British Gas - £6k Electricity Bill - HELP!!!

jalexa

spiro wrote: »

They will also argue that as the tenancy agreement did not state that utilites would be paid by the tenant then as soon as the tenant switch on a light then a contract existed with the landlord.

Well possibly, but the issue (as described) seems to me to be about "billing" or rather "lack of billing", not contract (deemed or otherwise) liability.

On the face of it (as described) British Gas appears to have failed the "back billing" test.

spiro

jalexa wrote: »

Well possibly, but issue (as described) seems to me to be about "billing" or rather "lack of billing", not contract (deemed or otherwise) liability.

On the face of it (as described) British Gas appears to have failed the "back billing" test.

Given the things the father did (property in childs name) it is possible that BG had been billing him but these went to the rental property. When the name was changed those to would have gone to the 'supply address' unless a 'correspondence address' was specified. Whole thing sounds like a can of worms to me.

mattcanary

Sounds as if the "debt" is being paid back through the prepayment meter at the moment....

bengasman

spiro wrote: »

You only need to switch on a light at a property and you will be in a deemed contract.

As the op never did switch on the light since he did not live there, that is not a problem.
This rule only comes into play when people move into a property and don't take out a contract with a supplier; they will be deemed to have taken over the "old" contract from the previous occupier. It is ludicrous to try and apply it to the owner of a property when the occupying tenant does not pay.

spiro wrote: »

They will also argue that as the tenancy agreement did not state that utilites would be paid by the tenant then as soon as the tenant switch on a light then a contract existed with the landlord.

They will argue this that and the other, that doesn't mean the op has to accept it; the courts certainly won't; in fact, it is total nonsense.

keith1950

It is ludicrous to try and apply it to the owner of a property when the occupying tenant does not pay.

I agree to a point but in this case it would appear that the father has sat on the problem for years and made no attempt to correct the situation.

If the tenants weren't paying for the energy the father must have been receiving red letters for years !!

bengasman

keith1950 wrote: »

I agree to a point but in this case it would appear that the father has sat on the problem for years and made no attempt to correct the situation.

And rightly so. It is not his job to sort out the energy supplier's problems.
The supplier is happy to send out bills without adequately verifying where these bills ended up, nor did they verify that the address they sent the bills to had any intention of paying them.
It's their problem, not the op's, nor his late father's. In fact, it is nothing short of scandalous that they try to defraud an old age pensioner out of his money, and when that fails, they try it out on the relatives after the old boy passed away.

And make no mistake; unless the majority of the staff including the management are incompetent beyond believe, it was NOT an error or oversight, but a deliberate attempt to swindle honest people out of money by falsely claiming they are liable for the debt.
It is an OUTRAGE, and the op should file a written complaint with the regulator as well as file a complaint with the police for fraud.

spiro

bengasman wrote: »

And rightly so. It is not his job to sort out the energy supplier's problems.
The supplier is happy to send out bills without adequately verifying where these bills ended up, nor did they verify that the address they sent the bills to had any intention of paying them.
It's their problem, not the op's, nor his late father's. In fact, it is nothing short of scandalous that they try to defraud an old age pensioner out of his money, and when that fails, they try it out on the relatives after the old boy passed away.

And make no mistake; unless the majority of the staff including the management are incompetent beyond believe, it was NOT an error or oversight, but a deliberate attempt to swindle honest people out of money by falsely claiming they are liable for the debt.
It is an OUTRAGE, and the op should file a written complaint with the regulator as well as file a complaint with the police for fraud.

How is it the energy suppliers problem. The father rented out properties under a tenancy agreement that did not state the tenants were liable for the utilities and as such he was liable. Whoever wrote the tenancy agreement is the person who caused the problem and now the property owner is stuck with the bill.

Ben84

spiro wrote: »

How is it the enerfy suppliers problem.

It can be argued that they didn't have to supply £6,000 of gas and electric to a property that wasn't paying for it for six years. Their billing department should have taken action sooner, such as contacting the person who was responsible and/or if it wasn't resolved cutting off the supply at some point. They let the situation get a lot further in time and greater in cost than it needed to.

bengasman

spiro wrote: »

How is it the energy suppliers problem. The father rented out properties under a tenancy agreement that did not state the tenants were liable for the utilities and as such he was liable.

I don't know where you get this idea from that the owner of a house is by default liable for the debts of his tenants, but it is not based on any British law. Unless the owner has signed a contract stating that he guarantees the payments, only the occupiers have an obligation to pay the supplier.

spiro

bengasman wrote: »

I don't know where you get this idea from that the owner of a house is by default liable for the debts of his tenants, but it is not based on any British law. Unless the owner has signed a contract stating that he guarantees the payments, only the occupiers have an obligation to pay the supplier.

Under a tenancy agreement it should say either (a) tenant is responsible for utilities, (b) utilities included in rent or (c) it may say nothing about utilities. It can be argued in law that in case (c) the tenant assumed the landlord is liable for utilities because they have not been told specifically that they are responsible. The agreement used by the posters father was type (c).