Ofgem has ordered Octopus Energy to pay approximately £1.5m in redress to former prepayment meter customers for failing to issue final bills within six weeks of a supplier transfer or contract termination, as required under Standard Licensing Condition 27.17 (SLC 27.17) of the gas and electricity supply licences. This non-compliance affected 34,494 customers. The total payment comprised £231,000 for refunds of outstanding credit, £1.040m under the Guaranteed Standards of Performance (GSOP) and £212,000 in additional redress. Where it was not possible to trace a customer, Octopus Energy has agreed to make payments to the Energy Industry Voluntary Redress Fund. Octopus Energy has since updated its billing processes and systems to align with SLC 27.17.

The Cabinet Office has opened a consultation on the terms of reference for a study being carried out by chair of Healthwatch England, Sir Robert Francis QC, into a framework for compensating victims of the infected blood scandal. A separate inquiry into the scandal has been launched, examining the circumstances in which NHS patients in the 1970s and 1980s were treated with infected blood, causing them to contract diseases such as hepatitis C or HIV/AIDS. The purpose of Francis’ study is to decide the parameters and principles on any compensation that may be recommended following the conclusion of the inquiry, and to minimise any delay in implementing such a framework. Those wishing to respond to the consultation, which will consider the basis and scope of compensation, the framework’s design and other administrative issues, must do so by 26 July 2021.

The Home Affairs Committee has initiated a new inquiry into the UK's asylum accommodation system. This comes in response to the government's pledge to end the use of hotels and reduce spending on asylum support. The inquiry investigates the current delivery of accommodation, including the effectiveness of provider contracts and the Home Office's collaboration with local partners. Key areas of focus include the impact on local services, regional distribution of accommodation, and support for individuals transitioning out of the system. The Home Affairs Committee is seeking written submissions by 3 February 2025, addressing specific terms of reference such as contract management, provider performance, and engagement with local authorities and health services. This inquiry aims to inform the government's future strategy on asylum accommodation and address challenges in the current system.

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) has published the response to its May 2025 consultation on proposed drafting changes to the Contracts for Difference (CfD) Standard Terms and Conditions (ST&Cs) for Allocation Round 7 (AR7). DESNZ has made the necessary technical and drafting amendments to the CfD scheme rules and contract terms to implement the government’s 15 July 2025 decision to relax eligibility requirements for unconsented fixed-bottom offshore wind projects. Alongside this, DESNZ has published the CfD AR7 allocation framework, which sets out the rules for CfD AR7 and eligibility criteria for applicants, as well as the AR7 administrative strike prices methodology note, detailing the approach used to determine the administrative strike prices for AR7.

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) has confirmed that the Pending Applications process will not apply to Allocation Round 8 (AR8) of the Contracts for Difference (CfD) scheme, meaning the auction will not follow an expedited timetable. DESNZ said the decision is intended to maximise competition, secure value for money for consumers and allow participants sufficient time to prepare bids, while supporting the government’s clean power commitments. The sealed bid window will follow the conclusion of the appeals process for all non-qualifying AR8 applications. The National Energy System Operator (NESO) will publish its Notice of Auction on 19 November 2026, confirming the timing of the sealed bid window, while DESNZ will publish the AR8 Contract Budget Notice on the same date, setting out the initial budget for each allocation pot.

Regulation 12 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), SI 2015/102, provides that the award of a public contract by a contracting authority to a separate legal entity under its control may be exempt from the public procurement rules under PCR 2015, SI 2015/102, Pt 2, provided that certain specified conditions are met. Conditions for applying this exemption (also known as the ‘in-house exemption’ or ‘Teckal exemption’), include the following: • control—the contracting authority (individually or jointly with other authorities) exercises control over the legal person concerned, which is similar to that which it exercises over its own departments • function—more than 80% of the activities of the controlled legal person are carried out in the performance of tasks entrusted to it by the controlling contracting authority/authorities or by other legal persons

This Q&A examines liquidated damages and penalty clauses in the context of the following example scenario: The NHS pays a dental practice a set amount per year for the treatments it provides. If the practice doesn't meet its target, it must pay the shortfall to the NHS. Under the relevant dental consultancy agreement, dentists have an annual treatment target and get paid for each treatment performed. If the contract is terminated early, there is a clause which provides that the practice may require the consultant to pay back any shortfall in their pro-rated treatment target, to the extent that the shortfall has not been performed by any other consultant as at the date of termination. The question is, could a clause requiring consultants to pay back any shortfall in their billing target be treated as a penalty clause? Contractual liquidated damages clauses (a clause where the contracting parties fix in advance a sum of money to be

Limitation of liability/exclusion clauses Commercial contracts will usually include an exclusion or limitation of liability clause. An exclusion clause is one which excludes all liability for certain breaches of the contract. A limitation of liability clause is one which limits the liability of a party. This can be in a variety of ways such as restricting the type of loss recoverable or the remedies available, imposing a time limit on any claims for breach or capping the amount payable for breach. See Practice Note: Exclusion and limitation of liability. Any such clauses will need to be interpreted alongside the usual rules on causation and remoteness of damages. See Practice Note: Causation and remoteness in contractual breach claims. Section 3 of the

In answering this Q&A, we have assumed this scenario does not relate to the Electronic Communications Code, which is a separate regime for certain telecommunications network operators. The starting point is to consider the terms of any easements or wayleave agreements entered into with the provider. Often such documents will set out termination or ‘lift and shift’ provisions (which enable a landowner to require the provider to relocate the equipment). See Precedent: Lift and shift clause for an example. In the absence of any such express termination or lift and shift provisions, note the following. Electricity Whether an electricity wayleave is binding on a purchaser depends on whether the wayleave was contractual or statutory. A statutory wayleave binds successors in title by virtue of Schedule 4, para 6(6) to the Electricity Act 1989 (EA 1989). As a matter of contract law a contractual wayleave will not bind a person who was not a party to it. The purchaser

Standard condition 5.2 of the Standard Conditions of Sale (5th Edn: 2018 revision) provides for occupation by the buyer as follows: ‘5.2.2 The buyer is a licensee and not a tenant. The terms of the licence are that the buyer: • cannot transfer it • may permit members of his household to occupy the property • is to pay or indemnify the seller against all outgoings and other expenses in respect of the property • is to pay the seller a fee calculated at the contract rate on a sum equal to the purchase price (less any deposit paid) for the period of the licence • is entitled to any rents and profits from any part of the property which he does not occupy • is to keep the property in as good a state

The starting point is that the protection of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) will apply to any lease where the tenant occupies premises for the purposes of a business carried on by the tenant or by a company in which the tenant has a controlling interest (LTA 1954, s 23). While LTA 1954 contains anti-avoidance provisions, it also reflects the parties' freedom of contract to agree that the protection should not apply. The way in which this balance is struck is that LTA 1954, s 38 makes any agreement void, except as provided by LTA 1954, s 38A, in so far as it purports to preclude the tenant from making an application or request for a new tenancy

The postal service is commonly used to effect service of a wide variety of notices under statutes. Notices frequently encountered by property disputes lawyers include those served under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) and the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925). Whether, and if so when, notices are served frequently affects parties’ substantive property rights. It may therefore be very important to understand how notices may be served if there were no effective Royal Mail service for a period of time for any reason (including as a result of coronavirus (COVID-19)). The first step will be to carefully assess both the instrument (for example a contract, deed or lease) under which the notice is to be served, and the statutory regime which applies to the notice. Separate statutes may govern the circumstances in which the notice