Old water bill - please advise

Roe_2

Hi I am new to all this but i would appreciate some advise!

I received a letter (dated 18th December 2012) from my water company i am with at the moment (South East Water company) saying that they have just done an audit and found that I owe them £884.29 from an address I lived at 10 years ago! I lived there for approximately 8 months and paid the water bills when we were there!

Now they want me to pay this money, which i refuse as I have no bill, and i was not there!

I have phoned them twice and they said the bill is for 2000 - 2007
As far as i can remember i lived there end of 2001 - beg 2002 I think (as it was a bad time for me and a long time ago!)

They are now saying i need to prove i was not at the address! but i thought they had to prove you were there!!?

HELP PLEASE as really getting stressed and upset :mad:

mart.vader

Roe wrote: »

Hi I am new to all this but i would appreciate some advise!

I received a letter (dated 18th December 2012) from my water company i am with at the moment (South East Water company) saying that they have just done an audit and found that I owe them £884.29 from an address I lived at 10 years ago! I lived there for approximately 8 months and paid the water bills when we were there!

Now they want me to pay this money, which i refuse as I have no bill, and i was not there!

I have phoned them twice and they said the bill is for 2000 - 2007
As far as i can remember i lived there end of 2001 - beg 2002 I think (as it was a bad time for me and a long time ago!)

They are now saying i need to prove i was not at the address! but i thought they had to prove you were there!!?

HELP PLEASE as really getting stressed and upset :mad:

Don't get stressed !

Ask them to provide proof that you were living at this address, and that the unpaid bills relate to the time you were there.

You don't have to, but if you want to, you could give them proof that you lived elsewhere.

They may pass the matter to a Debt Collection Agency. If they do, still don't get stressed. Tell the DCA that the debt is disputed and to provide proof that you were liable.

Roe_2

Am i still liable? i was told that as it is over 6 years old i am no longer held responsible to pay it!

Cardew

Don't altogether agree with the post above.

You obviously were living at the address, if you notified them you were leaving and paid a final bill(with meter reading if metered), then you are in the clear and what Mart-vader states is correct.

However it is incumbent on you to close the account when you leave an address, andif you moved out without notifying them you were leaving the company would have carried on billing in your name - even though there might have been another occupant.

The fact that there is an £884 bill outstanding clearly indicates that they were indeed raising bills in your name after you left.

So IMO it is in your interests to prove that you moved out after eight months.

Cardew

Roe wrote: »

Am i still liable? i was told that as it is over 6 years old i am no longer held responsible to pay it!

That only applies if no bill was raised for a period of 6 years.

If a bill was raised within a 6 year period, even though it couldn't be delivered to you, it is still valid 50 years later.

Put it this way if I buy something, am sent a bill(doesn't matter if I receive the bill or not), but go abroad for 6 years, the slate isn't wiped clean and the bill is still valid.

samsmoot

Cardew wrote: »

Don't altogether agree with the post above.

You obviously were living at the address, if you notified them you were leaving and paid a final bill(with meter reading if metered), then you are in the clear and what Mart-vader states is correct.

However it is incumbent on you to close the account when you leave an address, andif you moved out without notifying them you were leaving the company would have carried on billing in your name - even though there might have been another occupant.

The fact that there is an £884 bill outstanding clearly indicates that they were indeed raising bills in your name after you left.

So IMO it is in your interests to prove that you moved out after eight months.

Sometimes I agree with Cardew, this being one of those times.

Doesn't mean I'd pay them though.

mart.vader

Cardew wrote: »

That only applies if no bill was raised for a period of 6 years.

If a bill was raised within a 6 year period, even though it couldn't be delivered to you, it is still valid 50 years later.

Shouldn't the W Co, then have to prove that they had raised a bill within that 6 year period?

OP says they were there for eight months and they want to charge £884 - that's £110 per month, hugely more than most water bills, and the OP paid bills while they were there. From that it would seem that the W Co carried on billing the OP after they had left, and while the property was occupied by another person(s).

If the W Co carried on billing the OP and the new occupant, that is clearly wrong.

You may say that is the OP's fault, but if bills weren't paid for ten years, surely it's incumbent on the W Co to find out who is living there? (or perhaps they were being paid, but by the new occupant?)

And, Cardew, you got Samsmoot to agree with you, an achievement in itself !

Cardew

mart.vader wrote: »

Shouldn't the W Co, then have to prove that they had raised a bill within that 6 year period?

OP says they were there for eight months and they want to charge £884 - that's £110 per month, hugely more than most water bills, and the OP paid bills while they were there. From that it would seem that the W Co carried on billing the OP after they had left, and while the property was occupied by another person(s).

If the W Co carried on billing the OP and the new occupant, that is clearly wrong.

You may say that is the OP's fault, but if bills weren't paid for ten years, surely it's incumbent on the W Co to find out who is living there? (or perhaps they were being paid, but by the new occupant?)

Firstly of course the water company would have to prove they had raised a bill within 6 years. That will show on their records.

Secondly, it seems pretty certain that the water company did carry on billing the OP, in his name, after he had left the property. The property could have been occupied by someone else or unoccupied.

However, how would they have known he had left the property unless he had contacted them, left a fowarding address and paid a final bill?

Thirdly there isn't any suggestion that the new occupant and the OP were both being billed. On the assumption that the OP hadn't contacted the water company to inform them he was leaving, the bills would have continued to arrive in the OP's name and the new occupant ignored them(or property might have been unoccupied)

With letting properties it is common for tenants(not OP) to not bother with water charges and move out without paying. Don't forget any red bills/threatening letters would have been addressed to OP.

Lastly there isn't any suggestion that the bills 'weren't paid for ten years,' The £884 outstanding is from when the OP last paid to the date when someone else took responsibility for paying water bills - this could have been a couple of years after the OP left.

Anyway the important point is that the water company appear to have indicated that if he can show some proof when he left the property, they will revise the figure of £884 and charge only to the date that the OP can show he left the property. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

P.S. Agreement and a 'Thanks' from samsmoot is the highlight of my time on MSE.;)

mart.vader

Cardew wrote: »

Secondly, it seems pretty certain that the water company did carry on billing the OP, in his name, after he had left the property. The property could have been occupied by someone else or unoccupied.

Yes, and at least £884 of the bills weren't being paid, right ?

However, how would they have known he had left the property unless he had contacted them, left a forwarding address and paid a final bill?

When they found out the bills were not being paid, and their letters were unanswered, in the years after he left, they could have knocked on the door and asked, or even looked at the electoral roll. If they expect people to inform them that they have left an address, they are hoping in vain. People generally just don't do it.

Thirdly there isn't any suggestion that the new occupant and the OP were both being billed. On the assumption that the OP hadn't contacted the water company to inform them he was leaving, the bills would have continued to arrive in the OP's name and the new occupant ignored them (or property might have been unoccupied)

So, the bills may have continued to arrive in the OP's name, although the liability should be for the new occupant ? Or if there is no new occupant, for the owner ? So, either way it's not the OP's liability ?

Lastly there isn't any suggestion that the bills 'weren't paid for ten years,' The £884 outstanding is from when the OP last paid to the date when someone else took responsibility for paying water bills - this could have been a couple of years after the OP left.

Yes, fair point

Anyway the important point is that the water company appear to have indicated that if he can show some proof when he left the property, they will revise the figure of £884 and charge only to the date that the OP can show he left the property. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

You are reading something from the OP's post that I just can't see, but the W Co need to prove that they raised a bill in those six years, otherwise they've simply lost the money.

The point is, it's not the OP's liability, only eight months of it is. The question of who proves what, and when, is the sticking point.

I know that when I have received demands for payment for previous occupants of my flat, and been told by the "creditor" or the DCA that I have to prove that it's not my bill, by sending a tenancy agreement or something - I simply tell them that I don't owe them anything, and that I won't send them anything. I think it's for them to prove that it is my bill.

samsmoot

mart.vader wrote: »

I know that when I have received demands for payment for previous occupants of my flat, and been told by the "creditor" or the DCA that I have to prove that it's not my bill, by sending a tenancy agreement or something - I simply tell them that I don't owe them anything, and that I won't send them anything. I think it's for them to prove that it is my bill.

That's right - you tell them to get lost unless they can prove it's your bill.

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way with the water. I've spent a lot of time looking at water legislation and the law says you need to notify them when you vacate a property or else they can assume you are still there until you tell them you're not - unless you can show otherwise.

samsmoot

Cardew wrote: »

P.S. Agreement and a 'Thanks' from samsmoot is the highlight of my time on MSE.;)

Chuckle chuckle