forced to pay deceased dads gas debt

Joyful

I also thought that to take over the tenancy you had to be shown to have been living in the property for over a year. Was your name on the voters roll at your dads property?

DUTR

I_have_spoken wrote: »

OP, sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it!

By some mysterious process the HA handed you the property, even though you weren't residing there.

But at the same time, you don't want any responsibility for the bills.

All sounds a wee bit too convenient, shall we say!

Joyful wrote: »

I also thought that to take over the tenancy you had to be shown to have been living in the property for over a year. Was your name on the voters roll at your dads property?

These points crossed my mind too, not sure if the OP is just trolling to raise a hate the energy company thread , it doesn't matter if the bill doesn't get paid, as the cost is absorbed by everyone else that does pay, the drip feeding of the situation still does not add up to me, like you say why would the Op after living with his partner for 20years suddenly want to move into his Dad's property, I'm still confused where the £900 'magically' appeared from?
That bad December we had a few years back my heating was on 24/7 7 days a week for the month and the bill was £152 for the month, so £900 is a lot of missed bills and if the OP was visiting regularly, then he must have been aware of the billing issue.

Cardew

sacsquacco wrote: »

When I applied for probate , all it meant was that I went along to the probate office and swore on the holy bible that I would administer the estate honestly and correctly. It was all then down to me personally to investigate and administer the estate. The probate office dont have the means or manpower to do any investigations. normally it is solicitors who take this role on. I suppose I could ve been open to prosecution if I had not done the job properly.I had enough family members making sure everything was above board

That was exactly the point I was making and the reason I asked who gave you the authority.

is nothing to do with any relative UNLESS they wish to get involved. The local district Probate office will appoint an administrator -if necessary a solicitor may be appointed to assist with the investigation; and his charges are paid from the estate. They, and they alone, will decide if there is any value in
the estate.

The Probate office were involved and indeed they appointed you the administrator, and trusted that you would act correctly. However if they had received a tip-off that your mother had valuable possessions they would have investigated.

Back to the OP. He has stated that his father left no estate and, presumably the Probate office have accepted that position as they did for yourself. BG therefore have no estate to claim against.

[Deleted User]

Cardew wrote: »

That was exactly the point I was making and the reason I asked who gave you the authority.




The Probate office were involved and indeed they appointed you the administrator, and trusted that you would act correctly. However if they had received a tip-off that your mother had valuable possessions they would have investigated.

Back to the OP. He has stated that his father left no estate and, presumably the Probate office have accepted that position as they did for yourself. BG therefore have no estate to claim against.

It states in the Government advice that probate ( or a Grant of Representation ) is only needed when theres property, shares etc involved. very small estates it is not needed and it is down to the family to administer the estate. also not needed when its a surviving spouse who inherits,.the banks just view the death certificate to deal with these small estates. There is a degree of trust involved here I suppose. The Probate office main job is to collect any inheritence tax

Cardew

Joyful wrote: »

I also thought that to take over the tenancy you had to be shown to have been living in the property for over a year. Was your name on the voters roll at your dads property?

Why does it matter if he was living at the address and had been for 20 years? Or that he was fully aware his father was in debt.

Surely we have established that with a single name on the bill he is not 'jointly and severally liable'.

The only issue, as we stated right at the beginning, is to establish if there was a £900 debt at the time his father died. He stated that he contacted BG a couple of weeks after the death with meter readings and the account was put in his name. So the issue of the £900 debt can easily be settled.

I am as sceptical as the next man, probably more so! and of course we might have been fed a load of bull manure. Again as I stated earlier I am surprised that the CAB couldn't get a resolution in favour of the OP on what appears to be a 'slam dunk' case.

However surely we can only comment and advise on the information we have been given by the OP. If it does transpire to be misleading information, then he won't win - simples.

Cardew

sacsquacco wrote: »

It states in the Government advice that probate ( or a Grant of Representation ) is only needed when theres property, shares etc involved. very small estates it is not needed and it is down to the family to administer the estate. also not needed when its a surviving spouse who inherits,.the banks just view the death certificate to deal with these small estates. There is a degree of trust involved here I suppose. The Probate office main job is to collect any inheritence tax

We are going round in circles. The Probate office angle was only mentioned because someone posted that the OP was supposed to sell off wedding ring, furniture, clothes etc to pay the BG debt.

BG can only claim against the estate, and according to the OP there was no estate; and that would have been the decision of the Probate office - as you suggest probably down to 'a degree of trust'.

Thus BG cannot claim against the OP for his father's debts.

In general, if there is not enough money in the estate of the person who has died to pay their debts their creditors cannot recover the amount still owed from anyone else, including that person's surviving relatives.

[Deleted User]

we definitely agree on that one, BG have to keep their hands off the OPs money, its not theirs to take, in any case any bits of money which is available go s to the funeral costs first and foremost. That is the Law.
with my late Mother she had accumulated approx £900 in the Bank of Santander whilst in hospital which they initially grabbed ( because she owed them 2k ) eventually they had to repay it towards the funeral costs and just joined the queue of creditors who were daft enough to lend money to my wiley old mum. BG must join the queue and accept that the debt has died

DUTR

Cardew wrote: »

Why does it matter if he was living at the address and had been for 20 years? Or that he was fully aware his father was in debt.

Surely we have established that with a single name on the bill he is not 'jointly and severally liable'.

The only issue, as we stated right at the beginning, is to establish if there was a £900 debt at the time his father died. He stated that he contacted BG a couple of weeks after the death with meter readings and the account was put in his name. So the issue of the £900 debt can easily be settled.

I am as sceptical as the next man, probably more so! and of course we might have been fed a load of bull manure. Again as I stated earlier I am surprised that the CAB couldn't get a resolution in favour of the OP on what appears to be a 'slam dunk' case.

However surely we can only comment and advise on the information we have been given by the OP. If it does transpire to be misleading information, then he won't win - simples.

I suspect with 21000 post and possible a regular on this board, I'm sure recall a posting where the poster had become responsible for the bill as they lived in the property , it was ruled that they too had use of the energy consumed, like said the CAB may not have found the OP's position favourable as it is indeed not favourable, there must have been some 'deal' struck up with the HA as there should be some kind of waiting list, and to jump ahead of the queue, the OP may have had to prove some sort of residency to the property to take over the dwelling, along with that the OP would have had to take charge of the bill in one way or the other by dealing with the estate or by co habiting, perhaps he had gone about taking over the account in the wrong way and that is where the error had occured.

MillicentBystander

Bizarre responses from some on here. Myself and Cardew rarely agree on anything on this board but his explanations on here are clear, correct and unequivocal. If the OP had never been named on the bill whilst his father was the tenant of the property then the rest is just irrelevant, regardless of where the OP had actually been living. It matters not whether he was living with his father or living elsewhere. He is NOT legally liable for his father's BG debt, his father's estate is and as has already been established they come down the pecking order after funeral costs and HMRC. BG are just trying it on.

JimmyTheWig

Cardew wrote: »

We are going round in circles. The Probate office angle was only mentioned because someone posted that the OP was supposed to sell off wedding ring, furniture, clothes etc to pay the BG debt.

My fault on that one, sorry!