Shell Energy - Failure to disclose data

[Intrepid]

Attached below is a copy of Shell Energy's defence in relation to the claim against them for harassment.

As predicted their defence is focused predominantly on the basis they reserve the right to communicate to their customers regarding their account balance.

 

That of course has not been denied to the defendant. It was made clear their attempts to contact me via text message were distressing and they should have reverted to the same means to communicate with me as they had no trouble in doing so when attempting to bill me for thousands of pounds each month, i.e. via e-mail or letter.

 

Shell Energy seem to be under the mistaken understanding that messaging me repeatedly is justified as they have a right to process my data. Their right to process my data is not in dispute, what is disputed is their chosen method to harass their customers daily via text message after they have been explicitly requested not to do so.

 

SE - Defence Harassment - Redacted.pdf

Edited December 15, 2021 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

I think I will deal with the date issue with regards to the 2nd claim for incomplete disclosure in the WS. The effect would simply be that the claim is discontinued and a further claim is brought with particulars indicating the correct date the SAR was submitted.

Shell Energy have referred to the correct date they did receive the SAR in their defence and have produced a defence accordingly. I think overall the incorrect date should have little effect on the outcome except that the judge will likely consider I am not entitled to the claim fee as a result of the error if I am successful.

[Intrepid]

DQ is due to the Court by 30th December for both claims. I consider that mediation could be appropriate with regards to the claim for harassment but have not yet made up my mind.

[Intrepid]

It appears the ICO were not that impressed with Shell Energy's data disclosure and following the ICO's presumed intervention I have finally received the data regarding the meter readings pertaining to my account.

 

Shell Energy have doubled down on their claim that the data was previously disclosed, however no one was willing to sign their name to such a claim and their letter was simply signed "Shell Energy Privacy Office".

There is clear evidence from the disclosure that Shell Energy used invalid data to bill my account for several months and with the assistance of @BankFodder I now wish to commence a claim for inaccurate data processing.

 

 

[BankFodder]

Please monitor this thread for a reply later or tomorrow

[BankFodder]

I agree that that seems to be the appropriate next step.

Given the length of this thread so far and the business of having to catch up with it all for me and for others, I think it would be helpful to start a new thread on this giving a brief outline of what has happened and uploading the relevant documents that you have in PDF format – including this very interesting response from the ICO.

Congratulations by the way, on getting a response from the ICO. They seem to be pretty thin on the ground nowadays

[Intrepid]

Incidentally despite now being in receipt of the data I expected to receive regarding the meter readings Shell Energy's data disclosure is still incomplete.

Shell Energy attempt in their letter to frame that their incomplete disclosure is simply representing the data in a different format.

I expect the judge will see right through their claim when the significant differences between stored meter reading records and customer bills are pointed out.

This does however give a nice clue as to how they will likely defend the on-going claim regarding their incomplete disclosure.

 

So far Shell Energy have declined to confirm who wrote the letter.

I have started a new thread which can be found here.

Edited January 6, 2022 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

Shell Energy have served their copies of the DQ relating to both claims.

 

We both agree to mediation regarding the claim for harassment.

 

With regards to the claim for their incomplete disclosure the following was written under DQ D1. "Coventry. Claimant has rejected mediation. Size of the claim and Claimant's limited availability makes it impossible to defend from the Claimant's own choice of court unless a virtual hearing could be arranged."
 

As a reminder the amount of the claim is £100.

While I understand there is an element of game playing involved the reasons above are totally disingenous and come about simply as a result of the fact I acted in good faith and served a copy of the DQ to the Defendant in a timely manner. If I had employed their own tactics they would have no information to include in their requested hearing venue.

Perhaps it would be worth writing to the court and pointing this out. Unless I am missunderstanding something to my knowledge the DQ is sent out to the Claimant and Defendant at the same time, and thus this is a silly game of who blinks first with regards to serving a DQ.

[Intrepid]

aI have made a further complaint to the ICO regarding the second incomplete data disclosure received from Ombudsman Services.

Within their disclosure is a key document missing a date. The date on the document I am in receipt of does not match the data of the document the Ombudsman disclosed and appears as if their document could have been deliberately falsely dated by a member of staff that works(ed?) in the "Legal & Compliance Team".

 

I believe I am now in receipt of evidence that the OS is attempting to mislead both myself and the court.

 

Are the CAG aware that it is highly likely that a signifcant number of staff that work at Ombudsman Services also work on behalf of POPLA? This should certainly steer the understanding of what sort of treatment appellants can receive when using such a "service".

Edited January 19, 2022 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

I have begun drafting the WS vs Ombudsman Services.

 

I consider that paragraphs 13 - 18 do not fall within the remit of the claim however it is further indication that the way the Ombudsman Services handles data appears to be inexplicable or that simply their disclosures are totally lacking of data.

 

I may decide to remove paragraphs 13 - 18 in order to keep the claim concise, more to the point and within the remit of the claim.

EO - Claimant - Witness Statement - Redacted - v2.0.pdf

[Intrepid]

I wonder if it is possible to request the Court to award damages in excess of the claim if they believe it is justified. I have never seen any reference to it but something along the lines of:

"The Claimant seeks damages for distress of £100 however the Claimant invites the court to adjust the sum of quantum as they see fit in reference to Halliday vs Creation Consumer Finance".

[Intrepid]

It appears Shell Energy filed their DQ over three weeks late and just one day prior to the order given by the Court that should they fail their defence will be struck out.

I have written to the court explaining that Shell Energy should not be able to use information provided in good faith within the Claimant's DQ and filed prior to the courts deadline to make their own hearing venue request. I also took the opportunity to provide further information as Shell Energy were afforded to assist in deciding the allocation of the hearing venue.

[Intrepid]

Ombudsman services responded to my complaint that their disclosure is incomplete by requesting that I detail what data is missing from their disclosure.

 

I think this silly game of withholding data and then simply asking for comfimation as to what they didn't disclose is a bit tiresome and disingenuous, I shall simply present it to the court within my claim regarding their first incomplete disclosure.

[Intrepid]

With reference to the claim for harassment against Shell Energy the cause for action could be substantiated by their multiple breaches of CONC.

Shell Energy are a registered member of the FCA.

I have attached a single true copy indicating the format of each message received.

 

@BankFodder Do you think these messages fall foul of CONC 7.9?

CONC 7.9 - A firm must ensure that a person contacting a customer on its behalf explains to the customer the following matters:

(1) who the person contacting the customer works for;
(2) the person's role in or relationship with the firm; and
(3) the purpose of the contact.

 

I expect the rabbit hole to take the following path:

SE claim it wasn't a person that contacted me claiming they don't have to allocate an actual person provided they act as a reasonable person.

I would respond that given the explicit instruction not to contact me via text message that the reasonable person would have written to me with their name, role and contact details, as well as to have complied with CONC 7.5.3 and CONC 7.14.5 below.

 

There appears to also be a breach of CONC 7.5.3 A firm must not ignore or disregard a customer's claim that a debt has been settled or is disputed and must not continue to make demands for payment without providing clear justification and/or evidence as to why the customer's claim is not valid.

 

CONC 7.14.5 - A firm must provide a customer with information on the outcome of its investigations into a debt which the customer disputed on valid grounds.

As per the data they have elected to disclosure so far no investigation has been carried out.

SE - Msg example.pdf

Edited January 23, 2022 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

Hearing date set vs Ombudsman Services for 9th May via remote hearing, is it best to pay the hearing fee right away or wait?

Edited January 25, 2022 by Intrepid

[mantis shrimp]

You should pay the hearing fee by the date specified for doing so. Best not to leave it to the last minute, allow room for cock-ups/other difficulties.

[Intrepid]

I consider that paying it straight away indicates to the Defendant that I am serious about proceeding to the hearing (which of course I am).

On the other hand why pay a fee any earlier than it's required (while as you say, allowing time for the unexpected).

[mantis shrimp]

as you wish

[Intrepid]

WS vs OS v2.3

EO - Claimant - Witness Statement - Redacted - v2.3.pdf

[Intrepid]

The claim raised against Shell Energy for their incomplete disclosure has been transferred to my local court which I expect is good news, even if this results in a remote hearing which is probably best for both parties and the court.

 

I have now received a second disclosure which is as incomplete as the first. I will again follow the steps as before to raise a complaint with the ICO and consider raising a claim.

Edited February 1, 2022 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

WS vs Shell Energy attached below.

Directions for submission to the Court are as follows "No later than fourteen days before the hearing". I'm not entirely sure of the wording but understand it to mean documents should be received with 14 clear days prior to the hearing date. E.g. If a hearing date was on the 20th then documents should be received no later than 4pm on the 5th.

SE - Claimant - Witness Statement - v2.0 - Redacted.pdf

[mantis shrimp]

That is right. The rules on calculation of time are contained in CPR 2.8:

 

PART 2 - APPLICATION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES - Civil Procedure Rules

WWW.JUSTICE.GOV.UK

 

[Intrepid]

Version 2.2

A reference to the letter before claim, a summary of Shell Energy's conduct, minor amendments.
 

SE - Claimant - Witness Statement - v2.2 - Redacted.pdf

Edited April 25, 2022 by Intrepid

[Intrepid]

From post #106 here there was some discussion as to the expected allocated track for a civil claim for harassment.

 

All speculation can be put to rest as the claim I have brought against Shell Energy for harassment has been allocated to the small claims track.

 

Currently a preliminary hearing has been scheduled. I have attached a redacted copy of both N24s issued by the court.

 

While there is a reference to bundles in the Notice of Preliminary Hearing I cannot see that any specific directions have been issued by the Court and I am unsure what exactly to prepare.

I expect a brief summary of why the claim has been issued will suffice following which there will be some deliberate questioning by the judge to perhaps narrow the issues.

I also wonder what CAG's thoughts are in response to the line on page 3 "You must not make any personal or private recording or publish any part of this hearing including court e-mails or papers."

I see court orders and judgements posted regularly on this site.

CAG - N24 x2 - Redacted.pdf

[Intrepid]

Shell Energy printed their entire disclosure as part of their bundle which is still missing the data I explained in my proposed WS.

Their proposed statement is attached below.

 

 

SE - Defendant 22.04.22.pdf