We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

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

Options
12346»

Comments

  • Terrylw1
    Terrylw1 Posts: 7,038 Forumite
    Wow, this supplier is really a dog with a bone...someone high up clearly is pushing to grab some money because because anyone with any sense would know this is not going their way.

    The tenancy agreement stating the tenant is liable for utility payments is the proof at the end of the day. So i believe that the supplier is trying to have that agreement declared unlawful in the hope they can then saddle the bill on the landlord. I doubt it would be so si ple since surely the landlords solicitor could argue a case for the tenant to be considered the payer since contract or not, they did use it.

    This happens all the time in the domestic market so why don't suppliers sue all those landlords? The answer is that it is wrong and would quickly find itself the part of a public ofgem investigation.

    Deemed contracts in the electricity act are there to allow a supplier to backdate charges if they find out you have moved I as Spiro said. More recently, business suppliers have use it to charge their highest rates to businesses that have no valid contract but occupy the premise.

    In terms of changing the name on all bills, that's completely valid because the issue here is that they are stating that the tenant was never there hence it would unlawful to have a tenants name on bills they never owed for. This process is used to correct these issues where incorrect customer names are attached to consumption and it's been used since way back before deregulation. Its vald, as long as there is an audit trail of why it changed from the old name...as long as its done to correct an error, not to add a debt to someone who shouldn't be liable!

    So, to me I can see why they are trying to exploit errors that they believe exist in the contract. The court needs to agree that it is irrelevent and then they will gave no chance.

    On another note, be very careful with the valid deemed contract inbetween tenants as these can be expensive.

    I hope this is very publicly embarressing for this supplier, hopefully other businesses will see what lengths they are willing to go out.
    :rotfl: It's better to live 1 year as a tiger than a lifetime as a worm...but then, whoever heard of a wormskin rug!!!:rotfl:
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 244K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.9K Life & Family
  • 257.3K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.