Please help. Do I have to pay for Electricity??

DVardysShadow

charlietoby wrote: »

The mains switch was flicked. There really wasn't any electrie used. This isn't the issue though really.

The electric has been used at some point so they are due their money but why are they choosing to believe the tennant on this matter rather than myself? Why don't they chase the tennant for the money instead of me.

the tennancy had run its course and they were staying on a month to month basis. So I take it I have to pay then? It isn't the money more the principle and the customer service I have recieved has been shocking to say the least.

As stated I have contacted them to explain the situation which they have said was fine I was even told that there was no outstanding bill at one point and now I am recieving solicitirs letters. Just seems wrong to me.

Thanks for all the advice

It is quite clear to me. You need to say what date the tenancy ended - which is not necessarily the day they moved out.

Once that is established, the liability is straight forward.

DVardysShadow

Cardew wrote: »

Whilst it is pretty obvious the old tenant that owes the money, it is impossible for UW to know that for certain.

Unless you or EA disputed the tenant's closing meter reading at the time, UW have got to accept that reading as correct.

I would disagree with that. The key fact is the date of the end of the tenancy [not the move out date]. This establishes which is the valid reading.

If the tenancy ended on 30:10:2010, then, of course, a reading on that day takes precedence over a reading on 03:11:2010 and OP would be responsible for the difference.

If the tenancy ended on 03:11:2010, this would be the earliest day OP and his LA could take possession and their reading on that date should take precedence.

Cardew

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I would disagree with that. The key fact is the date of the end of the tenancy [not the move out date]. This establishes which is the valid reading.

If the tenancy ended on 30:10:2010, then, of course, a reading on that day takes precedence over a reading on 03:11:2010 and OP would be responsible for the difference.

If the tenancy ended on 03:11:2010, this would be the earliest day OP and his LA could take possession and their reading on that date should take precedence.

If my tenancy finished on, say, 30/10/2010 and I moved out on, say, 16/10/2010(and went to China), I would contact the EA/owner and tell them I was moving and hand over keys on 16/10. I would also get them to check the meter readings that I submitted.

Whilst I would obviously be liable for rent, I certainly wouldn't be responsible for any gas/electricity used in the period 16/10 to 31/10. If the house was unoccupied no energy would be used as I would have switched off gas and electricity.

So any electricity/gas used after I left would be down to owner.

DVardysShadow

Cardew wrote: »

If my tenancy finished on, say, 30/10/2010 and I moved out on, say, 16/10/2010(and went to China), I would contact the EA/owner and tell them I was moving and hand over keys on 16/10. I would also get them to check the meter readings that I submitted.

Whilst I would obviously be liable for rent, I certainly wouldn't be responsible for any gas/electricity used in the period 16/10 to 31/10. If the house was unoccupied no energy would be used as I would have switched off gas and electricity.

So any electricity/gas used after I left would be down to owner.

Agreed. And although that is clear cut enough, there is the other scenario, for which your advice does not apply

The other scenario is that the tenant is expected to leave on 03:11:2010, but actually leaves on 30:10:2011 without surrendering the tenancy or otherwise involving the Landlord.

The general principle will be that the liability for the bill goes to whoever has control of the premises over the period in question. That is why in your scenario, when the tenant surrenders the tenancy on 16:10, the Landlord becomes responsible. [This is quite separate from the question of whether rent is due].

But if the tenant bales out before the end of the rental period for which notice has been given without actually surrendering the tenancy, the tenant still has possession of the property until expiry of notice. Indeed, if the Landlord attempted to enter and take possession, he could end up in trouble, even if the property is obviously empty. In this case, liability for energy would remain with the tenant as the Landlord does not control the premises.

Given the general principle above, we cannot answer who is liable until OP provides the missing information over the date of termination of the tenancy.

Cardew

I don't think in practice we have any disagreement.

However with the tenant in China, and their meter reading not challenged, it is a third party dispute.

DVardysShadow

Cardew wrote: »

I don't think in practice we have any disagreement.

However with the tenant in China, and their meter reading not challenged, it is a third party dispute.

Possibly, we only disagree about who is actually liable, depending on the key fact - when the tenancy came to an end.