Bills addressed to "the occupier"

Cardew

legaleagle wrote: »

Cardew, if you have some evidence that I claimed to be a practising solicitor, please post it here. What you seem to be doing is misrepresenting what I actually wrote.

I am not misrepresenting you in any way;

All quotes from legaleagle's posts

As a lawyer, I read with a degree of de je vous, ---

---LegalEagle specialises in banking, misrepresentation, contract, consumer & human rights.---

----As a lawyer, I've come across numerous instances where gas and electric consumers have seemingly had contracts imposed on them.---


---to those several of my Clients have experienced.----

The definition of a Lawyer is a person learned in the law; as an attorney, counsel or solicitor; a person licensed to practice law.

So who has licensed you to practice law? - which body? Or are we going to have semantic obfuscation on Lawyer v Solicitor?

If any respondent here has some material to provide to support the arguments such as what government agencies & utility suppliers etc say in reference to "deemed contracts", please also post reference to such information here.

From a Government Agency.

You do not need to have signed anything for a legal contract to be in place. A special type of contract can exist for gas and electricity.
When does this happen?
When you move into a property where the previous occupant used electricity or gas, and you haven't signed a contract yourself. It can also happen if you are landlord and your tenants have moved out, and the next tenants have not yet moved in.
What is the contract?
A contract will be 'deemed' to have been created between you, as owner or occupier, and the supplier which had the last contract to supply the property. Suppliers have special 'deemed contract' rates which will normally be a little higher than their 'in contract' rates.
Why do 'deemed' contracts exist?
They mean that properties can continuously be supplied with gas and electricity when ownership changes, even when suppliers do not know who the next occupant is going to be. It means new occupants usually find the electricity and gas still work when they move in.
Do I have to pay the 'deemed' supplier?
Yes. For all the energy you use unless and until you switch suppliers. It is a legally binding contract. If you sign a standard contract, it will replace the deemed contract.
Where does it say this?
For electricity, it is set out in an amendment to Schedule 6 of the Electricity Act 1989, contained in Schedule 4 paragraph 3 of the Utilities Act 2000. For gas it is set out in the Gas Act 1995, Schedule 2 (Schedule 2B to the 1986 Act), paragaph 8.

The above is pretty unambiguous to us mere laymen.

From legaleagle
Deemed contracts are an invention of suppliers

The above is pretty unambiguous to us mere laymen.

They are wrong or you are wrong!

They are traceable - you are not!

Ken68

The insurance companies would have been consulted at the original OFGEM/utility company meetings.
They stand to save thousands if there is NO CONTRACT at the time.

stimpo

Right...

We dont ask a court for permission to fit a PPM, we just ask for permission to enter the property, whether we fit a PPM or isolate supply is up to us.

If there is a new tenant in the property, all they need to do is prove they are a new tenant and the PPM will be removed and a credit meter reinstalled if that is what the customer wants, debt taken off the PPM or reconnection.

If the customer then wants to leave for another supplier thats their choice and they can apply to another supplier to take over supply. The new customer will then be charge for the time they have been on supply with the supplier at the time.

legaleagle_2

Regarding your post, Cardew, you refer to material I am familiar with. What is not clear from your's is what part of those statutory provisions you do not understand.

However, for clarity, neither of the references refer to any consumer contract having been created. And in any case, there would need to be reference to terms and conditions that would apply, if it were possible to create such contracts at the instance of one party but where the other party did not agree or consent. What you have to understand also, is that some legislation that was relevant before the utility markets were opened up to competition, is not now relevant. In particular where there are later statutes, and most notably where there have been developments in consumer protection and misselling.

To have a legally binding contract, the parties must have entered the relationship willingly. It is just not possible to create a legally binding contract in any other way, and certainly not as suggested in your excerpts or by utilities or EnergyWatch. The EnergyWatch wording clearly does not come from any legally trained person. The expression [...contract can be formed...] is plain misleading; "can be formed" does not say such a contract exists.

Finally, it is daftness of the highest order to suggest such naivety that you cannot distinguish between classes of lawyers. Lawyers are not bound to be solicitors, but solicitors will be lawyers. Judges are not solicitors but they are lawyers.

I doubt whether any amount of explanation will satisfy you, until you are better able to distinguish the meaning of words.

On this board you misrepresented what I had stated as to my profession. I presume you're aware of the libel laws.

legaleagle_2

With regard to yours, Stimpo, I understand most fully that you stand firmly on the side of your employer, who as I understand it is a utility company.

However, to clarify the point you made about the reason for entry, it is as you say quite correct to apply to the court for a warrant to enter. However, what happens from that point on, is highly significant.

If for example a warrant is used to gain entry, and on gaining entry a PPM is fitted without consent, or notice as to the terms, or the opportunity to decline any new terms, then clearly such fitting of the PPM is undertaken in bad faith. At that point the consumer can rescind or void the contract in toto at their instance. Any form of deception, even as to the terms of charging, or anything that was not done with consent, can be set-aside by the consumer at that consumers sole discretion.

There is nothing to support the notion that any such action can be enforced upon the consumer. It is up to utility companies to be forthright and straightforward in their dealings with consumers. This is an essential obligation. There is nothing in it that is too onerous.

legaleagle_2

For everyone who has just come into this thread, and for those respondents who are still having difficulty understanding the issue of "deemed" contracts, we can explore it a little here, and you are invited to give answers as to how you would approach such a scenario if it were to happen to you.

The facts are:

(1) Person living in a house, happy with existing supply and payment arrangements. Not looking for a new supplier. Did not make any new supplier enquiries or ask any agent to call or quote.

(2) A bill arrives addressed to "The Occupier" from newsupplier.com. The bill is estimated and dates back for almost two years. This is the first time the occupier knows about "newsupplier.com"'s claim to be the supplier.

(3) The sender of the bill then obtains the occupier's name and reprints all the bills in that name and sends them again.

(4) The occupier refuses payment or any acknowledgment of "newsupplier.com"'s claim to be the supplier. Newsupplier.com continues to claim they are the supplier.

(5) On consumer's side lawyer drafts letter to newsupplier.com Newsupplier.com never replies to correspondence apart from holding letters.

These are the relevant facts. Put yourself in the position of that consumer; ask yourself if you think that it is correct, that you can end up being supplied by a supplier whose terms were not made known to you at the time.

Importantly, you were not told the terms for a "deemed" contract or even that one is said to exist at the time it is claimed it first existed, and that none of the distance selling regulations or the provisions of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts regulations were complied with.

When running through the scenario, you must only consider facts, not opinion or current practice or custom. You have to adopt the mindset of an objective bystander, even if this scenario is one that affects you yourself or someone you know.

Now, who thinks the consumer is liable to pay Newsupplier.com? Briefly set out the reason(s) why?

stimpo

legaleagle wrote: »

With regard to yours, Stimpo, I understand most fully that you stand firmly on the side of your employer, who as I understand it is a utility company.

However, to clarify the point you made about the reason for entry, it is as you say quite correct to apply to the court for a warrant to enter. However, what happens from that point on, is highly significant.

If for example a warrant is used to gain entry, and on gaining entry a PPM is fitted without consent, or notice as to the terms, or the opportunity to decline any new terms, then clearly such fitting of the PPM is undertaken in bad faith. At that point the consumer can rescind or void the contract in toto at their instance. Any form of deception, even as to the terms of charging, or anything that was not done with consent, can be set-aside by the consumer at that consumers sole discretion.

There is nothing to support the notion that any such action can be enforced upon the consumer. It is up to utility companies to be forthright and straightforward in their dealings with consumers. This is an essential obligation. There is nothing in it that is too onerous.

If a PPM is fitted on warrant, or forcefitted by an agent on a PDV visit then that meter will remain at that property until either the debt is repaid and the customer requests removal or a new occupier takes over the property and requests removal.

Cardew

legaleagle wrote: »

On this board you misrepresented what I had stated as to my profession. I presume you're aware of the libel laws.

So you are not a solicitor - what a surprise! Why has it take 90 odd posts to make that clear.

However you claim to be a lawyer. So come on, do tell us what type of lawyer? - Barrister perhaps? Judge?

As for your implied threat! it as silly as your other contributions!!

Post your details - name/organisation/professional status(that is type of lawyer) on this thread(or PM me)to verify who you are and we will take the matter further if you wish.

As stated before I will send this correspondence to the Law Society(with my full name and details of course) and see if they are happy with your claims and advice. That applies to all your contributions in this thread - not just the latest hypothetical cases you are putting forward(presumably to save face)

SwanJon

legaleagle wrote: »

For everyone who has just come into this thread, and for those respondents who are still having difficulty understanding the issue of "deemed" contracts, we can explore it a little here, and you are invited to give answers as to how you would approach such a scenario if it were to happen to you.

The facts are:
{Totally irrelevant example removed to prevent having to read it again}

Now, who thinks the consumer is liable to pay Newsupplier.com? Briefly set out the reason(s) why?

The only way this misguided example could be seen as a deemed contract if 'person' moved in 2 years ago, didn't inform anyone, as no-one took over the supply.
'Person' doesn't pay for 2 years as Newsupplier.com doesn't bill for 2 years (see other appropriate threads)
'Person' is still liable for last 12 months usage.

Any other interpretation would mena the case would be an erroneous transfer.

Legal Eagle - anyone can win an argument by changing it. Bills addressed to the occupier are sent following a change of tenancy, and that is what the vast majority of this thread has been about, exeept for your examples.

I say again - you use it, you pay for it.

Can anyone confirm which suppliers charge more for a deemed contract?
I know we don't but it might be something we can pull together on this thread.

Terrylw1

SwanJon wrote: »

Can anyone confirm which suppliers charge more for a deemed contract?
I know we don't but it might be something we can pull together on this thread.

Well, due to lack of time I'll confess I haven't read the replies from Legaleagle. I'll add my thoughts on the response to my questions in the discussion as soon as poss.

To answer your question SwanJon, I haven't ever seen this.

What does tend to happen is that when you do a change of tenancy for a ne customer, any old deal is lost. So, the Supplier can remove any additional benefits such as duel fuel, reduced unit charges based on a later version say applied to a long standing customer etc.

I believe that statement is only included to allow Suppliers to make changes in that way, not to give them the right to charge based on a deemed contract. Across the utilities i've worked for, I've never seen them do it as it's far too much hassle to have deemed rates. Besides, they would end up changing them quickly each time when a customer challenged it since they could easily say they have provided their details and the Suppliers has lost them.