Resolving prepayment meter dispute?

Reply to the comment left by Rennie at 16/11/2023 - 00:26
Come on fellow 'all inclusive' HMO landlords, stop hiding your heads in the sand. Pick a paragraph below, have your say. What do you think?

Ronnie, thanks for keeping this thread alive.

1 - Regarding the supply of gas and electricity in shared HMO's, there is still much confusion on whether landlords or occupying tenants are liable.

2 - There are still many area of this relationship between utility companies, landlords and tenants of shared HMO's that need clarifying.

3 - For example - If a landlord of a 'all bills included in the rent' HMO stops paying for the gas and electricity, [because, in fact they are not using it], who does the utility company chase for money?

4 - I say the tenants, and the utility company I just tested this out on, have eventually agreed. Now they have the problem of finding out the names of their customers using their supply.

5 - For electricity, when deciding whether a contract exists the 1989 Electricity Act must be the starting point. In particular the clause where it states "the owner or occupier shall be deemed to have contracted with the appropriate supplier for the supply of electricity as from the time (“the relevant time”) when he began to take such a supply."

6 - Now reading that there is a good debate to have on, just what "taking the supply is". Most would argue that when an occupying tenant "uses the supply", they are "taking" the supply. But only when a landlord takes over an empty property, where there is a standing charge, and/or they use the supply for renovations can the landlord/owner be regarded as "taking the supply".

7 - But like most laws, until the interpretation and intent of them is challenged in court, and if necessary appealed, they remain no more than an operational starting point.

Reply to the comment left by david.... (not Goliath) at 16/11/2023 - 07:55
I'd expect the person who is named on the bill, to be the one responsible for that bill.

So, if a landlord has an 'all inclusive' agreement with their tenants, and the LL stops paying the bill... it's still on the LL to pay the bill.

If you're not happy to pay for the supply of something that you're not personally consuming... take your name off the bill.

In this case with the prepayment meter, its the previous tenants who are liable. But their names and forwarding addresses need to be given to the utility supplier. I don't really blame the utility supplier for not wanting to put in a credit meter due to the property's history (I wouldn't want to either) .... but the landlord shouldn't be saddled with a £2500 debt that they didn't run up.

I think all-inclusive is better for HMOs. I think the LL paying it is better. And to keep bills down, install those timers like Tado or those that countdown (TIME:O:STAT) and don't let the heating stay on ALL day and ALL night. When people aren't paying for something, they take liberties. I had an Airbnb... the place looked like an episode of Baywatch! People walking about in their underwear, heating on full blast, windows open and we're in the middle of summer!! The day I saw that, i said oh no. I got a timer installed, and the heating can only come on for a maximum of 2 hours at a time. So, there's none of this 'turn on the heating and go out' and an empty house is being heated up all day OR, turn on the heating, go to bed and be roasting... the heating turns off, so you have to go back and switch it back on. Cuts bills down by even half.

Just chipping in to say that all-inclusive landlords can't win either, as we have found HMO tenants running their own plug-in fires as well, if they felt the heating in the property, which they weren't responsible for paying for, was not sufficient!
And yes, teeshirts, and barefoot!

Reply to the comment left by Lisa008 at 25/11/2023 - 00:59
Good points. I've saved hundreds of pounds by telling one utility supplier that, in accordance with the law, I am passing the responsibility for the Gas and electricity onto the occupiers who are using the supply'. Without a squeak, they just took my name off the bill and for the last 10 months have been billing the occupiers in the HMO rental property. If I phone the utility company to ask how it is going they quote GDPR and tell me to mind my own business! I have no idea if the bills are being paid or not.

If your tenancy agreements say that you will pay the bill then the tenants can take action against you for breach of contract.

Reply to the comment left by David at 27/11/2023 - 13:55
Maybe, but not if prior to the arrangement, the tenants all accepted an offer from the landlord to return the monthly amount budgeted for gas and electricity and then, by way of consideration to a change in their contract, they then paid less rent from that point onwards (the difference in rent being the amount that was budgeted for gas and electricity). But even if this prior arrangement did not take place, the only claim the tenants would have against the landlord would be the 'stated amount' that the landlord had budgeted for gas and electricity. As part of the new arrangement the landlord would actually pay back the budgeted amount to the tenant and reduce the rent from that point by the same amount. No loss to the tenant to firm the basis for any claim.

You cannot install timers to switch off the heating or restrict it. This is actually illegal

It is good to question just what 'illegal' actually means and to examine the wording of what we are told is 'illegal'. E.g, What exactly does 'restrict' mean. Is the illegal, 'criminal illegal', or 'civil illegal?' For shared houses, enforcement would be by Council housing officers, probably the 2006 HMO Regultion 6. But if you are offered a civil penalty rather than prosecution then there is no 'publicity' and no record of anything illegal having happened, ....so how are other landlords to know whether something is 'illegal'.

Reply to the comment left by david.... (not Goliath) at 28/11/2023 - 00:17Something is either legal or illegal. However, unless something is actually written down in black and white then what people call 'grey areas' have to be resolved by tribunal, court cases and case law. Unfortunately any landlord who tries to do something that falls in one of the 'grey areas' is liable to a court case funded by the likes of Shelter., and what landlord can afford to take on the like of one of these organisations.

Reply to the comment left by GlanACC at 28/11/2023 - 08:00Fair point. There are plenty of landlords who would be able to fund a court case, but very few landlords who are bothered about fighting an issue on principle or in order to get a point of law clarified.
I have a situation where I believe a utility company 'illegally' set up a deemed contract in my name whilst they were aware the property was occupied. (That is they did it in a way that , based on my understanding of the law, their action conflicted with my understanding of the 1989 Electricity Act) .
My principles and finances allow me to challenge this and I am in the process of doing just that. If successful, hopefully it will stop this utility company from continuing their malpractice and send a message to any other utility companies who have a similar policy.
Your point on case law is spot on.
Only I think they are acting illegally. The utility company may also know their policy is illegal but it suits them not to change it because there is a financial advantage if they just carry on with the same policy.
The utility companies policy will not be objectively illegal unless a county court judge makes a decision that supports my view.
But even then, it won't be binding on any other court unless the decision is appealed on a point of law and I also win the appeal.
Only then will their policy be illegal in the true sense on the meaning. Until then their policy is only 'alledged' to be illegal.....by me.