Resolving prepayment meter dispute?

Reply to the comment left by David at 09/11/2023 - 16:59
Yes, I agree. In this property the utility company had been supplying groups of student 'friends' for the previous 8 years. However, a better industry model is required that takes into account that even when the landlord 'includes an amount in the rent for gas and electricity', they are not legally obliged to pay the utility company. At any time, especially when the utility costs rise as they have done, the landlord can stop being the unpaid collection agent for of the utility company and just stop paying. As the property is occupied the utility company has no route to recover the charges from the landlord and has to seek to recover the costs from the tenants. When the tenants then refuse to reveal their names the utility has a rising debt and a big problem.

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 09/11/2023 - 16:47As I have not been able to rent out this renovated HMO because the utility company will not remove the prepayment meter in a bedroom, and the utility company has ignored the Ombudsman's findings, I only have a legal remedy. I have taken steps to recover a 6 figure sum to cover my time, (which I notified them about) , 6 years lost rent (which I also notified them about) and legal costs (which I have notified them about) from the utility company. Thank you all for your contributions, they have helped me confirm what I already believed. Watch this space.

Reply to the comment left by david.... (not Goliath) at 09/11/2023 - 19:17
It would be interesting to know the basis for your claim. What breach of duty are you alleging?

Thanks for the question. The answer runs like this.
1 - Only the utility company can authorise the meter to be changed, I am powerless in that area.
2 - The utility company will not change the meter until I pay £2,500+.even though the Ombudsman ruled it was not payable.
3 - The utility company are relying on their claim that a deemed contract was created in my name, but a property has to be empty for a deemed contract to be created in the landlords name.
4 - Prior to the date the utility company told me 'a deemed contract was created in your name',(this was 5 years after the event), they have stated that they were aware of 'occupation by [unknown] tenants, and a debt'.
5 - The utility company have been unable to produce any evidence that the tenancy of these 'in occupation' was ever determined. (A landlord is not liable until the tenants' contracts have been determined, and the property is empty)
6 - The utility company record having an actual meter reading on the date this so called deemed contract in my name started. (There are only 2 ways an actual reading can be taken, (i) a meter reader visits the property, (ii) the tenants phone in an actual reading. Both of these prove occupation)
7 - The utility company never billed me in 3-1/2 years. When I asked for a bill it was made up to an end date which was older than 12 months previously, so it fell foul of the back billing rule.
8 - The utility company have breached at least 6 of their own General Deemed Terms and conditions.
9 - And the cherry on the cake is that I eventually found out from the Ombudsman that the utility company actually collected full payment from these 'unknown occupiers', but for 6 years they decided not to reveal that evidence to me, or the Ombudsman.
Sounds like a no-brainer win for me, but whilst I am sure to win the argument that no deemed contract was ever created in my name, it is not so certain I will get £100,000+ in compensation. But what a humdinger of a victory that would be ......on a good day. I just need a good legal firm to take it on...do you know any?

Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 08/11/2023 - 11:17
Mick, be good to know if you have picked up anything from these posts that might help you with your issues with utility companies.

Reply to the comment left by david.... (not Goliath) at 09/11/2023 - 21:35
You seem to have done no more than produce a list of complaints against the supplier and the way they have conducted their business.

To succeed in a claim for damages, which I assume this is, you would need to establish that
1: they owe you a legal duty and
2: are in breach of that duty and
3: as a direct result of that breach you have sustained a foreseeable loss.

What breach of duty are you relying on?

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 10/11/2023 - 00:41Good question thank you... enabling me to vent-off a little longer. Yes, that would be true in some cases. The legalities are beyond my pay grade; I provide the evidence, a barrister decides the legal basis for the claim. I imagine a good starting point would be (i) the failure of the utility company to correctly implement the 1989 Electricity Act, which they are legally obliged to act in accordance with, (ii) by incorrectly creating a deemed contract in the name of a landlord knowing that their previous customers were still in occupation, and (iii) and not being able to produce any evidence that the previous contract had been determined. A potentislly damaging 'damages case' can also be won/settled before the parties get to court. This is more likely when the resulting publicity for a defendant is likely to damage their standing or bring about changes in the law which make life harder for them to continue to take advantage of ill-informed landlords. A pre-court hearing settlement is also more likey when the outcome is likely to highlight malpractice in an industry which results in OFGEM stopping burying their head in the sand while sitting on the fence (long necks or what). OFGEM need to give clear instructions on the procedures that utility companies need to follow in order to create 'legally correct' deemed contracts in the name of the landlord. A bonus would be a certain utility companies 'license to operate' being suspended and a shake-up of the Ombudsman:Energy system where all case handlers attend a short webinar on the implication of the 1989 Electricty Act. Then Ombudsman case handlers can stop trying to rely on "their (unfair and not legally correct) guiding principles" which they say that "all Ombudsman case handlers use". This principle being that when in doubt they place the burden of proof on the landlord to prove a property is NOT EMPTY. Nice one Cyril. This is somwhat difficult for landlords to prove when they are not told about a so called deemed contract until 5 years after the event. Utility companies may ask for historical copies of tenancy agreements, signed or unsigned, but a tenancy agreement alone is never proof of occupation. However, consistent use of the electricity supply by occupiers from actual readings, and the recording of a utility company receiving payment from occupying tenants IS reliable proof of occupation. You fancy taking on the case?

Reply to the comment left by david.... (not Goliath) at 10/11/2023 - 07:49
No thanks! You are in danger of ending up much more out of pocket than if you were to pay the £2500.

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 10/11/2023 - 10:10
As there is no previous case law of a landlord seeking a determination on whether a utility company correctly implemented Schedule 6, paragraph 3 of the 1989 Electricity Act, then it appears that 'just capitulating and paying a random figure off' is what every other landlord faced with this situation has done in the past. When asked for a statement, even OFGEM say "we are watching the Courts for a decision". Until there is a Court case nothing will change. Even a well publicised small claims court decision would be effective in raising awareness and in sending out the right message to encourage OFGEM to instruct utility companies to change their procedures. For starters the £2,500 has never been demanded. It could never be demanded because it always fell foul of both OFGEMs Standard Licensing condition (SLC) 21BA, and Energy UK's Code of Practice for Accurate Bills (the Code). To make a payment would be to to submit to coersion and the £2,500+ would be no more than making a donation to compensate a utility company for gross mal-administration and for them failing to correctly act in accordance with an Act of Parliament. For some people it is not about the money. Did I hear somebody called David say "this is the time to put another small stone in a sling, swing it round and take aim?"

Have you tried writing to the Chief Exec of the utility company, especially as you have an Ombudsman's decision?

They are typically risk averse and aware of reputational risk, and will cut though the nonsense perpetuated by the minions.