deemed contract - is a landlord liable for tenant's business utility bills?

SYNERGY

tifo wrote: »

My friend says bills in the tenant's name do exist because the supplier sent copies to him many months ago before this case. He hasn't got them now as he thought it's nothing to do with him. That's when a DCA was chasing.

I hope I don't appear to be nit picky and am genuinely interested in the outcome of this but...................

In post #11 you posted;

We are assuming the original invoices were in the tenant's name and again without seeing them (under disclosure) we can't yet submit a full defence.

Here in post #18 you say:

My friend says bills in the tenant's name do exist because the supplier sent copies to him many months ago before this case.

A couple of points spring to mind:

Why would the utility company send an account with the name, address and presumably other personal details to a third party, the landlord ?

Surely this would be in breach of the data protection act, though I stand to be corrected.

Or were they addressed to the occupier, quite a different kettle of fish ?

On receiving the bills, plural, many months before the case, was the tenant still in the property ?

Did your friend not contact the utility company instantly on reciept of these bills to clarify and correct the situation before it got out of hand, as now ? I know I would.

What makes the situation a bit more hair raising is that you also say:

That's when a DCA was chasing. :eek:

This would have rung alarm bells and would have had me keeping every scrap of paper, envelope, email, telephone conversation, in a safe place.

Let us know how he goes on.

zorro10

Did you check the issue with Data Protection?

tifo

SYNERGY wrote: »

Did your friend not contact the utility company instantly on reciept of these bills to clarify and correct the situation before it got out of hand, as now ? I know I would.

He's been negotiating with them for many months. Even shown them the tenancy agreements etc. He tells me the supplier knows the property tenanted.

The supplier is thinking by suing the owner under a deemed contract (now that the tenant has done a runner) they will get their money.

tifo

zorro10 wrote: »

Did you check the issue with Data Protection?

Not yet but will do. We've been busy with the court papers, AQ etc.

The bills were obviously never in the owner's name, reprinting them in this way with a TEMP account number is a misuse of my friend's data because it is not accurate.

What account is ever numbered TEMP for 2 years? Every customer has a unique account number.

Any why is it a TEMP account number? Because the original bills were in the tenant's name with their account number. My friend doesn't have an account number because he's never had any bills from them in his name.

bengasman

The owner did not have a contract with the supplier. The owner did not use the energy. The owner was never billed before.
The answer is simple: deny agreement to alter anything whatsoever, and let the supplier make a complete fool of himself in front of the bench.
It might be an idea to pay the bill from the time the the premises were vacated before the hearing.

undaunted

I think you'll find it's the courts rather than you that do or don't give permission for them to change their claim. You can & by the sound of things should raise an objection but you don't get to refuse permission as such.

If you can evidence that there was a contract with the tennant not the landlord & any debt has absoultely nothing to do with the landlord I believe you could also ask the Judge to consider striking out the claim rather than have to proceed to trial & submitting any new defence

tifo

I just found out from my friend that the property is in a Ltd company name and he and two others are directors. The company does not trade at the moment for the past year or so. The tenancy agreements made it clear that all rent etc payments are to be made to the company.

Does this change things as they're suing him personally as 'owner' of the property (because the planning application was in his name).

undaunted

Limited liability usually limits your liability to no more than your investment unless he's given any guarantees. He should probably seek proper legal advice

tifo

the case is set for a final hearing in August this year. The supplier (and their solicitors) insists on carrying on despite being given the tenancy agreements AGAIN.

their case is based on The Electricity Act 1986 Schedule 6 paragraph 3 despite the section saying "the supplier shall be deemed to have contracted with the occupier (or the owner if the premises are unoccupied)" and we have shown it was occupied by tenants and that the owner will pay for the unoccupied periods, exactly like the law says.

bengasman

I suspect it is standard policy to try the use of court hearings to intimidate people, in the knowledge that they can always withdraw at the very last moment. It is similar to the habit of public prosecutors to file an appeal when they lose a case.
Don't worry about it, they don't have a leg to stand on.