Bills addressed to "the occupier"

Terrylw1

stimpo wrote: »

We must be breaking the law everyday then!

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

No thats ok, LegalOstrich stated in a previous post that you can serve a warrant at 2am with the plods there and the court will be fine with it. More importantly, LegalOstrich says its ok, so it must be....:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

stimpo

Terrylw1 wrote: »

No thats ok, LegalOstrich stated in a previous post that you can serve a warrant at 2am with the plods there and the court will be fine with it. More importantly, LegalOstrich says its ok, so it must be....:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

If the meter is outside we dont need a warrant

Terrylw1

Heh all, no answer in quite a while...do we assume the relevant book is not in the library...:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Joyful

Surely these problems would be reduced if when houses were sold owners were advised of the suppliers and given MPAN/MPRN numbers.Also Solicitors could send reads and names to the suppliers. At that time the new owners could be advised how to change supplier if they wished. In the case of Landlords they again should advise this info. If they have Tennancy agreements to show rent includes utilities the company would then send bills in Landlords name. People should always be advised to take and retain reads to get correct bills.

Of course people should pay the company supplying the property if they use the products supplied. There is no doubt about that.

Cardew

guppy wrote: »

P.S. I don't think you're a troll, legaleagle.

Mmmm
Legaleagle has not even logged into the website for over 8 days; it was exactly the same last time.

I can’t think that someone would compose such lengthy diatribes and not even visit to look at the reaction unless, as I surmised in an earlier post, he is the Alter Ego of someone who posts here using a different identity and reads the thread. I think pretty conclusively that is the case.

I really do think it is pathetic that someone needs to pretend he is a qualified lawyer and invite people to contact him for advice.

I wonder if the Moderator has traced him and is having a little chuckle?

Ken68

Bashing other posters is not the way, and why should LegalEagle prove his credentials anymore than anyone else.
Playing the devils advocate and flying kites is normal practice for solicitors.It gets things in the open giving them extra knowledge to fight the case and maybe up the charges.

Cardew

Ken68 wrote: »

Bashing other posters is not the way, and why should LegalEagle prove his credentials anymore than anyone else.
Playing the devils advocate and flying kites is normal practice for solicitors.It gets things in the open giving them extra knowledge to fight the case and maybe up the charges.

Ken,
I really think you are missing the point on this issue.

Nobody needs to prove their credentials if they want to indulge in some fantasy on this forum, and can put up with the humiliation when they are exposed. If they need their egos massaged by such a stance, that is their problem.

My objection to legaleagle is not so much that he is a fantasist. However IMO it is a serious matter if someone masquerades as a solicitor on this forum, advocates an illegal practice, and encourages readers of this forum to take that course of action; all behind a cloak of anonymity.

It is even more serious when he invites people to contact him(via this forum) for advice.

The Law Society takes exactly the same view and will prosecute if necessary.

Frankly I don’t know if his intentions are mischievous or malicious, but either way they are reprehensible and the consequences for someone following his advice could be severe.

So, again IMO, it is entirely reasonable that such a contributor should be exposed or ‘bashed’.

Ken68

I welcome insider knowledge whether from the energy industry or the legal system.Both are probably subject to confidentially clauses in their contract.
It is the Law Society that wants exposing and de-bunking for its closed shop philosophy and any knowledge , e.g. about things like 'deemed contract' helps to highlight anything other than best practice.
Doesn't matter, legal or quasi legal, common sense should rule.

Cardew

Ken68 wrote: »

I welcome insider knowledge whether from the energy industry or the legal system.Both are probably subject to confidentially clauses in their contract.
It is the Law Society that wants exposing and de-bunking for its closed shop philosophy and any knowledge , e.g. about things like 'deemed contract' helps to highlight anything other than best practice.
Doesn't matter, legal or quasi legal, common sense should rule.

Ken,
We are at cross purposes here.

I agree absolutely about the Law Society and the restrictive practices they are allowed to follow. The problem is that our Parliament is stuffed full of lawyers who will not allow reform of a system that is designed to make lawyers rich.

However legaleagle is clearly not a solicitor, so has no inside knowledge; and most certainly doesn’t talk common sense.

Whatever the merits or demerits - in general terms - of ‘deemed contracts’, in the case of Utility supplies that provision was undoubtedly included for the benefit of the consumer and not the Utility companies.

Firstly nobody forces any customer to enter a deemed contract – they simply should not use any supplies connected to the property. They enter into a ‘proper’ contract before moving into the property and the question doesn't arise.

Secondly Utility companies are compelled by law to leave gas and electricity connected. It would be too simple for them to disconnect supplies when the old customer leaves. Deemed contracts cause them nothing but problems. We want supplies to be connected when we move in, so what other solution is there?

Lastly, and most importantly, regardless of whether we like deemed contracts for utility supplies or not(and personally I think they make perfect sense) they are clearly lawful. To advocate that this law should be ignored, by people reading this forum, by someone falsely claiming to be a solicitor should be soundly condemned.

C_Ronaldo

Why should the new occupier pay for the previous tennants gas usage