* Sueing a giant utility company: has anyone ever done this?*

[Flyyyte]

I hadn't actually thought such might be possible until seeing bankfodder's thread:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?444374-ScottishPower-%96-do-you-want-to-sue-ScottishPower-in-England-%96-Contact-details

 

but am now interested in doing just that.

 

Cut a lonng story short: I am sick, weary and tired of having to do Scottish Power's work for it in terms of (a) accurate billing and (b) best practice customer service, neither of which seem to me to be concepts that this company even faintly understands.

 

Six months ago it issued me with a final bill on my departure to Sainsburys Energy. (Had I realised at the time that Sainsbury's Energy is just a trading name of British Gas, I'd never have gone to it -- but that's another story.) British Gas / Sainsbury's Energy made a complete shambles of this routine switch and not only "lost" the gas meter reading I provided to it but then went on to give Scottish Power a meter reading entirely of its own invention.

 

Scottish Power, therefore, sent me a Final Bill which bore no relation to my usage. As this wasn't SP's fault, I immediately telephoned -- BAD mistake, but at that stage it had my sympathies -- and spoke to an SP rep who brought my account details up on screen and within mere seconds said they had a logarithm (or 'formula'? Can't remember which: both words may've been used) that they ran to check a disputed bill. It was obvious from that, or so I was assured, that the meter reading they'd received from BGSE was wrong.

 

I now provided the meter reading given to BGSE some six weeks earlier and was told the following:

 

'We will take this up with your new supplier as it's clear that a mistake has been made. Until we have sorted out the facts of the matter, the bill we have issued to you is suspended. This means you do not have to pay anything and you do not have to do anything until we contact you again with a revised bill.'

 

(Note: rightly or wrongly, I don't trust any UK utility company to look after me or my money. Shortly before the switch to my new supplier occurred, I therefore cancelled my monthly Direct Debit payment to Scottish Power on the basis that I'd rather pay it what I owed than have it taking my money and, in the event of a billing dispute, being obstructive about paying any of it back.)

 

Meantime, my supply continued from BGSE. I also received an apology from it for the mess it had made of my switch. As I'd been told not to do anything until hearing back from SP, I left it at that.

 

It wasn't until August that SP got in touch again. I received by surface mail and by email a letter headed FINAL DEMAND requiring that I immediately pay an amount owing from March. The amount was higher than the original, "suspended" bill. No accompanying documentation was provided by way of explanation of how this FINAL DEMAND had been calculated. No explanation was offered as to how I was in receipt of a 'demand' that was 'final' when no other 'demands' had ever preceded it.

 

Thus began a protracted to-ing and fro-ing of email correspondence which achieved nothing other than the waste of many hours of my time. SP's emails were, to my mind, a disgrace, each one beginning with a scripted 'apology' as cosmetic as it was meaningless, and concluding with an invitation for me to go online if I still had a problem because SP was sure I could find "answers" there.

 

I repeatedly provided SP with all the information it needed to act reasonably and responsibly and, at one stage, even seemed to be making progress: one reply I received said that in light of the information I had (repeatedly) provided, the matter was being passed to SP's billing department to investigate with a view to issuing a revised bill if such was appropriate.

 

But I never heard any more about that. Instead, another threatening email arrived -- the usual stuff, about jeopardising my credit record, this despite the fact that I had (repeatedly) said that I was furious about being treated in such intimidatory fashion. This last email was now either a downright lie or an act of blazing incompetence but whichever, it was clearly calculated to make me pay up whether I owed SP the amount stated or not: for the first time, the word "agreed" was incorporated into the text, as in "I can confirm that I have looked into your bill based on the agreed meter readings".

 

Obviously, if the darn things had ever at any time been agreed, then there'd have been no need for me to expend so much effort, disputing the position.

 

It seemed to me I had exhausted whatever level of collective ability -- if any -- might exist in SP Customer Service and so I asked for the matter to be elevated to a managerial level. I also made that request in writing, wasting yet more time reprising the facts. It wasn't merely that I was furious about being patronised / dismissed / misled / and (to my mind) lied to by this company, rather that I had provided SP with inarguable proof of its mis-billing and yet it was giving every appearance of seeking to wilfully ignore that and harass, and threaten, until it had, in so many words, extorted from me monies to which it had no right to claim.

 

If that was how Scottish Power thought it could treat me, then God only knew what it thought it could get away with where a customer, for whatever reason, was less able to challenge its steamroller tactics.

 

SP has sent me no further emails. Instead, I have received an unsigned letter from Pastdue Credit Solutions in which it is claimed that I owe its client a sum of money that is now even higher than the earlier amount owing that was in itself higher than the original bill which an SP representative assured me was "obviously wrong".

 

I have written back to PastDue saying I don't recognise the amount it is saying I must pay immediately and as no supporting documentation was supplied in respect of that claim, would PastDue now kindly correct that omission within the next 7 days.

 

Where we go from here, I'm not sure. A sum in excess of £200 is in dispute. The documented grounds for my challenging SP would instantly demolish its claim in any civil court. I don't, therefore, know if SP would even dare risk going to court -- but am worried (and no consumer should ever have to be "worried" by behaviour as repellent as this) that it might try to sidestep that process and mess up my credit history instead.

 

More than that though: as I said at the start of this post, I am sick, weary and tired of being compelled -- because it is just that: compulsion -- to do Scottish Power's work for it. I have had to repeatedly demonstrate to Customer Service staff how they should be dealing with a genuinely distressed customer; I have had to repeatedly demonstrate how to even calculate a bill. All the hours invested in such labour have been wasted.

 

But why should I be the one who is penalised for the indifference, the incompetence, and the sheer intimidation that is so evident here? I've no idea of what, let's say, a CS manager gets at Scottish Power but if it's £25k a year then I can't see why I shouldn't be on that same hourly-equivalent rate seeing as I've been required to do that same job .

 

So-oo . .. Back to Bankfodder's original thread. I would really, really like to sue this company for compensation in regard to my time wasted / distress caused etc etc, using as a yardstick of claim the equivalent cost of 15 hours' CS Management pay. I haven't done the math because I've only just thought of it but that's by the by. The main question here is:

 

Has any ordinary consumer ever attempted to sue a UK utility company and if so, on what basis / for what amount / and was her / his action successful?

 

I'm guessing that at some point along the line, SP is going to have to roll over and may even offer to make a "goodwill" payment or "goodwill" gesture, coupled with an apology about how a technical hitch occurred or a misunderstanding arose or SP has been dealing with system problems which it has now overcome and really honestly genuinely we're very very sorry, never happen again, blah-blah-blah.

 

But that "goodwill" will be as counterfeit as any and all of its apologies. That "goodwill" will make it appear it has never done anything wrong, and that it is a utility company fit and proper to hold a UK operating licence. Well: I don't want to allow it to skip away into the convenient obfuscation of "goodwill". I want Scottish Power punished. And I want Scottish Power's money in my pocket -- not my money in its.

[citizenB]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?436401-nPower-Mismanaged-account-County-Court-claim-issued-aganst-Npower

[Good Sister]

Hello Flyyyte,

 

I sued one of the smaller utility firms earlier this year for data protection act breaches (failure to respond to a subject access request within the correct timescale, sent me someone else's meter readings when it did arrive, failed to respond to opportunities to remedy). The matter was settled out of court, it was only for a small amount but they still tried to dig their heels a bit. I wouldn't have needed to send a SAR if they dealt with the original issue, let alone sue them, but there you go.

 

If you do go down this route, do prepare yourself to go all the way. SP may settle up in the meantime but don't bank on it. The thread citizenb has attached is a perfect example of how an energy firm will drag it out for as long as possible.

 

In the meantime, stop dealing with Pastdue. They have no powers. Continue to deal direct with SP regarding the 'debt'.

 

You should also think about starting to gather your evidence of how you've reached your compensation figure and how they have messed you around and messed up your account. It would be worth considering sending them a subject access request so you can see the details they have on you and what's showing on your account. This would require you to be a bit patient and take some time reading through what they send, and it will cost you £10.00, but what comes back can be absolutely fascinating. Do also keep tabs on your credit file, just in case your fears are realised.

 

Wish you the best of luck whatever you decide to do.

[Flyyyte]

Hello Flyyyte, I sued one of the smaller utility firms earlier this year for data protection act breaches (failure to respond to a subject access request within the correct timescale, sent me someone else's meter readings when it did arrive, failed to respond to opportunities to remedy). The matter was settled out of court, it was only for a small amount but they still tried to dig their heels a bit. I wouldn't have needed to send a SAR if they dealt with the original issue, let alone sue them, but there you go. . .

 

Many thanks Good Sister for responding so quickly and constructively; thanks, too, to the site team's citizenB: I have to confess to an initial reluctance to even raising my query, seeing as how folks must surely get fed up of hearing yet *another* complaint about a UK utility company. And yet, in a way, that's the real indictment: the treatment of honest, decent and responsible consumers by corporate giants who couldn't care less how heavily and how wrongly they tread.

 

My situation at the moment is that I've no idea what a Judge would consider to be a "reasonable" claim against SP or not. There would, I assume, need to be specific grounds: no good me ranting on about distress and dismay etc if SP is going to honey-voice its way out of things and (for example) respond that though I may have grounds for being annoyed, I have no actual legal grounds for compensation.

 

It is my (hazy) understanding that Direct Debit agreements with a utility provider are outwith the Consumer Credit Act (though why I should even have to spend the time, trying to find that out, escapes me: I'm not a lawyer nor have I any aspiration to be.)

 

I see from citizenB's link that "mismanagement of my account" may, possibly, provide some basis for civil action but if at the end of the day we're talking about some kind of industry voluntary code, then I can't see how a default in respect of that which is voluntary can be said to mean the same as a breach of some legislative act or order.

 

Then there's the amount. I have spent so many, many hours dealing with this, trying to get Scottish Power to LISTEN, and then as a concomitant trying to understand which regulators do what and how and for whom and on what basis. None of that should ever have been necessary, yet to be unprepared is to be vulnerable, and to be vulnerable is -- or so it seems to me -- to be the last thing any consumer should be when a company with as appalling a public record as Scottish Power's comes a-hunting for money.

 

By way of trying to devise some theoretical sum, I reckoned that as I'm the one who has had to do so much work in regard to this mis-billing because Scottish Power has not, and will not, then I'll base it on an estimated £25k a year paid to an SP customer services manager (it may be more, it may be less) equalling £480 a week for a 37.5 hour week equalling an hourly rate of £12.82p. By my calculation, in terms of time spent not merely in dealing with SP but in trying to protect myself against its serial misconduct -- including now having to pester people on here for help -- the time is now 3 full working days, equal to 112.5 hours and therefore, £12.82 x 112.5, total: £1,442.25.

 

And the total is growing -- ironic, really, seeing as the amount at issue (that is, the difference between that which SP is doing its darndest to make me pay and the sum that the facts show I should be paying may not be more than £50.) That difference, however, is of fundamental importance, because it relates to the consumption of gas which Scottish Power hasn't provided. . . but Sainsbury's Energy / British Gas so very clearly has (and been paid for it.)

 

I'm now poised to write a formal letter of complaint to Scottish Power.

 

All previous complaints, in my emails, were effectively ignored / dismissed. As soon as I realised Scottish Power, with its FINAL DEMAND, seemed about to pressure me into paying it monies to which it has no lawful claim, I kept everything in writing. For the record. And advised SP I was doing so. They'd had one telephone call from me. There would be no more. The paper trail, then, is complete.

 

Because of all this entirely unnecessary wasting of my time, I've had to learn that OFGEM won't deal with a consumer directly -- OK, fair enough -- but will only act in light of anything flagged up by some Energy Ombudsman service or other . . . if said Ombudsman service can even be bothered to do so. To even initiate such a process though, I must first make a formal written complaint (in my case, about both mis-billing and appalling CS behaviour) so that SP can have a period of time in which to resolve matters -- as if it hasn't had enough time already.

 

I do wish to place that formal complaint on record though, not least because I intend to seek the assistance of my local constituency Member of Parliament.

 

Question then (I guess: sorry for being so. . . scattered at the moment!) do I now register my formal complaint with Scottish Power and allow 8 weeks (I think?) to elapse OR:

 

do I now write to SP saying I'm about to institute civil action and not bother filing a formal complaint OR:

 

do I threaten civil action -- but not yet initiate it -- in a formal complaint?

 

I cannot stress too much here that it is not the amount that troubles me. It is the oppressive weight of a giant company (and a foreign-owned one at that) which all too clearly thinks it can do anything, say anything, and get away with anything, regardless of whatever censuring it may previously have received from the regulator and regardless of whether or not it has just been acclaimed -- if that's the right word -- the worst major company in Britain for its handling of customers.

 

Again: sincere thanks to Good Sister and to citizenB; in a better regulated market than the one we seem to have here in the UK, none of this would be necessary. And Scottish Power wouldn't even have a licence any longer to even operate. (And in addition to my thanks, my apologies, too, for any inconvenience my posts here may inadvertently cause.)

[Good Sister]

Formal complaint definitely seems like the best way to go - if it ends up going to the courts, it will look good that you tried to resolve things with SP as amicably as you could.

 

Don't be afraid to take a complaint straight to the top - I believe the CEO's email address is keith.anderson@scottishpower.com (though I'm sure someone with more knowledge of SP will correct me if I'm wrong).

 

Make sure it is marked as a formal complaint. Say what has happened, the impact it has had on you, and how you would like it to be resolved.

 

No promises of getting compo this way, but I suppose there is no harm in asking.

 

As a final thought - don't worry about raising your posts on here about energy firms (or any other firms for that matter). You are not inconveniencing anyone. Even if you don't get the outcome you want in the end, your story may well help someone else in the future.

[Flyyyte]

Formal complaint definitely seems like the best way to go - if it ends up going to the courts, it will look good that you tried to resolve things with SP as amicably as you could. .

 

Sincere thanks, GS. At a time like this when, despite best efforts, one's thoughts are somewhat scattered, your post provides clarity and enables focus. Doesn't get any better than that.

 

I'll sit down tomorrow and draft a letter of Formal Complaint which I'll send to Scottish Power's complaints-handling address. I'll structure it according to the points you've highlighted. It is unlikely to have the appearance of amicability because I can not, in all good conscience, pretend that I am not outraged at this company's behaviour towards me. It will not, however, be hysterical: words have been my business for many a long year, and I'm well aware of the standard required for writing-for-the-record.

 

I'll update here in due course, hoping that the recording (on here) of this episode may be of some help to others in future.

 

Meantime: sincere thanks again.

[BazzaS]

 

 

My situation at the moment is that I've no idea what a Judge would consider to be a "reasonable" claim against SP or not. There would, I assume, need to be specific grounds: no good me ranting on about distress and dismay etc if SP is going to honey-voice its way out of things and (for example) respond that though I may have grounds for being annoyed, I have no actual legal grounds for compensation.

 

.........

 

 

By way of trying to devise some theoretical sum, I reckoned that as I'm the one who has had to do so much work in regard to this mis-billing because Scottish Power has not, and will not, then I'll base it on an estimated £25k a year paid to an SP customer services manager (it may be more, it may be less) equalling £480 a week for a 37.5 hour week equalling an hourly rate of £12.82p. By my calculation, in terms of time spent not merely in dealing with SP but in trying to protect myself against its serial misconduct -- including now having to pester people on here for help -- the time is now 3 full working days, equal to 112.5 hours and therefore, £12.82 x 112.5, total: £1,442.25.

 

"3 full working days, equal to 112.5 hours" : impressive days!

Do you mean 3 weeks?

 

1) you can't bill SP for what they would have paid someone, only for what your time costs.

2) if you could persuade a judge you'd lost 112.5 hours, you could bill for that at your rate (but capped at the litigant in person rate of £19/hour, BUT

3) You are required to 'mitigate your loss':

 

If you claim for 112.5 hours at £19/ hour (£2137.50), they can say "but if he'd got a solicitor to deal with this for him he'd only have to have paid £250!", and then £250 becomes the most you can claim as that (or however much the lowest cost solution is) "mitigates your loss".

[Flyyyte]

"3 full working days, equal to 112.5 hours" : impressive days!

Do you mean 3 weeks?

 

1) you can't bill SP for what they would have paid someone, only for what your time costs.

2) if you could persuade a judge you'd lost 112.5 hours, you could bill for that at your rate (but capped at the litigant in person rate of £19/hour, BUT

3) You are required to 'mitigate your loss':

 

If you claim for 112.5 hours at £19/ hour (£2137.50), they can say "but if he'd got a solicitor to deal with this for him he'd only have to have paid £250!", and then £250 becomes the most you can claim as that (or however much the lowest cost solution is) "mitigates your loss".

 

Hello BazzaS: thanks for that info, it helps in trying to sort out a possible (and tenable) claim. And thanks especially for pointing out the error there: sheesh, the math really was wrong! I should, of course, have been working on the basis of a 37.5 hour working week, not a, er, 37.5 hour working day. I think I'll go apply now for a job with Scottish Power's billing department. A 37.5 hour working week equals a 7.5 hour working day, so at £12.82p an hour that's £96.15p per working day. In my case, then, that would be £288.45. Which (to me) seems nothing like enough. Though considerably more reasonable than that earlier £1,442. Eeek.

 

Anyway. If one can't bill a company for the time they would have / might have paid an employee but whose work one has had to undertake oneself, then I guess the idea is a non-starter anyway. Might be better to have a look at the UK average wage and go from there. It would also be equitable, because if an argument is to be advanced that only a customer in employment can be compensated according to the hourly rate appropriate to her or his current employment, then the time of every customer who is not in employment, or who has retired, is counted as nothing. That signals to any utililty company (or any other company, come to that) that easy pickings are to be made from elderly consumers because they can't hit back because they're. . . worthless.

 

I quite like the concept of mitigating my losses though. Most solicitors I know -- not paralegals, nor juniors -- charge between £85 and £140 per hour. So if an argument was -- theoretically -- to be advanced that 3 days of an individual's time had had to be given over to an issue such as this, whereas a lawyer could've dealt with it in half the time -- then 22.5 hours I've spent (which now need revising upwards) would equal 11 hours of a solicitor's time at £100 per hour. Call it £1,000.

 

Ah well. Interesting to play around with figures, but really, this post was mainly to say thanks for clarifying things and for pointing out the fallibility of my math. Seems best now for me to set aside the issue of compensation until such time as all my hours are totted up at completion of the Formal Complaint letter to SP.

 

Onwards & upwards -- or at least, sideways.

[BazzaS]

 

It would also be equitable, because if an argument is to be advanced that only a customer in employment can be compensated according to the hourly rate appropriate to her or his current employment, then the time of every customer who is not in employment, or who has retired, is counted as nothing. That signals to any utililty company (or any other company, come to that) that easy pickings are to be made from elderly consumers because they can't hit back because they're. . . worthless.

 

 

I don't think I said the unemployed, elderly / retired are worthless ... I certainly don't believe that.

 

I also don't think I said "if you aren't working your hourly rate is £zero". If not employed, the rate someone would use would be what they could reasonably have earned if employed for that hour, not automatically zero.

If they could have been paid £12/ hour, and lost the chance to do so by wasting an hour : £12 is what they could claim, not "zero, because you are unemployed"

[Flyyyte]

I wasn't implying that you said that at all. I was merely theorising on a payments-of-worth calculus. What I'm actually trying to figure out is how a civil court, or even a utility company, might compute this. In employment, then an equivalent to the individual's paid hourly rate? Wow. I should be a corporate counsel then. Not employed? Therefore, no hourly rate for assessment purposes? Oh.

 

We all know that utilities hide behind the mask of "goodwill" payments when goodwill has never entered into it. We're all, also, well aware of derisory payments, £50 here or £75 there. Go-away money. Courts? I presume there's some sort of yardstick. But I've no idea. Perhaps it's about time some Consumer Messed About Hourly Rate was legislated.

[honeybee13]

I wasn't implying that you said that at all. I was merely theorising on a payments-of-worth calculus. What I'm actually trying to figure out is how a civil court, or even a utility company, might compute this. In employment, then an equivalent to the individual's paid hourly rate? Wow. I should be a corporate counsel then. Not employed? Therefore, no hourly rate for assessment purposes? Oh.

 

We all know that utilities hide behind the mask of "goodwill" payments when goodwill has never entered into it. We're all, also, well aware of derisory payments, £50 here or £75 there. Go-away money. Courts? I presume there's some sort of yardstick. But I've no idea. Perhaps it's about time some Consumer Messed About Hourly Rate was legislated.

 

Hello there.

 

I could be off track here, but could you be talking about the LiP [Litigant in Person] rate at £19 an hour?

 

HB

[Flyyyte]

Hello there. I could be off track here, but could you be talking about the LiP [Litigant in Person] rate at £19 an hour? HB

 

Hello Honeybee. Apologies for this unintentionally belated reply but I've only just caught up with your post. You most certainly are not off-track -- so many thanks indeed for bringing this LiP facility to my attention. I've never heard of it, iyiyiyiyi. I've some spare time this morning so am off to plunder this wonderful CAG website for more info. Once again: BIG thanks!

[Flyyyte]

Honeybee:

 

Sincere thanks again for the LiP information. I've now browsed this site and noted a number of helpful references. I've copied / pasted text into Word docs where appropriate as well as screencaptured other items. Finally, I've followed various links to other reference resources including Law articles, Form N260, and the Bar Council Guide to self representation.

 

I tend to work quickly so am hoping I've not missed too much on this initial LiP foray; I'll have more time tonight to re-read in more detail. The sheer volume of helpful information here continues to astonish and I've been happy to make a small donation just now, a fraction of the amount any Law firm would've required. I've also -- now that I've read Form N260 -- made an exact note of research time spent here, that is, the period from the time of my last post to the time of this.

 

Armed, now, with knowledge I clearly lacked hitherto, I shall put further thoughts of civil action on hold, and wait to see what emerges in the course of the handling of my formal complaint.

 

Once again: my sincere thanks to you, Good Sister and BazzaS.

[honeybee13]

You're welcome, please keep us posted.

 

HB

[Flyyyte]

Will do!

[Andyorch]

How are you getting on with this matter Flyyyte ?

 

Regards

 

Andy