Clam for Water Charges County Court: Contract or Tort or Something Else?

[samsmoot]

For someone who has made numerous County Court claims, and threatened a few too, I'm pretty ignorant. I play it by ear and usually do OK.

So, can I please be more enlightened?

What I want to know is this: am I correct in thinking that a County Court claim can come under one of two headings - contract and tort?

If so, then my next question is: when a water company makes a claim for arrears, what heading applies?

If, for example, no contract has ever been made with a water company (they just continued to supply post Water Act 1991), then how can payment be enforced? And if there has been no negligence or whatever, then a tort also wouldn't work, would it?

What I'm getting at is does a claim by a water company have to fall under contract or tort, and if so is it a defence that it doesn't come under either heading? And/or would that be a reason for striking out?

[Guest]

Re: Clam for Water Charges County Court: Contract or Tort or Something Else?

I think that this would be an implied contract.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/de...-contract.html

A legally enforceable agreement that arises from conduct, from assumed intentions, from some relationship among the immediate parties, or from the application of the legalprinciple of equity.For example, a contract is implied when a party knowingly accepts a benefit from another party in circumstances where the benefit cannot be considered a gift. Therefore, the party accepting the benefit is under a legal obligation to give fair value for the benefit received. Opposite of express contract. See also express contract, implied in fact contract, and implied in law contract.


Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/de...#ixzz2emrowBT7

[samsmoot]

Re: Clam for Water Charges County Court: Contract or Tort or Something Else?

I think that this would bne an implied contract.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/de...-contract.html

A legally enforceable agreement that arises from conduct, from assumed intentions, from some relationship among the immediate parties, or from the application of the legalprinciple of equity.For example, a contract is implied when a party knowingly accepts a benefit from another party in circumstances where the benefit cannot be considered a gift. Therefore, the party accepting the benefit is under a legal obligation to give fair value for the benefit received. Opposite of express contract. See also express contract, implied in fact contract, and implied in law contract.


Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/de...#ixzz2emrowBT7

That's excellent, andy - thanks for that. All sounds fair and correct. But what about when the receiving party has no choice but to accept the service? Water companies cannot cut off the supply, so even if you said you did not want the benefit, it is forced upon you. So does that change things?

[des8]

Re: Clam for Water Charges County Court: Contract or Tort or Something Else?

Don't understand why you should have no choice but to receive water. Here in Wales we can apply for disconnection, either permanent or temporary. What's so different wherever you are.....no plumbers

[enquirer]

Re: Clam for Water Charges County Court: Contract or Tort or Something Else?

Do the charges in question include the disposal of waste water?

[samsmoot]

Re: Clam for Water Charges County Court: Contract or Tort or Something Else?

Don't understand why you should have no choice but to receive water. Here in Wales we can apply for disconnection, either permanent or temporary. What's so different wherever you are.....no plumbers

If in rented accommodation no landlord would allow it, I imagine. I don't think a tenant would be able to force non-supply - certainly not in a council property - due to health and safety laws, I would think. But I stand to be corrected.

[samsmoot]

Re: Clam for Water Charges County Court: Contract or Tort or Something Else?

Do the charges in question include the disposal of waste water?

Yes.

[wales01man]

Re: Clam for Water Charges County Court: Contract or Tort or Something Else?

For the time you were billed that you are now disputing did you use water or dispose of waste water?

[des8]

Re: Clam for Water Charges County Court: Contract or Tort or Something Else?

For a permanent disconnection Dwr Cymru require authorisation from both tenant and landlord.

Sewerage charges also cease or are reduced when water supply is disconnected.

[samsmoot]

Re: Clam for Water Charges County Court: Contract or Tort or Something Else?

For the time you were billed that you are now disputing did you use water or dispose of waste water?

Let's say 'yes', but only for some of the time.

So, if a water supply is required by law, does usage of that supply imply a contract? Or is it the case that usage is a necessary effect of legislation?

[samsmoot]

Re: Clam for Water Charges County Court: Contract or Tort or Something Else?

To add to this, does not any contract require the willing agreement of at least two parties? In other words, the government legislation requiring a supply, and for it to be maintained for health and safety reasons, overrides and/or pre-empts any requirement for a contract. Yes?

Sounds unlikely, I admit, that any court would be impressed, but on the strict letter of the law do I not have a point? Even just technically?

[des8]

Re: Clam for Water Charges County Court: Contract or Tort or Something Else?

[QUOTE=samsmoot;372357]

...So, if a water supply is required by law,....

The important word is "IF". Statutory water authorities have by law to supply water to any domestic customer in its area who request a supply. This is not the same as saying the water authority has to supply every dwelling whether they want it or not.
However if there is a supply to the premises the authority may not disconnect it because of non payment. If they want the money they can only pursue it through the courts. This is for reasons of public health, but does not imply that all dwellings have to be connected to a statutory water authorities' supply, even against the occupiers wish.
I think you may be misunderstanding the legislation.
Presumably there was a water supply to your premises when you moved in and you did not ask for its removal.As you presumably then used the supply it could be construed as being a deemed contract ,as it does to all utilities.

[samsmoot]

Re: Clam for Water Charges County Court: Contract or Tort or Something Else?

Presumably there was a water supply to your premises when you moved in and you did not ask for its removal.As you presumably then used the supply it could be construed as being a deemed contract ,as it does to all utilities.

Sounds reasonable. But if in fact I had no right to cancel the supply, I'd have to accept it - and therefore would be acting in accordance with the law by doing so, as opposed to being deemed to be accepting a contractual obligation. I think.

[wales01man]

Re: Clam for Water Charges County Court: Contract or Tort or Something Else?

You could have at the start written to the water company and request the supply be disconnected if they refused you could state you have no contract as you do not accept it,what is the reason you are not paying?

[des8]

Re: Clam for Water Charges County Court: Contract or Tort or Something Else?

But you can request the water supply be disconnected (at least here in Wales you can).
If your landlord refuses to agree (if his permission is required) I suppose the dispute is then between landlord and tenant and would be regulated by the tenancy agreement. ....and I wouldn't dream of advising about that minefield!