The Chief Magistrate is reviewing how warrants are being issued
Campaigners are demanding Government and Ofgem intervention to halt forced pre-payment meter installations by utility companies in the wake of fresh revelations that magistrates are approving warrants at secret court hearings. Energy firms were embroiled in a scandal in late 2022 after reports of debt collectors breaking into customers’ homes to fit the meters, sometimes involving vulnerable people and families struggling in the cost-of-living crisis.
At the time it was also revealed that magistrates across England and Wales had been approving mass batches of warrants with minimal scrutiny of whether customers had been properly warned that their homes could be broken into. The national scandal led to a temporary pause on energy companies applying for warrants, as well as promises from government of improved practices.
Last month, the End Fuel Poverty Coalition wrote to ministers, regulator Ofgem and senior MPs to demand a fresh stop on the warrants process after it emerged that courts are now approving them in secret, and often without ever looking at the details of the applications. Chief Magistrate Paul Goldspring has launched an investigation into the practices of the courts, in response to concerns first raised by the London Standard.
“It is extraordinary that more than three years after this scandal first broke, families are still being dragged through secret court processes that even now appear to lack basic safeguards”, said Simon Francis, co-ordinator of the End Fuel Poverty Coalition.
“We now have confirmation that the Chief Magistrate is reviewing how these warrants are being issued. The only responsible response is to pause forced prepayment meters immediately, until that investigation is complete and the system is shown to be lawful, transparent and safe. No household should face forced entry into their home because they are in energy debt, especially when the process authorising that entry is itself under serious question.”
The coalition, which represents more than 100 campaign organisations, charities, local authorities and consumer groups, wrote to minister for energy consumers Martin McCluskey, minister for courts and legal services Sarah Sackman and Ofgem chief executive Jonathan Brearley to call for urgent action. It said the Government should halt forced entry to homes, especially when pre-payment meters are due to be fitted, until the Chief Magistrate’s investigation has concluded and the findings have been published in full.
The group is demanding that “transparency is restored to the court process”, and that there are “clear, enforceable protections” for vulnerable customers. It is also pushing for a conclusion to the Ofgem investigation into past practices by British Gas, which started in the wake of the original pre-payment meter scandal.
Applications for warrants to be executed by utility companies were halted in early 2023 amid a national outcry at the practices being employed against some of the country’s poorest people. In April 2024, the Chief Magistrate approved a newly designed court system for warrant applications, which was intended to address public concerns and create greater safeguards.
Energy firms were instructed they must give at least 10 days’ notice to a property occupier of a warrant being applied for, make at least 10 attempts to contact someone before asking a court to approve the fitting of a pre-payment meter, and only go to court once a month had passed since the last bill went unpaid. In the new system, the Chief Magistrate agreed that uncontested warrant applications could be handled in private court sessions, with an agent for the utility companies swearing on oath that they are providing truthful and accurate information.
Addressing transparency concerns, the Ministry of Justice said its officials cannot provide any written details from the private court sessions to either journalists or the public, suggesting the information is “highly sensitive” and citing security concerns. However this stance was contradicted by a district judge, who ruled at the end of a 10-month legal battle over one particular warrant hearing that the limited information held by the courts – names, addresses, and debt totals – could be released in full.
New system
Under the new system, magistrates are told to select 10 warrant applications at random from batches of 100 or more and subject those 10 cases to scrutiny. The Magistrates’ Association has said the whole batches of applications should be rejected if there are concerns about failures to comply with legal requirements.
At an Uxbridge Magistrates’ Court hearing in November 2024 at which a journalist was granted access, two of the 10 applications selected for scrutiny were withdrawn because they did not meet the required tests set by the Chief Magistrate. Two further applications were then selected and passed the test, leading the magistrate to approve the whole batch of more than 100 warrants – with no further scrutiny of whether the failures identified in the two withdrawn applications may have been more widespread.
The courts are also not provided with copies of the full applications for warrants that they are approving. Magistrates are given the names and addresses of the proposed subjects of the warrants, together with a copy and paste justification to enter premises “in order to inspect the fittings, pipes, lines or plant, to ascertain the quantity of fuel conveyed to the premises, to cut off or discontinue the supply, to ascertain whether the supply has been reconnected following disconnection, to remove or replace any meter or other fitting, or do any other such thing for which they have a right of entry under Schedule 6 of the Electricity Act 1989 if needs be by force”.
According to the documents from the Uxbridge hearing, the magistrate could not tell which energy company was reportedly owed a debt from each property, and had to rely on oral submissions from a debt agency official for further details.
A HM Courts and Tribunal Service spokesperson said: “The procedures for utility warrant applications are set out by the independent judiciary, which all courts must follow to ensure appropriate scrutiny. There is no legal requirement for uncontested warrants to be heard in open court.
“Often, warrants involve highly sensitive information that can’t be shared publicly or may put police investigations at risk. We try to accommodate press attendance for hearings where possible.”
A judicial spokesperson said: “The Chief Magistrate is investigating concerns raised and we will respond fully in due course.”
The End Fuel Poverty Coalition letter was sent on December 31 and is yet to receive a ministerial response.