Unpaid bill by tenant

Scot_39

I am not sure what public records / credit records etc would be available "quickly enough" that an energy company could use to validate a new occupant registering on moving in.

Non initial payment - not even registering for months on average seems now is common enough for Ofgem to be considering forcing all new contracts to be preceded by smart prepay for initial period until registered

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/dec/09/home-movers-great-britain-energy-use-account-ofgem

That 70 day average claim seems very revealing.

I do on day or occassionally next working day - as I suspect do many.

So does that mean others really take 4 months plus ???

Is this an indication of a chancer mentality - ill pay if they catch up with me whilst here ?

Or do many really legitimately not know they have to register ?

Best defence - diy notify utilities, council etc of tenants names - add privacy statement to your tennancy agreement if havent already if worried about gdpr.

Ectophile

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81891046#Comment_81891046

Ignore that. If a letter is correctly delivered to your address, and you have no intention of doing anything fraudulent with the information in the letter, then you won't be prosecuted if you open it.

[Deleted User]

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81891319#Comment_81891319

Source?

The statute says " intending to act to a person’s detriment", not just act fraudulently.

The OP has already accused (without apparent merit) the intended recipient of fraud based upon the contents of the mail packet within this thread alone.

It's potentially a legal minefield as how can one know what they intend to do with the contents, until it is opened? Or put another way, why (without reasonable excuse) risk opening the item in the first place?

Hence the best advice provided.

ETA: In this instance, inference can be drawn from the other postings of the OP in this thread as to their probable intent.

tfhnota

He was able to pay the initial bills in cash at the Post Office, I guess, and then stop paying when he knew he was leaving. However, you will be able to provide them with his real name and prior address, which should get them off your back. I think the council can get you for council tax, if unpaid, though, as they are basically a law to themselves… as far as I know not quite as bad as the govn, who can dip into your bank account if they think you owe them money.

QrizB

Are you aware that intentionally opening a postal packet without reasonable excuse (e.g. being given the express prior permission by the intended addressee) that you know or reasonably suspect has been incorrectly delivered to you is a criminal offence contrary to the Postal Services Act 2000.

If you're referring to Section 84 (3):

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/26/section/84

… it's rather less black-and-white than you make out.

MyRealNameToo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81891087#Comment_81891087

Power companies tend to do a soft search rather than a hard search, they have a few options like pre-pay meters, asking for a deposit etc if they cannot ID the person or you're really at the lowest levels of credit worthiness.

Doing a random test SSE estimated monthly costs of £198 for my childhood home but only wanted a £150 deposit when they couldn't validate my fake name/history electronically so it'd not even cover 1 month non-payment.

You dont have a human right to have heating or power, unlike water they can ultimately cut you off for non-payment but it's only a few rungs above. Thats why these boards arent full of people saying they've just moved and no one is willing to let them have an electricity supply.

They may have given the real name of a random person, they may have had someone living with them that you didnt know about, they probably didnt pay a deposit else it'd likely have been mentioned.

HillStreetBlues

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81891468#Comment_81891468

Also I think the terminology.
Royal Mail delivers to an address, so if it's to the right address it's been correctly delivered, 84(3) won't apply.

[Deleted User]

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81891468#Comment_81891468

To avoid any doubt, my post was to the OP LOL
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81886187/#Comment_81886187

(but seriously, in this particular instance, it really was targeted towards the OP as it specifically takes into account what they have posted in this thread)

But I think it's really nice to see that you clearly take an avid interest in everything I post on this board. I also really believe you have the potential to be a great asset to this forum, but please would you concentrate your efforts into assisting others rather than wasting your time & effort attempting to lambast me.

Please learn to play the ball, not the man.

Here is what the particular section of statute you reference says.

People can now compare & contrast for themselves just how that relates to what I have posted within this thread.

If you think it is not black & white enough, feel free to assist the OP with your own interpretion.

You have already shown you have the ability to put your own spin on regulations elsewhere
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6654634/back-billing-but-in-credit-so-energy-ombudsman-found-in-favour-of-supplier

For the assistance of others, they can find the applicable licence conditions that I posted about that here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81882716/#Comment_8188271

Back to this thread, if you believe my posts (which are my attempt to explain the law as written, again primarily to assist the OP) then please feel free to help the OP by explaing the law to the OP in your own words.

I will certainly not criticise you for attempting to improve on my efforts, (but I may challenge with what you post if it does not accord with what I understand the law actually states.)

If you think I'm taking the statute out of context, then again, please feel free to explain.

Or, indeed, if there is any other aspect you think is not as black and white as I made out, again please free to add your own words to this thread to make it clearer for the OP.

[Deleted User]

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81891675#Comment_81891675

I can only refer you to what the law states.

Under your interpretation of that particular section, do you really think if the postman drops a piece of your mail (i.e. addressed to you), in the street and you see it, pick it up and open it, you would be liable to prosecution?

Because I think that is what you are suggesting based upon your interpretation; the mail would have been incorrectly delivered to you.

If I have misunderstood what you have posted, please feel free to try to explain it in another way please.

ETA: I see @QuixB thanked your comment, so presumably thought it useful and helpful to others 😕

I think this thread has now been completely derailed, so discuss amongst yourselves. I'm out.

Qyburn

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81891755#Comment_81891755

Under your interpretation of that particular section, do you really think if the postman drops a piece of your mail (i.e. addressed to you), in the street and you see it, pick it up and open it, you would be liable to prosecution?

84(1)(a) would be more applicable in that case.

Regarding the actual context, I don't see how it's been decided that the OP must have been "intending to act to a person's detriment". That's a bit of unnecessary scare mongering.