Debt Letters Left By Previous Tenant

wolvesbruza

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.

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?

Exactly. You can't.... Also as I had known the couple 20 years of which they lived in my property 4 why would I not assume they would not act in good faith.

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.

It is a good point. Having said that i've had some instance of both owner / occupier and named accounts and never had any issues.

What makes this worse is the day she moved out I asked her explicitly if she had called council tax, water, gas and electricity to give readings and settle her bills. To which she replied yes.

But again, for Shell this wasn't enough.

So despite:

- Debt collection agency being happy i didn't live there.
- tenancy agreements
- signed UC letters
- Section 21's x3
- Various screen grabs which outlined she was still in the property until late June NOT May
- Ex partner clarifying with a signed letter confirming these dates

They are continuing to as someone called it earlier 'strong arm' me.

It's simple harrassment

Grizebeck

Unless they issue a court claim you have nothing to worry about and DCA'S can be ignored.
Shell are not a big litigant so dont worry

DE_612183

but from their point of view if the "contract" was with the "owner occupier" - thats who they will chase until she calls them and hols her hands up and says I was responsible from Sept 21 to June 22 and here are the start and end readings.

I can understand that as they have not had any contract with her - how can they chase her for debt?

Hopefully this gets resolved - but a lesson learnt is make sure your tenants sign up for the utilities in THEIR name.

As an aside - who brokered the contract shell - you or your tenant?

also look at this way - if she had turned round and said - from october and november i wasn't in the property - you need to get the rent from Joe Bloggs who I don't know where they live - what would you do?

Ath_Wat

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.

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?

Surely you can just end your account, then they have to set up their own if they want any electricity.  In this case it sounds like the account ran uninterrupted between tenants.

Ath_Wat

wolvesbruza 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).

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.

When did he tell them this?  At the time, or after they started chasing the bills?

Ath_Wat

wolvesbruza 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.

What makes this worse is the day she moved out I asked her explicitly if she had called council tax, water, gas and electricity to give readings and settle her bills. To which she replied yes.

But again, for Shell this wasn't enough.

Do you think she actually had, though?  Why should it be enough for Shell that you told them that you asked someone they never heard of before to pay them?  

Ath_Wat

I honestly don't know the answer to this, and it is more a hypothetical question, but if they track her down and she claims the bills were included in the rent and they need to speak to the OP, and there is nothing in any tenancy agreements to suggest this is either true or untrue, what happens in court?  Who can sue who?  Would a court tell them to get the money from the OP and have him chase her for it?  All the evidence the OP describes above proves that she lived there, but don't seem to say anything about what the agreement was regarding bills.

A lot could probably be down to the way the handover was made from the ex-partner to her - did he ensure the meters were read and bills settled to that point, and tell them he was moving out?  If he confirms that she was told she had to take over bill payments that would go a long way to it.

Alderbank

Ath_Wat said:

I honestly don't know the answer to this, and it is more a hypothetical question, but if they track her down and she claims the bills were included in the rent and they need to speak to the OP, and there is nothing in any tenancy agreements to suggest this is either true or untrue, what happens in court?  

This is an excellent question!
As you might expect, this issue is not unknown. Ofgem's answer is that it is a 'deemed' contract.
The law (both the Gas Act and the Electricity Act) says where a supplier supplies gas or electricity to a consumer, the supplier shall be deemed to have contracted with the consumer for the supply of gas or electricity from the time when he began to supply that gas or electricity.

 Ofgem wisely notes that suppliers may not always be aware of customer movements until a period of time has elapsed after the event. A deemed contract therefore seeks to provide a sound and binding basis upon which suppliers will supply customers where a contract has not been expressly agreed. It also provides suppliers with a clear basis upon which to charge for that supply.

If you are a geek and want chapter and verse, here it is:
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/2006/06/14319-deemed-contracts.pdf

tl;dr if nothing in tenancy agreement, the consumer (the tenant) pays

Ath_Wat

Alderbank said:

Ath_Wat said:

I honestly don't know the answer to this, and it is more a hypothetical question, but if they track her down and she claims the bills were included in the rent and they need to speak to the OP, and there is nothing in any tenancy agreements to suggest this is either true or untrue, what happens in court?  

This is an excellent question!
As you might expect, this issue is not unknown. Ofgem's answer is that it is a 'deemed' contract.
The law (both the Gas Act and the Electricity Act) says where a supplier supplies gas or electricity to a consumer, the supplier shall be deemed to have contracted with the consumer for the supply of gas or electricity from the time when he began to supply that gas or electricity.

 Ofgem wisely notes that suppliers may not always be aware of customer movements until a period of time has elapsed after the event. A deemed contract therefore seeks to provide a sound and binding basis upon which suppliers will supply customers where a contract has not been expressly agreed. It also provides suppliers with a clear basis upon which to charge for that supply.

If you are a geek and want chapter and verse, here it is:
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/2006/06/14319-deemed-contracts.pdf

tl;dr if nothing in tenancy agreement, the consumer (the tenant) pays

So what if a tenant has been paying rent on the understanding the landlord pays the bills, and the landlord does not pay them?  Would the tenant have to pay the bills then sue the landlord?