Beat the Bailiffs Extra

OFGEM MCS PROTECTS: NATIONAL GRID PLC PROFITS of £5.43 BILLION UP (Coincidentally) by 10% Proposed in MCS

CONSULTATION: Market Stabilisation Consultation (MCS) Online | PDF OFGEM PROPOSE TO PROTECT RETAILERS “WHEN” PRICES GO DOWN PENALISING HOUSEHOLDS Ofgem have forgotten “They Work For Us” “The mandate of the regulator is to protect consumers, not to guarantee the profit margins of energy suppliers by penalising households” You can email a response directly to Daniel Newport and the Price Protection Team at priceprotectionpolicy@ofgem.gov.uk. The deadline for responses is 29 October 2026. Subject: Consultation Response: Strong Objection to the Activation of the Market Stabilisation Charge (MSC) To: Daniel Newport, Price Protection Team, Ofgem (priceprotectionpolicy@ofgem.gov.uk) Date: [Insert Date] From: [Your Name / Address] Dear Mr. Newport and the Price Protection Team, I am writing to submit my formal response to the consultation on the activation of the Market Stabilisation Charge (MSC), published on 16 October 2026; As a consumer, I strongly oppose the activation of the MSC. While Ofgem frames this mechanism as a tool for "market stability," the reality is that it operates as a regulatory shield for energy retailers at the direct expense of proactive, engaged consumers; My specific objections are as follows: 1. The MSC Acts as a Hidden "Exit Fee" on Consumers When wholesale energy prices fall, consumers should immediately benefit from cheaper fixed-rate tariffs. Instead, the MSC forces the gaining supplier to pay the losing supplier to cover 85% of their hedging losses beyond the 10% trigger point. Because gaining suppliers will inevitably bake this cost into their new fixed tariffs, the MSC artificially inflates the prices of those deals. It is effectively a hidden tax levied against households who take the initiative to shop around and save money; 2. An Unjust Wealth Transfer from Customers to Retailers The consultation’s own draft impact assessment admits that in a sharply falling market, an active MSC would result in a financial transfer of up to £0.2 billion directly from engaged consumers to energy suppliers. It is entirely unacceptable for the regulator to authorize a multi-million-pound wealth transfer from household budgets to corporate balance sheets during a cost-of-living crisis; 3. Socialising Risks while Privatising Profits Consumers are repeatedly told that energy suppliers deserve their profits because they shoulder the commercial risks of a volatile wholesale market. However, the MSC ensures that if a supplier's hedging strategy results in a loss due to falling prices, the consumer is forced to bail them out. Conversely, when prices rise (as they are forecast to do significantly in January), consumers bear the full brunt of those hikes. It is fundamentally unfair for retailers to be protected from downward market movements while consumers are left entirely exposed to upward ones; 4. Stifling Meaningful Competition A healthy, functional energy market relies on the threat of customers leaving to force suppliers to offer better customer service and sharper pricing. By imposing a financial penalty on customer acquisition during a falling market, the MSC disincentivises smaller or more agile suppliers from offering rock-bottom fixed rates. By dulling the competitive edge of the market, Ofgem is discouraging consumers from engaging with the switching process at all; Conclusion I urge Ofgem to abandon the activation of the Market Stabilisation Charge. The mandate of the regulator is to protect consumers, not to guarantee the profit margins of energy suppliers by penalising households who simply want to access cheaper energy. Please confirm receipt of this consultation response. Yours sincerely, [Your Name]

BANKS MUST ACT IN GOOD FAITH Example: Went to the Bank to transfer a Mortgage came out with £60K - May have felt like a lottery win…. … But if you had no intention of applying for it.. WERE YOUR EMOTIONS EXPLOITED? BANKS GASLIGHTING Breach of: FCA HANDBOOK | PRINCIPLES PRIN 2A.2.9R31/07/2023

CONSUMER RIGHTS & DEDOLLARISATION Bankers War In Iran Basil iii (Level Playing Field) Should have Been Done by 2015: 2023 All Banks Agreed Holding Back is Detrimental to Consumer Rights REVELATIONS Trials & TRIBULATIONS 2008: LIBOR SCANDAL Banks Caught Fiddling Interest Rates: Libor Menu 2016: 11 Staff Sent To Prison 2025: Libor Staff Exonerated -it was Bank of England and the Banks: Scapegoated 2018 RINGFENCE- International Banks Can’t be Trusted 2025 LOBO - BARCLAYS GUILTY Unlawful Interest Rates on Council Loans 2025 - CAR FINANCE FIDDLE (May be all Brokered Finance) Supreme Court Ruling Breach of Consumer Rights Marcus Johnson v Fisrtrand (Firstrand Funded by USA Bankers Blackrock) 2026 HIDDEN CREDIT Small Business Asset Stripping 2026: IRAN: PAY IN YUAN AS AGREED: USA BANKERS (The Fed) Throw Dummy Out Pram - WAR IN IRAN NOW: BARCLAYS & C&G MORTGAGES CALL: May Not be Ring-fenced 👀 #EndTheGame https://t.me/BeatBailifs

IRAN: “PAY IN YUAN NOT DOLLAR” Beginners Guide To The End Of The Petrodollar & The Hormuz Strategy BANKERS WAR And Why USA Fed is Throwing its Dummy Out Of The Pram Creating a War To Stop The Inevitable - World DEDOLLARISATION Senate To The Fed: Get Basil Done We Agreed THE FED - “NO”: “GET (IRAN)DONE” - Jamie Dimon JP Morgan Watch on Fox PETRODOLLAR #TheEnd Ships Are Free To Pass If they Pay in Chinese Yuan Not Dollar READ Related Post: - Saudi Drop Petrodollar - Petrodollar Collapse - Basil - End Game #Dedollarisation #PrivateEquity #BankersWar #WaterCrisis #EnergyCrisis #FuelCrisis #CostOfLiving #Possessions #BankerFraud #Revelations #Tribulations TREASON

SENATE TO THE FED On BASIL 111 “GET IT DONE” PETRODOLLAR #TheEnd https://t.me/BSVEducation/3238

BANKS/ CREDITORS/ LENDERS ACT IN GOOD FAITH Manipulate, exploit, mislead, emotional behaviour, characteristics of vulnerability, detriment, benefits the firm, without objective justification, Whole lifecycle ge of a product SOURCE FCA HANDBOOK | PRINCIPLES PRIN 2A.2.9R31/07/2023 MORTGAGES

LOST A PROPERTY DUE TO FREEMAN IDEOLOGY BARCLAYS & C&G MORTGAGE CALL Will Be Explained in Detail Once We Have “Your” Paperwork Those requiring intimate details from me from a fake profile should do an ego check! Your safety is not important to me. Mine is! #fuckoff

BANNING WOOD BURNERS? #EnergyFaud #GasLighting DRAX POWER STATION BURNS 4.9 MILLION TONNES OF WOOD A YEAR READ Receiving Subsidies From The Government to produce TWICE THE CARBON OF GATWICK

BARCLAYS & C&G MORTGAGEES PAST; PRESENT or REPOSSESSED WANTED @Jatinder369

NESO GETTING NOTICED Not Only for the £400 Million Spent on Marketing… “This isn’t Energy Balancing This is Last Minute Expensive Fixes” Katherine Porter - Independent Energy Consultant Yesterday’s Catastrophic Reliance on Imported Electric COST THE BILL PAYER £50 Million Today is Hitting Close To £30 Million These “Unusual Events” are becoming a Common Occurrence THE TIMES: WHY ARE POWER GRID BOSSES GAS LIGHTING US?

DO YOU EVEN KNOW YOUR COUNCILLORS? ZIONISM IS RACISM Councillors Coming Out Endorsing Zionism over Christianity?? #WTAF NB: They Get in With as Little as 400 Votes -GET THEM OUT! #AntiChristian #AntiEnglish #AntiGaza #AntiPalestine

THE ANGLIAN WATER ISSUE Please message me Directly I lost your Message! 👇 @Jatinder369

NOTICE TO SCC CTR CONSULTATION UNLAWFUL https://t.me/BeatBailifs/18741

By failing to explain that the Council possesses a broad, discretionary power under Section 13A to write off Council Tax for working people in crisis, the consultation deprives the public of the ability to give an "intelligent response." How can the public accurately judge if an 80% maximum support cap is fair if they are not concurrently informed that the Council holds the power to reduce the bill to zero in exceptional circumstances? Working-age residents evaluating Table 1 of the consultation are essentially being kept in the dark about their full statutory rights; 3. Required Action The consultation explicitly states its intent to "support the most vulnerable". However, by hiding the broader application of Section 13A(1)(c) discretionary relief, the Council is failing to inform working-age residents of the full spectrum of support available to them during life-altering crises; Therefore, I demand that the Council: 1. Immediately pause the consultation and issue an addendum clarifying the full scope of Section 13A(1)(c) discretionary relief, specifically noting its availability to working-age residents who are not claiming Universal Credit; 2. Confirm how the Council intends to evaluate the needs of working people who face sudden hardship (such as bereavement) outside of the proposed income bands; 3. Ensure that all elected councillors are made aware that failing to clearly consult on discretionary alternatives places this policy at risk of a judicial review under the Moseley precedent.

SCC CONSULTATION UNLAWFUL 👀 Online | PDF FAILING TO INFORM: A. Residents To “Take” The Consultation B. WORKING QUALIFY FOR ZERO BILLS Subject: Formal Challenge to the Legality of the Council Tax Reduction Scheme 2027-28 Consultation (Failure to Adequately Consult on Section 13A Provisions - Since 2013 To the Consultation Team and Elected Councillors, I am writing to formally challenge the legal adequacy of the ongoing consultation regarding the proposed income-banded Council Tax Reduction Scheme for 2027-28; A. DEMOCRATIC FAILURE TO NOTIFY RESIDENTS A public consultation is legally invalid if the public is actively kept in the dark about its existence. I explicitly registered for email alerts regarding council consultations, yet I received absolutely no notification that this critical Council Tax consultation had launched; The Council holds the email addresses of its residents. It costs nothing to send a mass digital notification to inform Council Tax payers that a policy affecting their financial liabilities is actively being debated. Relying on residents to stumble upon this consultation by chance is a deliberate suppression of public engagement and a breach of our legitimate expectation to be consulted; B. WORKING RESIDENTS DISCRIMINATION Having reviewed the consultation documents, it is apparent that the Council has fundamentally failed to provide sufficient information regarding discretionary relief under Section 13A(1)(c) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. By omitting clear details on how this statutory provision supports working-age people outside of the standard benefits system, the Council is arguably in breach of the common law duties of fairness in public consultations, as defined by the Supreme Court; 1. The Misrepresentation of Discretionary Relief in the Consultation Section 13A(1)(c) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 grants the billing authority the discretionary power to reduce Council Tax liability to such extent as it thinks fit, including reducing it to nil. This is a standalone provision meant to support residents facing unforeseen, exceptional hardship—such as a sudden bereavement in the family or unexpected job loss—regardless of whether they are claiming state benefits like Universal Credit. However, the Council's consultation documents severely misrepresent this statutory safety net. In "Part 1" of the consultation document, the discretionary scheme is mentioned exclusively in the context of mitigating losses for those negatively impacted by the new banded scheme: "It is estimated that around 5% of working age households could see a reduction in support... Where this happens, any applicant will be able to apply for extra help through the Council's Discretionary Council Tax Reduction Scheme"; Framing the discretionary scheme merely as a transitional "top-up" for those already in the CTR system is legally and factually incomplete. It completely misses out on informing working people—who may not qualify for the banded scheme or who do not wish to claim standard benefits—that they have a statutory right to apply for discretionary repayment under Section 13A if they suffer a sudden financial shock. 2. Breach of the Moseley Precedent and the Sedley Criteria The failure to accurately present Section 13A(1)(c) options renders this consultation vulnerable to judicial review. The legal standard for a lawful consultation on Council Tax schemes was definitively set by the Supreme Court in R (Moseley) v London Borough of Haringey [2014] UKSC 56. In that landmark case, the Supreme Court ruled that a local authority's consultation on a Council Tax reduction scheme was unlawful because it failed to present the public with realistic alternatives or explain the broader context of the proposals. The consultation must satisfy the "Sedley Criteria", the second of which dictates that: • "Sufficient reasons must be given for the proposal to permit of intelligent consideration and response.";

NESO PAID TO FAIL Neso Paid £2 Billion a Year Transmission unable to move FREE ELECTRICITY from the north to the south because of transmission issues DIDN’T EXPERIENCE TRANSMISSIONS ISSUES.. BUYING the most expensive electricity from France 🇫🇷