Has This Claim Been Correctly Issued? Are Water Charges Enforceable Anyway?

[stevemLS]

Re: Has This Claim Been Correctly Issued? Are Water Charges Enforceable Anyway?

As others have said, I think that you/your friend are on a hiding to nothing and wasting both your own and the court's time.

I imagine the directions when they come will have struck out the defence as disclosing no reasonable defence.

[Kjun]

Re: Has This Claim Been Correctly Issued? Are Water Charges Enforceable Anyway?

I have to say I am not surprised with the decision as previously advised because the water charges are payable by statute and therefore the water company have a strong case.

Personally I would be trying to set up a Tomlin Order agreement to pay the claim and avoid judgment as I cannot see the point filing another Defence even if given the option as there is not one from the information provided to date.

[samsmoot]

Re: Has This Claim Been Correctly Issued? Are Water Charges Enforceable Anyway?

Yes, it may just be a case of delaying the inevitable.

The Strike Out Application was dismissed and a few weeks given to submit a more appropriate Defence, which is what will happen.

[samsmoot]

Re: Has This Claim Been Correctly Issued? Are Water Charges Enforceable Anyway?

Unfortunately the Defence was struck out. It will be asked to be set aside but I doubt that will happen.

Anyway, the Defendant won't be paying - so that's that.

[basa48]

Re: Has This Claim Been Correctly Issued? Are Water Charges Enforceable Anyway?

I think this situation is a disgrace.

Clearly the defendant is merely trying to avoid paying reasonable water charges by manipulating the legal system knowing they can't be disconnected.

They will probably end up paying a pittance leaving the rest of us to pick up the shortfall and blocking the courts from dealing with genuine cases.

[stevemLS]

Re: Has This Claim Been Correctly Issued? Are Water Charges Enforceable Anyway?

I think this situation is a disgrace.

Clearly the defendant is merely trying to avoid paying reasonable water charges by manipulating the legal system knowing they can't be disconnected.

They will probably end up paying a pittance leaving the rest of us to pick up the shortfall and blocking the courts from dealing with genuine cases.

Couldn't agree more.

Two defences struck out and still not going to pay.

OP has utterly ignored all the well meaning and accurate advice they have been given on this thread, not least by kjun who plainly knows what s/he is talking about.

OP, suggest you tell your "friend" to prepare for the arrival of the bailiffs.

[basa48]

Re: Has This Claim Been Correctly Issued? Are Water Charges Enforceable Anyway?

OP, suggest you tell your "friend" to prepare for the arrival of the bailiffs.

Ha - you can be assured the 'friend' will have no 'disposable assets'.:rolleyes2:

[Kjun]

Re: Has This Claim Been Correctly Issued? Are Water Charges Enforceable Anyway?

Can't say I am surprised with the strike out as there never was a Defence to the claim in the first place just a waste of court time and money in my opinion.

Would be interested to know if the application was paid for or fee remission was applied however pretty much irrelevant as the last post suggests there is no intention to pay.

I echo the last two posts in that it is unfair on persons who do pay their bills as all this sort of action does is increase costs for everyone else and all water companies today offer schemes of assistance for those who can't pay so no excuses really.

There are many ways of enforcing a judgment mind you so I would not be relaxing yet if I were the Defendant as the water company have a duty to paying customers to fully attempt to recover unpaid charges and I suspect they will carefully look at the options before doing just that.

In my opinion the facility to disconnect or restrict supplies to households will be looked at again in the future as supplies become more stressed as (proved in this case) court proceedings are an ineffective way in attempting to secure payment of unpaid domestic water charges.

Might be sooner than we think if the government really want to rip up the Human Rights legislation as this is what now prevents such an action however I am sure that debate is for another day and thread...

[samsmoot]

Re: Has This Claim Been Correctly Issued? Are Water Charges Enforceable Anyway?

The DWP's failure to include water charges in benefit, and their refusal to administer such charges, is the cause of this problem*. Benefit claimants receive an amount which the law says they need to live on - and water charges aren't included. Therefore to pay water charges from that benefit would leave the claimant with less money than the law says they need to live on - so why should they pay those charges and leave themselves with insufficient money to live on if they don't have to?

It may well be a waste of court time and money - but that's just tough. Maybe next time they will think twice before trying to get blood from a stone.

It's not actually finished just yet, as due to UU's lies committal proceedings have been asked to be brought against one of their agents, and for the strike out of the Defence to be stayed whilst this is being considered. Unlikely to work but it slows things down a bit - and costs nothing.

I have, right from the start, advised the Defendant that the end result could be the bailiffs hammering on the door, but have suggested that not answering the door is the easy solution.

If UU wants to spend even more money chasing a debt which will never be paid, then that's their look out. And if they want to do the same for this year's charges we can do the whole thing again - their choice.

*I'm not making this up - it's all in this Parliamentary Committee's Minutes of Evidence:

http://www.publications.parliament.u...86/4110301.htm

[basa48]

Re: Has This Claim Been Correctly Issued? Are Water Charges Enforceable Anyway?



:der: :der: :der:

:rolleyes2: :rolleyes2: :rolleyes2:

[samsmoot]

Re: Has This Claim Been Correctly Issued? Are Water Charges Enforceable Anyway?

Bailiffs came a few times but got no joy.

This year's bill is due and it will be subject to an application to UU's Charitable Trust, so hopefully no court this time.