Is mum responsible for payment of bill

chanz4

Its the same as water,if you have benefited from the supply you are just as liable under the utilitys act. They may however as a gesture write it off, how much are we talking?

Terrylw1

The disability allowance would be claims up to the point of death so I think the OP needs to work out the consumption up to that point which should easily done since a lower daily average can now be works out and deducted yo understand the likely value...unless the kwh for oxygen machine is used as that can usually be found online.

This will then produce a more sensible bill that covers the joint usage of the married couple.

Having the husbands name on the bill is an old fashioned concept and it continues to this day with utility customers. I'm sure they would have caught onto this if homeowners can find a way out of usage that they have contributed to, but I cant say I've experienced a policy to ensure all customers are questioned on marital status.

I wouldn't go to a solicitor, avoid the cost by using the CAB or perhaps the NHS has some or of bereavement support service in the area as they do for some long term illness supports?

So to me there are 2 issues, accounting for the sole use of the oxygen machine usage by a claim and then the joint usage of both married parties for their usual consumption.

Its my opinion but only that since I'm less sure on debt with deaths, that she owes just for her share of that joint use...but working it out would be a 50% issue and it may be so negligible that a compassionate manager may write it off.

spiro

Multiple people living in a property and 'jointy and severally' liable for the bills. Thats means the supplier can chase one or all for the bill beacuse they have all benefitted from the supply.

If your mother has not done so she should contact the supplier asap and advise them of the situation as others have said.

jalexa

spiro wrote: »

Multiple people living in a property and 'jointy and severally' liable for the bills. Thats means the supplier can chase one or all for the bill ...

Well in that case we disagree, I suspect both for well founded reasons. I have acted as an executor so I speak from personal experience. I believe the estate is liable to settle a revised bill calculated up to the date of death (and had no difficulty getting the utility to comply).

Do you (or chanz4) have any "Utilities Act" or similar references to support your "grieving widow pays" assertion in the *exact* circumstances of the OP?

oldskoo1

Whatever the result of the squabbles on here i suggest you mention the situation to your utilities company.

I would also contact the care authority who provided you with the oxygen machine. When my Granddad was supplied with one at home before he died, they paid for the electricity it consumed.

Sorry for your loss.

spiro

'jointy and severally' liable is not energy specific it is a principle in law which applies to various thinks like council tax, rent etc.

Found this on the CAB website:

Who has to pay council tax
Usually one person, called the liable person, is liable to pay council tax. Nobody under the age of 18 can be a liable person. Couples living together will both be jointly and severally liable, even if there is only one name on the bill. This applies whether the couple is married, cohabiting or in a civil partnership.

undaunted

Neither I, or others as far as I am aware, have disputed that there is a joint liability in some cases - including Council Tax.

What is disputed - and highly relevant to the posters question rather than a "squabble" is whether there is any legal basis for believing that such liability applies to the electricty bill that is named in just one name.

The fact that some supplier may have trained some employee to say so does not necessarily make it legally correct.

Council Tax bills do of course relate to a property and not an individial (unlike the earlier poll tax). Electricty bills however relate to a contracted supply with a named person not "supplying a property" despite what industry parlances may say.

I did find this on the net (including opinions from a Solicitor, CAB & energy supplier) In the cited case there was a cited tennancy agreement to create joint liability for all bills. In the original posters case their Mum appears not to have contracted with anyone & the question as to a basis for liability therefore remains.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/5078077/A-debt-problem-shared-is-not-always-halved.html

Terrylw1

Well it will be interesting to see if it proves that a wife can't be held liable for her own usage, it will cover other scenarios such as divorce seperation, common law couples, etc.

My point is that suppliers will change names without proof until it is challenged and also, this and the other scenarios above must occur a fair bit so if its a loophole, I would have thought it would be known and most likely closed by ofgem (yes, I know they are rubbish!) Given its an old fashioned concept that the husband goes on all the bills.

jalexa

undaunted wrote: »

What is disputed - and highly relevant to the posters question rather than a "squabble" is whether there is any legal basis for believing that such liability applies to the electricty bill that is named in just one name.

In fact that's not even the general case I've argued. I argue a very narrow case, that on the death of the (sole) account holder (and as an aside probably the sole, certainly main, income provider) the liability transfers to the estate at death. I even accept an estimated recalculation of the bill to the date of death. ISTM that the "grieving widow pays" merchants are trying their luck with two arguments, the "jointly and severally" to the date of the bill and, well the widow benefitted so should pay the whole bill, but two half (baked) arguments don't make a whole. In fact the OP made it quite clear that a main part of the consumption was a result of medical equipment used only by the deceased.

I have to repeat, as a matter of fact not as a matter of authority, that when I acted as executor I had no difficulty getting the utility to recalculate the bill to the the date of death and assigning it to the estate. Having at the time studied the duties of an excecutor that was what I expected.

I am not convinced by the "grieving widow pays" arguments which have been posted in this thread. I believe they lack knowledge and experience as well as being incredibly insensitive.

Terrylw1

Which is why I said in my earlier posts that the oxygen machine usage needs to be covered by the claim up to the point of death since its a high usage item that the OP is concerned about. Then any usage by the deceased is an estate issue. Then the real question mark is over the usual by the widow prior to the husbands death.

That's just information on a public forum, the OP needs legal advice on this last part as there are 2 opposing opinions and no one has produced anything that covers the case that can be used to challenge the supplier, if they handle it badly.

In terms of experience, that's one supplier and no one can find any documentation to support it enough if they don't agree. So, it might just be that suppliers are willing to lose out in these cases to be compassionate or even avoid potential resulting brand damage. Its best the OP knows what could happen so they are prepared as not all suppliers are as nice as seen many times on this board.

I hope it gets written off personally, I just can't see without that legal cover.