Ex-partner didn't pay bills

naedanger

sacsquacco wrote: »

and why should SSE have to spend more money ,( probably more than the debt), furnishing proof.

The short answer is because that is the law.

If they didn't need to prove someone owed them money what would be to stop them taking money from someone who genuinely did not owe them anything?

The way the system works is you need to prove you are owed money on the balance of probability before you can use legal means to enforce payment. In most cases proving the debt is straightforward.

why on earth would suppliers drag people to court, it defeats the objects as our learned friends will treble the debt.

The reason suppliers (or anyone else) needs to prove they are owed money in court before they can legally enforce the debt is to provide a safeguard. What if the debt is genuinely not owed?

As I have said before the costs of court action are not great and if the claimant wins can usually be charged to the debtor.

The "usual channels " is to sell the debt on to a debt collection agency who will likely use their own brand of bluff to extract a few quid.

If the only action is ultimately bluff, then many unscrupulous people would cotton on and not pay knowing the threats were bluff. However for over £700 I doubt they are bluffing. There were over 200,000 ccjs in the first quarter of this year alone (so a lot of companies are not bluffing when they say they will take court action).

Taconite2 can legally ignore any debt collectors anyway so apart from a lousy credit rating hes now free of the debt and the £770 can now enter the huge melting pot in the UK of unpaid energy bills for all the rest of us to pay..

If he disputes the debt he can get take action to get any incorrect information (such as statements he is in default when he is not) recorded by the credit rating agencies removed. (However I suspect this won't necessarily be easy and may require the OP taking SSE to the Ombudsman or the court if they refuse to amend their entries.)

If the supplier genuinely won't take action because they think they will recover less than it costs I blame them for being short sighted. Shops take action against shoplifters even when the costs of doing so will be more than the value of any goods they recover. Why? Because they know if they don't the problem will get worst. If suppliers don't chase material debts because of poor recovery rates then the problem will get worse. (Similarly if suppliers are not prosecuting energy theft then they are part of the problem. Obviously the primary people to blame are the thieves.)

Personally I think SSE will ultimately take the case to court if they believe they have good evidence, especially if the OP is a home owner or has a good job.

Roll on smart meters where at least the £770 would ve been cut to £300 to £400 before the meter was clicked over to prepay mode

Agreed.

taconite2

sacsquacco wrote: »

Personally I think Mr Taconite2 is having a bit of fun with us all with this story. The suppliers hear this sort of tale all the time but exchange Australia with , Poland, Latvia, Russia, Iraq, Pakistan etc etc.the story is "shakey " and unbelievable with his assertions he was a "partner " and only dropping in now and again , ( so hes benefited anyway for both free lodgings/energy and other services rendered ). If it was me who was owed £770 and I heard that the debtor had gone to Aussie I d instantly disbelieve it, just like SSE do and why should SSE have to spend more money ,( probably more than the debt), furnishing proof. why on earth would suppliers drag people to court, it defeats the objects as our learned friends will treble the debt. The "usual channels " is to sell the debt on to a debt collection agency who will likely use their own brand of bluff to extract a few quid. Taconite2 can legally ignore any debt collectors anyway so apart from a lousy credit rating hes now free of the debt and the £770 can now enter the huge melting pot in the UK of unpaid energy bills for all the rest of us to pay..Roll on smart meters where at least the £770 would ve been cut to £300 to £400 before the meter was clicked over to prepay mode

It's not fun, I obviously have to leave out bits which could identify me. I pay all my bills, my ex didn't hence why she has a CCJ already but it means nothing in Oz.

But it seems so far you amazing guys are answering ALL the questions I have. So thank you! :T

taconite2

The bottom line is so far....since August

1) STILL haven't received a copy of the bill they claim I owe
2) No tenancy agreement has been produced showing I supposedly lived there. I shouldn't have to do this for them, after all it's not my debt. (I wouldn't even know how to contact the landlord now as it was 2 years ago)
3) They already somehow already had my address so the debt collectors weren't necessary - all they had to do was write to me.

undaunted

Court costs should be small on a £700 debt but on a small claims case they wouldn't normally be able to recover their costs - hence why energy co.s prefer pre payment meters & transfer objections of course.

Debt collectors may or may not be genuine independent firms - have you checked? (ie some co.s have been known to use a "debt collector" which is in fact merely them sending out letters under another name. It's obviously hoped that this will frighten you into paying up quickly where their earlier attempts had failed.

naedanger

undaunted wrote: »

Court costs should be small on a £700 debt but on a small claims case they wouldn't normally be able to recover their costs - hence why energy co.s prefer pre payment meters & transfer objections of course.

My understanding is that if they (the supplier) wins they can recover the court fees (which as you say are small) and certain costs associated with enforcing the claim (e.g. bailiff costs) but they cannot normally claim for costs such as employing a solicitor. (And the same would normally be true if the case was in reverse i.e. if the customer was taking the supplier to court. That is if the customer won they could normally recover the court fees and certain costs of enforcing any claim but not any costs of employing a solicitor.)

It is worth noting that although the claimant, if they win, can recover the court fees and certain collection costs from the defendant they need to pay these amounts themselves first. And if they cannot get the defendant to pay (e.g. because they have no money) then the claimant will be out of pocket for these amounts. (However they are usually quite small relative to the amount being claiming.)

[Deleted User]

British Gas, Scot Power, and EDF will not get involved in taking people to any courts.Last year I got someone disconnected for theft of gas amounting to well over 7k for at least 6 years theft of gas involving substituting and destroying gas meters. The money is simply wrote off, no prosecutions, and you will never see anyone appearing in any courts for theft of gas or electric, and some of these cases are major theft of money amounting to many thousands so why on earth would they be interested in a minor little squabble involving a claimed forged signature.Suppliers avoid getting solicitors involved at all costs. Maybe that happened in 1950, not now tho.
We have seen on here in the past when someone stands up to the suppliers forcing them to take legal action they will back down. I remember one where Npower simply failed to turn up and conceded. If the OP stands his ground and tries to get SSE to court my bet is that they will concede. I ve even seen a case of BG Revenue Protection barristers backing down at the last minute

naedanger

sacsquacco wrote: »

British Gas, Scot Power, and EDF will not get involved in taking people to any courts.Last year I got someone disconnected for theft of gas amounting to well over 7k for at least 6 years theft of gas involving substituting and destroying gas meters. The money is simply wrote off, no prosecutions, and you will never see anyone appearing in any courts for theft of gas or electric, and some of these cases are major theft of money amounting to many thousands so why on earth would they be interested in a minor little squabble involving a claimed forged signature.Suppliers avoid getting solicitors involved at all costs. Maybe that happened in 1950, not now tho.

When you talk about prosecution for theft that is the criminal court with a very high burden of proof.

Taking someone to court over a debt involves the civil court, with a much lower burden of proof. (Proving something is more likely than not is much, much easier than proving the same thing beyond all reasonable doubt.)

[Deleted User]

Naedanger you live in a period in the past where the law was the law. Can you, or anyone else, show me anywhere on this forum where a supplier actually entered a court of law, civil or criminal, in order to recover money or dispute a debt relating to an unpaid energy bill ? I `v e not seen any on here. There`s many thousands of warrants taken out by all the suppliers to enter and fix prepay meters which is sometimes disputed at the Magistrates. The suppliers are just like the banks, they will use bluff and scare tactics. .Lloyds and RBS were uncovered this year for using "pseudo solicitors " to send letters threatening a court appearance, and it was legal !
You say shops prosecute...not many do and the Police don t even consider shop lifting a criminal offence and some Police Forces have even stopped all prosecutions with the others just issuing cautions. I had a chat with the manager of a major sportswear shop who was plagued with shop lifters and they had given up trying to go to courts when the offender gets found guilty, defaults on his £1 a week fine and it all gets binned. This is how things have gone now with the Police not even coming out to someone whos been burgled unless theres blood at the scene . Show me an actual case where, say British Gas have entered a court of law to recover an energy debt, there will be a few but I think its very rare,...and there s many hundreds of thousands of energy debtors every year. The man I had contact with who stole £16ks worth of gas and electric was certainly facing a court appearance, but luckily he wrote out a cheque there and then to cover his theft so that was ok then..the law is the law, unless you repay it back then you re fine..and by the way, hes now with Utility Warehouse back to his old thieving ways

naedanger

sacsquacco wrote: »

Naedanger you live in a period in the past where the law was the law. Can you, or anyone else, show me anywhere on this forum where a supplier actually entered a court of law, civil or criminal, in order to recover money or dispute a debt relating to an unpaid energy bill ? I `v e not seen any on here. There`s many thousands of warrants taken out by all the suppliers to enter and fix prepay meters which is sometimes disputed at the Magistrates. The suppliers are just like the banks, they will use bluff and scare tactics. .Lloyds and RBS were uncovered this year for using "pseudo solicitors " to send letters threatening a court appearance, and it was legal !
You say shops prosecute...not many do and the Police don t even consider shop lifting a criminal offence and some Police Forces have even stopped all prosecutions with the others just issuing cautions. I had a chat with the manager of a major sportswear shop who was plagued with shop lifters and they had given up trying to go to courts when the offender gets found guilty, defaults on his £1 a week fine and it all gets binned. This is how things have gone now with the Police not even coming out to someone whos been burgled unless theres blood at the scene . Show me an actual case where, say British Gas have entered a court of law to recover an energy debt, there will be a few but I think its very rare,...and there s many hundreds of thousands of energy debtors every year. The man I had contact with who stole £16ks worth of gas and electric was certainly facing a court appearance, but luckily he wrote out a cheque there and then to cover his theft so that was ok then..the law is the law, unless you repay it back then you re fine..and by the way, hes now with Utility Warehouse back to his old thieving ways

If you are correct then the OP can just ignore SSE whether or not his name is legally on the tenancy agreement or even the bill. Personally I would only advise ignoring them if I was satisfied the law was on my side.

In any event I am almost certain the SSE will threaten court action. Therefore it is useful knowing what the legal position actually is.

[Deleted User]

"Threaten " is the word..Most law abiding people I would expect to do something about threatening letters, others just bin them and laugh. I too am certain SSE will send off something with a threat of litigation on it, like Lloyds bank did with a non existent solicitors name on it. Yes, get your armour in place to deal with them, they re more likely to scrub the bill.