Resolving prepayment meter dispute?

What I fail to understand is how over £2500 debt can be run up on a pre-payment meter as generally, the purpose of PP meters is for those who have previous debt/bad credit. I thought the only energy that could be used on a PP meter without putting credit on the meter was Friendly Hours & Emergency Credit which by no stretch of the imagination could surely add up to >£2500. Can someone in layperson terms explain this to me.

No , its not stalemate. You wont get any electric unless you pay. Pay then fight your corner after. You won't get anything from previous tenants as you don't have any meter readings.

Reply to the comment left by Laura Delow at 11/11/2023 - 06:24
Ok Laura, I am with you on that point. In this case the utility company did not fit a prepayment meter until the debt on the credit meter reached £2,700. The new prepaymeter meter was loaded with this £2,700 and then remotely programmed to extract £5/week. By the time the tenants left the debt was reduced to £2300 and this debt remains on the meter that I inherited when I set up an express contract after I repossed the property. The debt now exceeds £2,500 due the additional standing charges. I am unable to top the meter up because the utility company have stated they will load the £2,500+ on the meter and extract it at £7_week for the next 7 years. (Easy paypayments, or wat)

Reply to the comment left by GlanACC at 11/11/2023 - 08:10
Thanks GlanCC, you might be right but I'll disagree with you for now. I take your point about not getting money from previous tenants, but I have no interest in getting payment from previous tenants. In this HMO this tenants were responsible for paying the utility company direct. But one interpretation of the 1989 Electricity Act is that ANY occupying tenant, even those on 'all inclusive' contracts, are legally responsible for paying the electricity bill.

If the landlord of an 'all inclusive' HMO decides to stop paying, it is then up to the utility company to recover any debt from the tenants. Mind blowing or what.

Reply to the comment left by david.... (not Goliath) at 11/11/2023 - 08:59
Thanx David - I understand now.

Thanks for your question David.
You have highlighted a huge issue which can happen to any Landlord.
Some of the replies state you can't contact the Utility company and pass on tenant details and others say you can't pass on tenant details due to GDPR
However at the end of the day YOU own a HMO which is empty in November why ?
You now have a pre payment meter which will cost £2500+ to remove and have a smart meter fitted.
YOU need to pay off the debt and pass the bill onto your accountant as its a tax deductible expense.
You need to offer a bills inclusive Rent with smart meters and a cap written into your addendum.
Not sure where you live/own your student HMO but there is a huge demand for student accomadation in many cities and towns.
You could use the University owned accommodation provider ( in Manchester it's Manchester Student Homes ) or Accommodation for Students and get a group on a join and several contract.
Your post has encouraged me to stick to Bills inclusive Rent for our tenants and not employ any of the firms on the market who offer to manage energy bills for tenants.
Think Fused or Split the bills etc 🤔
Are you doing a refurbishment on the property after 5 years ?
Good luck

Reply to the comment left by david.... (not Goliath) at 11/11/2023 - 09:11
If the owner doesn't tell the supplier that the property is occupied by a tenant and the tenant chooses not to register for an account, the supplier will assume the property is empty and bill the owner.

If the owner tells the supplier that it's occupied by a tenant but refuses to give a name and the tenant is subsequently unresponsive, then the supplier will be unable to verify the owners story and will bill the owner.

I'm not sure whether you are on some mission to force change in the utility provider network, but I think you will be unsuccessful.

Reply to the comment left by David at 11/11/2023 - 14:48Don't give up 'David' we are just getting to the crux.of the matter
Your No.1 partly covers my situation.
Your No.2 raises some concerns.
Check out scenario's 1a & 1b below then you will understand things better. But you will need a clear mind!
You say, 1 - If the owner doesn't tell the supplier that the property is occupied by a tenant and the tenant chooses not to register for an account, the supplier will assume the property is empty and bill the owner. ....
I add, 1a - But what if the owner has no reason to believe the property is empty because they are still receiving rent, but, although the utility have no reason to believe the property is empty (because the same rate of electricity is bring used) the utility company decides to falsely regard the property as empty because the tenants are not engaging and the debt is accumulating.
Then, if the property was actually empty and the landlord had not provided any other correspondence address, the landlord would expect to receive the bills at the rental property.
But, if a landlord has previously provided the utility company with his correspondence address (in case it should be needed), and the customer records of the utility company verify this, then which is the best address for the utility company to send the bills to?
Is it (a) the landlord's correspondence address, or (b) the rental property address?
Clue :
If (a) bill sent to landlords correspondence address, the landlord either responds or ignores it on first reading it. (But either way, it has been sent and received and anyway the utility company can always chase up with a phone call using the landlord's mobile number which they also have on file).
Or, If (b) bill sent to the rental address, the landlord remains unaware of events for the next 5-1/2 years.
The answer is - they did (b) and this was a catastrophic example of premeditated maladministration, which flaunts, I think, the correct interpretation of 'creating a deemed contract' in the name of a landlord. Thus is because the main requirement is that evidence must be produced to establish that the previously (known in thus case) occupying tenants contract had been determined. Clearly it was not determined because the tenants remained in situ, using the supply.
Neither the utility company, the Ombudsman nor OFGEM want to enter into dialogue on this delicate area.
N.B For (b) bill sent to rental property - the tenants had a vested interest in not informing the landlord because they were receiving "free' electricity.
Explanation- The occupying tenants, although required by their tenancy agreement to register with the utility company, can understandably be confused by the actions of the utility company in sending bills in the landlord's name to their house.
They will be even more confused by subsequent actions over the next 5-1/2 years when the utility company (i) removes named tenants from the bill and put the landlords name on them, and then for the next 2 years emails those bills to an occupying tenant and (ii) the utility company ignore future tenants when, in accordance to their tenancy agreement, they phone up to register their names for the supply.
I cannot speak for the tenants as they have long gone, but they have good reason to argue that, because of the actions of the utility company, they also thought the landlord was responsible for the bills.
All this time the landlord is swanning around on his yacht completely unaware of events because no party has bothered to tell him.
I also add 1b - The owner knows the property is occupied but doesn't know the tenants haven’t informed the utility company of their names because for the previous 34 years of renting out student HMO the landlord has never, quite rightly, been involved in the relationship between the utility company and their customers using their supply. It is not my business, renting is my business.
The utility companies will not collect my rent for me, nor give me the names of tenants they might know that I don't know and wish to know.
In previous years, and still now with GDPR, if the landlord phoned the utility company to, say, find out if a tenants account has been paid, so deposits can be returned, they were told to mind their own business and reminded of data protection legislation.
Two can play that game. I return the favour.
You say 2 - If the owner tells the supplier that it's occupied by a tenant but refuses to give a name and the tenant is subsequently unresponsive, then the supplier will be unable to verify the owners story and will bill the owner.
I say not so. I have recently just told another utility company that that a previously 'all inclusive' occupied property of mine is now their problem.
I have notified them, "You find out who your customers are as I am fed up with being an unpaid collector and underwriter of unpaid bills for your ever increasing charges".
They tried to bill me at my correspondence address. Each time I returned the unopened bill with a "NO SERVICES USED FROM THIS COMPANY AT THIS ADDRESS'. After 3 months they eventually got the message. They have now confirmed in writing that no matter what the debt is on the rental property, I will not be held liable.
I've just lit the blue torch paper and run away with my hands over my ears. The problem is now between the tenants and the utility company to sort out, although I am sure, in the end it will be me who will be the one to resolve it.

Yes, very illuminating. It doesn't get this complicated for non-HMO properties. I guess you need to change the business model and include all utilities in the rent (yes I know the electric fire might be left on 24 hours a day) OR it is still allowable to fit your own 'pre-payment' meter fed with £1 coins, but this will need some rewiring and additional cost to set up.

I am not legally trained. Firstly I advise you not to install a smart meter. They pulse continually 24/7 every 15 seconds looking for wifi and so are giving off electro magnetic frequencies constantly.

Regardless of what the "Act" says there can be no such thing as a deemed contract. They may deem they have a contract with you but unless you also deem you have a contract with them it's a no go.
Contracts have very particular requirements in order to be valid.
https://www.upcounsel.com/requirements-of-a-contract

When a breach of contract suit is filed by one party, the judge must first answer the question of whether or not a contract existed between the parties in the first place.

The complaining party must prove four elements to show that a contract existed. These elements are offer, consideration, acceptance, and mutuality.

According to the information you have given I cannot see where you accepted their contract.