Is mum responsible for payment of bill

st999

Does anyone not think it is strange that the OP has only posted once and has never returned?

Terrylw1

After reading the procedure of the executir in sending a copy of the death certificate to utilities who then determine the debt to date of death value, a couple of items be one apparent.

1 - Its going to get the account closed to an estimate
2 - If the spouse is not recorded, the closed account value will absorb all usage

So, its going to be a progress supplier who a portions spouse debt for their usage which other than a %, would be impossible to calculate. Utilities aren't very good with the bill values they already have to create, so its unlikely they have come up with a process.

undaunted

Essentially I wouldn't disagree with either Jalexa or Terrylw1 - I think all three of us are basically of a similar opinion - that there is no evidence so far that the widow of a deceased person can directly be held accountable for what is ultimately her husband / wifes debt.

The only possible issue I can see with that is whether there is an estate to pay it from & if so I guess indirectly the wife would then basically be paying the bill as it's then coming out of money she would otherwise likely have received.

If there genuinely is no estate I would tell the supplier so. It would take someone very hard hearted to want to take your Mum to the Courts over it regardless of the diverging opinions as to whether or not they would win were they to do so.

Good luck

tsunami70

I've just helped my partner through the process of being an executor. The estate was insolvent with high debts and very little assets. NPower's final bill was added to the list of debts and they are amongst the companies now fighting with our appointed insolvency practitioners.

Although not directly related to OP's position (the lady lived alone when she died), any bills in the deceased's name are passed to the estate to pay on death. With no assets, the estate needs to be sequestrated (in scotland anyway) and what's left divvied up pro rata.

[Deleted User]

I am more concerned with the general principle that the OP was making with the wording in block capitals IN HIS NAME ONLY. Putting aside the bereavement issue, grieving widows,oxygen machines,executors,insensitivety etc, and to get back to the real issue of, is the name on the utility account solely resposponsible for paying the bill.One or two industry insiders have given their opinion, which I for one would accept.I would also accept that individual account managers would occasionally reduce or even scrub outstanding bills at bereavements.I hope the companys involved who do this are making good the loss to the grid themselves and not doing a clever bit of accounting to make sure they dont lose out.

Terrylw1

sacsquacco wrote: »

I am more concerned with the general principle that the OP was making with the wording in block capitals IN HIS NAME ONLY. Putting aside the bereavement issue, grieving widows,oxygen machines,executors,insensitivety etc, and to get back to the real issue of, is the name on the utility account solely resposponsible for paying the bill.One or two industry insiders have given their opinion, which I for one would accept.I would also accept that individual account managers would occasionally reduce or even scrub outstanding bills at bereavements.I hope the companys involved who do this are making good the loss to the grid themselves and not doing a clever bit of accounting to make sure they dont lose out.

Well in elec, suppliers cant do anything with it since they have to pay the distribution company their DUoS charges based on consumption passed from the Data Collector who gets the reads from the Data Retriever (actual meter reader company for anyone who doesn't know the chain). This is sent to the Data Aggregator and then it makes it into the distributor bill. After 14 months it becomes settled by the supplier and cannot be changed (negative values have to be provided in the current 14 months like a credit note) unless the TDC authorise changes beyond this known as trading disputes which are a big deal as it means the involved regions/companies are bring very heavily monitored due to the poor impact on the grid.

Suppliers get a copy of the above but cannot get it changed without providing evidence of it being incorrect.

So, with up to date reads from you readers they can't back it out. Even if the customer provides a reading to close or the supplier uses an estimate, the next time the readers take one it just catches up quite similiar to a bill catch up to a customer.

So what really happens is the suppliers may write off but pay it as they have no choice. Then...it ends up in their losses which drive their charges to their customers up because their bottom line has increased.

undaunted

sacsquacco wrote: »

I am more concerned with the general principle that the OP was making with the wording in block capitals IN HIS NAME ONLY. Putting aside the bereavement issue, grieving widows,oxygen machines,executors,insensitivety etc, and to get back to the real issue of, is the name on the utility account solely resposponsible for paying the bill.One or two industry insiders have given their opinion, which I for one would accept.I would also accept that individual account managers would occasionally reduce or even scrub outstanding bills at bereavements.I hope the companys involved who do this are making good the loss to the grid themselves and not doing a clever bit of accounting to make sure they dont lose out.

I can't believe that you've written this post!

The poster is not making any "general principle" or able to just set aside their Dads health and subsequent death, their grieving Mum or anything else, it's inevitably a deeply sensitive and stressful time for any family in these or similar circumstances.

We still have only opinions that bills to a sole named account holder can be effectively transferred to others. When will one of these "industry insiders" produce some proven case law to support that belief / opinion?

jalexa

undaunted wrote: »

I can't believe that you've written this post!

Threads often go off-course but that poster takes the biscuit. They dug a hole and couldn't stop digging. Unlike Terrylw1 who at least researched executor procedure and recognised the OP's case was a special case enshrined in particular law.

Mrs_Arcanum

undaunted wrote: »

Essentially I wouldn't disagree with either Jalexa or Terrylw1 - I think all three of us are basically of a similar opinion - that there is no evidence so far that the widow of a deceased person can directly be held accountable for what is ultimately her husband / wifes debt.

The only possible issue I can see with that is whether there is an estate to pay it from & if so I guess indirectly the wife would then basically be paying the bill as it's then coming out of money she would otherwise likely have received.

If there genuinely is no estate I would tell the supplier so. It would take someone very hard hearted to want to take your Mum to the Courts over it regardless of the diverging opinions as to whether or not they would win were they to do so.

Good luck

They ARE hard hearted enough to chase a bereaved father for £25 utility bill six months later, despite reassuring a colleague on two separate occasions that the bill would be written off as the father is not responsible for his son's utility bill.

Terrylw1

jalexa wrote: »

Threads often go off-course but that poster takes the biscuit. They dug a hole and couldn't stop digging. Unlike Terrylw1 who at least researched executor procedure and recognised the OP's case was a special case enshrined in particular law.

Thanks, I thought it might help shed some light on it from the other side since I've never been in the situation...I hope not to be.

I know how some utilities handle this, they attribute the debt to account holder but its not for the same reasons on here. They do it literally because their old billing systems won't allow them to split he bills up as they are tenancy date and reading driven. However, with them all upgrading to SAP they now have an opportunity to change this and if there is no real legal guidance which I suspect, they could have debt and process people building new mechanisms to get around this.

I suspect givens its such delicate issue, would be impossible to accurately calculate and has a high possibility of brand damage...its very low down on priorities.