npower refusing to recognise new tenant

gemrhirhi

My bf has moved into his new house and has been trying to change his supplier to EDF. After being told the last tenants in the property had left debt the supplier swap was made impossible, accepting this and setting up an account with npower they have still been sending debt collection letters to the property for the last tenant and no mail under the name of the current account holder (my bf). Every time a letter for the last tenant is received a call is made to npower and we are told the correct changes will be made. A copy of the new tenancy agreement with my bf's name and date from which he began living in the property has been sent and received by npower yet still nothing is changing. we have a 3 yr old and a 7 month old and are dealing with bailiff visits at 7am (they are not exactly quiet or calm, very aggressive visits) and then today enforcement officers came over and we were served with a court order to have a prepaid metre installed they did this today even though we had proof the name on the court order does not reside at this property any longer and has not been here for a number of months. These metres with npower are costing over £1 more per unit than the previous direct debit bill we had arranged and have been paying on time and in full. Any advice or similar problems would be very helpful and we're now at a loss with this situation even our letting agency are having no luck. Oh also the debt from the last tenant has been loaded to the cost of this metre so we will also be paying their bill.

Cardew

Welcome to the forum.

What you say does not seem plausible; I cannot believe any company would act as you say if they were aware of the facts; have you written to them?

They simply couldn't have got a court order if the facts are as you present them.

A straight question! Were you, or your BF, an occupant of this house before your BF took over the tenancy?

I suspect Npower have reason to believe that you/bf have responsibility for the debt.

jalexa

gemrhirhi wrote: »

My bf has moved into his new house and has been trying to change his supplier to EDF.

Not going quite as far as the last poster at this stage, just want to focus on one thing. After moving in the first (energy) thing to do is to set up an account with the current supplier. You will be asked to provide the entry reading (also take a photograph for your own records). Do not even think about switching until that has been achieved.

On entry, as a new tenant, you are in deemed contract with the current supplier. (The supplier is compelled to accept you). At some point the supplier may request evidence of the tenancy agreement. It is a breach of Data Protection to be informed of a previous tenant's status. There I share Cardew's disbelief.

Cardew

jalexa wrote: »

Not going quite as far as the last poster at this stage, just want to focus on one thing. After moving in the first (energy) thing to do is to set up an account with the current supplier. You will be asked to provide the entry reading (also take a photograph for your own records). Do not even think about switching until that has been achieved.

On entry, as a new tenant, you are in deemed contract with the current supplier. (The supplier is compelled to accept you). At some point the supplier may request evidence of the tenancy agreement. It is a breach of Data Protection to be informed of a previous tenant's status. There I share Cardew's disbelief.

My reading of the OP's post is that they had set up an account with Npower who were the 'current supplier' when the b/f took over the tenancy:

accepting this and setting up an account with npower they have still been sending debt collection letters to the property for the last tenant.

... the previous direct debit bill we had arranged and have been paying on time and in full.

If they are getting baliffs visits and a Court order it means that a Debt Collection Agency (DCA) have been involved. Normally simply stating to the DCA that the previous occupants had moved, together with a new letting agreement would be the end of the matter.

However Npower/DCA clearly don't believe that the OP/bf have no responsibility for the debt. The DCA could very easily determine from neighbours, Electoral roll, and a number of sources who had been living in the property.

Also if the Court Order was made out in the name of the previous tenant, they presumably believe this person still has connection to the property.

To get a court order in the name of a 'previous tenant' and serve it on an 'innocent couple' and load the meter with the previous tenant's debt, means that the DCA would have to have lied in court.

If the OP's situation is exactly as she describes, lots of solicitors would take up her case on a 'no win-no fee' basis.

jalexa

Cardew wrote: »

My reading of the OP's post is that they had set up an account with Npower who were the 'current supplier' when the b/f took over the tenancy..

Hmm... possibly. Its late and I can't be bothered to closely re-read the OP's non paragraphed post.:(

Anyway we await some OP answers.

Just one aside, it's a bit of a mystery to me how much scrutiny takes place when a warrant request is presented. I fear not much. OTOH I may be maligning a court-system "old fart".

Terrylw1

From what the OP is saying, it appears they had no connection to the previous debt.

It could be that Npower think it is otherwise, but they've had a tenancy agreement that legally proves otherwise and they have still obtained a ROE warrant to fit a PPM.

So it smells like supplier error. Even if the GF lived there and the BF moved in, it would still mean a non transferable closed debt for the GF (unless both parties agree to transfer it to the new account) and a new live account for GF & BF combined. Its not fair to hold the BF liable for a debt accrued by the GF earlier which is why a change of occupier process would take place. Since the BF has not caused the debt, why should he have a PPM? He shouldn't and correct practice on the debt path would need to start again.

Its a bit of a mystery why the warrant officer didn't abort if shown proof of a change of tenancy. This could mean that Npower put the debt in their name but there is a different party mentioned in the warrant that suggests otherwise.

In terms of obtaining a warrant, it relies on the supplier doing its job right...no process is 100% accurate in the supplier end, far from it. After all, there have been warrants served on incorrect addresses in the past that never should have happened.

The OP hopefully will confirm on the previous occupancy but it looks like this needs to go to a complaint. The complaint also needs to question events up to the warrant and the warrant officers actions (he could have called the supplier for advice if required).

chanz4

It doesnt sound like a roe warrant, sounds like what they call pre-disconnection which states they will apply for a warrant and fit a pre-pay.

I get the feeling the op's gf has been there all along or cant prove hes new, so np are not accepting him as a customer. NP dont have to accept him as a cot and could be considered debt ivasion.

Cardew

Terrylw1 wrote: »

From what the OP is saying, it appears they had no connection to the previous debt.

It could be that Npower think it is otherwise, but they've had a tenancy agreement that legally proves otherwise and they have still obtained a ROE warrant to fit a PPM.

So it smells like supplier error. Even if the GF lived there and the BF moved in, it would still mean a non transferable closed debt for the GF (unless both parties agree to transfer it to the new account) and a new live account for GF & BF combined. Its not fair to hold the BF liable for a debt accrued by the GF earlier which is why a change of occupier process would take place. Since the BF has not caused the debt, why should he have a PPM? He shouldn't and correct practice on the debt path would need to start again.

Its a bit of a mystery why the warrant officer didn't abort if shown proof of a change of tenancy. This could mean that Npower put the debt in their name but there is a different party mentioned in the warrant that suggests otherwise.

In terms of obtaining a warrant, it relies on the supplier doing its job right...no process is 100% accurate in the supplier end, far from it. After all, there have been warrants served on incorrect addresses in the past that never should have happened.

The OP hopefully will confirm on the previous occupancy but it looks like this needs to go to a complaint. The complaint also needs to question events up to the warrant and the warrant officers actions (he could have called the supplier for advice if required).

Terry,

To me it doesn't 'smell like a supplier error'.

Frequent phone calls to NPower, DCA involvement, baliffs, a court order and the letting agent have all been involved and still NPower are not accepting the situation with OP's b/f is 'kosher'.

There was a thread a couple of days ago where someone had run up a big debit balance, and wondered if it was legal for her to 'move' to her mother's(with the debt) and B/f take over the account and start anew.

If OP and B/f genuinely had not any previous connection with the house then an injustice has been done and Npower are in trouble!

However I don't agree with you that:

Its not fair to hold the BF liable for a debt accrued by the GF earlier which is why a change of occupier process would take place. Since the BF has not caused the debt, why should he have a PPM?

The OP states that 'We have a 3year old and 7 month old' so presumably they have been living together. You simply cannot have a situation where someone puts the utility accounts in a partner's name and the account starts again at a zero balance.

If that were the case 4 students could move into a house, each taking turns to run up debts.

jalexa

Cardew wrote: »

To me it doesn't 'smell like a supplier error'.

Well I don't disagree that it is impossible to infer your narrative from the OP, by virtue of silence regarding any familial connection with the previous tenant.

Without pointing the finger at this post, many "similar" posts are "economical with the truth" or evasive, yet the evasion is obvious to the forum "old hands". Usually the OP's depart, rant over, without ever responding to follow-up questions. At that point things become much clearer.

I do however have a different general concern about the whole Warrant process. Suppliers are not "mind-readers" regarding the occupancy status of a supply address. They only know that payments (and probably contact) has ceased. It does not requre the supplier to "lie" to get a warrant signed, the issue is whether it is "accurate" with respect to current residential liability. You and I could return suppliers "hard-ball" with interest but then not everybody is an "old hand". If the warrant subject is not at home on a bailiff call, and the occupier alleges (documents even) a change of tenancy, the bailiff is bound to return to the office and report back. At that stage the ball is back in the creditors court. It is the actions that NPower have taken on receipt of the bailiff's report which is relevant to judging this thread.

And that we don't know.

dogshome

First line of OP's post - "My bf has just moved into his new house"

Though it appears that the bf tried to change the supplier to EDF before registering his occupation with n'power the encimbant supplier, this error occurs all to often with the unitiated and after Lease/Document verification, gets sorted out quite quickly on the basis of a new account.

The OP says that n'power have had copies of the bf's lease, yet have still gone into wolverine collection mode to collect the previous occupants debt to the point of bailiff visits at 7am

Never mind the fine details of a childs age or who is/was, living with whom and assumptions that it's all a scam
.
What the bf needs to do FAST is to write a letter headed Complaint to n'power listing the history and enclosing yet another copy of the lease.- This should at least stop the Bailiff visits and payment demands

Then if it is a huge n'power co*k-up this couple will get their life back, but if n'power think it's a scam, then they should be able to prove it

Cardew

dogshome wrote: »

Never mind the fine details of a childs age or who is/was, living with whom and assumptions that it's all a scam
.
What the bf needs to do FAST is to write a letter headed Complaint to n'power listing the history and enclosing yet another copy of the lease.- This should at least stop the Bailiff visits and payment demands

Again my reading of the post is that Npower/DCA have achieved their aim, in that a pre-pay meter has been fitted and the debt loaded on that meter. So there will no more visits/demands.

Oh also the debt from the last tenant has been loaded to the cost of this metre so we will also be paying their bill.

I totally agree that we are all making assumptions - with the lack of information we can do little else.

However if the OP is to be taken at face value(i.e. b/f just moved into his new house etc), any solicitor would take on their case and have the debt removed.