We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Bills addressed to "the occupier"

Options
1246711

Comments

  • Cardew
    Cardew Posts: 29,059 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Rampant Recycler
    Legaeagle,

    It would appear that you have dropped your previous claim to be a lawyer.

    As I said earlier, your legal mumbo-jumbo, designed to obfuscate, cannot hide the fact that you are wrong, plain wrong!

    Anyone can read the internet and quote irrelevant rubbish couched in legalese “I take the view ….”

    If your flawed interpretation of the law is to be believed, the million? consumers who move house each year are entitled to free gas and electricity(and water) because the tariff has not been explained and agreed.

    You totally ignore the fact that the Utility companies have no mechanism to determine if the property has new tenants/owners other than send correspondence addressed to ‘the occupier’
    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.

    If your ludicrous assertions did have any substance, the inevitable consequence would be that a million new occupants would move into their new homes without gas, electric or water being connected and would wait days/weeks for it have the terms of the tariff explained in writing before reconnection.

    To come on this forum, behind the cloak of anonymity that the internet provides, claiming to be a lawyer and advising people to break the law is pathetic.
  • stimpo
    stimpo Posts: 74 Forumite
    Cardew wrote: »
    My second point is that if this provision on deemed contracts were not legal, the solution would be that all gas and electricity would be cut off when the old occupant moved out and not reconnected until the new occupants had signed a contract. Doubtless there would be a considerable fee for that reconnection.

    The reconnection will be done free of charge but for gas the customer will have to pay for what is called a 'purge and relight' of appliances. The energy company do not do this. This must be done by a Corgi registered engineer and will cost around £75.
  • guppy
    guppy Posts: 1,084 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    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.

    snip...

    I look forward to hearing further relevant argument!

    Massive post legaleagle, I must confess, I only skimmed through it.

    Maybe you are technically right, but can you provide a single decided case where a consumer has sucessfully won using this argument?

    If you can't, maybe you are being a little rash advocating that a third party use an argument that is wholly untested. Remember, this is a real situation, not an academic exercise.
  • Terrylw1
    Terrylw1 Posts: 7,038 Forumite
    Legaleagle - 1 domestic supplier of gas & electricity??? When was this then???

    Originally they were split into regions which had wholly different management, analysts, compliance teams etc. So, my point still stands as it wasn't just a few people round a table. In many of these companies, the same people are still there.

    When the market opened up, the same continued to happen with all the same people - just under different names! Then there has been new players meaning more bods to view everything.

    Despite this, there was still a government in place and bodies in place to ensure correct management of gas & electric prior to privatisation.

    In regard to your comment on nothing stopping a Supplier gaining entry when you owe nothing and for no reason of meter tampering, thats ridiculous. Suppliers have to obtain a warrant, they can't just print one off in MS Word and get the police to accompany them. They have to provide just cause to request a warrant, signed off by a senior manager due to the seriousness.

    So, your argument implies that warrants are agreed without looking at any details of a case. However, you state that if the warrant is used to fit a PP meter then the consumer can use this to oust the Supplier. There is nothing in the industry which supports this either, I know because I have seen cases where warrants have been issued in error. the result being a very apologetic Suppliers both to the consumer and the courts. The Supplier however continued to be the Supplier because the consumer has to agreed to sign to a new Supplier to change. So, I take it the Supplier is completely at fault and those issueing the warrants have no liability in flasely allowing a Supplier access to a consumers property. I'm sure warrants are not issued under the "assumption" that the Supplier is right. How would that serve to protect the consumer against false entry. You are implying that the Supplier can easily obtain a warrant without anyone asking why.

    The warrants I was referring to were nothing to do with meter tampering. If you had read my post correctly, you would know this. Meter tampering is classed as where the supply is bypassed "before" the meter. So, no reading movement.

    The warrants I was referring to relate to my argument i.e. warrants of entry issued to fit a PP meter where the occupier has not agreed to the supply or paid monies under your argument.

    Maybe you could comment on the examples rather than offer further bland statements?

    I notice that in all the posts you have never commented on the fact that your argument would allow millions of consumers to obtain free gas & electricity. Of course, the VAT would also not be collected in those cases.

    You are making the dangerous assumption that ALL consumers will hastily address the issue. Why should they? Under your argument they are entitled to free gas & electricity until they elect a Supplier. So, they could continue to reside indefinately free of charge, couldn't they? This is why your argument dosn't work.

    You also offer no solution to the problem even if your argument was correct.

    Rather than post on here maybe you could obtain the official position from Ofgem on this an post it on here for us all to view?
    :rotfl: It's better to live 1 year as a tiger than a lifetime as a worm...but then, whoever heard of a wormskin rug!!!:rotfl:
  • Terrylw1
    Terrylw1 Posts: 7,038 Forumite
    Legaleagle - I few points I forgot to add on my last post

    1 - the Act is in 2000, now privatisation occurred before then, maybe you were not aware. Lets face it privatisation was on the cards well before that as it's a big change to a complex industry. So your points in regard to 1 electricity Supplier & 1 gas Supplier for residential are badly flawed. Are you perhaps getting mixed up with BGas? ALL the electricity regions seperated into private companies.

    2 -Provision of supply to the property rests on the LDSO, not the Supplier. Remember, a Supplier is just a middleman or billing company, not the network distributor. Now, the distributor & Meter Operator will leave the supply on because they see that as common sense unless otherwise instructed. So, the provision is there.

    3 - The Acts are not the only things involved here. in the case of Electricity - each Supplier & industry agent i.e Meter Operator, Data Collector & network distributor (LDSO as of 2006) have to adhere to the Balancing & Settlements Code. This code dictates ALL industry processes and is constantly reviewed & updated. ALL industry parties play a role in reviewing it, commenting, improving it and persuading industry watchdogs from making poor decisions in changing it. This forms the licence of these companies.

    4 - you believe (as does your argument in the various posts) that the Supplier should swallow the cost for the sake of a few weeks at the start of the consumers moving in. If your argument was proved true, Suppliers would simply pass this cost onto it's customers by upping it's charges. They are not that naive!

    5 - If your argument ws proved correct and Suppliers were made to swallow the cost this would mean that whilst they could send out letters addressed to "the occupier" to attract attention, they could not generate a bill since they would know that the consumer has to "choose" them or change Supplier if they chose not to keep the utilities with the current Suppliers. Now, this would mean that the 5% VAT woud not be charged or collected.

    Now you don't know that the period of "choice" would be a few weeks. It could be months or more since the consumer would know by your argument that they are entitled to free usage. So, your argument also encourages not only a consumers "right" to a free usage but also the right to evade payment of VAT. Bare in mind that the Supplier is not obliged to pay it if it's not been billed out to the consumer (their usage on the network is totally different as is the generation of bills which I won't go into)

    Surely that would be tax evasion? Surely if millions of consumers used your argument to do this, official bodies would be less tolerant of the consumers!

    Your assumptions are very naive if you think consumers would immediately think they had better be fair to the utility companies and sort it out quickly!

    Please note that in your other post "deemed contracts" you have offered an example of one of your clients that doesn't even match the argument in any of your posts. However, you still argued in that post that the Supplier should be made to pay despite the obvious problem being a combination of the tenant & landlord. Maybe you haven't realised throughout your argument that the landlord was trying to evade paying the electricity bills? Hence your tenant had to suffer. Well thats not the Suppliers fault, they are not pyschic and have to chase it up somehow.
    :rotfl: It's better to live 1 year as a tiger than a lifetime as a worm...but then, whoever heard of a wormskin rug!!!:rotfl:
  • Terrylw1
    Terrylw1 Posts: 7,038 Forumite
    Legaleagle - 1 additional point that I never thought of that you could answer seperately to the above posts.

    PrePayment Meters
    When you move into a property you have to pay to get electricity. So, this would "force" a consumer to pay the appointed Supplier despite whether they choose a new one.

    Now, how would your argument apply to that?

    Also you state:

    "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."

    Now, since you "U turned" in the later post you are agreeing to the fact that a consumer paying has made an agreement. Well, in the case of PP meters, they have paid. So, are you also arguing that PP meters are unlawful since they prevent consumer choice???

    But thats just one of the many huge loopholes in your argument...
    :rotfl: It's better to live 1 year as a tiger than a lifetime as a worm...but then, whoever heard of a wormskin rug!!!:rotfl:
  • olly300
    olly300 Posts: 14,738 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    On another question in relation to good faith, the principle only relates to those who are in contract already on terms they agreed.

    It does not:

    The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 states:
    "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer."

    Plus the Act is not allowed to override any other statutory provisions which in this case means it cannot override the provisions in the Gas and Utilities Acts.
    The contract first has to exist.

    Anyone who has any legal training would be aware that contracts in England and Wales can be shown to be valid due to a person's actions if cannot be proven they have given verbal or written consent. Therefore if you move into a new property and use the gas or electricity then you have entered into a contract.
    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.

    Both the Gas and Utilities Acts and their admendments make it clear that if you move into a new property and start using the gas and electricity you by law have entered into a "Deemed Contract".

    As mentioned before by other posters this prevents any detriment to the consumer as they get a gas and electricity supply.
    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

    Under the Gas and Utilities Act if you decide to use the gas and electricity in a property and refuse to pay then you have committed an offence. And the deception, bad faith, misrepresentation or ,other deceits are on the part of the consumer NOT the utility supplier.

    The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations makes it clear that:
    1. OFGEM is a qualifying body of the Act. Therefore it is up to OFGEM to decide if the Gas and Utilities Acts are unfair to consumers.
    2. An assessment of the goods or service will have to take place before a contract or part of a contract can be found to be unfair. Therefore if you decide to use gas or electricity in a property you have to pay for it as by law you have entered into a contract.
    3. The Act makes it clear if one part of a contract is unfair not all the terms of the contract may be found unfair. So even if you have used the utility there are limits on how long the supplier can get away with charging you a higher rate for.
    4. Contracts may not be written.

    It's really simple - If you don't wish to enter into a legally valid deemed contract when you move into a new property then don't use the electricity or gas in that new property until you have sorted out your supplier.
    I'm not cynical I'm realistic :p

    (If a link I give opens pop ups I won't know I don't use windows)
  • Several respondents seem unclear over several issues I advanced in this forum. In order to clarify, the circumstances which gave rise to the issues I described, are unlikely to affect the vast majority of people, because those people have already consented to a supply by contacting a supplier at the time they move in or out.

    The scenario was (1), a tenant moved into a property and by agreement with the landlord, gas and electricity were included.

    (2) Over two years later, the gas supplier issued a bill addressed to "The Occupier".

    The fundamental point, to help those to whom similar circumstances to those I described apply, is that one cannot be legally bound by terms of which that person is unaware. This is particularly important. It applies even in the circumstances where a consumer decides to continue a supply; the supplier must make sure that consumer is aware of the terms. There can be no implied terms as to price or payment. If a supply is continued, that is one thing, but if the consumer who continues the supply has not been told the terms, then it is hard to see how any terms she had not been told could be applied. And this applies to the price, the method of calculating the usage, the usages in the respective bands etc.
  • If we look at a case which is very similar on the question of terms and contract; Maria Helen Vine v Waltham Forest District Council. Ms Vine parked on some land where there were no markings as to restricted parking. There was a sign on which at approx a height of ten feet was written a warning about being clamped. The warning contained all the terms that would be applicable to any person who parked on the land at that spot.

    As it happened, Ms Vine became unwell, parked in the spot and sought a ladies room in a nearby premisis. Whilst she was away, her car was clamped.

    Now in this case we have all the respective ingredients which shed some useful light on contract.

    The court held that Ms Vine had been unlawfully clamped, and as such suffered trespass to the car. The court held that even though the sign contained all the required information necessary to enforce a penalty for parking in that spot, she was not made aware of the information. And the reason for this, the court held, was that the sign was no so positioned as to ensure she was made aware of the terms.

    There is no difference as to the applicable law. It is the Doctrine of Notice.

    So whilst several respondents are correct in certain matters they state, the precise circumstances that surround the imposition of a deemed contract are vital, because we are not talking about circumstances in which a person contracts with another for a supply and then does not pay for it.
  • Cardew
    Cardew Posts: 29,059 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Rampant Recycler
    I hate to admit it but I am convinced that we have been wound up by a troll.

    It is just a pity that he claimed to be a lawyer and hence might have fooled some people into thinking that the legal mumbo jumbo spouted has substance.

    I suggest if any of us respond to his stupid posts; we are doing exactly what he wants.

    I suspect that he posts under another name on this forum. The moderator could always check his IP adress?
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 350.8K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.5K Spending & Discounts
  • 243.8K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.8K Life & Family
  • 257.1K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.