not to sure where to put this post :S

chloo

lets pretend a and b lived together as friends

a had all the bills in there name and b used there bank account to pay the bills on a dd.

a has done a runner

would b have to pay bills in a's name?

thanks

delain

B rings the suppliers and tells them a has moved out and puts the bills in their own name!

LandyAndy

delain wrote: »

B rings the suppliers and tells them a has moved out and puts the bills in their own name!

:rotfl::rotfl:

Is that the simplest answer ever seen on MSE?:T:T

daska

But was that the question?

Sounds more to me whether b is asking if they are legally liable for bills in a's name. In which case the answer is, I guess, 'depends'.

Firefox1975

Did a run off with c?

Where was d whilst all this happened? It might be worth ringing f to find out if h can locate a using t.

Alternatively we could put a call into xyz who might know of a's whereabouts.

Does a have a facebook page?

fluffnutter

delain wrote: »

B rings the suppliers and tells them a has moved out and puts the bills in their own name!

What's the betting that 'data protection laws' mean that A's contracts can't be ended (as B is not A and has no right to finalise A's accounts) and there ends up being two sets of on-going bills!

I've tried to transfer a bill from my husband's name to mine. No can do. He has to initiate it. 'Data protection' innit.

fluffnutter

daska wrote: »

But was that the question?

Sounds more to me whether b is asking if they are legally liable for bills in a's name. In which case the answer is, I guess, 'depends'.

If A and B are not married, and the bills are solely in A's name, then B will not be liable for said bills and can just cancel the DDs with no worries about comeback.

The suppliers will chase A as A's name is on the bill.

That's assuming the most straightforward of scenarios, i.e. there are no joint liabilities, or businesses involved, and A and B are legally separate financial entities.

daska

fluffnutter wrote: »

If A and B are not married, and the bills are solely in A's name, then B will not be liable for said bills and can just cancel the DDs with no worries about comeback.

The suppliers will chase A as A's name is on the bill.

That's assuming the most straightforward of scenarios, i.e. there are no joint liabilities, or businesses involved, and A and B are legally separate financial entities.

Again, depends, living together as friends could imply a multitude of scenarios. Does a or b own the house or is there a tenancy agreement and are a or b named on it, or both. Is is just utility bills or sky or credit cards.

Good thing to bear in mind when asking questions is "crap in = crap out".

BitterAndTwisted

I think the OP may have posted about this "friend" over on the house-buying and renting forum who has bailed, possibly to their parent's home leaving the OP to pay all of the rent on their own.

Of course, if the bills are in A's name, B could choose not to pay them. But if any of those bills are Council Tax that needs to be sorted pdq or a court summons could be in the post forthwith. Depends on whether that bill has both names on it or not. Likewise with utility accounts: if the bills remain unpaid the supply could be cut off and pre-pay meters installed resulting in a much higher tariff which may not suit.

Depends on how aggrieved B is about A's behaviour and how much trouble they would like to cause them if they feel they deserve a little taste of their own lamentable and selfish medicine.

daska

AH! Thank you B&T. I suspect b needs to check the tenancy agreement pdq because, if a named tenant then they may well be liable for utility bills run up during the tenancy - even if they were technically in a's name.

FatVonD

daska wrote: »

pdq

Made me laugh, that did