Can the landlord make us use a particular cleaning company?

Flashmanchop

SerialRenter wrote: »

A tenant can be liable for council tax in more than one property.
If you had provided the tenancy agreement or other proof to the council that the tenant was still possession of the property they would have chased them for the bill.

You were not responsible for the bill, G_M's post is correct.

Incorrect I am afraid if we are discussing people whom receive benefits. Oh, and a Landlord looses ALL Appeal rights, as they are a landlord. The council go on what a tenant tells them. to be told this when in court was a tad embarrassing.

Former_E.ON_Company_Representative:_Malc

nobblyned wrote: »

Sounds like a pretty shoddy way to wash your hands of it. If mchale can offer evidence that the meter readings were higher directly after the tenancy it is clear that the meter readings from the tenants were wrong. Using the excuse you accepted them in good faith and hence closed the account to then push the liability onto someone else is pretty slippery.

Hi nobblyned

A lot of my comments above were more of a general nature and somewhat speculative as I don't have any account details.

Certainly, if mchale is able to give us proof (eg dated photo) that their meter readings are right and the outgoing tenants are wrong, we'll be happy to investigate further. The post doesn't seem to indicate this though.

At the moment, our main concern will be with our customer (the outgoing tenant). As chanz4 says, this'll be who we have the agreement with.

Where readings are out of synch with previous readings and usage patterns, our system will automatically reject them. If they're in line, we'll have no reason to question what we're being told by our customer.

We do understand, there may be issues when incoming parties give us conflicting information but, without proof or the agreement of the previous customer, it'll be seen as a third party dispute.

Malc

nobblyned

Pretty much as I originally thought, you take the word of your customer (the tenant) over that of the non customer (the landlord) and stick the bill to the non customer.

While you call it a third party dispute. It is in fact two bilateral customer/supplier relationships with you. You should be treating each customer equally rather than stepping out of it by siding with one customer over the other.

If someone has defrauded you, the supplier, it is unfair to make it the next customer's problem rather than yours.

Guest101

nobblyned wrote: »

Pretty much as I originally thought, you take the word of your customer (the tenant) over that of the non customer (the landlord) and stick the bill to the non customer.

While you call it a third party dispute. It is in fact two bilateral customer/supplier relationships with you. You should be treating each customer equally rather than stepping out of it by siding with one customer over the other.

If someone has defrauded you, the supplier, it is unfair to make it the next customer's problem rather than yours.

That's not what's been said.

Customer 1 leaves, giving meter readings and the contract is terminated.

Customer 2, now has legal posession of the property and is responsible for the bills. Customer two does not verify the meter readings straight away.

The supplier therefore had no choice but to go from original readings.

nobblyned

Guest101 wrote: »

That's not what's been said.

Customer 1 leaves, giving meter readings and the contract is terminated.

Customer 2, now has legal posession of the property and is responsible for the bills. Customer two does not verify the meter readings straight away.

The supplier therefore had no choice but to go from original readings.

I was referring to the generic situation where two parties give different readings, as was the eon rep.

In mchale's case it it still his situation that he believes the tenant has given false meter readings, which should be an issue between the supplier and the customer to resolve, not shifted onto one customer.