NPG Dispute — Ombudsman Prep

Timeline Agreed entries only

The definitive, to-the-point account for the referral. Entries are added only when Matthew has agreed them. Candidates and open questions: _output\NPG-dispute\notes\2024-key-timeline-working.txt. Submission requirements, exhibit tiers and remedy notes: _output\NPG-dispute\notes\ombudsman-submission-reference.md.

Before the works The garden and the plans we already had For review

The path and patio at 18 Sandal Avenue were professionally installed in premium materials, and my family had invested heavily in the garden and landscaping, funded in part by remortgaging our home.
By June 2024 we had already obtained a quotation from a specialist contractor to relay the side path, months before NPG first made contact.
After the 2024 works and reinstatement we completed that upgrade programme at further cost during 2025.
This is the area NPG now propose to excavate again.

October 2024 Unannounced survey visit

A surveyor arrived at 18 Sandal Avenue unannounced, about two weeks before the excavation visit.
Number 20 is the attached neighbouring property and its electricity supply was fed from my cellar at Number 18.
The surveyor said that Number 20 would be getting a new service.
The surveyor asked for consent to disconnect Number 20's existing supply and nothing else.
The reason given for digging on my property rather than Number 20 (the customer) was that this was the only way the existing cable could be terminated and made safe.
I neither consented nor refused at this visit.
From memory I said I would speak to my wife about it as we were planning to have the path relaid.
The SARs show NPG hold zero records of this visit ever taking place.
No survey report, appointment record or consent note has ever been disclosed.
NPG's own records nevertheless state the work schedule was agreed during the initial survey.

Saturday 2 November 2024 Unannounced excavation visit

OCU turned up unannounced on a Saturday morning without a pre-arranged appointment.
I was in the shower and came down wrapped in a towel to find them ready to start work.
Although I had not previously consented I allowed them to begin, believing they were working to the scope described at the October survey visit.
No photographs of the condition of my property were taken before digging began.
NPG's own 2026 plan for the same excavation requires a second hole in the verge (Joint Hole B) so the cable can first be cut and made dead.
No isolation hole was mentioned at the October survey visit and none was dug for the November 2024 excavation.
No isolation of any kind took place and NPG's own network records show no supply interruption in November 2024.
The cable therefore remained live throughout the excavation.
Only after excavation had commenced was I informed that the scope of the works had changed from what had previously been described.
I was told they would now be replacing both my supply and the neighbour's supply using my cellar as an access point.
I was told they would need to run a new cable for Number 20 through my cellar.
The OCU operatives told me that they personally would not have consented to this work on their own property as there was an alternative way it could be done.
At the time I was not aware what the alternative was.
It later became apparent that the alternative was the approach now proposed for 2026, which takes the new supply to Number 20 through the customer's own land.
When the cable was found encased in concrete the work was abandoned.
The excavation was left inadequately guarded and obstructed the only pedestrian access from the rear of the house.
I have repeatedly asked NPG's Director of Health and Safety how that cable was made safe and he has never answered.
The OCU team informed me that an emergency reinstatement had been booked which meant the excavation would be reinstated within 24 to 48 hours.

4 to 5 November 2024 Pressure to agree a new scope and the missed emergency reinstatement

On Monday 4 November 2024 I missed a call from a number I did not recognise.
At 09:24 I texted to ask if I could call later and the reply was "It's Mat from ocu group. Give me a call when your free."
When we spoke OCU sought my agreement to excavate further across my property without any defined limit until they found a point where the cable could be jointed.
They still intended to use my property to run the new cable to Number 20 and to replace my own cable, which in itself had never been agreed.
Under this proposal the shared cable running from the road to the excavation point was unchanged and Number 20 would effectively be taking a bigger share of it.
I asked whether that could affect my own supply.
He confirmed it was possible that it could have a detrimental effect on my supply.
During the call I was repeatedly told that I had already agreed to this scope of work, which I had not.
The job described to me at the 2024 survey was the exact job NPG are now suggesting for 2026.
In 2024 I had no way of knowing that job was even a possibility unless that was what I had been told.
They described one job and then tried to carry out another.
The OCU engineer said it was cheaper to do it this way.
Once I would not agree the communication stopped, despite the excavation being left open on my property.
On 5 November 2024 at 08:17 I asked OCU for the photographs taken before work began and for confirmation of when the reinstatement team would arrive as I had taken the day off to be there.
Mat from OCU replied "I'm unsure what you mean. As far as I know there won't be anyone attending today."
My messages that morning record that the contractor on site had said he had booked it in as emergency reinstatement on the Saturday because it was blocking access.
My messages that morning also record that I was in the shower when they arrived and was not prepared.
The photographs I asked for were never provided.
My further messages seeking information and reinstatement went unanswered while an open excavation involving electrical infrastructure remained on my property.

5 to 13 November 2024 Complaint to NPG and the fight for reinstatement

With OCU no longer communicating and nobody booked to attend, I raised a complaint with NPG on 5 November 2024 solely as a means to get the excavation reinstated.
NPG's complaint log of that day records that the grounds were dug up and I could not get access to my garden.
NPG's record of my account on 6 November states that I agreed to removal of the neighbour's cable but did not agree to a new supply running through my cellar.
Appointments were then arranged through NPG's complaints process and OCU failed to attend three of them, and I stayed at home for each one.
Throughout this period the excavation remained inadequately guarded with the excavated cable exposed and on the information available to me still energised.
My wife Emma told NPG at the time that we believed the missed reinstatement appointments were deliberate, to punish me for not agreeing to the scope changes.
On 12 November NPG escalated the complaint to Level 2.
NPG's own escalation note records that we felt we were being punished for refusing the neighbour's work by not doing the reinstatement.
The same note records that my five year old daughter had no access to the garden.
On the same day OCU's own manager recorded that I was unaware of the scheduled work date and had received no prior notification.
Reinstatement was finally completed on 13 November 2024, eleven days after the excavation was opened.
It was carried out while I was in a meeting and I was not present to inspect it.
I had asked for the tarmac sub layer they had dug through to be replaced, and the entire layered reinstatement was completed within a couple of hours in a single morning, which I do not see how the layers could have been properly laid and cured in.
OCU showed me photographs of the reinstatement in progress rather than the pre work condition photographs I had requested, which have never existed.
OCU's record describes the like for like reinstatement I had requested as "although not necessary, we decided to honour".
On 21 November 2024 NPG sent an unsolicited £100 goodwill payment which had never been discussed or asked for, and I cashed the cheque.

16 to 17 March 2026 The works are designed and ordered

On 16 March 2026 NPG issued Works Order U19056484 to O'Connor Utilities for the full two phase scheme, with Andy Balding as the named Work Initiator.
The order answers "Wayleaves required?" with "NO", two months before my consent was first sought.
The order instructs "Reinstate joint hole in No18 asap due to previous complaint against OCU", so the team planning the 2026 works had my 2024 complaint in front of it.
This corroborates what I have said all along, that at the 21 May visit the surveyor knew a complaint existed and nothing else, not what had happened in 2024 or why the works had been abandoned.
The complete scheme that would be described in May as urgent and incapable of delay had been fully designed by the middle of March.

21 April 2026 The notification letter is prepared

On 21 April 2026 NPG prepared the letter it later claimed was intended for hand delivery on 21 May.
It is a notification and not a consent request, stating that work was scheduled to begin on 22 June, that it would be necessary to excavate in my property, and that reinstatement would be like for like within the week.

21 May 2026 A surveyor again turns up unannounced For review

For eighteen months after the reinstatement I heard nothing from NPG or OCU about the works.
On 21 May 2026 an NPG surveyor, Andy Balding, again turned up at my property unannounced.
He asked for permission to excavate my land to isolate Number 20's supply.
This was exactly the same job that had been described to me at the October 2024 survey but not what had actually been attempted in November 2024.
Again he told me there was no alternative.
He had no knowledge of the November 2024 works, the concrete encasement or why the job had not been completed.
The only thing he appeared to know was that I had made a complaint.
I refused consent as I believed there was an alternative, which is what the engineers on site had told me in 2024, and he seemed to have no idea why the initial works had been abandoned.
I later discovered that an appointment for the works had already been booked for 22 June 2026 before my consent had ever been sought.
NPG later claimed a letter was handed to me during this visit and no letter was given to me.
That evening I submitted Subject Access Requests to both NPG and OCU.

22 May 2026 Calls and emails with NPG Customer Services For review

The next morning I called NPG Customer Services before leaving for a family holiday that evening.
My wife was worried they would turn up and dig while we were away and I wanted emailed confirmation from the Connections team that this would not happen.
Martin Hall could initially find no record of any works, then called back having found them booked under my neighbour's job for 22 and 23 June.
That was the first I knew dates had already been booked.
He agreed to copy me in on an email to the team confirming my request.
He did not do that and instead sent me a generic email address to communicate with.
He separately emailed the contractor and the works coordinators saying I had refused consent.
I had told Martin Hall I would be away for seven days so NPG knew I would be away.
We left on holiday without the confirmation we had asked for.
We had to ask our neighbours to keep watch over the property while we were away in case NPG arrived to dig, which I told NPG on the call.

22 to 30 May 2026 The disconnection letter For review

NPG issued a letter dated 22 May 2026, the same day my refusal was logged and the day I left for holiday.
It was the first written communication I had ever received about the works, from either 2024 or 2026.
It was addressed to The Occupier rather than to me by name and signed The Connections Team with no named individual.
It said the work could not be delayed and that without a response NPG would have no option but to refer the matter to its Legal Department to issue formal notice of intention to disconnect my property under the Electricity Act 1989.
It gave me 7 days from the date of the letter to respond, which expired on 29 May.
I received it on 30 May 2026 when I returned from holiday, the day after the deadline had already expired.
NPG had been told that same morning that I would be away for seven days, so the deadline was set knowing it would expire before the letter could reach me.
The letter arrived on a Saturday and I called NPG five times that weekend without response, getting no answer until the Monday morning.
Throughout that weekend my family believed our supply could be disconnected at any moment.
The letter asked me to contact the surveyor on a mobile number which NPG's own customer services would not provide me on the day the letter was sent, despite my request.
Andy Balding later admitted in writing that the letter was intended to drive engagement.
Paul McGinlay's final response later called the timing of the letter a poor choice.
His response also stated that NPG have not said the works are non-deferrable, despite the letter saying the work could not be delayed.
Taken together the letter sought my engagement while NPG were simultaneously blocking my means to engage.
It described demand led works as urgent and incapable of delay.
It cited a safety risk that only arises if NPG first carries out the works at the neighbouring property.
It threatened to disconnect a family home on a deadline that had already expired before the letter arrived.
That disconnection threat has never been formally withdrawn.

1 June 2026 My formal response For review

On my first working day back from holiday I sent a formal written response to the Connections Team challenging the letter's claims of urgency, the claimed upgrade programme and the disconnection threat.
I asked for the statutory basis of the works and the documentation behind the claimed urgency, and received neither.
I responded in writing within one working day of receiving NPG's first ever written communication, despite its deadline having expired before the letter reached me.

2 June 2026 Andy Balding's written reply and its admissions For review

Andy Balding of NPG's Connections team replied in writing and confirmed he had been the surveyor who visited on 21 May.
He admitted the letter's purpose was "to obtain some engagement" following my verbal refusal, while asking me not to consider it a threat.
He admitted that NPG's process is "to book the work, then inform the relevant parties".
He admitted no letter was handed to me on 21 May, saying my refusal had made it "redundant", despite Customer Services telling me on 22 May that a letter had been given to me.
He stated the works are programmed "as and when" NPG receive notification of low carbon technology installation, confirming they are demand led.
He stated the work had not been requested by my neighbour, contradicting what I had been told in 2024 and what Customer Services told me on 22 May.
He described the 2024 works as changing my neighbour's cutout fuse unit, a different account of that job from any I had been given before.
He confirmed the new scheme's first part is entirely in my neighbour's land and that the part on my land could be rearranged to a mutually convenient date.
He repeated that the cable can only be cut at this location and that if there was an alternative NPG would use it.
He wrote that no work was planned to go ahead on my land and that any work planned at present would not affect my supply.
He admitted there is no link between NPG's Complaints Department and its Connections Department, which meant NPG had planned a return to the same excavation with no knowledge of what had happened there in 2024.
That evening I raised my formal complaint with NPG and Ben Hardy of the complaints team telephoned me.

3 to 6 June 2026 The formal complaint and the safety questions For review

On 3 June I set out my formal complaint in writing to Ben Hardy, covering the 2024 consent and scope issues and the conduct of the 2026 process under the headings of engagement, urgency, safety and threatening.
On 4 June I sent an addendum after learning that NPG had agreed to delay a neighbouring customer's works at their request while refusing me any similar flexibility.
I agreed in principle to a site meeting and set reasonable written conditions, including the reinstatement requirements confirmed in writing beforehand and the disconnection threat formally withdrawn.
On 6 June I wrote to Gareth Pearson, NPG's Director of Health Safety and Training, asking specific questions including how the November 2024 excavation had been made electrically safe.
Mr Pearson acknowledged my letter and promised to respond early the following week.
He has never provided a substantive answer to this day.

June and July 2026 What the Subject Access Request revealed For review

My Subject Access Requests produced NPG's complaint file, call recordings and the 2024 job paperwork in five instalments between June and July 2026.
The 2024 Job Pack was effectively empty, with a blank job card, an unsigned work instruction and no risk assessment or method statement.
There were no records of the October 2024 survey, no record of any consent and no photographs taken before the works.
NPG's network records showed no supply interruption in November 2024, confirming the cable was never isolated.
The disclosed call recordings also confirmed what I had actually agreed with Customer Services on 22 May, which was not what NPG acted on.
The 2024 job had been closed as a duplicate and replaced by a new job number, confirming the 2026 works are a continuation of the same job.
On 10 July I asked NPG to confirm in writing whether nine specific 2024 documents exist and that question has never been answered.

29 July 2026 The final complaint response For review

NPG's final complaint response came from Paul McGinlay, Director of Regional Operations, eight weeks and a day after the complaint and against a thirty day commitment given on the phone.
Ben Hardy, who had taken the complaint, was never heard from again after 4 June.
The response conceded that Martin Hall had given me incorrect information and that the timing of the 22 May letter was a poor choice.
It stated that NPG have not said the works are non-deferrable.
It stated the 2024 excavation stopped following my concerns raised on site that it was not in the area or size I had agreed, with no work completed.
It answered none of my outstanding questions, provided none of the information I had requested and offered no remedy of any kind.
It closed the complaint and signposted the Energy Ombudsman.

September to 5 October 2026 A new contact and a second version of 2024 For review

In September Heather Woodhead, General Manager for Domestic Scale Connections, became my new single point of contact and announced the works were now planned for 13 and 16 November 2026.
She conceded in writing that the details of the 2024 works are not contained within the records available.
On 10 September I set out my factual account of 2024 with the text message evidence attached and challenged NPG to identify any statement that was incorrect.
NPG has never disputed a single point of that account.
Her responses of 15 and 23 September declined to engage with that account or my questions and redirected the discussion to the future works.
On 5 October Ms Woodhead wrote that the 2024 excavation was discontinued after the cable was found to be encased in concrete, that no work was carried out on the electrical network and that no health and safety concerns had been identified warranting investigation.
She did not answer the question I have been asking since June, which is how the excavated live cable was made safe.
That question has been put to NPG repeatedly for four months and has never been answered.

12 October 2026 Energy Ombudsman referral lodged

I registered my complaint with the Energy Ombudsman by email in two parts, enclosing the referral letter, chronology, statement of complaint under four themes, exhibit schedule and exhibits E01 to E28.
The Ombudsman acknowledged receipt the same day with a response due within five working days.
My reply to Heather Woodhead, stating the referral as fact, was finalised to be sent following registration.

16 October 2026 Woodhead letter and a second works plan

Ms Woodhead replied with a new works plan that differs materially from the June plan, achieving isolation at the joint with no verge excavation and cutting my own service cable to connect a new section.
Her letter stated the proposed isolation excavation cannot be avoided while also referring to options that have been considered.
It gave a fourth explanation for the works, that NPG is required to remove the looped arrangement through circumstances beyond its control.
The works were moved to 8 and 9 February at the applicant customer's request, the fifth rescheduling of works described in May as incapable of delay.
She committed to clear written notes and agreed actions for any future meeting.
The letter made no mention of the Energy Ombudsman referral stated in my preceding email.

17 October 2026 My reply, one request

I welcomed the written notes commitment and made one request, that NPG provide the record of the October 2024 survey discussion or confirm in writing that no such record exists.
I noted the proposed site meeting is in effect the same meeting NPG held with me in October 2024, whose record is the one being withheld.
I attached my 10 July email to Mr Dando, his 23 July acknowledgement, and my 8 June email to Mr York carrying my unchanged position that matters must be resolved in writing before a meeting.
I recorded that any question of consent now relates to the new plan alone, and that my question of why the isolation excavation cannot be avoided remains unanswered.