Can someone other than account holder be chased for bill?

SwanJon

I'd lean on the side of all being responsible.

If no-one had their name on the account, but all had used energy they would all be jointly & severally liable through a deemed contract.
How this is affected by one or more names already being on the contract I don't know, but I think they'd be able to chase who they find first.

I imagine they would begin with the named account holder before incurring other costs in identifying who else (if anyone) was living there.

As above, it needs to be determined if this is the difference between what was paid and the cost, or if it is the whole cost. Without being the account holder, that could be difficult.

bye_bye_band_G

No, she really didn't pay any Direct Debits. It's not a shortfall. The £750 is the total cost of 6 months energy, the length of the tenancy.
I like to try to see the best side of this, and I believe she is actually so disorganised that she thought she was paying a DD and never checked her bank account rather than deliberately keeping my daughter's money. However, she just spends down to zero each month, so the money has now gone, and needless to say there is now no line of communication between the two.
The account is solely in her name, and I'm getting the feeling that npower may chase the other three girls but at the end of the day no court would find in their favour because despite all being joint tenants, only the one named on the bill is legally liable for it??

bye_bye_band_G

P.S. I've simplified the calculation slightly for the purposes of this forum, in fact the DDs which should have been paid in would have left just a few pounds outstanding for them to pay, my daughter is more than happy to pay her share of this amount, she just doesn't want to find her DD payments AGAIN (and possibly even those of other people!).
I think the other girl probably tried to set up a DD but it didn't work and she forgot/didn't realise/ what an idiot.

Premier_2

bye_bye_band_G wrote: »

Thanks both, but those are two completely different answers..........hmm..........still wondering!

I think some of the confusion lies in the difference between someone/people using a supply where no one has registered an account with the supplier and someone who has created an account with a supplier.

Where no one has registered an account, a deemed supply contract exists. In that case, the supplier may chase anyone it reasonably believes is involved in such a deemed contract (i.e. any known tenant/occupant)

In this case though, someone appears to have agreed a contract with the supplier and I believe that person is liable for all costs involved under that contract.