empty house still pay standing charge?

modsandmockers

Oh - and here's another thought...

...why should the OP not just tell BG that there will be no requirement for an energy supply for at least several weeks or months, and they are welcome to come round and cut off the supply at any time they like.

naedanger

modsandmockers wrote: »

I am seriously not looking for an argument here! But I enjoy a bit of pedantry as much as anybody else….

If you allow the energy company to put the account into the name of "Executor of Mr/Mrs xxx", then it seems to me that you are allowing them to hold the executor personally responsible for any bills which the energy company might choose to produce while the property is empty.

The account is not being put into anyone's personal name. The legal position is very clear. An executor is not personally liable for the debts of the estate (unless they mismanage its administration, when they could become personally liable for losses anyone suffers arising from that mismanagement).

If the deceased was on a cheap fixed price tariff, then will the energy supplier continue to apply the same cheap tariff to the executors, or will they (very quietly) bump up their charges to their own (much higher) standard tariff prices?

This is really quite a separate question. I expect what happens to the tariff will depend on the terms and conditions of the account. However I would not be at all surprised if many accounts switch to a standard tariff on the death of a sole account holder. That would then give the executor the option to choose another tariff that is more suitable given the changed circumstances.

(However I am aware of companies (not utilities as I am not aware of their practices) that do levy charges for the administration of the accounts of customers that have died, that in my view are profiteering.)

I would prefer to see the account name being changed to “The Estate of Mr/Mrs xxx”

Just because you prefer that wording does not mean there is anything wrong with the alternative more precise wording.

And it is part of the executor’s duty to to ensure that any bogus claims on the estate will be rebuffed.

Obviously it is part of an executor's duty to decline any bogus claims. Likewise it is part of their duty to pay genuine claims when there are sufficient assets within the estate to do so after meeting any higher priority debts. And the utility bills incurred by property of the estate are genuine debts of the estate.

naedanger

modsandmockers wrote: »

Oh - and here's another thought...

...why should the OP not just tell BG that there will be no requirement for an energy supply for at least several weeks or months, and they are welcome to come round and cut off the supply at any time they like.

Well he should only do so if he was executor or administrator of the estate or else acting on their behalf.

When the executor makes such a decision they should consider the pros and cons. The cons may include:

- the utility company could charge the estate for disconnecting the supply.
- the lack of supply could make it more difficult to maintain the property meantime
- there may be a reconnection charge at some point, either for the ultimate beneficiary (whose interests the executor is acting) or which may be reflected in a reduced sale price.

However if the executor believes the pros (e.g. saved services charges) outweigh the cons then they can instruct BG to end the supply.

Nada666

No-one is emptying the trash. No-one is sorting out belongings. No-one is planning to sell the property. No-one is planning to let the property. No-one is planning to decorate. No-one is planning to batten down for winter.

It is certainly a very money-saving idea to lose tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds on the value of a property or to eventually pay thousands for decorations just to avoid the onerous process of taking control of the accounts.

System

Just to be clear, IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, the Executor of a will can be held personally responsible for his/her actions or inactions in respect of the management of the deceased's estate. For example, failing to insure a property in the event of a claim. Have a look at the list in the link below:

http://death-duties.co.uk/content/executor-liabilities

The above needs to be borne in mind if you are ever asked to be the Executor of a Will.

macman

modsandmockers wrote: »

Oh - and here's another thought...

...why should the OP not just tell BG that there will be no requirement for an energy supply for at least several weeks or months, and they are welcome to come round and cut off the supply at any time they like.

Which of course will make the property somewhat unattractive to potential buyers, who will move into a house without gas or electricity and then have to pay hundreds of pounds to reconnect the supplies and install meters.

footyguy

pixiecat wrote: »

My Dad has just passed away and I am finalising all his accounts etc., He owns his own home and when I tried to cancel British gas was told I have to pay the standing charge even tho no one is in the property, now united utilities were happy to close his account and send a refund but said I could use the water, but BG say they have put the account on 5 month hold but will charge the standing charge at 50p a day dual fuel which will leave me with quite a bill -- is this right?? any help appreciated

So you are the executor/admininstartor of the property?

If so, you should have consulted a comparison site to find the best deal. It's not about how the cost is made up, but keeping the overall cost down. (If you don't, you may be held liable )

You can't backdate things, but if it's going to take a lot longer, do it now.

Regarding water, my understanding is that the charge is only stopped if the property is not only unoccupied, but also emptied (furniture and belongings removed so that it is currently unable to be lived in by anyone) - doing that would seriously hike the insurance cost, and possibly reduce the resale cost if that is the intention.

Bark01

I’m not sure if this helps as it requires the property to be deemed not under the control of an Executor but…

Suppliers should no longer charge standing charges following a change of tenancy where the account is in a Deemed status and no supply has been used. There was an open letter from Ofgem discussing this around September last year, it should be available on the Ofgem website. It’s not covered by legislation but there is legal precedence behind the Ofgem statement.

footyguy

Bark01 wrote: »

I’m not sure if this helps as it requires the property to be deemed not under the control of an Executor but…

Suppliers should no longer charge standing charges following a change of tenancy where the account is in a Deemed status and no supply has been used. There was an open letter from Ofgem discussing this around September last year, it should be available on the Ofgem website. It’s not covered by legislation but there is legal precedence behind the Ofgem statement.

I don't think this is applicable herre as there is no change of tenancy.

But is is interesting as it appears it only really assists (uninterested) landlords during break periods between tenacies.

It would require both the landlord not to register the accounts in his own name during the void periods, and to ensure no energy is used during the void period (so possibly incurring damp/frost damage over winter or leaving a burgular alarm off during void tenancy periods).

That too will either involve a subtantial increase in insurance cover ... or find the landlord having a claim not accepted in the case of him making one

pixiecat

I thank you all for your input to my dilemma


My Dad did have credit on his account so I wont incur charges for quite a few months, its just so maddening that BG have this policy, I rang Eon who I use and they said if the property was used for an occasional kettle cup of tea, lights for security etc then no standing charge but if we used it for say 2/3 months for renovations for sale then obviously we would have to pay for those months, now that sounds reasonable.
I do feel like they are money making off the back of bereavements