Confused, but i shouldn't be.

[midlifecrisis]

Hi all this is my first post.

First of all I have been in debt manangement since 1989 but mainly on the commercial side, so really I should be able to answer my own question, but I need back up from you lot with a finger nearer the pulse.

My son and his fiance rented a flat and after 6 months terminated the short term lease which was fine, everything was paid up to date.

Lets call the landlord Mr R who signed all the documentation. Just before he was given a "bill" in a different name for the power. All it was was a list of readings plus the pricing and VAT. (No VAT number on the "bill"

He did ask for a copy of the original power company bill and asked why the bill was in a different name. No reponse either by normal or recorded delivery.

The bond was returned without any problems

To cut a long story short, nothing was heard and all of sudden a summons arrived from a Mrs R from a different address to the one we had.

The defense was submitted saying that he didn't owe Mrs anything and that we had corresponded with Mr, my son asked for arbitration, with no luck.

My son has exchanged documents which showed everything going to the only address he had.

We offered a payment without seeing any proof from the utility company which has been rejected. But she still insisits on carrying on till court.

Now in nutshell, how can she take him to court in her name when clearly the debt is someone elses.

Any thoughts anyone

[Amethyst]

Re: Confused, but i shouldn't be.

Do you have a copy of the bill, and the court documents ?

You need to know the relationship between Mr & Mrs R - if they are husband and wife and are joint landlords then either one could sue.

I think your sons defence should rather have been that he wasn't supplied with the original bill, there was no agreement to pay such a bill and requests for further information were ignored....as well as the fact none of the preaction protocols prior to issuing the claim were followed.

Copies of the docs, or at least the text on them, would be useful.

and welcome to Beagles

[midlifecrisis]

Re: Confused, but i shouldn't be.

Do you have a copy of the bill, and the court documents ?

You need to know the relationship between Mr & Mrs R - if they are husband and wife and are joint landlords then either one could sue.

I think your sons defence should rather have been that he wasn't supplied with the original bill, there was no agreement to pay such a bill and requests for further information were ignored....as well as the fact none of the preaction protocols prior to issuing the claim were followed.

Copies of the docs, or at least the text on them, would be useful.

and welcome to Beagles

Yes I have all the documents as I have assisted him complete them.

On the original tenancy agreement it only says Mr no mention of Mrs at all

[Amethyst]

Re: Confused, but i shouldn't be.

When you say asked for arbitration - was that through the court ? and what stage is the claim at at the moment ?

I think adding on the other points about the bill to the defence would be in your sons interest.

[midlifecrisis]

Re: Confused, but i shouldn't be.

When you say asked for arbitration - was that through the court ? and what stage is the claim at at the moment ?

I think adding on the other points about the bill to the defence would be in your sons interest.

It is due for hearing on the 2nd October.

[Amethyst]

Re: Confused, but i shouldn't be.

Okay so we need to see the POC, the defence that was entered and work on a witness statement. Also need the original bill and any other documents you have.

Then we'll know which direction to go in.

You can email me it if you like Amethyst@legalbeagles.info - or you can upload it to the site (take personal stuff off first).

[midlifecrisis]

Re: Confused, but i shouldn't be.

Okay so we need to see the POC, the defence that was entered and work on a witness statement. Also need the original bill and any other documents you have.

Then we'll know which direction to go in.

You can email me it if you like Amethyst@legalbeagles.info - or you can upload it to the site (take personal stuff off first).

Hi Amethyst

I have emailed direct in the first case.

Thanks

Paul

[Amethyst]

Re: Confused, but i shouldn't be.

Thank you xx

[Amethyst]

Re: Confused, but i shouldn't be.

Rightio.

MLC has sent me through a fair bit of the documentation relating to this case. Unfortunately they don't have a copy of the defence but from what they have said it was basically ' We have no debt with Mrs R as the tenancy agreement and contact was through Mr R'

Mr & Mrs R jointly own a company which lets out properties through an Agent. The invoices for supply of electricty are direct from this company. The Agent acted purely as a tenant finder and depsoit protector.

There is some documentation from NPower which confirms the meter readings as invoiced - however they state that the meter that was being billed actually supplies two properties (say Flat 1a and Flat 1b) and the entire charge was passed on to MLC's son who was a tenant of one flat only. The other flat was occupied over the same period.

At the time of receiving the bill MLC's son queried it and requested the information to confirm the useage and this request was ignored - thus no payments were made.

I think the defence should be the electricity bill should have been divided between the two properties.

The total amount billed by NPower is £544 (10th oct to28th March) and the bills from the landlord are for £578.57 - so theres a discrepancy there.

(£518.10 electric use charge + 5% VAT =£544.00)

So I think we need to amend the defence and as no payments were made for the electricity supply make an admission and offer to pay installment wise on 50% of the claim (272.05)We can also include a defence for a reduction in costs for the lack of preaction protocol followed .

[Amethyst]

Re: Confused, but i shouldn't be.

Okay I have the split meter readings now - seems the landlord added a second meter to the property to cater for the second flat.

The readings applicable to MLC's sons tenancy run from 9/10/07 to 28/2/08 and the total units used were 4277.51 kwH according to a spreadsheet provided by the landlords.

The readings applicable to the other flat in the same period were approx 4530 kwH

There isn't a copy of the original bill for the main meter to confirm the readings of the single meter. The reading on the main meter would have had to be 16659.70 on 1st March 2008 for the disbursements between the two flats to be correct.

That will be the important bit of info. The docs provided are simply work outs on manually given figures.

[midlifecrisis]

Re: Confused, but i shouldn't be.

As I said originally very confusing, having spoken to my son he signed the final reading but when asked about the main meter he never looked at that.

Why won't the landlord provide a copy of the original bill?

Still I say the original "bill" is not legal ie no VAT number etc.

Can we change the defence at this late date and how.

Cheers for all you help

[Amethyst]

Re: Confused, but i shouldn't be.

We can do a N244 to amend it it will cost £35 and will put the hearing date back.


The letter dated 14th August 2008 refers to the ONE Meter that serves both properties (confirmed in letter dated 26th June). The 14th August letter states the total useage on the account is £544.00. Both letters refer to the same customer account number.

The justification of the bill on the original invoice is also a bit dodgy IMO but not evidential.

The electric cost of £90 a month does seem high for a flat even with three convector heaters over winter.

The Npower meter is the main meter and ONE additional meter was added by the landlord for the second flat. Is that correct ?

For the landlords spreadsheet to be correct there would need to be the Main meter - split off to two seperate meters for each flat. And this is not what the Npower evidence says.

[midlifecrisis]

Re: Confused, but i shouldn't be.

The letter dated 14th August 2008 refers to the ONE Meter that serves both properties (confirmed in letter dated 26th June). The 14th August letter states the total useage on the account is £544.00. Both letters refer to the same customer account number.

I must be getting old, I missed that !

Although irrelavant, the shower didn't work for ages neither did the oven, and still didn't when they left.

I will have a look at N244 and revert back to the forum.

[Amethyst]

Re: Confused, but i shouldn't be.

Here is those two letters


Letter dated 26 June - account number 1234

''I can confirm that due to the single meter on the account providing power to 2 flats there is no evidence to state that the meter is faulty. "


Letter dated 14 August

"I can confirm that our billing department has calculated the electricity useage from 10/10/07 to 29/3/08 for supply on account number 1234

It has been calculated that the total usage is £544.00. Please see the calculation sheet enclosed for full details of the billing charges from read 00061 to 04277."



Am I being a div on this?

[Amethyst]

Re: Confused, but i shouldn't be.

If there is a main meter split into two the main meter should be in the hall or something, maybe outside? anyway you can check the meter reading on that main meter ?

Otherwise I would think you need to do a part 18 request for information to the landlord/claimant to get the original ACCOUNT 1234 bill.

If there are two seperate meters off the main meter then you need to refer to http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Consumers/Do...1/1970-mrp.pdf for how the bill should be allocated.

Still need the original bill for the entire account tho.


Just to be clear the defence entered about Mrs R instead of Mr R being the claimant won't get anywhere in my opinion.

If the original bill for account 1234 shows the meter reading at 16659 on 1st March then you will be looking at an admission and offer to pay.