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

undaunted

As I say I'd just carry on and let them run their costs up as from your posts they seem to have litle prospect of gaining judgement.

Just out of curiosity who is the supplier?

I ask because in a case I'm aware of Npower have failed to provide requested information & I'd swear these people just try and wage a war of attrition to get their way without it ever going to trial

tifo

undaunted wrote: »

Just out of curiosity who is the supplier?

I ask because in a case I'm aware of Npower have failed to provide requested information

It's not nPower, it's a supplier for businesses only as the tenants ran a business from the property. I'd rather not say who it is because the case is ongoing and they could be on forums, you never know with any solicitors.

undaunted

No matter really, but as long as what you say is fair and truthful I think it's questionable at best whether this could be considered sub judice

backfoot

Can't the landlord show evidence that for the period in question, he received rental income. There will presumably be bank statements or a receipt book or some other proof of occupation.

What about Council tax/business rates? Who was picking up the tab? if it was the tenant for the period in question that would be helpul. Water rates?

What is the latest?

tifo

backfoot wrote: »

What about Council tax/business rates? Who was picking up the tab? if it was the tenant for the period in question that would be helpul.

Business rates show some of the tenants and the landlord when they 'considered' it empty, for which they've given exemption.

But it's the one tenant who has caused the most problem for the landlord. Soon after they moved in, they informed the supplier that the landlord is now responsible for the usage as they're vacating the premises, but then carried on their business for the next year a bit. They also didn't inform the council for business rates and the landlord is on but exempted. The landlord did not know this. The tenant has then not paid rent for many months and done a runner. The landlord found out after a few months. So this tenant has not paid rent, used utilities, not paid business rates and then vacated the property without informing the landlord.

Another tenant has stayed there for many months, not paid bills but is shown on business rates. They're given a statement to the supplier's solicitor that they only went to the property to install fixtures and fittings and used cordless equipment. What a lier ....

This is why the landlord is in the mess he is.

undaunted

Presumably the landlord can however prove that he was at a different address via his own bills?

As the above seems to suggest fraudulent activities can he not report it to the Police, thus hopefully being able to evidence to the Courts a crime number & that an investigation has been launched at his instigation?

Are you able to obtain any witness evidence to support his statements - eg from people who have visited the business at the premises, bought or sold to / from the tennant etc that would prove they were there regardless of what they may have told the supplier etc?

tifo

undaunted wrote: »

Are you able to obtain any witness evidence to support his statements - eg from people who have visited the business at the premises, bought or sold to / from the tennant etc that would prove they were there regardless of what they may have told the supplier etc?

Yes, this is being done. The neighbouring property is occupied by a supplier to the catering trade and has sold many items to the tenants since the businesses during the dispute were in the food trade.

backfoot

tifo wrote: »

Business rates show some of the tenants and the landlord when they 'considered' it empty, for which they've given exemption.

But it's the one tenant who has caused the most problem for the landlord. Soon after they moved in, they informed the supplier that the landlord is now responsible for the usage as they're vacating the premises, but then carried on their business for the next year a bit. They also didn't inform the council for business rates and the landlord is on but exempted. The landlord did not know this. The tenant has then not paid rent for many months and done a runner. The landlord found out after a few months. So this tenant has not paid rent, used utilities, not paid business rates and then vacated the property without informing the landlord.

Another tenant has stayed there for many months, not paid bills but is shown on business rates. They're given a statement to the supplier's solicitor that they only went to the property to install fixtures and fittings and used cordless equipment. What a lier ....

This is why the landlord is in the mess he is.

Inherently, I think posters are trying to help as I have by suggesting that the OP needs to find evidence to support that he had a tenant in occupation.

It has taken till now for you to reveal that the tenant gave the Supplier notice to vacate,then carried on for the 'next year a bit' (whatever that means?). If you can prove that he carried on after giving this notice,there is definately fraudelent activity. Presumably this coincides with the dates for which the landlord has now been billed. Previously,you claimed that the Supplier had retrospectively altered the billing name.Wasn't there any sort of follow up action by the Supplier?

You didn't fully answer the point about rental payments. Do any rental payments or receipts issued cover some or all of the period in dispute. Did the Landlord at least send a bill/s? What was the method of billing and payment for the rent? What follow up did he take?

I don't like to be blunt but the story doesn't quite fit together nor does your explanation read easily or clearly. If you are providing help and legal advice, you need to be much more precise and accurate in flling and conducting any defence. e.g. precise dates,firm evidence and coherent argument. You may want to seek witnesses to state that there was occupation of the premises between the relevant dates.etc.

At the moment, I personally can't follow what you have said about the position on rates.

I think you have a pretty clear case to argue in law that the tenant is responsible for the charges. However, the running of this property rental business is quite shambolic and it is leaving him very vulnerable.There isn't much to it in reality, but the basic control of monitoring the tenancy and associated agreements are sadly lacking.

Posters willing to offer help, need to be given the full facts upfront rather than having to tease it out.

tifo

backfoot wrote: »

It has taken till now for you to reveal that the tenant gave the Supplier notice to vacate,then carried on for the 'next year a bit' (whatever that means?).

At the moment, I personally can't follow what you have said about the position on rates.

However, the running of this property rental business is quite shambolic and it is leaving him very vulnerable.There isn't much to it in reality, but the basic control of monitoring the tenancy and associated agreements are sadly lacking.

We only found out about the tenant giving the supplier notice soon after they moved in as part of recently disclosed documents from their solicitor, as their proof that the owner was liable.

As for business rates, this is recent information as a result of our solicitor writing to the council for this info. Some tenants are detailed but for the one tenant who has caused the most problems (informed the supplier then carried on their business and using electricity) the landlord is shown as occupier but no business rates are due because exemption for an empty property has been given. Thus the tenant did not inform the council as well.

I agree with you that the landlord has ran his rental business in a very shambolic way and is responsible for his mess in some way, but this is more with administration than anything else. The fact remains the tenants occupied and used the supplier's service. For someone that has quiet a few properties on rent, he's lucky not to have been sued like this before.

[Deleted User]

This sort of thing has been happening for decades now, I meet landlords (business and domestic ) regulary where the tenants have done a runner.In one very extreme case 2 years ago in yorkshire the tenants ( drug addicts) had tampered the meter that often ALL gas and electric supplies/pipes etc were dug up to the property, no meters no electric or gas at all to the property until £6000 repaid inc a £2000 reconnection fee.The addicts have gone, but the landlord has been saddled with the £6000 bill.the property is now still boarded up, unsaleable.Surely all the nuances of landlord/tenant liability are standardised by now. I get this question asked sometimes about the landlord/tenant/runner. I me none the wiser so far with this post