UtilitiesADR Adjudicator George Harrington's - "Investigation" of Gaslighting by British Gas. Please Judge it For Yourself. Feel Free to Comment.

The UtilitiesADR Adjudicator, George Harrington came to the following flawed and disappointing decision in my complaint against British Gas: "IN THE MATTER OF A DETERMINATION UNDER THE RULES OF THE UTILITIESADR SCHEME BETWEEN: STEVE GILBERT Claimant -and- BRITISH GAS Respondent FINAL DETERMINATION Purchase 1. On 9th December 2021, the Respondent’s engineer failed to attend the Claimant’s property to complete an Annual Service his boiler (“the Service”). Reference to Adjudication 2. Disputes and differences have arisen between the parties which, being unable to resolve amicably, they have agreed to refer to adjudication under the UtilitiesADR Scheme Rules 2021 (“the Scheme Rules”). The Scheme Rules provide for determination by documents only. 3. It was determined that the complaint fell within the UtilitiesADR Jurisdiction (as defined with the Scheme Rules). Information and Evidence 4. I have relied upon the information and documentation supplied by both the Claimant and the Respondent, as contained on the UtilitiesADR portal, as at the date of this determination, which I have fully reviewed. Reasons for Decision 5. The Reasons upon which this Decision are based are set out and annexed to this Decision and form part of the Decision. 2 Decision 6. I NOW, having carefully considered the evidence and written submissions of the parties, HEREBY DECIDE AND DIRECT as follows: i. The Claimant’s claim fails. " MADE AND PUBLISHED on 21st July 2022. By George Harrington at UtilitiesADR, 12/14 Walker Avenue, Stratford Office Village, Wolverton Mill, Milton Keynes MK12 5TW. "3 REASONS These Reasons are given with and form part of this Determination Generally 1. The Claimant has set out his claim fully within the information and documentation provided. I have of course read all the documents submitted by both parties, but I do not need to deal with each and every dispute of fact in this Decision." George Harrington may well have read all the documents submitted to him but the question raised by the decision he arrived at is: how carefully? I strongly disagree with his claim not to have needed to deal with each and every dispute of fact because it has led to his questionable decision in my case. A case of Gaslighting by British Gas. The point I wish to make is that as an UtlitiesADR Adjudicator, he really does need to deal with the deliberate and repeated gaslighting by British Gas employees and the extremely worrying safeguarding issue of British Gas having no idea where their contractors are or what they claim to be doing otherwise these unacceptable practices will continue. These issues have been brought to his attention. The UtilitiesADR organisation cannot simply ignore them. His decision in my case will simply reinforce what British Gas are already doing and getting away with. Action needs to be taken to protect consumers. 1) The extremely serious issue of Gaslighting by British Gas has not been adequately addressed by this Adjudicator. That in itself could be considered to be Gaslighting and it surely impacted on the derisory amount of money offered by British Gas as "compensation." An amount George Harrington regarded as being, "reasonable in all the circumstances." 2) The equally serious issue of safeguarding - and the total lack of it in this case - has also been glossed over. My friends and family were outraged by the knowledge that British Gas did not now were their so-called "trusted" contractors were 100% of the time (or what they fraudulently claimed to be doing). Somewhat worryingly, this Adjudicator wasn't. If he had been then his decision would have been different. But it wasn't. "UtilitiesADR adjudications are intended to be a simple, cost effective way of resolving disputes. " 3) Surely, UtilitiesADR adjudications must be fair, just and reasonable in all the circumstances. Not a rubber stamp for appalling working practices. This has indeed been "cost effective" for the Gaslighters at British Gas. How much would a solicitor charge for this letter? The point I've been trying to make is until such adjudications are "cost effective" for complainants, British Gas have absolutely no incentive to improve the way they operate. "2. The parties must understand how an Adjudicator approaches this type of dispute, which is no different in its essential elements from the approach which a judge would adopt in a Court of Law. UtilitiesADR adjudications are not however intended to be dealt with as strictly as if they were High Court or County Court litigation." 4) This is contradictory. If the approach adopted by an UtilitiesADR Adjudicator is not as strict as that of a judge in a Court of Law, then it is inadequate. Sadly for the victims of injustice, proof of its inadequacy can be found in the way the decision in my case was arrived at. "3. It is commonplace in such adjudications that conflicts of evidence arise, and the mere fact that the Adjudicator finds in favour of one party on a particular issue, does not mean that the other is deliberately telling an untruth." ​5) This is an example of accepting second best as being good enough. It isn't. It leads to poor decision making, injustice and the maintenance of a pro-business, pro-low standards status quo. It is now 226 days since I was told there was someone in my home servicing a boiler and carrying out a repair when all the time there wasn't. 226 days since I demanded to know where this "trusted" contractor was. 226 days since the "trusted contractor" had had no time to forget where he was or what he was doing because I had asked his managers where he'd gotten to within minutes of his not getting to me. All of this has been ignored by the UtilitiesADR Adjudicator because according to him this, "does not mean the other is deliberately telling an untruth." This adjudication is so slack as to be unjust. After being repeatedly gaslighted by British Gas and then given a ludicrous explanation for the "trusted contractor's'" dodgy memory and even dodgier equipment - the Adjudicator determines that an "apology" is sufficient. He might have convinced himself, "that it won't happen again" but I haven't and neither have my friends or family. "Reasons for Decision The Law 1. I note that the date of purchase was after October 2015. This means that the applicable law to consider is the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“the Act”). 2. This complaint relates to the service provided by the Respondent. In this respect, the Act provides: a. that services must be carried out with ‘reasonable care and skill’ (Section 49);" 6) British Gas​ and it's "trusted contractor" repeatedly tried to convince me that the non-existent service had been caried out, "with reasonable care and skill." Because of the UtilitiesADR Adjudicator's less than strict approach to the facts he was able to determine that a later apology - after they'd been caught out at British Gas - was appropriate. This ruling puts at risk thousands of British Gas customers. It exposes them to fraud and the mental suffering caused by being Gaslighted by British Gas employees. No, and apology is not sufficient. Things need to change. And quickly. A lackadaisical UtilitiesADR Adjudicator is not going to be the person to bring that urgent change about. He was apparently content to be merely following slack orders. "b. that anything said or written to the consumer by the Trader, that the consumer takes account of when agreeing to enter into the contract, will be taken to form part of the contract (subject to being able to prove that such words were said or written) (Section 50); c. that, where no price is fixed for the service, the consumer shall only be obliged to pay a ‘reasonable price’ (Section 51); and d. that, where a time for completion of the service is not agreed, the service will be provided within a ‘reasonable amount of time’ (Section 52). 4 3. In circumstances where it is determined that any of the provisions of the Act have been breached, the trader has an obligation to provide the appropriate remedy, such as providing the service again, remedying the part of the service that fell below the standard or providing the consumer with a full or partial refund. " 7) What is, "a reasonable price?" What is, "a reasonable amount of time?" And is it reasonable for British Gas and the UtilitiesADR Adjudicator to determine this between themselves without any input from consumers? No, it isn't. The applicable remedy will depend on the circumstances. Claimant’s position 4. The Claimant’s position is set out within the UtilitiesADR portal. In summary, the Claimant’s issues are: a) The Claimant states that the Respondent failed to keep an appointment to service his new boiler on 9 th December 2021. He complained to the Respondent about this on the same. 8) That should say, "day." "b) The Claimant states that 55 days into his complaint he was cold-called by Chicka Robert and told that someone has indeed serviced his boiler on 09th December 2021." 9) Why did Chicka Robert wait 55 days before phoning me to tell me someone had indeed serviced my boiler on the 9th December 2021 when a) they hadn't and b) the information on her computer said otherwise? Information which had been provided to George Harrington. 10) Why hasn't the Utilities Adjudicator commented on this? This was deliberate Gaslighting by a British Gas employee. "c) The Claimant states that he phoned the Respondent the next day and was told by two complaints handlers that someone from the Respondent had serviced his boiler on 09th December 2021. He disagreed and averred that no-one from the Respondent had been in his home on that day. The Respondent maintained that his boiler was serviced on that date and that a small repair had been carried out. The Claimant states that he disagreed and told the Respondent that this was ‘gaslighting’. " 11) This is deliberate Gasghting by two more of British Gas' employees. Why hasn't the Utilities Adjudicator passed a judgement on this when quite clearly there was a deliberate strategy by British Gas to Gaslight me? Gaslighting is not fair or reasonable in any circumstance. "d) The Claimant states that he spoke with the Respondent’s Julie Olsen Gas who told him that from the records on her screen that a) he was phoning the Respondent at the same time as the contractor claimed to be servicing his boiler" 12) The Adjudicator completely ignores the importance of this - that Julie Olsen could see that I was telling the truth but that her colleagues had insisted someone was in my home servicing/fixing a boiler when this was obviously not the case. Why? Is it because for him to accept that I was being "Gaslite" he would have had to have accepted the amount of compensation I was being offered was derisory? Someone needs to ask him.​ "b) through "CHAT" had been forced to book another appointment which was also not honoured and had complained c) emailed a complaint to the Respondent at 18.48 on 9 th December 2021. The Claimant states that he added ‘gaslighting’ to his complaint. " 13) I have been repeatedly Gaslighted by British Gas employees and have attempted to raise this a part of my complaint to the UtilitiesADR. It has been completely ignored. Why? "e) The Claimant states that he also added the serious problem of safeguarding to the complaint: a) the Respondent does not know where their engineers/contractors are 100% of the time. b) Do not know with 100% certainty what work their contractors have carried out c) Need to explain fraudulent claims made by contractors for appointments/work claimed for but not carried out." 14) These facts have been completely ignored by the UtilitiesADR Adjudicator. Why? By refusing to comment on these serious matters the Adjudicator would appear to be condoning them. This isn't justice. "f) The Claimant states that given his previous experience of gaslighting by the Respondent's debt collectors on 07th December 2020 when he received a letter from Ashleigh Harlin claiming that he had "no reasonable reason" for not paying an invoice of £3.122.50 for his new boiler installation, he was able to show the Respondent he paid the bill within five days of its receipt." 15) I included this important detail because I believe it is illustrative of the culture of Gaslighting that is allowed to flourish at British Gas. The Adjudicator's stony silence on the matter is deeply concerning. "g) The Claimant is seeking compensation for two missed appointments and £30.00 per appointment for not being paid on time £120.00 and £20800 for ‘Gaslighting’. " 16) This is not quite true. I have tried to bring to the attention of the UtilitiesADR Adjudicator the following: Gaslighting is to be found at both British Gas and its debt collection law firm. That customer complaints numbers are shockingly high. That if there is to be significant and meaningful change at British Gas, its approach to compensation needs to be seriously overhauled. If a solicitor is able to Gaslightlight me and get away with an "apology" then that needs to end. One way of ending it is to pay British Gas customers solicitor's-fees compensation. This has been totally ignored by the Adjudicator. "5 Respondent’s position 5. The Respondent’s position is set out within the UtilitiesADR portal. In brief: a) The Respondent submits that its position has been set out in the Final Response Letter issued to the Claimant on 22 nd February 2022. b) The Respondent notes that the Claimant is unhappy that the Respondent’s engineer failed to arrive as planned on 9 December 2021 to service the boiler. In addition, when the Claimant contacted them to discuss his concerns, their advisors informed him that their systems confirmed the visit had taken place and the service had been completed. The Claimant informed the advisors that no engineer had arrived and asked for clarification on the whereabouts of the engineer on 9 December 2021. As the Claimant did not receive a response to the concerns raised, as the case was still under investigation, he escalated matters to his local MP, Luke Pollard, who asked that the Respondent review matters." 17) The UtilitiesADR Adjudicator has omitted the issues of; fraud, safeguarding and Gaslighting. Is this a serious investigation of a complaint or an exercise in whitewashing? "c) The Respondent notes that during their conversations with the Claimant that they have apologised for the worry and concern this matter has caused. They accepted that the level of service had fallen below the level that they aim to achieve and confirmed that they had spoken with the engineer concerned, to gain a better understanding of what had happened on 9 December 2021. " 18) There is no mention of Gaslighting and the Adjudicator hasn't commented on British Gas' statement that they didn't consider the Gaslighting to actually be: Gaslighting. Which is illustrative of the depth of the problem both at British Gas and at the UtilitiesADR offices. "d) The Respondent explained that the engineer who reported he had visited the Claimant was a trusted contractor, and that whilst he was not able to recall the specific appointment, due to the time that had elapsed, the only conclusion he could reach was that he made an error when updating his appointment reports, or a technical fault affected his submitting the report." 19) The Adjudicator states that he read the evidence submitted to him. Evidence that quite clearly states - and is corroborated by Julie Olsen - that at the same time as the "trusted contractor" claimed to be in my home servicing my boiler I was on the phone asking British Gas where their trusted contractor had gotten to. Certainly not my home. With such a low evidential bar in the court of UtilitiesADR, the Adjudicatorappears to have swallowed this baloney hook, line and sinker. "e) The Claimant has explained that this matter has been both time consuming and stressful, and the Respondent does understand how this situation has made him feel. " 20) This is nonsense and the UtilitiesADR Adjudicator has not only fallen for it but seems to be complicit in its maintenance. If British Gas understood how this situation had made me feel they wouldn't have denied that what they were doing was Gaslighting and George Harrington wouldn't have omitted, it from the evidence he claims to have read. "However, the Respondent feels it is important to confirm that the contractor in question, has been with the company for several years, and they have no reason to believe that the appointment record was deliberately falsified. They are confident that following conversations with their contractor that this situation will not occur again." 21) George Harrington, what happened on 9th December 2021? You claim to have investigated these events. Where was the contractor in question? What was he doing? If he can't remember what he was doing 5 minutes ago why are you so confident that, "this situation will not occur again?" "f) The Respondent has confirmed that they are in agreement that no engineer visit took place on 9 December 2021 and have offered their apologies for the inconvenience caused and acknowledged that they did not arrive on two separate occasions to complete the service and repair. In view of this, the Respondent has provided a gesture of £150.00, which they feel adequately reflects the situation the Claimant encountered. " 22) The "gesture" of £150.00p does not adequately reflect the situation I encountered. Please see 16 above. "g) Whilst the Respondent understands the Claimant’s disappointment with them, they do not agree that the term gas lighting reflect the events. They state that they have made honest mistakes, which they have openly accepted and are attempting to correct them. Their staff have apologised multiple times, which they feel is the very opposite of dishonesty." 23) George Harrington, the Respondent does not understand my disappointment with them because if they did they would not have denied that telling me, their customer, that there was a contractor in my home servicing a boiler when there wasn't, amounted to: Gaslighting. 24) If British Gas are being honest then where was their contractor on the 9th of December 2021 and what was he doing? Honestly, he wasn't there servicing my boiler. 25) They have also not apologised for still not telling me where their trusted contractor was. Which would appear to be the very opposite of honesty. I'm surprised you didn't spot it when investigating my complaint. "6 h) The Respondent confirms that the service and remedial work have now been completed. Claimant’s Comments 6. The Claimant has submitted additional comments, which I have fully considered as part of my review of his complaint." 26) Having fully considered my additional comments on; safeguarding, Gaslighting and fraud how did they influence your review of my complaint? You didn't bother to tell me. "Burden of proof 7. In all legal disputes, whether they are dealt with by the courts or via alternative dispute resolution, one party has the obligation of proving the case. This is known as the ‘Burden of Proof’. 8. The party that has the Burden of Proof must prove, on the balance of probabilities (meaning that it is more likely than not) that its position is correct. 9. In respect of the supply of services contracts, the burden of proving that the service did not meet the statutory rights set out under the Act rests with the Claimant. Issue(s) to be determined 10. The issue for me to determine is: i) What Remedy the Claimant is entitled to (“Issue 1”) Issue 1 11. In circumstances where it is determined that any of the provisions of the Act have been breached, the trader has an obligation to provide the appropriate remedy, such as providing the service again, remedying the part of the service that fell below the standard or providing the consumer with a full or partial refund. The applicable remedy will depend on the circumstances." 27) As UtilitiesADR Adjudicator are you saying that it is acceptable for British Gas to repeatedly Gaslight a customer when not supplying them with a service? Or have I failed your, "Burden of proof" test? You don't say how you arrived at your conclusion. It seems to have come out of thin evidential air. This is not acceptable. "12. The Respondent has confirmed that the service and remedial work have now been completed. The Claimant has not refuted this so I will treat this as a correct statement of fact." 28) What you appear not to have taken into consideration is that if I had not refused to be repeatedly Gaslite by British Gas employees I would have been the victim of fraud. I would have been conned into paying for a service I hadn't received. "13. The Claimant was clearly upset by the Respondent’s repeated failure to acknowledge that the service had not taken place on 9th December 2021. This, in itself, would have caused further understandable frustration. However, the Respondent has since apologised for the experience and service received and accepted that the visit to service the Claimant’s boiler did not take place on 9th December 2021." 29) This is not correct. The Respondent refused to accept that their shocking practice of repeatedly telling a customer that their contractor was in the customer's home carrying out work when the truth of the matter was, he wasn't - amounted to Gaslighting and fraud. They got caught out. They then eventually "apologised". It's an apology issued under duress. I means nothing. "They have further accepted that they did not arrive on two separate occasions to complete the service and confirmed that the engineer who was due to attend on 9th December 2021 7 had been spoken to. Following this, the Respondent has offered assurances to the Claimant that the engineer did not deliberately falsify the records." 30) This is an organisation that denies it Gaslights its customers. It's assurances are hardly reassuring. Why? because I still have no idea where their contractor was or what he was doing on 9th December 2021. You appear to believe this is acceptable. "14. In relation to the Claimant’s claim of compensation, the Claimant has not proven any losses as a result of financial detriment. However, I note the Respondent has provided a goodwill payment of £150.00 to the Claimant in recognition of the two missed appointments and the customer service received. I consider this is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances." 31) The standards you work to are abysmal. £150,00p for being subjected to repeated Gaslighting, missed appointments and the hours and hours it took to complain is not fair and is not reasonable in any circumstance. "15. As the Claimant has failed to secure a remedy above that which was offered by the Respondent, I determine that the Claimant’s claim fails." 32) This is totally absurd. The logic behind this is that British Gas will continue to gaslight their customers, subject them to missed appointments and unacceptable delay safe in the knowledge that any Claimant will never secure more than £150,00. And that if they had by some miracle secured a remedy above that which was offered by the Respondent, they wouldn't have needed to complain to you. "Important Notes: 1. This determination is not binding on the complainant who therefore still has the option to pursue the complaint via the courts. 2. There is no right of appeal in relation to this determination." 33) The UtilitiesADR Adjudicator saves the final injustice in this whole charade for the end. I'm told, "there is no right of appeal to this determination." I will still appeal it because it's the right thing to do. Best wishes, Steve Gilbert.