Ex-partner didn't pay bills

undaunted

Yes that's pretty much covering it as far as recovering costs goes. I'd imagine that on a straightforward case & £700 claim they'd probably use their own staff rather than a solicitor to bring the case but either way that element of their costs is quite possibly going to be unrecoverable & as much as / more than the costs of bringing the claim will be.

undaunted

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 ?

Perhaps you ought to make naedanger an apology? Suppliers go to court for warrants of entry on a regular basis. Beyond that point however, just to name a few for you

Surrey Trading Standards v SSE http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17960877

Npower v the vulnerable http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=3834781&page=8

Barry Paling v Npower http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2710809/David-beats-Goliath-Man-wins-3-000-payout-energy-giant-wouldn-t-stop-harassing-bills-didn-t-owe.html

He also apparently had a similar case in 2010 - Barry Paling v British Gas


Christopher Poncelot v Npower http://www.northants-chamber.co.uk/news/article/northampton-man-takes-npower-to-court-and-wins

British Gas v Ferguson http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/case-reports/lisa-maria-angela-ferguson-v-british-gas-trading-ltd

I'm sure there are plenty more that we don't get to hear about

[Deleted User]

I reckon you ve spent an afternoon finding half a dozen. Well done. Of course we go for warrants all the time, I ve mentioned that, we go for thousands of them every year. Nearly always just slamming in prepays for those debtors who can t or wont pay. I also mentioned there would be a few odd ones which make the courts and they will mostly be customers dragging suppliers to court, some so odd they make the national press, but I would estimate 98% of Supplier versus Customer don t see the inside of any courts, civil or criminal.

undaunted

No, whilst admittedly I did have to look up the links, it took me nothing like all afternoon to do so as I already knew of the cases.

Your 98% may or may not be correct - I'd certainly expect it to be high as most people just accept the pre payment meter being, as you put it, "slammed in" & the courts are quite happy to assist you in that because it saves them the huge costs & time any alternative course of action would incur them.

The fact remains however that you asked for them - in fact challenging anyone to name a single one on here - & so I gave you a few. It seems to me that you now simply don't like having your assertion that no one could produce a single case on here proven to have been wrong.

Those with vested interests may not always like the alternative views and options to be made known but there is nothing in what naedanger has said that is not fair, reasonable and accurate as far as I can see. Implicitly or directly insulting him / her was therefore uncalled for.

naedanger

sacsquacco wrote: »

98% of Supplier versus Customer don t see the inside of any courts, civil or criminal.

I can well believe that. I am sure most financial disputes never get to court.

But my view is still that the OP needs to know what a court is likely to decide were it to get to court. If he knows the court is likely to decide in his favour then in my view he should not agree to pay anything.

If he knows the court is likely to decide against him then in my view he should offer to settle, for the full amount if the evidence is clearly against him. If as you say the supplier won't take him to court he could refuse to pay regardless. (But I still would not advocate that.)

Basically if he is legally in the clear then he should not pay. He may still have some difficulties, e.g. getting any erroneous default entries removed from his credit record, but he should be able to resolve those via the Ombudsman service or failing that the courts.

[Deleted User]

I did say "well done " Undaunted, but you ve got to admit they re rare, and my contention was that the suppliers wont initiate a court hearing by being the plaintiff. You have shown examples of customers v the suppliers. Personally I would love the suppliers to take every single large debtor to court, (including Mr Taconite2 ) , and more especially the thieves who routinely steal energy worth thousands every year. They criminally damage valuable gas/electric meters, put at risk themselves, their childrens and their neighbours lives, yet STILL the suppliers will not take them where they should, a criminal court of law. There`s very little defence these thieves can up with, so its not even a question of proving their theft. The bloke we caught who back payed 16k worth of gas was actually caught with a gas meter in his hands swapping it back for his substitute one. The suppliers just don t like chucking good money after bad and just like with the energy thieves, they re more likely to just scrub the bills than get involved with litigation. Another plug for smart meters is due

Majestic12

taconite2 wrote: »

Guys, seems my name was on the tenancy agreement. But I didn't sign it.

So I'm looking at a potential fraud case here against my ex, as she has clearly signed this without my permission...

What's my options here? She's in Oz so I can't see the police doing anything. Am I required to pay the bill as per the contract?

Do I have any defence here?

When you get the copy, maybe you could try and get in contact with her former landlord and take things from there? Its a long shot

undaunted

sacsquacco wrote: »

I did say "well done " Undaunted, but you ve got to admit they re rare, and my contention was that the suppliers wont initiate a court hearing by being the plaintiff. You have shown examples of customers v the suppliers. Personally I would love the suppliers to take every single large debtor to court, (including Mr Taconite2 ) , and more especially the thieves who routinely steal energy worth thousands every year. They criminally damage valuable gas/electric meters, put at risk themselves, their childrens and their neighbours lives, yet STILL the suppliers will not take them where they should, a criminal court of law. There`s very little defence these thieves can up with, so its not even a question of proving their theft. The bloke we caught who back payed 16k worth of gas was actually caught with a gas meter in his hands swapping it back for his substitute one. The suppliers just don t like chucking good money after bad and just like with the energy thieves, they re more likely to just scrub the bills than get involved with litigation. Another plug for smart meters is due

I'd taken that as a sarcastic well done really. I wouldn't necessarily go as far as rare - nobody really knows exactly how many do go to court I would imagine - but I'd accept it's highly likely that far more are fitted with ppm than taken to court.

Of the cases I listed npower v the vulnerable was certainly commenced by Npower. I can't speak for all suppliers of course but my understanding is that this is far from the only such case Npower have ever issued

Personally if they can prove theft I'd expect them to pursue it - as much as a deterrent to others than in expecting to get their dues in full but I guess that's a matter for each supplier to decide.

[Deleted User]

If many were actually taken to court by the suppliers acting as plaintiffs , then every 12th post on here would be describing the experience by the hateful money grabbing suppliers dragging the poor penniless debtors to face judgement. But there s none.Thats because they won t do it. There s plenty describing the fitting of prepayment meters to collect debts. This forum would be heaving with tales of injustice.Personally I would like to see it happening all the time, but the suppliers will take the easy option of either prepay meters or letting the honest pick up the tab when the prepay option fails.Thats how the system works.They wont go for theft neither and that s even more serious.It takes some believing but that s how it works because the suppliers will make more money by passing on the loss to us rather than wasting money trying to prove the obvious in a criminal court .The fact that they won t prosecute for all the theft and dangers with bypassing is proof that all the suppliers have a morbid aversion in holding up the rule of law and at least deterring future theft.
We have been told to visit certain streets in Edlington , Doncaster in pairs because of the amount of criminal bypassing of energy.We dont want to upset the thieves on our own and get threatened., so we leave them alone to get on with it, just as we do now in the even worse area of Hexthorpe. I ve virtually given up in that area because the occupiers ( not allowed to state their nationality because its racist ) will not let anyone in to see any meters and the suppliers won t do anything about it. BG try a bit, none of the other suppliers are remotely concerned and will not take out warrants.

naedanger

undaunted wrote: »

Those with vested interests may not always like the alternative views and options to be made known but there is nothing in what naedanger has said that is not fair, reasonable and accurate as far as I can see. Implicitly or directly insulting him / her was therefore uncalled for.

Thanks for the support.

However to be fair I don't think sacsquacco was trying to insult me. He has different views on some matters from me and we can end up arguing. However I don't think either of us tries to be insulting, although sometimes strong disagreements perhaps appear that way.

I also agree with much of sacsquacco's views. For example I also agree that suppliers should take action (as long as it is legal) against those who won't pay for their energy.

Where I think we tend to disagree most is on individual cases. And when we disagree we both argue our corners at length.