Debt Letters Left By Previous Tenant

Ath_Wat

TripleH said:

You let property between date x and date y. Any liabilities in that period are not yours.

But surely that is not a given.  People let properties and continue to pay bills, charging them to tenants indirectly.

TripleH

I had assumed from the comments that the Op was not charging the tenant for the bills but that it was the supplier direct (the Op only referred to rent).

Happy to be corrected if shown to be wrong.

I think a point of note is that a creditor will pursue the easiest option for getting paid especially if they can latch onto confusion or doubt. Why spend effort finding someone who wants to evade you when you can presure a more naive party to pay you instead.

Ath_Wat

TripleH said:

I had assumed from the comments that the Op was not charging the tenant for the bills but that it was the supplier direct (the Op only referred to rent).

The point is how does the power company know that?  The bills were in the name owner/occupier, didn't change when they are being told this tenant took over, and they have never ever heard of the person he claims was the tenant.  Where's the proof that the tenant exists or ever had any responsibility to pay the bills?

Can they take someone to court for unpaid bills just because the OP claims they were responsible?

user1977

Ath_Wat said:

TripleH said:

I had assumed from the comments that the Op was not charging the tenant for the bills but that it was the supplier direct (the Op only referred to rent).

Where's the proof that the tenant exists ever had any responsibility to pay the bills?

The tenancy agreement is generally accepted as adequate proof that the tenant was liable (whether or not they actually maintained utility accounts in their own name).

Ath_Wat

user1977 said:

Ath_Wat said:

TripleH said:

I had assumed from the comments that the Op was not charging the tenant for the bills but that it was the supplier direct (the Op only referred to rent).

Where's the proof that the tenant exists ever had any responsibility to pay the bills?

The tenancy agreement is generally accepted as adequate proof that the tenant was liable (whether or not they actually maintained utility accounts in their own name).

Some tenancy agreements will explicitly state that utility bills are included; some will state they are excluded, what position will be assumed if it isn't mentioned?  That it was excluded?  This may well be the case, I don't know.

I have always been under the impression that this is why it is important for landlords to ensure tenants sign up to an account in their own name for bills; I don't think I have ever rented without doing so.

Exodi

Ath_Wat said:

user1977 said:

Ath_Wat said:

TripleH said:

I had assumed from the comments that the Op was not charging the tenant for the bills but that it was the supplier direct (the Op only referred to rent).

Where's the proof that the tenant exists ever had any responsibility to pay the bills?

The tenancy agreement is generally accepted as adequate proof that the tenant was liable (whether or not they actually maintained utility accounts in their own name).

Some tenancy agreements will explicitly state that utility bills are included; some will state they are excluded, what position will be assumed if it isn't mentioned?  That it was excluded?  This may well be the case, I don't know.

I have always been under the impression that this is why it is important for landlords to ensure tenants sign up to an account in their own name for bills; I don't think I have ever rented without doing so.

I'd almost certainly say the assumption is that bills aren't included unless stated otherwise.

Specifically how to do you ensure tenants sign up to accounts in their own names for bills - do you sit behind them while they call up the water board, energy suppliers, council, etc? Do you call the authorities and check yourself?

user1977

Ath_Wat said:

user1977 said:

Ath_Wat said:

TripleH said:

I had assumed from the comments that the Op was not charging the tenant for the bills but that it was the supplier direct (the Op only referred to rent).

Where's the proof that the tenant exists ever had any responsibility to pay the bills?

The tenancy agreement is generally accepted as adequate proof that the tenant was liable (whether or not they actually maintained utility accounts in their own name).

Some tenancy agreements will explicitly state that utility bills are included; some will state they are excluded, what position will be assumed if it isn't mentioned?

It will be assumed that the landlord was an idiot.

user1977

Exodi said:

Ath_Wat said:

user1977 said:

Ath_Wat said:

TripleH said:

I had assumed from the comments that the Op was not charging the tenant for the bills but that it was the supplier direct (the Op only referred to rent).

Where's the proof that the tenant exists ever had any responsibility to pay the bills?

The tenancy agreement is generally accepted as adequate proof that the tenant was liable (whether or not they actually maintained utility accounts in their own name).

Some tenancy agreements will explicitly state that utility bills are included; some will state they are excluded, what position will be assumed if it isn't mentioned?  That it was excluded?  This may well be the case, I don't know.

I have always been under the impression that this is why it is important for landlords to ensure tenants sign up to an account in their own name for bills; I don't think I have ever rented without doing so.

Specifically how to do you ensure tenants sign up to accounts in their own names for bills - do you sit behind them while they call up the water board, energy suppliers, council, etc? Do you call the authorities and check yourself?

And even if you did that, how would you prevent them from changing the accounts out of their name as soon as your back is turned?

wolvesbruza

Ath_Wat said:

TripleH said:

I had assumed from the comments that the Op was not charging the tenant for the bills but that it was the supplier direct (the Op only referred to rent).

The point is how does the power company know that?  The bills were in the name owner/occupier, didn't change when they are being told this tenant took over, and they have never ever heard of the person he claims was the tenant.  Where's the proof that the tenant exists or ever had any responsibility to pay the bills?

Can they take someone to court for unpaid bills just because the OP claims they were responsible?

The proof is in the fact there are signed tenancy agreement, section 21 x3 as she wouldnt leave, a signed letter to UC so she could claim and other more menial supporting evidence and the fact her ex partner told Shell that they lived there together until he moved out and she took the tenancy on herself. Again signed letters confirming this.

wolvesbruza

Ath_Wat said:

user1977 said:

Ath_Wat said:

TripleH said:

I had assumed from the comments that the Op was not charging the tenant for the bills but that it was the supplier direct (the Op only referred to rent).

Where's the proof that the tenant exists ever had any responsibility to pay the bills?

The tenancy agreement is generally accepted as adequate proof that the tenant was liable (whether or not they actually maintained utility accounts in their own name).

Some tenancy agreements will explicitly state that utility bills are included; some will state they are excluded, what position will be assumed if it isn't mentioned?  That it was excluded?  This may well be the case, I don't know.

I have always been under the impression that this is why it is important for landlords to ensure tenants sign up to an account in their own name for bills; I don't think I have ever rented without doing so.

Ath_Wat said:

user1977 said:

Ath_Wat said:

TripleH said:

I had assumed from the comments that the Op was not charging the tenant for the bills but that it was the supplier direct (the Op only referred to rent).

Where's the proof that the tenant exists ever had any responsibility to pay the bills?

The tenancy agreement is generally accepted as adequate proof that the tenant was liable (whether or not they actually maintained utility accounts in their own name).

Some tenancy agreements will explicitly state that utility bills are included; some will state they are excluded, what position will be assumed if it isn't mentioned?  That it was excluded?  This may well be the case, I don't know.

I have always been under the impression that this is why it is important for landlords to ensure tenants sign up to an account in their own name for bills; I don't think I have ever rented without doing so.

user1977 said:

Ath_Wat said:

user1977 said:

Ath_Wat said:

TripleH said:

I had assumed from the comments that the Op was not charging the tenant for the bills but that it was the supplier direct (the Op only referred to rent).

Where's the proof that the tenant exists ever had any responsibility to pay the bills?

The tenancy agreement is generally accepted as adequate proof that the tenant was liable (whether or not they actually maintained utility accounts in their own name).

Some tenancy agreements will explicitly state that utility bills are included; some will state they are excluded, what position will be assumed if it isn't mentioned?

It will be assumed that the landlord was an idiot.

Cheers