Ikpaisong Effiong UKPE (t/a Ikpaland Enterprises UK) v Southend Magistrates’ Court

For the statutory restriction on disconnection or installation of a pre-payment meter to apply, there must be an amount genuinely in dispute. An asserted dispute must concern the amount payable under the relevant electricity contract. A disagreement about the suitability of a meter is immaterial where the contract fixes the price by reference to electricity consumed and the meter is not faulty. In that situation, the dispute is misconceived rather than genuine, and magistrates may grant a warrant of entry without technical evidence about meter models.

The appellant, a sole trader operating a grocery store, appealed by way of case stated against a decision of the Southend Magistrates’ Court granting Richburns Ltd a warrant under section 2 of the Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity Boards) Act 1954. The warrant authorised entry to premises occupied by the appellant on behalf of Npower Business Solutions to inspect or alter equipment and disconnect the electricity supply.

The appellant contended that the charges were genuinely disputed because an unsuitable electricity meter had been installed. The magistrates considered that the signed contract and failure to pay were relevant, but the meter-model dispute was not. The central question was whether the magistrates required technical knowledge of meter models and their suitability for the business.

1. Appeal dismissed. The magistrates’ answer to the stated question was correct.
2. Under paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 to the Electricity Act 1989, a supplier may install a pre-payment meter or disconnect premises where relevant payments have not been made, but the power cannot be exercised in respect of an amount genuinely in dispute. The magistrates must address whether the asserted dispute is genuine.
3. The relevant issue was whether the meter’s model or suitability affected the amount payable. The appellant’s contract fixed the electricity price at 71.919p/kWh throughout the contractual term. The meter was accepted to be working properly. The charges therefore depended on actual consumption and the agreed unit price, not on the meter’s profile or ability to distinguish peak and non-peak usage.
4. The statutory concept of an appropriate meter under paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 did not alter the contractual price in this case. The appellant had not advanced a case that a contractual provision concerning a manifest error or incorrect information required the charges to be changed.
5. The complaint about the initially installed “07” meter and the later “00” meter had no bearing on the sums due. It was not a sham or concoction, applying the terminology discussed in Albany Lions Hotel Ltd v Opal Business Gas [2020] EWHC 3872 (Admin), but it was a misconceived argument. Since there was no dispute about the amount payable, there was no genuine dispute within paragraph 2(2)(a) of Schedule 6.
6. The magistrates consequently had power to grant the warrant under section 2 of the Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity Boards) Act 1954. The warrant remained effective for the statutory purpose and no remittal was required.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal by way of case stated dismissed. The court upheld the Southend Magistrates’ Court’s decision dated 3 December 2024 granting the warrant.