Thank you for your emails, would you be able to outline who you would like Kate to contact?
Thanks,
Keith
↓
Dear Ms Osborne/Mr. Chapman,
Re; Your question “…would you be able to outline who you would like Kate to contact?”
1) Regarding the question of the date that the Gateshead Housing Company/Gateshead Council were made aware that Northern PowerGrid’s 65 year old equipment posed a ‘danger to health or danger to life or limb from electric shock, burn, injury or mechanical movement to persons, livestock or domestic animals, or from fire or explosion,attendant upon the generation, transmission, transformation, distribution or use of energy‘(ESQC Regs 2002);
ANSWER; Given the fact that only the relevant companies are in possession of that information, then contacting the said companies and requesting that information would appear to be the logical course of action.
2) Regarding the established existence of an ‘agreement’ to deprive me of my legal entitlement of a connection to the local electricity network;
There is compelling evidence that the agreement must include, at the very least, SSE Ltd and Northern PowerGrid Ltd, for the simple reason that as SSE Ltd are bound by a statutory duty to provide a supply to my house, then SSE Ltd clearly does not, and never did, possess any lawful power to remove the supply to my house in breach of the duty to provide a supply.
However, in the email dated 18/02/20 SSE themselves confirm that ..”It was agreed at this time that… we [SSE] would remove the cabling completely.” and the actual work to remove the cabling was actioned and authorised by Northern PowerGrid Ltd, exercising powers entrusted to the distributor alone by Regulation 26(3), who were then obviously acting in the capacity of an agent of, and on behalf of, SSE Ltd. The question of whether there were any other parties to this ‘agreement ‘ is one that falls to be investigated. Having agreed to the statutory duty to provide a supply and to the terms of the Regulations, SSE Ltd cannot then possess an honest belief that they have a power to remove the cables supplying my house.
Given the fact that Northern PowerGrid are bound a statutory duty to provide me with a connection to the local electricity network, then the limited power to disconnect entrusted to Northern PowerGrid Ltd by Regulation 26(3) is purely for the purposes of protecting the general public and consumers from any..” danger to health or danger to life or limb from electric shock, burn, injury or mechanical movement to persons, livestock or domestic animals, or from fire or explosion attendant upon the generation, transmission, transformation, distribution or use of energy.” (ESQC Regs 2002), and is a TEMPORARY POWER, because Regulation 26(4) then imposes a statutory duty upon Northern PowerGrid to restore the disconnected connection as soon as is practical after the problem that was identified as posing a ‘danger’ is rectified. Regulation 26(4) specifically prohibits the distributor from abusing the entrusted temporary power.
The fact that I remain without a ‘reconnected connection’ some 197 days after the ‘temporary’ disconnection discloses a clear breach of Regulation 26(4) and is therefore an offence. Having agreed to the statutory duty to provide a connection to the local electricity network and to the terms of the Regulations Northern PowerGrid Ltd cannot then posses an honest belief that they have a power to remove the cables connecting my house to the local electricity network for 197 days in breach of the duty to provide such a connection.
In addition to following the procedure outlined in the regulation, distributors are required to report any faults, that create a serious risk to the health and safety of workers or members of the public, to the HSE, by virtue of the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work,etc Act 1974. The question of whether Northern PowerGrid has duly complied with this legal requirement is one I can not at this date comment upon.
In law, the existence of an ‘agreement’ to deprive me of my legal entitlement of a connection to the local electricity network comes under the remit of;
) conspiracy to defraud,
) conspiracy to commit fraud,
) misfeasance/misconduct in a public office,
) The Health and Safety at Work,etc Act 1974.
)conspiracy to defraud’ is a common law offence. It has no precise definition in statute (a piece of law created by parliament) but can be used to prosecute cases relating to a whole array of different facts. To understand what is meant by ‘conspiracy to defraud’, one must consider the case law (previously determined cases) where the judiciary have defined what it understood parliament’s intentions to be.
The offence has been defined in case law as:
Economic loss:“an agreement by two or more persons; natural or legal, by dishonesty to deprive a person of something which is his or to which he is or would be or might be entitled [or] an agreement by two or more by dishonesty to injure some proprietary right of his suffices to constitute the offence
And,
Non-economic loss: “an agreement to deceive a person into acting contrary to the duty he owes to his clients or employers”.
) conspiracy to commit fraud, in contrast to conspiracy to defraud, has been defined in statute and can be broken down into many parts. A ‘conspiracy’ in itself, is defined in the Criminal Law Act 1997. It can be summarised as, an agreement between people to commit an offence or offences. Whether that actual offence or offences is carried out, is irrelevant.
To agree to commit fraud, can be alleged by the prosecution in a number of different ways and the type of offences are covered under the Fraud Act 2006. This piece of legislation came into force on 15th January 2007 and not only helped fill a number of gaps in the law at that time, but also created additional offences. These offences are known as substantive offences
The three main offences it created were:
– Fraud by false representation
– Fraud by failing to disclose information
– Fraud by abuse of position
The Fraud Act 2006 also assisted in creating offences for those who may be found in possession of articles for the use in fraud(s) or making/supplying articles for the same use.
In addition, it helped to strengthen historic legislation in the tackling of fraudulent trading offences committed by companies and corporate bodies. Companies and corporate bodies are governed by the Companies Act 2006, in particular, section 993 – Offence of Fraudulent Trading;
993; Offence of fraudulent trading
(1)If any business of a company is carried on with intent to defraud creditors of the company or creditors of any other person, or for any fraudulent purpose, every person who is knowingly a party to the carrying on of the business in that manner commits an offence.
(2)This applies whether or not the company has been, or is in the course of being, wound up.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or a fine (or both);
(b)on summary conviction—
(i)in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);
(ii)in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both).
————————
ANSWER: I am afraid that the question of who you should contact when made aware of any offences is no longer a question for me to answer, but is a question of what the law requires of a Member of Parliament when he/she is made aware that such offences have been committed against one of his/her constituents.
Regards,
Ken May
↓
CHAPMAN, Keith <keith.chapman@parliament.uk>
Thu 23/04/2020 08:44
Thanks Ken, Kate will take this up further.
↓
Ken May
Tue 28/04/2020 07:38
Further clarification on the scope and remit of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974: Section 7;
The purpose of this section of the Act is stated as: …”protecting others against risks to their personal health or safety in connection with the activities of persons at work”
Section 7; General duties of employees at work.
‘It shall be the duty of every employee while at work…to take reasonable care for the health and safety….of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work; ‘
Section 33 Offences;
(1)’ It is an offence for a person…to fail to discharge a duty to which he is subject by virtue of section 7;’
All employee’s and ‘officers’ of SSE Ltd and Northern PowerGrid Ltd, being “ ..persons at work” for the purposes of Section 7, are therefore subject to the duty imposed by Section 7.
In accordance with Section 7, Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, ESQC Regulation 3(1)(b) places a general duty on distributors and suppliers to prevent interruption of supply, ‘ …so far as is reasonably practicable’.
In Ofgems Compliance_and Enforcement Report of Spring 2019 at page 15: Ofgem clearly explains to the distributors and suppliers that the personal health and safety of their customers is the reason why continuity of supply is important;
The issue and why it is important
2.58.Customers, particularly if they are vulnerable, may suffer real harm if they do not have gas or electricity to heat and light their home and cook their food.
[please see: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/system/files/docs/2019/09/compliance_and_enforcement_report_-_spring_2019.pdf ]
In it Open Letter on Regulatory Compliance 03/2014 Ofgem clearly identifies who is legally responsible, and thus legally liable, for the compliance with the statutory duty to prevent interruption of supply;
Compliance principles;
Principle 1 – Responsibility for regulatory compliance rests entirely with the boards of directors of the companies that we regulate.
[please see- https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/2014/03/open_letter_on_regulatory_compliance_28_march_2014_0.pdf ]
Regards,
Ken May
↓
Ken May
Wed 29/04/2020 08:49
Dear Ms Osborne/Mr. Chapman,
Further clarification on the scope and remit of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
Section 37; Offences by bodies corporate.
(1)Where an offence under any of the relevant statutory provisions committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to have been attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(2)Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, the preceding subsection shall apply in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body corporate.
SCHEDULE 3A; Paragraph 1;
1. The mode of trial and maximum penalty applicable to each offence;
Offence;
An offence under section 33(1)(a) consisting of a failure to discharge a duty to which a person is subject by virtue of section 7.
Mode of trial
Summarily or on indictment.
Penalty on summary conviction
Imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or a [fine not exceeding the statutory maximum][fine], or both.
Penalty on conviction on indictment
Imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or a fine, or both
Regards,
Ken May.
↓
RE; CHAPMAN, Keith <keith.chapman@parliament.uk>
Thu 23/04/2020 08:44
Thanks Ken, Kate will take this up further.
Ken May
Fri 01/05/2020 07:17
Dear Ms Osborne/Mr. Chapman,
As this matter concerns my personal health and safety, could you please provide me with an update on your progress to help me remedy the legal wrongs I have suffered?
Thank you,
Ken May.
↓
CHAPMAN, Keith <keith.chapman@parliament.uk>
Fri 01/05/2020 13:17
Having looked at the matter I have been advised that the next course of action is through the Ombudsman. Kate can assist you with this. Have you been in touch with them direct?
Thanks,
Keith
↓
Ken May
Sun 03/05/2020 07:37
Dear Ms Osborne/Mr. Chapman,
Can you please identify the source of the advice you are following?
Regards,
Ken May.
↓
CHAPMAN, Keith <keith.chapman@parliament.uk>
Mon 04/05/2020 11:57
In the responses Kate has so far received from Gateshead Council and SSE Ltd it stated that the next course of action was the ombudsman. Just wanted to know if you have been in touch with them. Kate has made further contact with Gateshead Council and will also contact the Chief Executive of the Northern Powergrid, for further investigation.
Thanks,
Keith
↓
↓
CHAPMAN, Keith <keith.chapman@parliament.uk>
Fri 22/05/2020 09:06
Hi Ken,
Got this email from the Managing Director of Gateshead Council, which sets out what support they can offer you at this time. Would you be able to let me know if this is ok? If it is then let me know as soon as you can and I will make arrangements for the Council to contact you direct then we will see what happens from there.
Thanks,
Keith
Hello Keith
Can you please ask again if Mr May would be willing to make contact with us direct in order that we can start to try and work with him and least explore what is possible to help with his circumstances. If that was possible then Shirley Goody here would be very willing to try and explore what we can do to help and support Mr May. As an alternative – although it may prove difficult to arrange in the current circumstance we would be willing to explore if there are options available that could include asking a voluntary agency to work alongside Mr May and ourselves to help. If Mr May thinks this might help then we could see what we could establish.
Best wishes
Neil Bouch
Interim Managing Director
Gateshead Council
↓
Hi Keith,
That’s strange.
S. Goody has already made contact last week. [see attached letter]
A legal reminder that I am being investigated, no offers of help or support.
Thank you for your efforts, but I will pass on this sort of contact, I’ve got enough to worry about.Cheers,
Ken May.
↓
CHAPMAN, Keith <keith.chapman@parliament.uk>
Fri 22/05/2020 16:27
thebedroomtaxblues 