Bills addressed to "the occupier"

Terrylw1

Fairladyzxgirl - if you didn't provide a change of supply reading to your new supplier, the local Data Collector is work it out based on the energy consumption data they hold for the property - not the current occupant. This is done based on data for the past 12 months or so and it's the industry policy. It is impossible to work it out based on occupants individual usage as the Data Collector has no knowledge of them as you are not their customer.

You need to still sort out the bill with the old supplier because as it stands, you are responsible, but you may not be for all of it.

In regard to the post about 4 years & chasing occupier debt for usage priory to being in as discussed by another forum member. Please remember that until you set up your old suppliers account, this is not the same as your case. That forum member was correct, occupier debts for prior to when you were there where the supplier has you on file after are not your problem and debt collection agencies are requested to "trace" the old occupant. They have lots of ways to do including such as tax records which will clearly state that he wasn't liable for it. In regard to your current case, it's not relevant but once they set your account up on their system, it will become relevant to your case.

Oh and...in regard to legaleagle, ignore it, it's completely incorrect and in his/her other post a completely pointless example has been used to argue the case.

Legaleagle - are you implying that when all of us forum members move home next that we should not inform any utility suppliers that we have moved in, get the bills in the name of the occupier and then refuse to pay and be backed by the law??? You seem to be applying contract law to an area where contarts are legally assumed as per the regulator. I guess none of us need to pay for goods & services that we use, I'll remember that next time I fill up down at the petrol station, shall I? Well I won't be signing anything before filling up! I notice you have not attempted to justify your argument, do you not think you should since you are serving to mislead people who are seeking advice???

legaleagle_2

My thanks go to those here who made a good argument as to why the position is not as I have stated. Several posters have raised good points.

In relation to the "relevant" statutes, which have kindly been copied here, it is a matter of exactly understanding the words of that provision. For example, consider the meaning of "[not] in pursuance of a contract" and vice versa.

With regard to the text from EnergyWatch, that text is merely their statement. It has absolutely no legal weight or authority whatsoever. Bear in mind that EnergyWatch are not an independent arbitrator.

What will be evident by looking at the various legislative extracts that appear to support the different arguments, is that none of the legislation deals with whether the consumer has been given the right to free choice of his or her supplier. And that is essentially what this is about; whether you had the choice or whether something was foisted on you. Moreover, legislation pre 2000 is likely to be much less relevant now in the light of further consumer protections, especially since 2005.

The guidance originated from a scenario where an occupier's name was phished by a supplier who then simply took over the supply account without informing the occupier or the owner of that premises. As it happened the occupier in question did not need to make a declaration to inform the utility provider of her occupation because she was already in occupation and using utilities under the terms of an agreement with the property owner. Given these facts, it should be easy to determine whether this guidance may in any way be relevant to you.

The law is very clear on consumer rights and protections; they are considered paramount. I think that any of those here who advance properly constructed argument before a district judge on consumer protection grounds will find that the most successful avenue of approach. I do urge properly constructed, which means you will need some help. For the sake of clarity, the guidance given relates to a specific set of circumstances whereby a supplier breaches their statutory duty to you as a consumer. To establish whether this guidance may be relevant, you must go back to the moment before you began your relationship with the supplier and ask yourself one simple question; did I find myself in this contract by my own free will, and was I told my rights before becoming legally bound? It is not about avoiding paying for something that you decided to buy. It is a question really over whether you decided to buy or whether someone else decided you must buy, without you having any choice in the matter.

As yet I have found no statutory provision that deals with the extent of the element of good faith, that may or may not exist in a so-called "deemed contract" scenario. I take the view that consumer protection legislation is the ultimate tool for dealing with situations where clear bad faith has been shown.

Furthermore it will have been the experience of many visiting this place, that the supplier failed to render a bill within a reasonable time, meanwhile failing to advise the consumer that the supplier considered it had a contract with the consumer. By the time a bill arrives, the over £200 bar to switching is in effect. I question the legality of this bar.

Many viewers here will have experienced situations in which clear bad faith is evident, but even if no choice was offered, that may well be enough on its own to defeat the supplier, as it is a kind of bad faith. This is where, by omitting to state something that ought to be stated, a material fact for example, causes the consumer either not to know the information, or the information about her rights, to be disadvantaged, or to proceed on a mistaken belief basis. Such similar events are often overtaken by the sudden arrival of a bill, which by the time it is raised is more than £200. The supplier can be seen to prejudice the consumer if the supplier does not raise a first bill until the [often estmated] consumption is over £200, thus locking the consumer into an arrangement with the supplier. This so-called "deemed contract" comes into effect when the consumer accepts that she owes money to the Claimant supplier. The contract to "pay all proper bills" only comes into effect when the consumer accepts the terms under which she was bound. So, payment of a claimed bill, is in effect saying "I accept that I owe this money to this person". What about if "this person" did not tell you beforehand how much she would charge, or what the terms were?

With regard to the position taken by EnergyWatch, I have found their statements do not demonstrate impartiality. I am sure you will find that EnergyWatch are unable to point to anything other than the Gas Act and the Utilities Act. Neither of those Acts deal with the terms on which a supply is made to a consumer, and anything in them that may possibly relate to a consumer, are clearly superseded by later consumer protections.

It is imperative that if a person is to be deemed in contract with another, that she knows or is told clearly of the terms at the time [not later]. The fact that many consumers are not told of terms before receiving a bill will not sit well with the District Judge.

It is important to think from the perspective of the consumer. The Gas Act & the Utilities Act are not intended to rewrite or supplement consumer legislation and neither do they do so. They are intended to provide certain rights of supply for the suppliers. That is all. They are not intended to provide any legal basis for the raising of a bill. They are not intended to form even the a basis of a skeleton contract between the utility supplier and you. You need to look at the wording very carefully.

Therefore, the old legislation is irrelevant in any argument of this kind, despite the fact that these two pieces of legislation are the number one most often advanced reason [by EnergyWatch] to consumers, as the legal reason justifying a supplier's claim to be paid.

EnergyWatch generally advance these two, together with the legally irrelevant piece that was helpfully posted earlier, whilst the supplier does the same. The interesting part is that the text from EnergyWatch cannot be tracked back to any legal basis, or indeed any other document that could be considered an authority.

Interestingly also, neither the supplier nor EnergyWatch point you in the direction of relevant current consumer protection legislation. I take the view that failing to advise consumers of the consumer protection statutes, is a kind of deception by omission. What they're really saying to you is "we only want you to see the information we send you". For example their piece fails to say much about the circumstances in which a person would not be liable. But perhaps their failure to provide complainants with a more comprehensive reading list is of some significance. Perhaps EnergyWatch might like to advance grounds why they believe current consumer legislation should not cover the supply of goods or services by utilities to consumers.

I must thank those who made very good stabs at contributing constructive comment & copying relevant texts here. And I apologise also to those for whom the information is not relevant to the particular facts in the case, especially to those who thought I was advocating something different. I will be happy to comment further if anyone would like to take the time to dig a bit deeper on these questions. What you need to be looking for is a good reason why current consumer protection legislation should not be allowed to prevail in relation to supply of goods or services by utility companies.

I look forward to hearing further relevant argument!

Terrylw1

Legaleagle.

In your other post you have said:

- The Gas Act and the Utilities Act 2000 provide that an existing supplier shall have the right to continue the supply to a supplied premises when an occupier moves out and another moves in.

Then in your following sentence you have said:

- It has come to my notice that certain companies, and British Gas being the main offender, are using a set of words to consumers that suggests the supplier is entitled to impose a contract on the consumer at the property. This is not the case. Neither the Gas Act nor the Utilities Act provide for any form of imposed contract, often referred to by suppliers as a "deemed contract" upon the consumer.

You are argueing that the Act is wrong, not what the Suppliers are doing. So, Suppliers will do what they are allowed to. Thats the same in any industry.

In the first statement you say the Act allows Suppliers to do it and then your 2nd sentence says the opposite. So, you are questioning the Act, the the practice used by Suppliers which falls inline with the Act in place.

So, you need to voice your opinion to the regulator.

I have an example for you which falls inline with your argumnet (the one on your other post does not as it brings in a 3rd party agreement with a landlord which the Supplier has no ability to address)

Example:

I move into a property supplied by Pgen on 01/08/2007. I was previously with Spow at my previous property. The new property was signed over by the previous occupier on 01/02/07. I quite like Spow and wish to stay with them, so I call them and agree with a verbal phone call for them to take the supply (hence no contracts other than verbal).

However, things go a bit all over the place and Spow don't do it. So, I ring them again, they apologise and apply for my supply again.

Unfortunately this means that the date has changed from 01/08/2007 to 01/09/2007. So, the supply has remained with Pgen against my wishes.

I have used a months electricity with them, which in term they have paid for to the LDSO, who pay onto the grid. However, I clearly state above that I wanted Spow so in my eyes I have no contract under your argument to pay for the months electricity used.

Question - what then happens to the months electricity used? Are you suggesting that I should not pay and the Supplier should swallow the cost?

In an ideal world this would be great as it would give consumers the right to choose which is what you are clearly stating. However, in the real world it would lead to Suppliers constantly losing out.

You may well say, great, they make enough money anyway. However, in my exmaple my new Supplier messed up the CoS, not the current supplier. So, why should the current supplier then have to lose money? Or, should my new supplier (Spow) invoice me to pay for that months electricity, then they pay it back to the old supplier (Pgen)???

Have you any understanding of how electricity settlements work? If it came down to the method above there would need to be a lot of changes in the industry to cope with it because currently it would be impossible to track all of this data in the settlements systems.

This would then lead to suppliers refusing to pay the LDSO's, the LDSO's would go under and no cash would get back to the grid.

You are arguing that this undustry should come inline with others e.g. crdit cards, banking, mobile phones, etc.

I'm not saying that is wrong as it would be great to have a choice because your old supplier may be cheaper than the one you move into by default by buying a property.

However, this industry doesn't work like so if you ran up a bill over this issue and ended up with the debt collectors, you would have nothing to back you up.

You could also argue that a consumer has time to resolve this anyway since they know when they are moving in after a purchasing process which lets face it, doesn't happen in a week. It's very easy to find out who supplies th property and then to call the Supplier you want. So, if you cannot prove that you attempted to do this could you not argue that the consumer had their chance and "agreed" to the current supplier by not doing otherwise?

Suppliers get warrants of entry everyday for just the situations, so is the legal system completely flawed in that courts are agreeing to warrants when they shouldn't be?

I would be interested to hear your response to a practical example such as this.

Regards

Cardew

legaleagle wrote: »

My thanks go to those here who made a good argument as to why the position is not as I have stated. Several posters have raised good points.

I assume that is an admission you were completely and totally wrong; it is a pity it didn’t include an apology.

From what I can decipher, the rest of your post is simply obfuscation, bullsh*t or irrelevant to the question raised by the OP. –IMO of course!

To make some common sense points - IMO of course:

First and foremost the act on deemed contracts for gas/electricity is specifically written to protect consumers and not the suppliers.

I suspect there is something like a million changes of occupancy, and hence customer, every year. If the provision for a deemed contract did not exist, it would mean the new occupant moving into a property not connected to gas or electricity(and indeed water).
It would probably take weeks before a signed contract could be arranged and the property reconnected. If they did not want that particular supplier it would take months before connection was made and the property became habitable.

Secondly if a new occupant did not want to accept a deemed contract, he should not use any gas or electricity as, to quote a passage from your first post, “consent can be implied from the customer’s conduct”.

How are utility companies supposed to find out when there has been a change of occupant?
An owner/tenant moves out and informs the Utility company(s). New occupant moves in and does not notify the Utility company(s) but uses their supplies.
What are the companies supposed to do? Visit daily? weekly? To try to ascertain if anyone is living at the property.

As for your silly criticism of Energywatch’s position and the quote from their ‘Frequently Answered Questions’(FAQ) section of the website.

Energywatch is a Government backed organisation set up to protect the interests of the consumer against any excesses and abuses of the Utility companies.– read its charter. The subject FAQ is a simplified statement suitable for semi-illiterates to proper! lawyers; it is not intended to have “legal weight or authority” but points the reader to the relevant acts. If people wish to challenge the legality of the act that is of course their prerogative.

You are very clearly implying that there is a legal loophole where consumers can knowingly use gas and electricity and escape payment(in other word stealing). You sound like an anarchist pleading the rights of squatters to take over a property, rather than anyone with a sense of responsibility.

Lastly, you are not a practicing lawyer, as you claim, are you?*

Simply the very worse kind of ‘barrack room’ lawyer who feels that claiming lawyer status and quoting meaningless legal mumbo-jumbo “inter alia”(to quote you) is impressive. It would be harmless if it didn’t lead people into expensive litigation that they would inevitably lose.

We have all seen this before; “de je vous” to use your classic quote. Could that be Latin for Déjà vu?;)

* Why not prove me wrong? Publish your name and firm here or send a PM. Nobody would accuse you of advertising as, given your contributions here, they are hardly likely to engage you for advice!

SwanJon

legaleagle wrote: »

By the time a bill arrives, the over £200 bar to switching is in effect. I question the legality of this bar.

You seem to be a bit caught up on this "£200 bar." Where does this come from?
There is no £200 bar to swapping suppliers.
What there is is a right for the supplier to object to you leaving if your balance has been outstanding for more than 28 days. That balance can be as low as £1 (although this is not worth the effort so different suppliers may set their own limit they care to chase).

legaleagle wrote: »

Such similar events are often overtaken by the sudden arrival of a bill, which by the time it is raised is more than £200. The supplier can be seen to prejudice the consumer if the supplier does not raise a first bill until the [often estmated] consumption is over £200, thus locking the consumer into an arrangement with the supplier.

How can a bill arrival be sudden or not? I imagine very few people get told by their supplier that they will be getting a bill soon, and conversly you must be expecting a bill at some poin tif you have been using gas/electricity, especialy if you have been using £200 worth.

As stated by other posters (in other words), if you use it, you pay for it.

legaleagle_2

Terrylw1, et al

To clarify the point, and hopefully avoid any further confusion on this issue, the Gas Act & the Utilities Act allow a supplier to continue to supply a property they are already supplying. It establishes a right for them; not any legal relationship with the consumer. There is no connection whatever with a contract between the utility and the consumer. They are simply statutory provisions that are in place to avoid the necessity for the supplier to disconnect and reconnect supplies or not as the case may be. There is therefore no contradiction.

It seems that many consumers are not making this distinction, especially as they are often reliant on what suppliers tell them or suggest is fact, or "official" and most people do not have statutes in front of them as part of their daily lives. Sadly the law is often far from common sense.

Use of a supply is one thing, provision of it is another, the right to continue to supply it yet another. As are also the consumer protection statutes. Fundamentally the important point is that to be liable to pay a supplier the rate or charge they make, one would have to be pre-advised of the terms. It is not enough to say the consumer is liable for payment. They are liable to pay the amount they agreed, and that is all. So, if a supplier is so reckless as to continue a supply without some form of consumer acknowledgment of its terms, charges and payment requirements, the supplier may not have an enforceable contract as to payment with the consumer. However, if such a consumer pays the amount of the first bill in such a circumstance then by that conduct will be deemed to have accepted the terms, certainly most courts would tend to err that way.

It is very important to read the consumer protection statutes, and not make up a picture of what one thinks is either common sense, or is law, because someone else publishes an advice note. The only documentation which is relevant to a consumer, are the consumer protection statutes. Those who have investigated the statutes further will note that nothing in them states that utility suppliers are exempt from the provisions. One must distinguish between words such as "property" or "consumer". You can't just lump them all together and say "well its me whichever way you look at it", because the law does not look at it this way For example a property does not mean [or include] "the consumer", and "consumer" is clearly different and does not mean [or include] "the property", unless the statute says they shall be treated as one and the same.

In the case of EnergyWatch, I take the view their advice sheet is highly misleading and is being misused by being sent to consumers who raise complaint about so-called "deemed contracts". To illuminate this further, if I ask the question, often asked of EnergyWatch, by consumers; "can the existing supplier at my property continue to supply the property?", then the answer is yes. If the question is "my utility raised a first bill without advising me of the tariff or terms, do I have to pay their bill, then my answer is "no". In many cases also, upon reading the EnergyWatch advice note, or the name of its heading, a consumer may unwittingly be asking the wrong question, and hence the answer is also wrong.

The consumer only need pay what they agreed. Remember this whole scenario came from an instance where a supplier phished a name then stuck a bill on the occupier, without obtaining that consumer's agreement to the terms. It is not too onerous an obligation for a supplier to make sure that the consumer has agreed terms within a reasonable time such as 14 days. In the case the consumer has not agreed terms or been told his right to cancel or choose someone else, then I'm afraid the supplier is on thin ice. It is only because consumers are for the largest part, being hoodwinked as to the actual meaning of expressions such as "deemed contract", that utilities have become sloppy in the way they conduct their business relationship with consumers. They are however not exempt from the statutory consumer protections. What I'm describing are contract fundamentals. No-one can bind you into a contract which terms you were not told or are unaware. There must always be an offer, good consideration, and acceptance. Without these three all present together, at the time, then there is no contract between the parties.

I hope that helps several or more here unpick this issue or understand it better.

I welcome any further well formed argument on this point.

olly300

Legaleagle if you were actually a lawyer you would back down as your arguments have been proven to be incoherent and you seem to have very little understanding of the "principle of good faith" that governs all contracts .

Terrylw1

Legaleagle.

Can you explain why courts are agreeing to warrants of entry where the consumer has not paid anything under these circumstances? This would imply that all those warrants have been illegally enforced by the courts. Of course, the warrants are served agiainst the property, not the customer so they can be served with no one in. However, this directly effects the customer.

I appreciate your explanations but you do not seem to be aware of the time it takes to register a supply to a new supplier.

If that which you say is "legal", every customer in this country would be entitled to a portion of free electricity when they move in.

This would be a landmark case and would force the industry to change it's policies.

I don't think the Suppliers would pay that on and blame it on the regulator. So,
- no money from customer to Supplier
- no money from Supplier to Distributor
- no money from Distributor to national grid
- very unhappy treasury debt!!!

You've now slightly changed your position by stating that if the customer had paid a bill, they would have agreed. So, if the Supplier has been trying to contact them with letters and they have chosen to continue receiving electricity could you not argue the same?

Maybe the best way would be to pull the fuses on every property like the old days. Of course, that then left a lot of people without power including "at risk" members of the community. This is why this outdated policy was removed.

The way to get around all of this which would agree with your argument would be to allow the Suppliers to perform a "backdated" registration. then the customer could use their moving in date. The industry rules state that all registrations have to be future dated.

Now in the process of forming these industry rules every Supplier, Meter Operator, Data Collector, Distributor and industry body was invited to view and comment. This allowed for a wideranging debate across the industry.

This is still how it happens now.

In this process lots of bodies are involved from operational analysts, change management analyst to economic & regulatory teams. How strange that out of the hundreds that have viewed all of the policies, no one has ever spotted this.

Simply, because the Act allows the Suppliers to supply the property - not the customer. Now, a property isn't alive so common sense dictates that anybody living there has to pay for provision of services.

Regards

legaleagle_2

Thanks Terrylw1,

Only the industry players were consulted when all this first came into play. At that time there was only one domestic supplier of gas and electricity. Consumer protections had not advanced as far as they are today. It was not anticipated that there would be competition and & various public companies involved, and it is only in recent years that the whole misselling of consumer utility supplies has emerged.

Suppliers are at liberty to make their own choices as to whether they wish to rely on the provisions of the Gas Act or the Utilities Act. It only operates in relation to how they conduct handovers or continuations of supply. None of that should or indeed need affect how they bill, or what usage they bill for; especially in relation to any short period at the start which should allow a consumer to make their own choice. I think it is not too onerous or unreasonable for a supplier to get their paperwork underway as soon as they receive a notification of a change of occupier. The question is not what the Gas Act or the UA2000 provide for, as that is only provision in relation to suppliers and properties, but more what the consumer agreed to and what information was made available to the consumer, before that consumer is bound into any contract. [see Distance Selling Regulations].

Your question over Warrants of Entry, is a different point. A Warrant for entry can be applied for, for any reasonable reason.

If however, the application is made on grounds, such as suspicion of meter tampering, then consumer protection argument simply does not come into play, because under the Warrants (Rights of Entry) legislation, the right of entry is not based on whether there is a valid contract, and indeed that need not even come into it, if another reason is given. The reason given need only appear reasonable for the warrant to be granted.

If, however, an application is made for entry on the ground of suspicion of meter tampering and the real reason is to fit a pre-payment meter, then the supplier will be in contempt and action may be taken against such a supplier in such a case. If a court discovers that an application has been abused, the consumer will normally be given the opportunity to oust the supplier, because of deceptive conduct. The court may impose criminal contempt sanctions against a supplier who blatantly misrepresents the reason for the warrant.

So, in effect, there is nothing much that can be done to defend a warrant of entry, and it needs no connection with the contract, the existence of it or otherwise. There is in fact, nothing to prevent a utility supplier serving a warrant of entry at 2am with the police present, even if you owe no money and are not suspected of meter tampering.

There are a huge variety of possible permutations and circumstances and of course every case is different, turns on its own set of facts etc. The important point to remember is precisely that the property is not a person or vice versa. That is why the relevant Acts define the essential terms in the provisions such as consumer, supplier or property. If the statute was intended to cover a consumer for example, then that must be stated in the Act and "consumer" will be defined. If an Act does not make reference to "consumer" then it is not relevant to consumers. This, I think, is where everyone gets caught up into misunderstanding the legislation and how it applies to them.

legaleagle_2

On another question in relation to good faith, the principle only relates to those who are in contract already on terms they agreed. The contract first has to exist. If the contract is in dispute, as to its very existence or validity, then good faith can only come into it, if the contract is valid. A contract obtained by some deception or failure to disclose the true terms, would not be upheld. A contract that does not exist cannot be rescinded. If the contract does exist then it may be rescinded on grounds of bad faith, misrepresentation, or other deceits.