounts, First Utility have increased in size from £57m in 2010 to £561m in 2014... so I suspect that all this growth has caused massive issues for them internally with staff changes, system changes, and I seem to be a victim of this. More recently their solicitors (ERT Law, a.k.a. Eaton Ryan & Taylor) corresponded with me and I was hopeful to get it resolved, but after 12 months of correspondence ERT Law simply stopped. (They would take a long time to response to me.) It seems once they understood the dispute they decided it was too complex. My problem with First Utility is that every 6 months or so, they put my account into a debt collection procedure and we get phone calls, visits from debt collectors, etc. I have had at least 5 different debt collectors visit my wife (I'm normally at work). It is really getting quite upsetting, and the police have already been called once and attended my home after a particularly aggressive debt collector. More recently a debt collector has applied for a hearing at the Magistrates' Court to get a warrant of entry, which I will be attending to defend. The debt collector is aware of the dispute but said it was too complicated for them to look into. My question is can I use the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 to obtain an injunction against First Utility? What I would like to do is for them to be restricted from what they can do to pursue the matter. In my mind it is quite simple - we should exchange correspondence to try and resolve it, and if we cannot reach an agreement they have the option of suing me in the county court. What I don't want to happen is for them to harass me with phone calls, pass details on to debt collectors, have people visit my house, etc. I am aware of the Roberts v Bank of Scotland PLC [2013] case, which is slightly different in that the debt wasn't in dispute, and it was a damages claim rather than an injunction. I should also set my stall out to say that this has reached such a bad state of affairs that I am willing to take a risk of failed legal action and the £tens of thousands that could potentially cost me. Your input greatly appreciated!