One meter supplying two properties

footyguy

Cardew wrote: »

I don't think that is correct.


When I have sold properties I have contacted the energy companies with my final details(meter readings and forwarding address) and given them the name of the new owners. In fact I have been asked who are the new owners.


When my daughter moved into a property I owned, I told the energy company that she would be responsible for bills from xxx date and water/gas/electricity(and Council tax) bills were sent to her in her name.


The is nothing to stop you putting the various accounts in the name of David Cameron at either your address or 10 Downing Street. However it wouldn't make him a party to any contract. It is only a legally binding 'deemed contract' if he used energy at the property in question.

So you acknowledge that a third party cannot lawfully create a contract between two otrher parties

The reason the supplier asks who is due to take over the contract could be something to do with verifying you are legally entitled to end the contract, or possibly just so that the supplier knows who to try and contact to set up a new contract.

Cardew

footyguy wrote: »

So you acknowledge that a third party cannot lawfully create a contract between two otrher parties

The reason the supplier asks who is due to take over the contract could be something to do with verifying you are legally entitled to end the contract, or possibly just so that the supplier knows who to try and contact to set up a new contract.

That is exactly what I said about a contract. However you stated:

No supplier will put a supply in someone else's name.

However IMO opinion it is normal practice for any energy company/Council to send bills addressed to the next occupant using their name.

As said above, a contract is not formed until that occupant has used energy.

footyguy

Cardew wrote: »

That is exactly what I said about a contract. However you stated:



However IMO opinion it is normal practice for any energy company/Council to send bills addressed to the next occupant using their name.

As said above, a contract is not formed until that occupant has used energy.

I think you maybe confusing 2 separate issues here.

A supply contract is usually formed when an eligible customer contacts the supplier to request a supply.

If a customer does not contact a supplier, but uses the supply, then the supplier may deem a contract to have been formed.

A deemed contract is not appropriate here (as I understand it) as there was already a contract in place between the supplier and the OP's relative's partner ... and there having been no valid reason to terminate that contract.

lstar337

I would have thought Lewis Hamilton could afford to help his relative out with the bill.

LewisHamilton

I think Cardew's response about going via small claims is the correct and most suitable option for the circumstances and the likelihood of it being a third party dispute between him and the ex-partner.

LewisHamilton

lstar337 wrote: »

I would have thought Lewis Hamilton could afford to help his relative out with the bill.

The balance of the bill or the ability to pay the bill isn't the dispute, its more a matter of principle i.e the bill covers another property that he has no connection with.

lstar337

LewisHamilton wrote: »

The balance of the bill or the ability to pay the bill isn't the dispute, its more a matter of principle i.e the bill covers another property that he has no connection with.

The Joke.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Your head.

Try not to take things so serious buddy. :)

Cardew

footyguy wrote: »

I think you maybe confusing 2 separate issues here.

.

I am not confusing anything.

To repeat - you stated:

No supplier will put a supply in someone else's name.

I am simply disagreeing with that statement; in that it is fairly normal practice to put a supply in someone else's name, when they have been given that name by a third party. The leaving owner/tenant will often do it, the letting agent will often do it(giving the closing meter readings and name of the new tenant)

Quite obviously in the OP's case the ex-partner should not have told the energy company to change the name on the account.

DandelionPatrol

LewisHamilton wrote: »

2) He wants to pay the energy supplier his share and has offered a reasonable amount, over a third of the bill but the energy company are pursuing him for the whole bill covering usage in both dwellings?

Game over. He has effectively admitted partial liability to the supplier.

Assuming the meter is in the other house, he should have made it very clear that he does not occupy the premises with the meter and he should have been paying the other party for his supply

naedanger

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

Game over. He has effectively admitted partial liability to the supplier.

Why? Just because he offered to pay part of the bill does not mean he has effectively admitted liability to the supplier.

Assuming the meter is in the other house, he should have made it very clear that he does not occupy the premises with the meter and he should have been paying the other party for his supply

I agree this would have been better as it would save time and misunderstanding. But making an offer to pay part of a bill does not make him liable for the full bill. (Whether or not he is liable will depend on other factors.)