One meter supplying two properties

DandelionPatrol

naedanger wrote: »

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

The supplier will see it as an admission of liability and may feel bold enough to take it as evidence to court, unless he was smart enough to make his offer 'without prejudice'.

He would have done far better to insist [assuming the meter is in the other house] that he has a subsupply from the other house and he is contracted to pay his shear of the bill to the other house, who remain the utility's customer

naedanger

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

The supplier will see it as an admission of liability and may feel bold enough to take it as evidence to court, unless he was smart enough to make his offer 'without prejudice'.

Do you really think that because the supplier would like to see it as an admission of liability it is "game over"? Surely any court would listen to the relative's counter argument. If they have good evidence to show they are not liable then I cannot see why an offer to pay the supplier part of the bill would weaken their case much.

spiro

You asked a question about a sub meter which I don't think has been answered. A sub meter is only any good if the bill is going be in the name of the person in the main house and they are going to bill the other party. This does not protect them from the other party not paying as they will be liable for 100% of the bill as it would be a third party dispute. The householder can buy a meter and get an electrician in to wire it up.
What you actually require is for the other property to have it's own supply which is expensive. The only way to force the other house to do this is to switch off the supply between the main house and the other house which should be about a 30 min job.

undaunted

Cardew wrote: »

For instance you buy my house. When I move out of my house I tell them that you are now responsible for the energy bills. If the energy company won't accept my statement, how are the bills to be put in your name?

Whilst it often doesn't happen in reality the supplier supposedly has a duty to contact the (supposed) new occupier and offer them an express contract. The deemed contract was never intended to be a means of contract for them to lazily rely upon for ever more & without ever contacting this alleged "new customer". IE, from https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/ofgem-publications/38982/14319-deemed-contracts.pdf

2.4 Customer information


SLC 28(8) provides that where a supplier supplies a customer with gas or electricity under a deemed contract, it shall use its reasonable endeavours to provide them with:
a) details of the principal terms of that deemed contract
b) written notice that contracts on terms other than deemed contract terms may be available and as to how information can be obtained as to any such terms, and
c) if the customer is a domestic customer, an accurate summary of the principal terms of domestic supply contracts available to them.


As the customer does not expressly enter into a deemed contract, the group considers that it is appropriate for the supplier to make reasonable endeavours to provide customers with details of the principal terms of the deemed contract.

In recognition that deemed contracts are unlikely to offer terms to customers that are better than those that could be achieved under domestic supply contracts, the group also considers that it would be appropriate to inform customers of the availability of contracts (other than deemed contracts) and how they may obtain information about such terms (SLC 28(8)(b)). It was also agreed that it would be helpful to retain the specific obligation to provide this information in writing for future reference by the customer.

The group does not consider that there should be a requirement in the licence for the supplier to provide deemed contract customers with a summary of the principal terms of their domestic supply contracts that they would be prepared to offer the customer. It is in a supplier’s commercial interests to enter into a domestic supply contract with the customer.

LewisHamilton

Update: Our relative took the complaint to the Ombudsman and it ruled in favour of our relative. According to the Ombudsman, the supplier should never have changed the name on the account and the evidence provided by our relative confirmed that no change of tenancy took place at the main dwelling so the account should have remained in the name of his ex-partner, particularly as the separate dwelling did not exist on any industry records and there was sufficient evidence to conclude the ex-partner still remained at the main dwelling. So not only did the investigation officer rule that the supplier should remove our relatives name from the account and stop pursuing him for the outstanding debt but also awarded a significant goodwill payment of over £300.

Also as the ex-partner has not sold the main dwelling, even though they left in January 2015, it was ruled that it is the ex-partners responsibility to still seek payment from our relative, not the supplier.

naedanger

LewisHamilton wrote: »

Update: Our relative took the complaint ...

Thanks for the update, especially as it was an interesting case. A very satisfactory outcome - fully in your relative's favour and a £300 goodwill payment awarded by the Ombudsman is well above their average.

LewisHamilton

naedanger wrote: »

Thanks for the update, especially as it was an interesting case. A very satisfactory outcome - fully in your relative's favour and a £300 goodwill payment awarded by the Ombudsman is well above their average.

Thanks naedanger. You also appeared to be the only one that was not quick to dismiss this as the usual third party dispute argument. Well worth going to Ombudsman in the end, they did show some real teeth in this matter. I think it was a cheque of £350 and a letter of apology in the end. The issue did drag for over two years so that probably influenced the amount.

footyguy

As I said back in June.

footyguy wrote: »

Your relative is not giving you the true facts here.

No supplier will put a supply in someone else's name.
That would effectively be saying a third party has created a contract between two others.

If it were possible, what would stop us all putting our energy accounts in the name of David Cameron.

Advice given on this board can only ever be as good as the info given.

LewisHamilton

footyguy wrote: »

As I said back in June.



Advice given on this board can only ever be as good as the info given.

Our relative was right in that the supplier did put the account in their name on his ex-partners say so in 2013. That was why the Ombudsman ruled in his favour and criticised the supplier for failing to take ownership of his query about the matter. A couple of you weren't quick to dismiss it as a third party dispute so thank you for that.

footyguy

LewisHamilton wrote: »

Update: Our relative took the complaint to the Ombudsman and it ruled in favour of our relative. According to the Ombudsman, the supplier should never have changed the name on the account and the evidence provided by our relative confirmed that no change of tenancy took place at the main dwelling so the account should have remained in the name of his ex-partner, particularly as the separate dwelling did not exist on any industry records and there was sufficient evidence to conclude the ex-partner still remained at the main dwelling. So not only did the investigation officer rule that the supplier should remove our relatives name from the account and stop pursuing him for the outstanding debt but also awarded a significant goodwill payment of over £300.

Also as the ex-partner has not sold the main dwelling, even though they left in January 2015, it was ruled that it is the ex-partners responsibility to still seek payment from our relative, not the supplier.

Goodwill is something a supplier usually provides.
The ombudsman doesn't usually order goodwill payments (unless the at the supplier's suggestion in the negotiation).
Goodwill payments, especially where an ombudsman has needed to become involved are typically about £50, or possibly £100 max.

£300 is not a goodwill payment. If the ombudsman has made this award, then the ombudsman must have good reason to ... and it wouldn't be goodwill, it would be for an error by the supplier causing the customer financial loss (or perhaps compensation for inconvenience & suffering, but again that would not usually be anywhere near £300, unless quantified by the complainant)


Sadly, as we never got to hear the true facts of this complaint, the outcome if true is not really much help to anyone.