Court Decision.

Advisory

As per Thursday’s statement on the continuation of this Blog: The “form” of the remaining Episodes will not accord with the description given in the Introductory (25/4/20). The remaining Episodes, in strict compliance with a Judge’s Orders,will merely publish information sent to me by British Gas, its agents and other entities. Any comment provided thereafter will be in strict compliance with legally defined rules on the right to make Fair Comment.

This Episode concerns British Gas’ response to having one of its Executive Agents cited to appear in court as a witness.

Episode 2.

(Best read “Objectively)

a)      Ms K White the junior customer services manager.

b)     Subjective reading: Who knew?

c)      The Legal requirement for double speak.

d)     Truth writ Large!

The letter below is a highlighted extract of a missive which Mr P Knight, outside counsel to British Gas Trading Limited forwarded to Stornoway Sheriff Court on November 2 2018 for the stated purpose of convincing the sitting Sheriff [Gordon Fleetwood], to “dismiss the attendance” of  British Gas agent Ms White as a witness at an upcoming Hearing. After a brief description of the to and fro subsequent to Ms White being cited as a witness, Mr Knight begins the third paragraph with an exclamatory sentence advising the Sheriff of the specific reasons Ms White should be “dismissed”. One of those stated reasons is the novel assertion that because Ms White – like the vast majority of people called to provide testimony under oath – was nervous about the prospect, she should not have to attend. Had that plea been successful, it could be argued, it may have had an impact on any future legal proceeding involving the necessity for witnesses to be called.

Of rather more significance, however, is the sentence’s declamatory principle clause. The declamation therein, is that Ms White’s position within British Gas is that of a, “junior customer services manager”. The author goes on to say that this should be sufficient reason for the Sheriff to “dismiss” her as witness. Although unusual, it could also be argued that a “junior customer services manager” - as opposed to an Executive Officer for example –should be “dismissed” as a witness because she would not have access to the same high-level company information which would be required to satisfy a well-informed inquisitor.

This is exactly what British Gas’ counsel did request.

Below is a verbatim extract of the “Letter to The Court” British Gas’ counsel forwarded on November 2^nd 2018:

2 November 2018

For the Attention of the Sheriff Clerk

Stornoway Sheriff Court

Sheriff Court House

9 Lewis Street

Stornoway

HS12JF

.

Dear Sirs,

John Macritchie v Centrica (STO-SM1-17)

We write with regard to the above case, and in relation to the citation of Ms Kathy White, by the Claimant, to attend the evidential hearing scheduled for 10 December 2018. We wish to inform the Sheriff of the below at this early stage, and request that the Sheriff dismiss the attendance of Ms White.

We have explained to the Claimant's representative Mr McPherson, in the letter attached, that Ms White will be unable to provide answers to questions relevant to any of the contentious matters pled by the Claimant in this case. Ms White does not handle customer accounts nor the allocation of tariffs. Ms White did not become involved with the Claimant's account until after a complaint was raised at Executive level and thereafter in her role she responded on behalf of Centrica with information provided to her. Ms White's involvement with the Claimant's account started sometime after the pleaded events took place and the Claimant's action does not refer to the complaint process. Despite this, Mr McPherson is insisting the citation of Ms White remain, and that she attend the hearing to give evidence.

Ms White (a) is a junior customer services manager within the Respondent, cannot provide direct evidence on the issues pled and is finding the content of correspondence from Mr McPherson and the process of being cited as a witness incredibly challenging, distressing and stressful. We can confirm that the Respondent will in any event be producing a more senior employee, Richard Burnell, as a witness to the evidential hearing, who will be able to attest to each of the contentious arguments raised by the Claimant. Mr Burnell is a Manager in the Energy Investigations, UK Regulatory in the Legal & Regulatory Affairs Team…

The emails below are from the “junior customer services manager” referred to in the above letter. They were sent to Angus Brendan MacNeil MP.

Readers may wish to attend to the job-title (my highlights) Ms White appends to all her emails immediately below her signature.

 
From: White, Kathryn
Sent: 12 June 2017 14:45
To: MACNEIL, Angus <angus.macneil.mp@parliament.uk>
Subject: Sainsbury's Energy -complaints from your constituents

Dear Mr MacNeil

Thank you for your recent letter regarding the letter sent by our Managing Director, Mark Hodges dated 11 May 2017.  As I’ve been corresponding directly with your constituents (as referenced in your letter) regarding these complaints, I’ve been asked to contact you with an update, on his behalf…

 …Please let me know if this email raises any further concerns or if you need more information.  I hope we’ll be able to bring these complaints to a close for you very soon.

Best Wishes,   

Kathy White | Senior Customer Manager | Executive Office |( 01784 874797 | British Gas  

___________________________________

From: Executive Office
Sent: 6 April 2017 14:50
To: MACNEIL, Angus
Subject: Stornoway Tariff Complaints

Dear Mr MacNeil

Further to the recent complaints you've sent us regarding the tariffs available to our customers on Stornoway, I'd like to assure you we're reviewing each account to send a personal response to the customers that have contacted you.
As we've received a number of complaints from you for both our residential and business customers, I hope you'll allow us a little longer than usual to respond. We will, of course, write to you to confirm the resolution that's been offered to all the customers that have been in touch once we've written to them. This should be with you within the next 14 days.
If you need any further help or advice in the meantime, just let us know.

Kathy White
Senior Customer Manager
Executive Office

From: White, Kathryn
Sent: 27 April 2018 14:56
To: MACNEIL, Angus
Subject: RE: EXT (Case Ref: AM1660) LPG customers Stornoway

Dear Mr MacNeil

Thank you for your email to our Managing Director, Mark Hodges. This has been passed to me and I’ve been asked to respond on his behalf...
I note also, your request that we correspond directly with your constituents when you contact us on their behalf. I’d like to assure you that we are also keen to meet your constituents [sic] expectations and will be happy to do so.
Thank you once again for getting in touch with us,

Kathy White
Senior Customer Manager
Executive Office

  

As a matter of fact all of Ms White’s emails from at least 2017 conclude in this fashion. All of them! What caught my attention in these emails, was the notable difference between Ms White’s personally stated position within British Gas and that ascribed to her by her employer’s counsel in his letter to the Sheriff. Having read them carefully, I did contemplate the possibility that Ms White had “inflated” her position?  On reflection, however, I did not think that likely. My view – honestly held and based on the letter Mr Knight sent to The Court - was that Mr Knight’s description of her position was “technologically inexact”. Given so, I complained to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission about what I considered to be a “dishonest assertion by British Gas’ outside counsel.” Indeed, I went further: I complained that Mr Knight had “attempted to deceive a Sheriff”, which should be formally investigated. Importantly, I only made a complaint after suggesting to Mr Knight that he contact The Court with a corrective. He opted not to do so, advising me thus:

 “…As previously discussed, I act on instruction from British Gas Trading Limited.”

 I was most surprised. I didn’t think Scottish Solicitors were allowed to accept “improper” instructions. In fact I was so convinced they could not, I filed a Motion to Disqualify Mr Knight a short time later at a Court Hearing. My Motion was dismissed after Mr Knight, in response, assured the Sheriff that he was

“…[ he was] only trying to show that Ms White had a relatively junior position – I was trying to show that she was not at the highest level, at the CEO level, at British Gas…”

This too surprised me, not least since I could find no mention of the term “relatively junior” in Mr Knight’s letter. I wrote to Mr Knight the following day to advise him I that I had made a record of his response to my Motion to Disqualify and that it did not accord with the response he issued to me previously. In a response letter (author unknown) from his employer, I was advised thus:

 “Mr Knight is unable to remember the precise wording [he] provided to the Sheriff…”

Fortunately, I did record his “words”; verbatim.  More significantly, however, Mr Knight’s law firm further advised me: “[you said]…Mr Knight claimed to be acting on client instruction. This is indeed correct.”

Unfortunately, if it was “correct” nobody had informed Mr Alistair Pearson, British Gas’ Head of Executive Complaints because just over a week later, he assured me, British Gas had not instructed Mr Knight to do any such thing.

But let’s not get bogged down in tedious detail. Here’s what’s important: The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission deemed my complaint to be “totally without merit”. The following is an extract from the Investigation Officers’ legal analysis of why, it was totally without merit:

  

 The SLCC considers that, on (b) a subjective reading of the letter, the relevant passage refers to Ms X’s relative seniority within the organisation and not necessarily her job title. Regardless of whether or not the practitioner had knowledge of Ms X’s job title, this would be a statement of opinion rather than fact and it therefore would not be false or misleading for him to refer to her as (c) “junior customer services manager.” The practitioner does not (d) capitalise “junior customer services manager” and the letter does not otherwise suggest that this is her official job title.

Mea Culpa! I was completely unaware of these arcane legal niceties!

My (Lame!) Excuses:

(b) I genuinely did not know, and still do not know (and thank God none of the Schools, Universities or FE Colleges that employed me as an English Language Specialist ever discovered this) how to “read subjectively”! When I read a letter which declares: “Ms X is a ”junior services customer manager”, I simply accept that Ms X’s job is that of a “junior customer services manager”.

(c) Worse, I always thought that in order to convey, either orally or in writing, the fact that someone’s position is “relatively junior” it was necessary to use a term such as “relatively junior”. Wrong again!

(d) As to the information not being “capitalised”: The fact that I was not aware that (possibly inexact) information had to be capitalised in order to be deemed, legally inaccurate, can be simply explained: I have not been schooled in the Law. Neither was I aware of any rule which demands a writer must declaim a person’s position severally, before the reader can be assured of that description. That I did not know.

For those skipping to the conclusion, here it is:

When British Gas’ outside counsel informed The Court that the British Gas Executive Officer and Senior Customer Manager Ms K White was a “junior customer services manager” in order to have her “dismissed” from attending court as a witness, he was not, as I incorrectly – but without malice - asserted in my complaint, being dishonest or attempting to “deceive” a Scottish Sheriff. For the avoidance of doubt, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission in a formal written adjudication (see above) declared Mr Knight was, not guilty of “dishonesty”.

So here’s the Good News: Next time you find yourself writing to a Sheriff to provide him/her with information which may thereafter be considered inexact, remember this:

1.      Don’t use CAPITALS!

2.      Only proffer the possible contentious information ONCE!

3.      If queried: Asseverate the information was meant to be read SUBJECTIVELY!

Alas, the Bad News:

This Scottish Legal Complaints Commission legal analysis is, I understand, applicable only to solicitors, lawyers, advocates et al and not the General Public.

New Petition. Please sign:

http://chng.it/dCMgZ7ct

Next Week: The huge costs British Gas agents claim it is required to pay to transport Propane Gas to its Piped Propane customers. 

And who really pays!