Is mum responsible for payment of bill

BOBBYDOG_2

My father died a few weeks ago. He had an account for both Gas and Electricity supplied by EDF-IN HIS NAME ONLY.The bill is £576. approx (He was on oxygen therapy so huge electric bills)

He died intestate, leaving no bank accounts, savings or monies of any kind. He had no debts.
He lived with my Mum in a Local Authority rented flat.
Is my Mum responsible for the outstanding bill? Any thoughts?

grahamc2003

My unqualified thoughts are that your mother probably isn't responsible, but the estate is. The executers (or whatever those who administer the estate are called in these cases) should pay the bill out of any cash raised I expect, but don't take my word for it. You really need a qualified legal opinion.

macman

BOBBYDOG wrote: »

My father died a few weeks ago. He had an account for both Gas and Electricity supplied by EDF-IN HIS NAME ONLY.The bill is £576. approx (He was on oxygen therapy so huge electric bills)

He died intestate, leaving no bank accounts, savings or monies of any kind. He had no debts.
He lived with my Mum in a Local Authority rented flat.
Is my Mum responsible for the outstanding bill? Any thoughts?

But he did-he had a debt of £576, for which the estate is liable. The bill should be send to the executors.
Your mum is not responsible for the bill, but she will be responsible for the ongoing bills after his death. She must sign up for new accounts in her name ASAP, and meter readings should be taken and submitted.

[Deleted User]

Its standard practice it seems just to have one of the names on the account, your mum lived there alongside your dad and is now responsible to settle the debt which she has been a party to, or any other they have jointly incurred.I can t see how the debt can be brushed aside.When they got married they become" as one" and that includes jointly incurred debts.If the account was simply headed Occupier or Occupiers it would mean exactly the same thing. I cant see the suppliers not being well aware of this scenario and will have all the answers..your mum is morally and proberbly legally bound to pay it.If its not paid, I know exactly what they will do,in will come the prepay meter to collect it. I am sure you will recieve an expertly worded standard letter with sympathetic undertones but they will want their money at the end.
The suppliers take the view that they supply the PROPERTY with gas and electric, so the person or persons within are responsible for the debts.It would be a very simple scam for, lets say, any new occupier moving in and refusing to get their name on the bill as happens all the time with flat dwellers coming and going.I also get it a lot with awkward people trying to stop me getting to the meters for their own reasons because the name on my address does nt match theirs.I am after the meters at the property,whoevers name happens to be on the sheet means nothing

Terrylw1

Let them know as soon as possible because they will chase hard for debts, but for a deceased customer they will use softer processes which will be beneficial to you and your mum.

They need to set up a new account for your mum to takeover so she avoids this debt on the account if there is any claim ongoing but its more likely a name change would take place when the spouse is there and jointly attributed to the bill.

I'm guessing they were making claims for support of the elec under health grounds?

Sorry for your loss.

Terrylw1

sacsquacco wrote: »

Its standard practice it seems just to have one of the names on the account, your mum lived there and is now responsible to settle the debt which she has been a party to, or any other they have jointly incurred.I can t see how the debt can be brushed aside.When they got married they become" as one" and that includes jointly incurred debts.If the account was simply headed Occupier or Occupiers it would mean exactly the same thing. I cant see the suppliers not being well aware of this scenario and will have all the answers.when my Father died I would nt have dreamt about trying to wriggle out of paying the bill.your mum is morally and proberbly legally bound to pay it.If its not paid, I know exactly what they will do,in will come the prepay meter to collect it. I would nt bother going down the dead end alley of trying to get out of paying your mums debts (now) whoevers name is actually on the bill.

There may also need to be a claim for the elec for the oxygen machine.

There is a joint liability but they need to consider this factor as there will be no ongoing support claim. And the spouse may need sometime to get this sorted.

macman

sacsquacco wrote: »

Its standard practice it seems just to have one of the names on the account, your mum lived there alongside your dad and is now responsible to settle the debt which she has been a party to, or any other they have jointly incurred.I can t see how the debt can be brushed aside.When they got married they become" as one" and that includes jointly incurred debts.If the account was simply headed Occupier or Occupiers it would mean exactly the same thing. I cant see the suppliers not being well aware of this scenario and will have all the answers..your mum is morally and proberbly legally bound to pay it.If its not paid, I know exactly what they will do,in will come the prepay meter to collect it. I am sure you will recieve an expertly worded standard letter with sympathetic undertones but they will want their money at the end.
The suppliers take the view that they supply the PROPERTY with gas and electric, so the person or persons within are responsible for the debts.It would be a very simple scam for, lets say, any new occupier moving in and refusing to get their name on the bill as happens all the time with flat dwellers coming and going.I also get it a lot with awkward people trying to stop me getting to the meters for their own reasons because the name on my address does nt match theirs.I am after the meters at the property,whoevers name happens to be on the sheet means nothing

Can you provide some basis for this assertion? Marriage does not make you jointly liable for the debts of the other party.

[Deleted User]

the word "incurred " is the important word, obviously she s not responsable for say his gambling debts or outside interests but she lives in the same house using the same electric and gas. the address is the important thing on the bill not the name at the top of the heading.the industry would quickly go into meltdown if that was nt the case, with every one doing their best to make sure the utililitys did nt get hold of the correct name of the occupiers. I ve had this thing happening for years with the occupiers pleading this get out clause that its not my name on the bill so its not my concern.they will simply rebill as "occupier".Its a sad time for the lady I know. i have had countless widows crying,and genuinely in a state, wondering how they are going to cope financially but for this case I see no point in going down that avenue of its not my name on the bill so its not my concern.the suppliers are ahead of the game with that old chestnut.EDf may be daft enough to go for it so its certainly worth a try.after all. that company actually gave someone £50 compensation for saying to a meter reader " the next meter reader who knocks on my door for a reading will be SHOT"

macman

You are now talking about two people living in the same property, not about a change in responsibility brought about specifically by marriage. Two completely separate things.

[Deleted User]

I am just offering my advice as seen from "the shop floor" where this thing is happening all day with the suppliers, and I get it on the doorstep constantly, that is "its not my name on the bill so its not my concern".I suppose we need an industry insider to answer this question properly and I would be personally very interested in that reply.We have always taken the view that the suppliers supply the property, and the person or persons in that property are responsible for payment.
Presumablly the late gentleman would have been recieving disability living allowance at the higher rate in which the extra cost of gas and electric is included.

jalexa

sacsquacco wrote: »

I am just offering my advice as seen from "the shop floor" ...

I don't mean to be dismissive but the situation described by the OP is very closely regulated in law. I'm not 100% certain myself but I tend to side with macman on this.