Bills addressed to "the occupier"

Terrylw1

n

legaleagle wrote: »

Terrylw1, unfortunately the scenario you have stated is not the one I stated. That might account for the fact that you are proceeding on a mistaken basis. Please copy down the original scenario and work with that. I will try to provide a relevant answer to you if I can, but I can't promise to answer.

quote]

Legaleagle - again you you completely misread every post I have put on this subject and on the Deemed Contracts post.

I have had no choice but to add a few examples to you as you have seemed completely incapable of grasping a discussion over the ones that came before. I do not need you to comment on my scenarios in any way since I am not an inexperienced person in the electricity market, I have many years of experience dealing with such cases and on a compliance level with large utilities. I have seen many a customer lose the argument you were putting forward with the full backing of Ofgem/Energywatch. I have also dealt with many a solicitor who has also agreed with the Ofgem position on this.

No one is asking you to give advice, we are just trying to get you to understand more than your own point. If you deem this to be requesting your advice, I suggest you leave the threads completely. I offer advice to those who need it but it does not contravene any rules because no plugging has occurred.

I totally understand the case of your tenant. I have resolved many such cases with poor tenants who have been landed in it by their landlords.

I suggest it would be best if you ask one of your colleagues to talk you through the scenarios and issues because you appear to lack the confidence to grasp them. I won't highlight any further examples as you are either unable to understand a simple scenario as other people have or ar tactically ignoring answering them.

In relation to post #46 - I completely agree with you as I have earlier in this thread and in the Deemed Contracts thread. The point I stressed was, how does the Supplier know that the landlord has a tenancy agreement in place covering utilities? They don't all do that. The fact that the Supplier sent a disconnection notice prior to any other chase letters is unlikely. it is more likely that -

a) your client didn't disclose any prior letters hoping to influence the case. Or,
b) the landlord had been getting them and it's a matter of timing that the tenant ended up getting the worst one.

Any Supplier will add the landlords name to the bill and not consider themselves as having a contract, deemed or otherwise, with the tenant where the tenancy agreement uncludes utilities.

However, this argument, as Olly says, does not relate to the original OP.

Maybe it would have been best if you stuck to replying on that thread?

If you stick to your tenants case, people will agree with you but you are digging into a much wider area and you seem to believe that you are the only solicitor in the whole of the UK including Ofgem's that have come across the scenario of Suppliers continuing to supply based on the Act.

I would suggest you take it elsewhere from here because no one on this thread is going to agree. Or maybe thats what you are posting for?

Either way, it would be worth carrying on in the Deemed Contracts thread where a debate over the principle and your tenant are appropriate otherwise you are continuing to clutter other peoples threads with irrelevant arguments...

There you go, I have again replied to your issue...too bad you haven't once replied to mine...


In relation to the "phishing", thats because Suppliers use credit searches which they pay for discs from licenced credit search agencies to find out who occupies a property. Again, it is supported by Ofgem and is widely used/known about throughout the industry so it seems you are a bit behind because it's been going on for years. Suppliers used to use council tax records but local councils stopped that. So, maybe you should ask credit refeence agencies why they are doing that? Prior to obtaining discs they had an easy route to check for customers with these agencies. They certainly did so to trace customers, howevert whether they do/did it for occupier scenarios would need checking further.

The fact that your are disappointed in "peoples attitudes" just goes to prove your attitude really. I won't comment because unlike you, I don't need to...

Cardew

Legaleagle,
Let’s get straight to the point.

Firstly, it is patently obvious that you are not a qualified solicitor.

Secondly the Law Society takes very seriously people, like you, who claim to be a solicitor; especially when they invite people to contact them for any form of assistance. Even more so when you are advocating that people break the law.

Thirdly you can be traced, even when contributing on the internet.

Why do you persist in this charade?

You are obviously not uneducated, so surely you can see you are making a fool of yourself?

Unless you can establish your credentials as a qualified solicitor any further input to this thread will be as discredited as your previous posts.

stimpo

legaleagle wrote: »

Stimpo, you are close to the correct thinking, except to say that a contract made between a landlord and a tenant is private. It may also have been verbal. If the tenant chose not to disclose a private agreement they would be entirely within their rights.

Gets cold at this time of year and dark quite early. They have a choice. If thre landlord pays the bills, prove it.

stimpo

Terrylw1 wrote: »

In relation to the "phishing", thats because Suppliers use credit searches which they pay for discs from licenced credit search agencies to find out who occupies a property. Again, it is supported by Ofgem and is widely used/known about throughout the industry so it seems you are a bit behind because it's been going on for years. Suppliers used to use council tax records but local councils stopped that. So, maybe you should ask credit refeence agencies why they are doing that? Prior to obtaining discs they had an easy route to check for customers with these agencies. They certainly did so to trace customers, howevert whether they do/did it for occupier scenarios would need checking further.

Occupier accounts, ahhhhhhh.

Gas - Staright Isolation

Electric - PPM fitted and supply isolated.

They want reconnecting they got to say who they are

Terrylw1

stimpo wrote: »

Occupier accounts, ahhhhhhh.

Gas - Staright Isolation

Electric - PPM fitted and supply isolated.

They want reconnecting they got to say who they are

There's nothing stopping removing the fuses as per the old days. I guess Suppliers are just not very worried by Legaleagles................in fact I'm renaming him/her to LegalOstrich.........well for the sake of the old saying anyway, however even Ostriches don't bury their heads in the sand - especially when talking about their utilities...

I reckon a new wave of metering that argues with you...sort of the BMW of metering I guess

stimpo

Terrylw1 wrote: »

There's nothing stopping removing the fuses as per the old days. I guess Suppliers are just not very worried by Legaleagles................in fact I'm renaming him/her to LegalOstrich.........well for the sake of the old saying anyway, however even Ostriches don't bury their heads in the sand - especially when talking about their utilities...

I reckon a new wave of metering that argues with you...sort of the BMW of metering I guess

I dont know what other suppliers do (And I know were not the worst), but on properties where we dont know who the occupiers is we'll pull the fuses without a 2nd thought.

Terrylw1

I think most don't like doing it purely for the fact it causes extra complaints and costs them in extra visits.

Then again, when you consider the amount of reading disputes change of tenancies create and the additional complaints, whats the cheapest afterall?

Sort of depends on the common sense factor though. I think most people will have enough common sense to contact a Supplier. Which leaves you with the dodgy ones which your companies policy effectively deals with.

Now wait for LegalOstriches next post most likely telling you that removing the fuses is illegal :rolleyes:

stimpo

Terrylw1 wrote: »

I think most don't like doing it purely for the fact it causes extra complaints and costs them in extra visits.

Then again, when you consider the amount of reading disputes change of tenancies create and the additional complaints, whats the cheapest afterall?

Sort of depends on the common sense factor though. I think most people will have enough common sense to contact a Supplier. Which leaves you with the dodgy ones which your companies policy effectively deals with.

Now wait for LegalOstriches next post most likely telling you that removing the fuses is illegal :rolleyes:

We must be breaking the law everyday then!

Although changing the meter for a prepay on a pre-disconnection visit without customer consent...

guppy

Terrylw1 wrote: »

in fact I'm renaming him/her to LegalOstrich.........well for the sake of the old saying anyway, however even Ostriches don't bury their heads in the sand - especially when talking about their utilities...

And like an ostrich...none of his arguments can fly

Or was that Orville?

Terrylw1

guppy wrote: »

And like an ostrich...none of his arguments can fly

Or was that Orville?

Thanks, now I've got a vision of Keith Harris kicking Orville up the !!!!! to make him fly....