Bills addressed to "the occupier"

Terrylw1

I'm with Cardew on this issue.

The concern is that people may read these threads and think they stand a chance with a Supplier by refusing to pay the deemed Supplier. So, very shortly afterwards they will get a debt collector calling and maybe even a PP meter fitted forcing them to be with the deemed Supplier (a point LegalOstrich has not answered as PP meters under his/her argument would be deemed illegal since they force a consumer to a Supplier regardless of choice)


On the insider bit Ken, there is nothing binding utility staff into confidentially over company policy. Their contracts cover them under the Data Protection Act, so they can tell you all sorts of things as long as it does not contravene the Act. So, DP covers their consumer accounts, market sensitive information (such as the current ranking of Suppliers on the Large EAC/AA tables or their RF performance), etc.

It's good to have an insider on both sides in my opinion but LegalOstrich has advised people reading this thread to steal energy. No solicitor would do that considering the complaint they would have to face afterwards. I'm sure if anyone follows the advice, they would have no problem reporting it.

The Utilities Act allows Suppliers to leave the consumer without power if they wish. They simple pull the meter fuse. Thats all legal, however it's very costly to the SUpplier to visit potentially twice per change of occupancy to remove & refit the fuses. Plus it's very inconvenient to the consumer who ends up without power and very frustrated. So, more complaints to Energywatch.

Energywatch submit a list of all Suppliers and their rankings on the complaints table. They also detail the top 10 offending issues and ask Suppliers to reduce the problems. So, if they all pulled the fuses (some do) the Energywatch tables would be highly overinflated and then Energywatch would simply overturn the policy to reduce complaints - they wouldn't care about the deeming issue since the Act allows Suppliers to backdate their bills within their supply period.

So, you can't win either way.

Complaints on those tables also contribute to the view of how poor the sector is performing so any big jumps actually affect the other Suppliers averages.

Bring in smart metering that only allows you to switch the power on when you move in if you key your details in...

Terrylw1

C_Ronaldo wrote: »

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

Hi Ronaldo,

The issue is about the consumption used from the date you move in, hence making you liable as you have used it. you are not in any way liable for a previous tenants usage which all Suppliers adhere to. Although, if you don't take your readings when you move in, you may end up paying part since the estimate may be too low.

Lots of big posts on here so difficult to seperate all the points unless you've got a spare hour.

Terrylw1

Joyful wrote: »

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.

True, but only the legal owner or tenant can request the MPAN/MPRN so the new occupant would have to rely on the old one to hand it over - agents could not request it (the same as Suppliers who do not supply the property) without sailing close to the wind on data protection. (supply staff found doing that if their company does not supply the property are subject to the Data Protection Acts penalities)

LegalOstriches other post and part of this thread was in relation to the landlord problem as you say, the landlords need an obligation placing on them.

taxi97w

If you think legaleagle has an AE who is me (as I suspect because you don't like it that NPower had to eat their £200 demand towards me, and because I agree with LE) you are incorrect......yet again!

You just don't like the little guy getting one over.
Why? I've no idea, considering this is a money saving site.

Joyful

Terrylw1 wrote: »

True, but only the legal owner or tenant can request the MPAN/MPRN so the new occupant would have to rely on the old one to hand it over - agents could not request it (the same as Suppliers who do not supply the property) without sailing close to the wind on data protection. (supply staff found doing that if their company does not supply the property are subject to the Data Protection Acts penalities)

LegalOstriches other post and part of this thread was in relation to the landlord problem as you say, the landlords need an obligation placing on them.

The ideal scenario would be that it had to be part of the house sale/ tennancy agreement.Like having certificates for work done.This way the legal new occupant would have the information needed.

I heard a while back that France-I believe- send a meter reader to take a read AND the outgoing resident pays up there and then.What a great idea(unless ,of course, you have no money). Unfortunately in this country many people leave properties without advising the energy companies.Then we have the problem of new Tennants not taking reads:rolleyes:

legaleagle_2

Given that the purpose of this board is to enlighten individuals as to their rights, it is deeply depressing to observe the hostility of certain respondents here, who post comments that have no legal basis whatsoever and are not in accordance with the etiquette policy. Furthermore, I note that none of the more vociferous writers here, who have taken issue with my posts, have taken the opportunity to mail me with questions, preferring seemingly to spout their ultimate wisdom in public.

The purpose of this place, in my understanding, is to explore the issues and rights which affect consumers. I have several times clarified the information for those who cannot get their heads around it. Unfortunately further clarification is unlikely to satisfy those respondents.

May I suggest that if any respondent feels they have information which is contrary to that which I have posted, that those parties post de-facto information that supports their arguments. I am not interested in opinion, only in law, so if you want to challenge the information I have given, you should support your challenge with legal authority; only a statute, statutory instrument or case law, will be acceptable as authority, so if you have it, then post it. Without that information, further clarification from me will serve no useful purpose, suffice to say that without notice of terms of any contract, those terms cannot be enforced. This is the doctrine of notice. In other words if you have not been told the terms, then those terms that have not been notified to the consumer are unenforceable against that consumer. Finally, "deemed contracts" are an invention of suppliers. Moreover, English law does not recognise such a concept and it will thus be illegitimate and unenforceable. Any suggestion that a consumer has entered into a "deemed contract" is plain wrong. I am quite aware that Suppliers use this expression to convince consumers that they are contract bound with the supplier, and for the largest part most consumers accept such explanations without even asking to see the terms of the "deemed contract".

For a final time, a supplier is entitled to exercise a right to continue a supply at a premises which the supplier already supplies. That entitlement does not extend to enforcing contract terms on a consumer. The provisions are purely to enable a supplier to continue a supply to a premises only [should they so wish]. Remember this relates to the premises, not the consumer.

Much of my work involves protecting consumers, litigants and defendents against sharp practice. Should it be relevant, I am a law graduate, working in social, welfare, family, consumer & contract law. I provide my services free to those who cannot afford legal help.

Ken68

Seems like, Eagle, some winners. Can see a few reclaims coming, tho only for those who didn't touch the services.
So probably not best to notify the existing supplier of incoming meter readings as this might be construed as accepting or using the service.

Terrylw1

Legaleagle - can you advise on the position of PP metering then? The customer is not aware of the enforced charges until they make their first payment? This forces customers to be with a Supplier that they may not wish to.

I've asked you this before but you don't seem to be noticing.

I'm not going to go back over everything else. I do find it interesting though after years in the business how Suppliers solicitors have no interest in consumers using these arguments against them. Of course, that also covers Ofgem.

P.S. this is a forum for discussion hence people are discussing it on here between multiple parties, not on PM where no one can see the outcome.

Cardew

legaleagle wrote: »

Given that the purpose of this board is to enlighten individuals as to their rights, it is deeply depressing to observe the hostility of certain respondents here, who post comments that have no legal basis whatsoever and are not in accordance with the etiquette policy. Furthermore, I note that none of the more vociferous writers here, who have taken issue with my posts, have taken the opportunity to mail me with questions, preferring seemingly to spout their ultimate wisdom in public.

The purpose of this place, in my understanding, is to explore the issues and rights which affect consumers. I have several times clarified the information for those who cannot get their heads around it. Unfortunately further clarification is unlikely to satisfy those respondents.

May I suggest that if any respondent feels they have information which is contrary to that which I have posted, that those parties post de-facto information that supports their arguments. I am not interested in opinion, only in law, so if you want to challenge the information I have given, you should support your challenge with legal authority; only a statute, statutory instrument or case law, will be acceptable as authority, so if you have it, then post it. Without that information, further clarification from me will serve no useful purpose, suffice to say that without notice of terms of any contract, those terms cannot be enforced. This is the doctrine of notice. In other words if you have not been told the terms, then those terms that have not been notified to the consumer are unenforceable against that consumer. Finally, "deemed contracts" are an invention of suppliers. Moreover, English law does not recognise such a concept and it will thus be illegitimate and unenforceable. Any suggestion that a consumer has entered into a "deemed contract" is plain wrong. I am quite aware that Suppliers use this expression to convince consumers that they are contract bound with the supplier, and for the largest part most consumers accept such explanations without even asking to see the terms of the "deemed contract".

For a final time, a supplier is entitled to exercise a right to continue a supply at a premises which the supplier already supplies. That entitlement does not extend to enforcing contract terms on a consumer. The provisions are purely to enable a supplier to continue a supply to a premises only [should they so wish]. Remember this relates to the premises, not the consumer.

Much of my work involves protecting consumers, litigants and defendents against sharp practice. Should it be relevant, I am a law graduate, working in social, welfare, family, consumer & contract law. I provide my services free to those who cannot afford legal help.

I am still firmly of the opinion that legaleagle is a Troll.

The Energy Saving Trust(a government organisation) gives chapter and verse of the Acts of Parliament that authorise ‘deemed contracts’ for gas and electricity supply.

Various government publications specifically state that ‘deemed contracts’ for gas and electricity supply are valid.

All the utility companies quote the above as an authority for a deemed contract if a customer moves into a property and uses the connected gas and electricity.

Common sense dictates that if you use gas and electricity you have to pay for the consumption of that energy.

Probably a million people every year in UK move into a property, use the connected gas and electricity and thus enter a deemed contract and it has never to my knowledge been successfully challenged in law. Indeed it is hugely to the benefit of the consumer(and not the supplier) to have this system of deemed contract.

Nobody forces any consumer to enter into a deemed contract – they can simply arrange their own supply of gas and electricity.

Yet we have an anonymous poster who firstly claimed to be a practicing solicitor, now downgraded to a law graduate, who contends an established law is not valid.

Legaleagle seems desperately keen to get people to contact him privately(without knowing who he is, his status or who he represents) so he can offer advice; which at best seems to be how to escape payment for goods received.

If he is so confident he is correct, one wonders why he doesn’t challenge the law in a test case?

However if he is to be a The Good Samaritan and offer advice without payment, why hide behind a cloak of anonymity? Why not give his name, contact details and the organisation for whom he works? What has he got to hide?

Should he do so, I will forward this correspondence to the legal complaints service of Law Society for their view.

If his stance is valid, he has nothing to lose and a lot of us will have to eat humble pie.

But he is a Troll!

legaleagle_2

Terrylw1,

The position on pre-payment meters much depends on the precise circumstances, the history, matters surrounding installation and what happens immediately afterwards. PP meters are usually set at a different tariff and in addition are often set to recover outstanding monies. Most installations come pre-loaded with a nominal amount of credit.

(1) If the tariff is a higher tariff, or (2) The customer is in dispute about the outstanding bill and no court order has been made as to determination and payment of outstanding monies, the customer can reject the new tariff in toto. There are certain steps that must be followed to reject the tariff.

We have already advised one of our Clients on this, and were able to reject the tariff, do a transfer of supplier, where previous objections were made, and get the prepayment removed and replaced with a standard meter with the new supplier. What happened here is that the supplier did not get consent to the new tariff.

As you know I've been over the question of terms already, and this case is no different. If the [new] terms were not known to the consumer [at or before the time of fitting PPM] and was given no choice then consumer can rescind on grounds. As to precisely what the consumer does immediately after the PPM is fitted could be very important. For example I would not advise any consumer in this situation to add any funds to the card unless they wish to be bound to contract terms by conduct. Very important point.

I hope that may illuminate the matter somewhat. Obviously the precise circumstances surrounding each case will be different, but there are some basic fundamentals, if the consumer's consent to PPM was not obtained, then consumer is not bound to accept a supply under the [new] terms.