Background
A corporate client faced a dispute with an energy supplier over the recovery of costs associated with electricity theft at a commercial property. Our client let a large industrial unit to tenants. The property be - came occupied by people who operated an illegal cannabis farm from it. The electricity meter and supply were tampered with to steal electricity costing approximately £190,000 from neighbouring land. The energy supplier attempted to hold our client responsible for that theft, despite acknowledging that the client did not commit the theft.
No substantive response to the correspondence sent by Sarju was ever received from the supplier’s solicitors, who instead sought to threaten an application to the Court for pre-action disclosure unless various documents and information were provided. The threat of pre-action disclosure under CPR 31.16 was countered robustly on the basis that the criteria for pre-action disclosure of documents had not been met, the client was not the perpetrator of the theft, and the supplier had not identified any legal basis to hold the client liable. Money taken by the supplier was recovered using the bank’s direct debit guarantee, and the matter did not proceed any further.
Key Issues
An energy supplier cannot recover costs from anyone other than the actual perpetrator of the theft, where the electricity is being taken from outside the actual premises. This is pur - suant to statutory, regulatory and contractual obligations of the supplier. Additionally, the supplier is obliged to act in a fair, transparent, and professional manner in dealing with electricity theft.
Conclusion
Harold Benjamin Solicitors successfully defended the client against the energy supplier’s disproportionate and unjustified actions. By emphasising regulatory obligations, challenging inappropriate conduct, and demanding proper legal procedures be followed, the team ensured that the client’s rights were protected.
Action taken by Harold Benjamin Solicitors
The supplier’s conduct was highlighted with attention drawn to the distress caused by the supplier’s recovery agent and the inappropriate attempt to withdraw a large sum from the client’s bank account via direct debit. Sarju Kotecha, acting in this matter, asserted in correspondence that the supplier’s actions were contrary to its regulatory duties and the principles of fair and reasonable conduct. Specialist Counsel’s advice demonstrated that the supplier’s claim lacked merit.
sarju.kotecha@haroldbenjamin.com
Connect with Sarju
Find out more about Dispute Resolution
HAROLDBENJAMIN.COM
33
Made with FlippingBook. PDF to flipbook with ease