British gas trading ltd company
You have exceeded the maximum number of login attempts for this email address and your account has been locked. An email has been sent to member of Browne Jacobson's web team and some one will be contacting you over the next two working days with details of how to change your password. Harassment — Protection from Harassment Act — unjustified bills and threatening letters. The Claimant had been a customer of the Defendant company but switched to another company.
She was sent bills which she said were unjustified. A series of letters were sent threatening legal proceedings and the cutting off of her gas supply. There were also threats that she would be reported to a credit rating agency. The Claimant contacted British Gas several times by letter and phoned them as well, but to no avail. The Claimant claimed that she had been harassed unlawfully, contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act The Defendant company argued that the conduct was not sufficiently serious because otherwise merely annoying or aggravating matters of everyday life would be criminalised.
The Claimant knew, or should have known that the correspondence was computer generated and not taken seriously as if to have come from an individual. Moreover, following Tesco Supermarkets v Nattrass the Claimant had to show that the course of conduct was directed by someone with sufficient seniority in the company as to amount to a controlling mind or that the conduct was the responsibility of an individual employee for whose act the company was vicariously liable.
Since neither particular was pleaded the claim had to fail. They applied to strike out. At first instance they were unsuccessful. They appealed to the Court of Appeal. It was one of the glories of this Country that every now and then one of its citizens was prepared to take a stand against the big battalions of Government or industry. The Court considered Lisa Ferguson, the Claimant in this case, to be such a person. In Majrowski and in Conn v Sunderland the Court had emphasised that for the purposes of the Act, harassment would be conduct of such gravity as justified the sanctions of the criminal law.
On the other hand, the Court noticed that in Allen v Suffolk, the Court of Appeal had refused to strike out a claim for harassment by a tenant who had been the victim of a number of wrongly issued possession proceedings. The Court accepted that a course of conduct had to be grave before the offence or tort of harassment was proved.
The only real difference between the crime under Section 2 and the tort under Section 3 was standard of proof. To prove the civil wrong of harassment it was necessary to prove the case on a balance of probabilities. To prove a crime the standard was the usual criminal one of being beyond a reasonable doubt.
It had never been suggested generally that the scope of a civil wrong was restricted because it was also a crime. What made the wrong of harassment different and special was that in life, as the Court had recognised, one has to put up with a certain amount of annoyance and that things have to be fairly severe before the law, civil of criminal, will intervene. If the test was one requiring gravity the Court was quite unable to conclude that to the impugned conduct was incapable of satisfying that test.
In contrast to the Sunderland case, the Court thought in these circumstances it might be entirely proper for a prosecutor such as a Trading Standards Officer, to bring criminal proceedings in respect of a case where there had been such a period of persistent conduct and such threats as had been pleaded. For the Defendant to say that the threats should not have been taken seriously was absurd. A victim of harassment would always know that it was unjustified.
The Act was there to protect people against unjustified harassment. The fact that the correspondence was computer generated was not relevant. Real people were responsible for programming and entering material into the computer. However, the provisions of the Trade Descriptions Act, which concerned the Nattrass case, and the Protection from Harassment Act were quite different. Moreover, the Court had become conscious during the Hearing that they had not had as full a citation of authority about corporate liability as might be appropriate.
A judicial assistant had been requested to look into the matter and had found a host of further post-Tesco v Nattrass material indicating quite strongly that it was a case confined to the language of the particular statute being considered. It was not appropriate on a strike out Application to analyse all of this material in detail. The Court was able at this stage only to provide a provisional response to this argument. The Court could not think of any policy reason why big corporations should be exonerated for conduct which, if carried out by an individual, would amount to harassment.
The twelve gas boards were: Each area board was divided into geographical groups or divisions which were often further divided into smaller districts. These boards simply became known as the "gas board", a term still sometimes used when referring to British Gas.
In addition, the Gas Act established the Gas Council , its constitution was such that control lay effectively with the area boards. The council consisted of a chair and deputy chair, both appointed by the minister, and the chairs of each of the twelve area boards.
The council served as a channel of communication with the minister; undertook labour negotiations; undertook research; and acted as spokesperson for the gas industry generally. The Gas Act shifted the balance of power to the centre: In the early s, the gas industry was again restructured after the Gas Act was passed. The act merged all the area boards and created the British Gas Corporation.
From its inception, the corporation was responsible for development and maintenance of the supply of gas to Great Britain, in addition to satisfying reasonable demand for gas throughout the country. Its leadership, like that of the area boards, was appointed and supervised by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry until , when those powers were vested in the newly created position of Secretary of State for Energy. The Conservative Government led by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher introduced the Gas Act , in which led to the privatisation of the company, and on 8 December , its shares floated on the London stock market as British Gas plc.
In the hope of encouraging individuals to become shareholders, the offer was advertised with the "If you see Sid The Gas Sales and Gas Trading and Services and Retail businesses, together with the gas production business of the North and South Morecambe gas fields, were transferred to Centrica , which continues to own and operate the British Gas retail brand.
British Gas is led by its Managing Director, Mark Hodges,  who oversees a business that provides energy and services to eleven million homes, and employs over 28, staff based across the United Kingdom. In May , British Gas signed a landmark deal which saw 1, Volkswagen Caddy vans being supplied to the firm, which were fitted with a bespoke racking system and a speed limiter, designed by Siemens.
In April , it was announced that , residential customers had left the company,  citing customers coming to the end of their fixed deals and then moving on to other suppliers as the main reason for this loss. In the same month April British Gas also announced they would be closing a call centre and office in Oldbury West Midlands , with a loss of approximately jobs . Its extensive television advertising has featured many high profile individuals, and in the early s, one advertisement included Cheryl Tweedy as a small child, more than ten years before the beginning of her pop music career.
In November , the Information Commissioner's Office publicly listed British Gas as one of a number of companies that it had concerns about due to unsolicited telephone calls for marketing. The concerns were based on complaints. In response, British Gas said that "We uphold the highest standards when contacting people in their homes, and only use contact information if we have express permission to do so.
British Gas is an energy supplier for homes across the country. The infrastructure pipes which delivers the gas to consumers is owned and maintained by other companies. They do not however manage the network of towers and cables that distributes electricity — these are maintained by distribution network operators DNOs which vary from region to region.
If, for instance, there is a power outage it is necessary to contact the appropriate DNO rather than the energy supplier. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. British Gas Trading Limited Type.