The client instructed Samuel Okoronkwo Jr. in relation to a dispute concerning alleged outstanding charges claimed by an energy supplier following the supply of electricity to the client’s business premises.
The client operated a small retail business from the premises and entered into an electricity supply contract with the claimant energy company. The client’s position was that the agreed tariff rates were specified within the contract and that payments had been made in accordance with invoices issued by the claimant. The client stated that he had paid approximately £1,692.59 by direct debit between November 2020 and August 2021, together with a further payment of £900 made by telephone in February 2022.
The client explained that although he became the tenant of the premises in September 2020, the property was initially undergoing renovation and trading did not commence until early 2021. The client operated a small newsagent business with limited electricity usage, including lighting and refrigeration equipment. The residential accommodation above the premises remained vacant until December 2021, when the client moved into the property with his family.
The client provided meter readings on various dates throughout the tenancy and disputed the claimant’s subsequent invoices, which he alleged had been calculated using incorrect out-of-contract tariff rates. Following the expiry of the fixed tariff period, the claimant issued a bill for approximately £2,210.38 and subsequently issued a further bill exceeding £10,000.
The client maintained that the charges did not reflect his actual energy consumption and that the claimant had failed to apply the agreed contractual tariff rates. The client requested that the claimant calculate his average usage based upon the available meter readings and apply the correct tariff, but the claimant declined to do so.
The client explained that he was unable to provide regular meter readings during part of 2021 as he had travelled abroad and became unable to return due to Covid-19 travel restrictions. Following his return, he was also required to complete a period of quarantine. The client stated that, as a result, he was placed onto higher out-of-contract rates and was unable to agree a new contract or payment arrangement with the claimant.
The client raised an Alternative Dispute Resolution complaint with the relevant energy dispute body. Whilst awaiting the outcome, the claimant commenced court proceedings seeking payment of the alleged outstanding balance and subsequently commenced enforcement action. The client disputed the amount claimed, stating that the balance sought by the claimant differed from the figures provided during the complaint process.
The principal issue was whether the claimant had correctly calculated the amount allegedly owed by the client and whether the charges applied were consistent with the contractual tariff agreed between the parties.
Counsel considered the client’s position that the claimant had incorrectly applied out-of-contract rates following expiry of the fixed tariff period and whether the claimant had properly accounted for the client’s actual energy usage based on available meter readings.
Counsel also considered the procedural issues arising from the claimant commencing court proceedings whilst the client’s Alternative Dispute Resolution complaint remained ongoing. The client disputed whether the claimant was entitled to proceed with enforcement action before the complaint process had been concluded and questioned the basis upon which the claimant was seeking payment.
A further issue concerned the discrepancy between the amounts claimed by the claimant at different stages of the dispute. Counsel considered whether the claimant had provided sufficient evidence explaining the calculation of the alleged debt, including the relevant billing period, tariff rates applied and basis for the outstanding balance.
Counsel advised that the client’s position would depend upon obtaining clear documentary evidence demonstrating the agreed contractual tariff, payments made, meter readings provided and the claimant’s calculations of the alleged debt.
Counsel advised the client to obtain and review all invoices, account statements, correspondence and meter readings to establish whether the claimant had correctly calculated the charges. Counsel identified that the claimant would need to demonstrate how the outstanding balance had been calculated and that any discrepancy between invoices, the Alternative Dispute Resolution outcome and the court claim would need to be addressed.
Counsel advised that evidence should be prepared showing the client’s actual usage during the relevant period, including the fact that the premises had limited usage during part of the tenancy due to renovation works and the residential accommodation remaining unoccupied.
Counsel further advised that the client should continue to challenge the enforcement action by highlighting the ongoing dispute and the absence of a clear explanation from the claimant regarding the amount being pursued. The client was advised to prepare a detailed chronology of events, including dates of payments, meter readings, complaints raised and correspondence received from the claimant.
Counsel advised that further consideration would need to be given to the court proceedings once the claimant’s evidence and calculations had been reviewed. The client was advised that the key issue would be establishing whether the claimant had applied the correct tariff and whether the sums claimed were supported by accurate billing information.
The matter remained ongoing pending further review of the claimant’s evidence and determination of the disputed balance.
Call us – Mon-Fri 8:30am – 6:30pm
+44 (0) 20 3034 0077
By submitting this form, I accept this website’s Privacy Policy