Utility Bill for Empty Period

SadieO

Imagine if you accuse the tenants of doing this out of spite because of the 20+% rent increase, and then they claim that, as retaliation for them leaving, you/the agent did this after they left in order to punish them with a huge bill!! It's just as much of an unprovable accusation either way. The only way to protect all parties is for there to be a set point at which one party's responsbility ends and the other's recommences - and this is the point at which the tenant hands back the keys.

Any tenant could (deliberately or accidentally) cause a lot of problems upon leaving a property - that is why you/the agent should check it out immediately after they left to make sure windows weren't left open, a tap wasn't left running or something. At least an electricity bill, annoying as it is, hasn't damaged the property. 

theartfullodger

I think you the landlord (customer of utility companies) are liable for bill, but by the sound of it have a strong case against agent.  Certainly not tenant.

A sensible agent would pay straight away: (not all agents are sensible - nor landlords, nor tenants).  But you might have to pay soon then sue agent 

If agent doesn't behave sensibly I'd fire them 

What does agreement with agent say about such matters?

fourmarks

Do you pay your agent a monthly fee whilst the property is empty? If so, what are they supposed to be doing contractually for that payment?  If they are being paid to supervise the premises whilst you are out of the country then they should, at least once in a while, be checking on the security of the building both externally and internally. Otherwise it seems you may have been paying them to do nothing, a skill which many agents have perfected over the years.

 I see no point in pursuing the ex-tenants as, guilty or not, that's a total cul-de-sac. Concentrate on the agents (IMHO)

1616six

Flyingknight73 said:

Any advice on how I can pursue the previous tenant for this amount?

I actually laughed at this - what makes you think you’re within your rights to do so?

Tennant in situ, you increase the rent 22% so they move out, take readings and pay their bill all as they should. Property sits empty because you then have to find another tenant thus earning no money. You’re out of the country so haven’t seen the property yourself and are relying on a management company to handle affairs. All sounds fine so far. 

Thermostat is for whatever reason left on high for this period - no evidence as to who’s done it - tenant, management company or a ghost. 

The tenant isn’t responsible at all for this, although I completely understand you have your suspicions - that is no grounds to try and pursue anything. 

How do you know it wasn’t a person from the management company? Someone who doesn’t like their job, someone there who perhaps you’ve annoyed or any other reason - just as much evidence for that as there is the tenant.

Ultimately it’s you that is responsible or possibly the management company if they’ve a contractual agreement to monitor things such as the heating control.

In theory, the previous tenant could just say they always ran it at 35c as they felt cold.. I imagine you had nothing in your contract to say they had to leave it at a certain temp?

I know some of what I’ve said here sounds petty but it’s factually correct!

Flyingknight73

Ok thanks for your replies

i checked the inventory checkout report and zooming in on one of the photos I can just about see the thermostat set to the highest setting. 

Since the tenant accepted and signed off this checkout report do I have a case? Or  is the agent still liable?

I couldn’t see in the agent’s managed service agreement anything about utilities or heating specifically. 

user1977

Flyingknight73 said:

Ok thanks for your replies

Since the tenant accepted and signed off this checkout report do I have a case? 

Which of our replies gave you the idea that you might have a case against the tenant? Even if you did initially (and I can't see that you did), why has nobody in your 3+ months of (legal) occupation bothered to check whether the heating was on?

housebuyer143

user1977 said:

Flyingknight73 said:

Ok thanks for your replies

Since the tenant accepted and signed off this checkout report do I have a case? 

Which of our replies gave you the idea that you might have a case against the tenant? Even if you did initially (and I can't see that you did), why has nobody in your 3+ months of (legal) occupation bothered to check whether the heating was on?

This! You will likely find that no one checks the property when it's empty because they don't get paid to, unless you are specifically paying extra for this service? They won't include this in normal management fee. 

The utility company will in no way pursue the tenants for this debt and should you go to court to pursue it I imagine you will lose. Yes, the tenants left it on, but you were negligent in that no one checked your house in 3 months. That's silly for a whole factor of reasons not just this. 

Robin9

Perhaps the tenants liked it super hot and 35 degrees was normal to them ?

user1977

Robin9 said:

Perhaps the tenants liked it super hot and 35 degrees was normal to them ?

And some people genuinely don't understand how thermostats work! Turn knob to make heat go on, turn down when too hot...

Conceivably somebody could have turned it up during checkout to check the heating was in working order.

SadieO

Flyingknight73 said:

i checked the inventory checkout report and zooming in on one of the photos I can just about see the thermostat set to the highest setting. 

Since the tenant accepted and signed off this checkout report do I have a case? Or  is the agent still liable?

I don't think that's a reasonable argument. The tenant could just as easily argue that the check out report is a mutual agreement between them and you(/your proxy) on the condition of the house at the point at which they left. The photo proving that the thermostat was on high was part of that agreement, and therefore all parties were acknowledging and therefore accepting that the thermostat was still on! So how can you claim they should have switched it off when there is proof that the condition the house was left in, including the thermostat being on high, was signed off?