Disputes with energy suppliers - basic supply
April 28, 2011 | 35,00 EUR | answered by Dr. Dr. Danjel-Philippe Newerla
Subject: Disputes with energy providers.
An existing electricity contract with Vattenfall was terminated by the customer with a written notice for 31.12.2010. The next day, Yello-Strom was instructed to supply electricity from 01.01.2011. However, with this instruction, Yello-Strom was automatically instructed to cancel the contract with Vattenfall on behalf of the customer. Yello-Strom, however, terminated the contract with Vattenfall on 31.10.2010, contrary to the customer's instructions, and informed the customer accordingly. As a result, the contract with Yello-Strom was cancelled in writing with confirmation. Unfortunately, the revocation, and therefore the revocation of the cancellation instruction with Vattenfall, did not reach them. The situation only came to light when the customer informed Vattenfall of the meter readings on 31.12.2011.
Should the additional costs of the basic supply be borne by the customer?
Dear inquirer,
Thank you for your inquiry. I would like to answer as follows:
If I understand correctly, Vattenfall is the basic supplier here.
According to your description, the customer properly terminated the agreement by December 31, 2010, which would have allowed the customer to exit the contract as intended on January 1, 2011, and the electricity supply could have been taken over by Yellowstrom.
If I further understand correctly, Yellowstrom also terminated by December 31, 2010, at the same time as the customer.
The second termination is therefore irrelevant and unnecessary, at most it can be seen as a confirmation of the first termination.
I do not understand why the customer should be liable for damages or liable due to this situation.
The customer terminated, the contractual relationship was terminated in accordance with the termination, and the way would have been clear for Yellowstrom.
If the customer had not terminated beforehand, but had instructed Yellowstrom and it had been neglected from there, then the contractual relationship with Vattenfall would not have been terminated, so the customer would generally have to continue paying. However, the customer would have a claim for damages against Yellowstrom due to the failure or untimely termination based on breach of duty under § 280 BGB.
I hope to have provided you with an initial legal orientation and wish you much success and all the best!
I would like to finally draw your attention to the following:
The legal advice I provided is based solely on the information provided by you. My response is only an initial legal assessment of the situation and cannot replace a comprehensive assessment of the situation. Adding or omitting relevant information can lead to a completely different legal assessment.
I hope my explanations have been helpful to you. You are welcome to contact me through the follow-up option.
Wishing you a pleasant Thursday afternoon!
Kind regards from the North Sea coast
Dipl.-Jur. Danjel-Philippe Newerla, Attorney
Stresemannstr. 46
27570 Bremerhaven
kanzlei.newerla@web.de
Fax. 0471/140244
