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

tifo

bengasman wrote: »

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.

Then costs for us ... it's allocated to fast track as the amount is just over £7,200 ish. Even at LiP rate it's £18.00 per hour from 1 Oct 2011 and £9.25 before that but my friend want's to charge at his full professional rate.

bengasman

tifo wrote: »

Then costs for us ... it's allocated to fast track as the amount is just over £7,200 ish. Even at LiP rate it's £18.00 per hour from 1 Oct 2011 and £9.25 before that but my friend want's to charge at his full professional rate.

I'd hire the friend if I were you, unless he blunders beyond believe, the case can't be lost.

DVardysShadow

tifo wrote: »

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.

Use the discovery process to gain copies of the earlier bills.

tifo

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Use the discovery process to gain copies of the earlier bills.

Judge has ordered these under disclosure, which are in the tenant's name(s).

tifo

bengasman wrote: »

I'd hire the friend if I were you, unless he blunders beyond believe, the case can't be lost.

It's my friend's case, i've been helping him with defence etc.

spiro

undaunted wrote: »

The Electricity Act 1986 Schedule 6 paragraph 3

(1) Where an electricity supplier supplies electricity to any premises otherwise than in pursuance of a contract, the supplier shall be deemed to have contracted with the occupier (or the owner if the premises are unoccupied) for the supply of electricity as from the time (“the relevant time”) when he began so to supply electricity.

When does the supplier claim to have commenced supply and on whose instigation? IE Had the supplier supplied your friend before the tennant moved in? If so were they advised of him renting it out and did the new tennant ever set up an account with them? When do thet claim the deemed contract with the landlord began? If the premises were occupied by the tennant when they began supplying him / her I'd take it to the courts personally. They cannot simply back date the deemed contract because the tenant has done a runner if they are claiming a deemed contract with the landlord began after the tennant left.

The whole purpose of a 'deemed contract' is to cover when someone moves into a property and fails to inform the supplier. In the bad old days they used to de-energise empty properties to avoid this. 'Supply commence' the moment any electricity was used.
I dont know which supplier is involved here but the only thing I believe they can claim from your friend is any electrcity used before the tenant moved in and after he did a bunk. Although as a business customer the tenants may well have been on a fixed term contract in which case they are liable until the end of the contract.
Let them take you to court and have a good laugh if they are trying to claim from you what they have already billed a third party for.

tifo

spiro wrote: »

Let them take you to court and have a good laugh if they are trying to claim from you what they have already billed a third party for.

But will they be laughing when/if they lose the case and have to pay full costs?

As you rightly say, they know the property was tenanted because they already billed the tenant in their own name.

My friend has said, at the allocation/directions hearing, that the invoices in his name and address (part of the supplier's court bundle) are not true copies as they were originally in the tenant's name and the judge has ordered disclosure of these from the supplier.

My friend has sent to the supplier's solicitor (again), and will show at any hearing, the tenancy agreements and (after disclosure) invoices in the tenants' name, which will invalidate their claim for a deemed contract in his name for the WHOLE claim period.

tifo

the claimant's solicitor's are asking non-relevant questions about the tenancy agreements, such as "why is this clause here in one tenancy agreement and somewhere else in another" and "why did you charge each tenant different rents" and the same nonsense. Their request is under CPR 18.

they're trying to show the tenancy agreements are false.

at the end of the day, the tenants were there, they bought stuff, had items delivered, paid business rates etc in their names so where are the solicitors going with this? It can be proved there were tenant's as occupiers.

undaunted

Why don't you just write back & state that this is a trial about an alleged debt and who, if anyone, owes that debt and not a trial about the wording of your tenancy agreement, could they therefore please explain the relevance of such questions.

As long as you can prove that the debt is not yours if they want to waste time & run up costs let them!

tifo

undaunted wrote: »

As long as you can prove that the debt is not yours if they want to waste time & run up costs let them!

That's what the tenancy agreements prove, that the defendant was not the occupier.

They can't sue him as owner of an occupied property because the supply was being used.

What they're trying to show (which they have to for their case) is that the defendant was the occupier. But they haven't supplied any other proof of that other than a planning application as proof of being the owner. Being an owner does not mean you are also the occupier because you can tenant the property (as was the case here).

Any council rates, bills etc will be in the tenant's names and the neighbouring shop may also give a statement that the property was tenanted because they bought items from them.

THEY haven't supplied the info we asked for, and the judge ordered, such as original invoices and who read the meter regularly (they say the bills are based on meter readings).

If the defendant was the occupier, why do the reprinted invoices show his name and home address? Is it normal practise for the supplier to send invoices to the owner of a business property? The occupier may be someone else.

They have lots of unanswered questions yet they're asking us for everything.

If the tenancy agreements are defective, that's between the two parties involved and nothing to do with the supplier or the case.