Housemates not wanting to pay bills, Myself wanting to pay my share.

MoneySavingUser

robpw2 wrote: »

i had people who wouldnt pay the bills in the house for electric and gas , so i turned off the electricity for what i planned to be a day (they had no idea where the trip switch was) after an hour of not being able to use internet or waste money leaving lights on they all paid up and never missed a payment again

This sounds like an excellent idea!

Terrylw1

DannyWhoWorks wrote: »

I don't have this I am afraid BUT, I am going to make sure I do and get a copy and keep it. Are you saying, to keep it so if anything does happen in the future, I have proof that all 6 are jointly responsible?

Yes, there have been cases where a tenant hasn't been chased but others have after they all left. Sometimes this has meant a surprise debt a year or so later.

So, keep it for years just incase.

Terrylw1

DannyWhoWorks wrote: »

Yeah, I do understand that sadly but what makes them go for one person and not the other 5?

Its because of the name on the account. The supplier doesn't know you are all there.

This is why suppliers ask for tenancy agreements do they don't get embroiled in 3rd party disputes and charge all liable parties for the value, not their shares.

A common trick in a situation like yours is for a dodgy tenant, and you seem to have a few in there, changes the name or removes theirs. This dumps the bill onto a honest tenant but again, they will amend it from the tenancy agreement.

Honestly, don't take your name off as the supplier will see that later and regard as an untrustworthy party and that's clearly far from your intentions.

Another thing to consider is account start and end dates. These must match your tenancy agreement. Any change to parties on that agreement means the supplier should close the existing account and start a new one. If they just add a name instead, if an earlier billing error is found, a new tenant would be held accountable or it. Think of estimates and then a meter reading causes a bill catch up,..but that will include consumption prior to an added tenants start date hence should have been billed to a closing bill for the original tenants. Does that make sense?

Terrylw1

jalexa wrote: »

In general I agree and understand that concept (except with a bank account it is a formal arrangement).

It would be good if this thread could educate. I'm a little uncertain however about what constitutes "liability" (for the energy bill). Does it require being named on a tenancy agreement or just being "resident" (and consuming)? If the latter, and an "informal sharer", how do you prove no longer being "resident"? What "authorisation" is required to add a name to an account? What is the "status" of a name added by an "unauthorised" person. What is the status of (anothers) bank account information added by a "unauthorised" 3rd party,(something the OP has mentioned:()?

Answers anybody?

Liability to a supplier is just the name on the account. They will chase that, right or wrong, until some corrects them.

Liability for the energy should be who is using it, however it has to be provable. So, if you have 5 tenants on an agreement but an extra 1 not mentioned, unless they can establish that extra person resided there by way of searches of some kind, council tax, other benefits showing they are registered at the address, etc they can't do anything and it will be in the realms of a 3rd party dispute.

The tenancy agreement is an easy way. Its more done to proof of occupancy with homeowners to prove the dates they were there and if they were landlords, they will have a tenancy agreement to waive their liability.

Proving you are not there is the same really. The tenancy agreement or early termination of it. Any evidence of ownership or sale, etc. The supplier will use their search facilities when chasing occupiers and make it their responsibility to prove otherwise.

Adding a name is dodgy ground and don't be surprised if call centres are dropping themselves in it. Personally, I think change of occupier should always be in writing to prove what has been said and by who. With tenants, I think a copy of the tenancy agreement should be issued so its without dispute later. Sadly, this area of the industry is an inherited one from deregulation. I've seen plenty of cases where the account holder has spun a yarn and caused another party to have a rough time. I've seen landlords do this to tenants.

I don't know how that is covered in law. Surely there should be something to prevent information being acted upon before proving liability? I just know that you can do this over the phone and I think suppliers are very naive here.

The bank details is the same so is there something in law? This is more serious to just a name but I'm not sure whether its covered under the DPA or whether its an offence closer to the whole fraud/deception/theft of ID, etc. Knowing calling as the bank account holder is surely an offence of deception?

Just to add on the consumption element, based on Undaunted's Npower thread, its clear that Ofgem don't agree with the UA but are unwilling to challenge for an amendment...which would cause the whole settlements process to fall apart. Ofgem seem to think its only Deemed if its consuming which is rubbish and if they had agreement, the whole industry would need to change plus landlords & holiday lets would constantly be without liability.