Statement
As many
of you would have expected a new episode to have been published before now, I
am keen to provide an update:
I had
hoped this week’s expected episode would be published this evening following a Court Hearing earlier today in which The Court considered my “Recovery of Documents” application for
the “Client Instructions” issued to M Philip Knight (solicitor) by his client British Gas Trading Limited in November 2018 requiring him to advise The Court that a British Gas “Executive
Officer” was a “junior customer services manager”. For the avoidance of
doubt, British Gas completely denies
issuing such improper instructions.
Subsequent
to The Court listening to my
argument that Legal Professional Privilege
ceases to pertain if the “client instructions”
issued to counsel were “improper” – if the instructions required a solicitor to
provide demonstrably false and dishonest information to a jurist for example –
it became known to the Sheriff that
the act of advising his Court that a British Gas Executive Officer
was “a junior customer services manager” is, in fact, still
a live issue being considered by the Police
Investigations Review Commission
(PIRC).
This,
in the Sheriff’s opinion, has created a situation whereby the central issue of
a Civil Proceeding is also the
concern of a Criminal Inquiry and
that such a situation can only be addressed by postponing the Civil Proceeding. Accordingly, the Sheriff suspended today’s Hearing until August 17th. On
that date, The Court will reconvene
to consider my claim that to allow the Client
Instructions - which are the subject of a Recovery of Documents” application - to remain Privileged would be “to allow British Gas Trading Limited and it
outside counsel to avoid having the description of an Executive Officer’s as a junior customer services manager scrutinised, by simply blaming each other
for that blatantly inexact description.”
On the
same date, The Court will consider
another Recovery of Documents
application relating to the document averred to in last week’s Episode and which British Gas’ counsel
advised me his client had forwarded to Ombudsman
Services: Energy (OS) sometime prior to Nov 25 2016. During today’s Hearing Mr Knight apprised The Court that that application too,
would be “Opposed” on
the basis that his client is “no longer in possession of the document”.
Unsurprisingly perhaps, he did not assure The
Court that British Gas would
spend the upcoming period attempting to “locate”
a document advising a customer, “Ombudsman Services: Energy cannot help
with [his] complaint”. That it had a statutory duty to
inform him of the contrary, has no bearing on British Gas no longer being “in possession” of the
document; I’m sure!
In
addition to the above, I have, over the weekend, been contacted by an on old
friend and ex-colleague who, after reading of this matter in last week’s
newspapers, felt compelled to offer assistance by linking the Blog to his “Twitter Feed” and its 8,365 followers. Prior to doing so, however,
he requested I delay publishing Episode 6
in order that he can carefully read the Blog
in its entirety before “tweeting out”
the link.
Given the
above, I have decided to release this statement in lieu of Episode 6. If, of
course, there are any significant developments prior to the next episode – If PIRC, for example, decides that falsely informing a Scottish Sheriff that an Executive
British Gas Officer is a “junior
customer services manager” is a criminal
matter - I will publish that information immediately.
If British Gas denies issuing false instructions whilst it's outside council claims it did, why is police Scotland not finding out which of the two is lying? Or is sending clearly dishonest information to a Scottish sheriff no big deal?
ReplyDeleteNever mind Police Scotland! Where are the newspapers which were so keen only a week ago to tell us how you lost a legal battle with British Gas before then telling us you'd won!
ReplyDeleteFinding out who lied to a sheriff must be a much bigger story.!??
Firstly, don't get too close to the line. Remember I've agreed, and I've asked commentators for their support, not to call out British Gas and its (ex)counsel for blatant dishonesty on this Blog. That said, you both ask extremely important questions, my answers to which are:
ReplyDelete(1) It is a huge deal in this household where this country's Justice System is considered the most important civic institution of all.
(2) That is an incredibly important point because it's only after we find out whodunit, we can begin to work out "why" s/he done it.
This is not an Agatha Christie mystery, we know who done it. According to you he claims he done it at the behest of his client. At the school I went to that means they done it in consort. Which = a Conspiracy to Deceive charge
ReplyDeleteSimples!!!
It's now a full week since I asked if the MP had attempted to have OFGEM have another look at this shocking matter. Has he now done so?
ReplyDeleteNo but here's the email I sent to his secretary:
DeleteMorning Rona
As you will have seen in this week's Blog Post, British Gas are claiming that it "cannot locate" an important document which it produced for the stated purpose of "stopping a Formal Investigation into its business practices in Stornoway." Given that the 40+ constituent's who contacted their MP had their complaints dismissed because British Gas "could not find any record of their calling for access to its Sainsbury's tariff", can you assure me that Angus will formally request Ofgem re-investigate this matter predicated on this new development?
I would be most grateful if you could treat this as a formal request from a constituent and respond a soon as possible.
If you opt to ignore this request for assistance from a constituent, I will have no option but to contact the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
Thank you, Derek McPherson.
She did ignore it and I did, of course, contact the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (now that is a job). She told me that following an election victory an MP need do absolutely nothing or, in the case of ours, put all his efforts into his nocturnal activites (I specifically asked!) at the taxpayers expense and the only thing that can be done about it, can be done at the next available General Election!
What do you mean "nocturnal activities", are you implying that our relentlessly helpful MP has an evening job? If so, where is it? I really need a word!
ReplyDeleteGood Grief, I'd never suggest any such thing! Our MP having a job, Please? No I was suggesting he spends his time taking care of his own "needs" rather than those (very different needs) of his constituents! Of course, I only suggested that on the basis that he doesn't know I live at 9 Matheson Road, Stornoway. If he knew that, Gosh Almighty he'd be up here in a flash (no question about his cojones) and I'd be quite terrified. Well, not quite. Actually, not at all.
DeleteSurely Your MP must be under an obligation to respond to his constituents. Even if the constituent/request is unreasonable, he should still respond. Your email, on the other hand, is both reasonable as well as being directly related to the MPs letter to OFGEM. What has changed his attitude?
ReplyDeleteI'm not entirely sure what changed his attitude, but I'm going to find out! As to your assertion MPs "must be under an obligation...": Not they're not.
DeleteYou're right, they are not obliged even to acknowledge emails. I asked the MP over a week ago if he would demand OFGEM reinvestigate my complaint about British Gas refusing to let me onto a particular tariff. No Response!!!
DeleteI know it. However, I had a very interesting call with a senior SNP figure today who urged me to make one more attempt to get Angus MacNeil to come to his senses and act on behalf of his constituents. I'll do so first thing in the morning. If he does come to his senses, great. If he doesn't, he will assuredly, come to regret it.
Delete