Prepayment meter warrants were seen by court officials as being “extremely boring” for magistrates before a shake-up made it quicker and cheaper for energy giants to force entry into the UK’s poorest homes.Officials at HM Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) discussed proposals in 2018 to “streamline” the Rights of Entry process used by the firms and their agents to force their way into properties to fit the controversial devices.
A new telephone hearing system was introduced in September 2019, which meant that the firms’ warrant officers no longer had to appear in person before magistrates but could instead give evidence on multiple cases in a matter of minutes in a phone call.
With winter approaching last year, i obtained access to one court in Northern England and watched 496 of the warrants being granted in just three minutes and 51 seconds – leading MPs to warn in the Commons that the forced entries were being approved on an “industrial scale”.
Forcing households on to prepayment meters when they are in debt on their energy bills is controversial because they can leave the poorest families in the cold and dark. Single mothers told i over winter how their children had suffered attacks of asthma and pneumonia in freezing cold homes.
The warrants can be used by energy firms and their agents to force their way in to check for meter tampering, to replace an unauthorised meter or to disconnect the supply as well as force-fitting a prepayment meter.
Internal HMCTS documents obtained by i using the Freedom of Information Act now reveal the internal discussions by officials in 2018 proposing how applications could be “made to a single justice by telephone at a limited number of locations” and for “hearings in private without attendance by respondents unless they apply for a hearing”.
One document sent to the service’s heads of legal operations proposing implementation of the “virtual back-office procedure” said most cases would be centralised to a “small number” of courts and dealt with “by a single justice, supported by a legal advisor in the back office”.
The internal HMCTS document in 2018 proposed that Rights of Entry warrants be dealt with by magistrates over the telephone at a reduced number of courts.
The internal HMCTS document in 2018 proposed that Rights of Entry warrants be dealt with by magistrates over the telephone at a reduced number of courts.
It said of the streamlining proposals: “It is anticipated that this will deliver significant benefits to applicants in terms of time and travel, and additional court time will be generated by taking applications out of court hearings.”
The document said officials were also exploring ways of “reducing the labour as far as possible”, adding that “IT solutions” could be needed to “remove the blockage” of magistrates having to sign large numbers of warrants. They are now approved without being physically signed and are sent out to energy firms’ agents as PDFs.
In the same document, one official added of the warrants: “They are also extremely boring, and I do not foresee sensible magistrates fighting to do them.”
The 2018 HMCTS document said dealing with warrants was 'extremely boring' for magistrates and telephone calls would make the procedure 'more accessible' for energy firms and their agents wishing to make applications to force their way into properties.
The 2018 HMCTS document said dealing with warrants was ‘extremely boring’ for magistrates and telephone calls would make the procedure ‘more accessible’ for energy firms and their agents wishing to make applications to force their way into properties
“A streamlined bulk process should be significantly quicker than the current piecemeal process,” they said, adding: “There would be considerable cost and time-saving to applicants in applying from their base rather than travelling to numerous (or indeed any) court sites.”
On the question of transparency, the same official added: “There is no legal reason for these applications to be done in public at all and even now often they are not – the details are never mentioned in public.”
“There would be no detriment to respondents,” they said, as cases where customers contest the warrant would still be held in open court.
However, Mike Freer, the Justice Minister, told the Justice Committee in December that “in practice, it is extremely rare for any contested hearing to take place”.
The document said the 'benefits' of making the system more efficient would be a 'considerable cost and time saving' for energy firms and their agents as they would no longer need to send warrant officers to court to make their applications. It said there would be 'no detriment' to energy firms' customers on the receiving end of the warrants.
The document said the ‘benefits’ of making the system more efficient would be a ‘considerable cost and time saving’ for energy firms and their agents as they would no longer need to send warrant officers to court to make their applications. It said there would be ‘no detriment’ to energy firms’ customers on the receiving end of the warrants
Separate data obtained by i from the Ministry of Justice shows how the number of entry warrants granted to energy firms by magistrates has increased rapidly over the past five years.
In 2018, just over 174,600 warrants were approved by magistrates and 2,814 were rejected. In 2022, more than 367,000 warrants were granted – and only 56 were turned down.
The number of courts dealing with more than 1,000 warrant cases a year reduced from 29 to 12 in the same period. Portsmouth magistrates alone granted 128,000 warrants last year.
The average number of warrants dealt with by magistrates in a single sitting was just nine in 2018. Up to 1,000 cases can now be dealt with in a hearing lasting around 15 minutes.
In January, the Justice Committee asked Ministry of Justice officials if the new telephone hearing process “helped facilitate a massive increase” in warrants approved and if they were satisfied that the centralised court system was delivering justice.
Antonia Romeo, the ministry’s permanent secretary, told the committee the problem with making a process “more efficient” was that, if the process was unfair, making it more efficient “increases the occurrences of unfairness”.
“It doesn’t mean that making it more efficient was wrong,” she said. “It might mean that the process wasn’t the right one.”
In February, Lord Justice Edis ordered courts in England and Wales to stop processing the warrant applications “with immediate effect” and they are yet to restart.
He told magistrates they “must act proportionately and with regard to the human rights of the people affected, particularly any people with vulnerabilities”.
The energy regulator, Ofgem, has asked companies to sign up to a new code of conduct, under which it is expected the warrants will be restarted ahead of this coming winter.
In March, Robin Cantrill-Fenwick, a former magistrate whose resignation from the bench was triggered by the issue, told the Justice Committee: “In 2019, the process was changed, such that it was tilted even further in favour of the energy companies, so as magistrates we were required to take on an almost entirely performative and uncritical role, applying and approving these warrant applications in bulk.”
i’s discovery of the documents has prompted renewed concerns about the process ahead of its expected restart.
Labour MP Dawn Butler, a former magistrate who has been campaigning on the issue of prepayment meters for seven years, said: “I think it’s very clear this is about putting profit before the welfare of people.
“For organisations not even to have the inconvenience of coming before the court to explain why they are cutting off the gas and electricity for a person is an insult to our society.”
Simon Francis, co-ordinator of the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, said: “These latest revelations have put the focus on the forced prepayment meter scandal firmly back on the courts system.
“It is outrageous that court officials put the boredom threshold of magistrates and the cost of processing applications ahead of justice and the wellbeing of vulnerable households.
“The Government must now launch a fresh investigation into the courts’ decision-making and their role in allowing energy firms to force their way into people’s homes.”
Peter Smith, director of policy at National Energy Action, said: “In the recent past, magistrates’ courts have been far too quick to rubber-stamp batches of warrants for forced prepayment meter installations.
“We are all too aware of the terrible impacts that can happen when vulnerable people are forced onto prepayment meters against their will.
“Unaware of the significance of their actions, these batch and snap decisions, with little or no scrutiny, have largely been to the detriment of vulnerable people. It now seems magistrates may not want the hassle of dealing at all with these issues.
“Vulnerable people will be put at risk if the appropriate authorities don’t take their responsibility to authorise warrants for forced prepayment meter installations seriously. We also need a plan to stop people building up debt in the first place.”
HMCTS says the changes were introduced to ensure justice is delivered in all circumstances “swiftly” and it has been common for uncontested rights of entry applications to be heard in private, going back to the 1950s, while contested cases are heard in open court.
It said there has never been an intention to increase the number of warrant applications through the changes introduced in 2018 – only to concentrate them in fewer locations to avoid unnecessary delays.
A spokesperson for HMCTS said: “Every single contested case for a utility warrant is considered in open court. There is no evidence to suggest the introduction of an applications register or telephone hearings have impacted the way warrants are granted.”
Source 
1, 2, 3 
Home