There is every reason that Eon will see sense but you will have ti keep at them. They will have to accept that the first bill you received from them was on 22/06/2010. You will pay back one year from then. When you get the full bill for the £1676.46 it will then me possible to work out a sensible estimated read for 23/06/2009. Your bill for 22/06/2010 will then be based on the usage in the year 23/06/2009 to 22/06/2010. Exactly how much you will have to pay for that year will depend on that estimate - I would think roughly £400 so your £1418 is fairly near the mark. Do not forget a claim for compensation in addition. When they concede that the Billing Code applies and they send you a further bill up to 22/06/2010 it will be as well if you post the figures as there could be further dispute. a) They may well try to recoup some of their losses by using a low estimate fot the read on 23/06/2009. This will have the effect of overestimating the usage in the year you will pay for. b) they may well try to keep the bills as they were rendered and give you a refund for the gas used in the period that you will not pay for. If you do not watch them carefully they will not refund the VAT on this. They can only charge VAT on the amount you actually pay. Do you have any information on the MPAN/MPRN. numbers that S&S and latterly EON have for your meter - it should be on the bills. If you can be bothered it would be interesting to check what MPAN numbers National Grid have on their database for a) your meter number b) your postal address c) the bulders address - HA address . Make three separate calls - you may still find the database is not correct. I would think that between them Eon, S&S and National Grid are telling the same story but you never know.

Are you sure that the ticket was from NCP and not from the local council? Some car parls show an NCP sign but they are run by the councill whose operatives actully actually issue the tickets. These tickets are enforceable.

Duplicated post.

You have never received a bill. Without a bill there is no debt so it is perfectly safe to ignore the DCAs. You might consider that this has gone on long enough. There are two actions you can take. I would do both. Write to trading standards complaining that you are being harrassed by the DCA's that have done so. Say that they will not prove an alleged debt that you have never been billed for. You can also write directly to OFT of which tradings standards are part. You can write to Anglian Water complaining of the action of their DCAs. If you do owe Anglian Water then they will have to send you a bill which you can then check and if you agree it is correct then pay.

Sorry about not seeing the meter readings on the right - I could not read that column until I magnified the image !! So the first actual reading was taken by somebody connected to Eon on 22/06 so it would be 'fair' to accept this date for the puposes of the billing code. Can you confirm that as a correct reading? I have checked your bill and the figures shown are correct. The beginning meter reading for this bill is an estimate so to be certain that this is a sensible (it can never be true) usage record for the period from 3/03 to 22/06/2010 you will have to check that the first estimate is sensible. This can only be done by looking at the usage in the preceding 4 years. So you must know what is in the bill for 1676.46 which the say existed on 03/03/2010. It will probably refer to 'the previous bill'. Ask for that. We know that they only realised the account was theirs in Nov 2009 so they cannot prolong this fantasy before that date. You must realise by now that Eon are making up their story as they go along.

My advice is to ignore any DCAs. File leeters away unanswered and do not talk to them on the phone. To take you to court they need to prove the debt which clearly they cannot do. Who do they claim is the owner of the debt?

It will be fun if they turn up to execute the warrant!! British Gas cannot be trusted to do anything right.

That comes out quite nicely - looks as if you have found a good way to post documents without a scanner. Most of the amount 'owing' is for the bill they say they sent on O9 March 2010 for 1676.46. That is the interesting one - have you actually received it? If so post it. Also the bill you have posted does not show the meter readings ('see meter readings') so there should be another sheet. Post it if you can. When was this bill dated - that date is the date that you probably work back from for the billing code. The fact of estimated readings is important. Sorry I did not specifically mention the account number and the MPAN/MPRN as things to black out - thanks dx100uk. I presume you have bills from S&S. It would be interesting to know whether the MPAN/MPRN number used by S&S is the same as that used by Eon?

They could have got a warrant but only of the default variety - basically a warrant issued in the absence of a defence. You were there to defend and actually paid the BG warrant officer. Clearly he then 'forgot' to withraw the application. First thing to do is to revisit the magistrates court tell them your story and see what happens. Any warrant that BG obtained should be immediately voided - do not forget to take that receipt which proves that you were at court and that the BG warrant officer did not do his job properly. Then write a very sharp letter of complaint to BG stating exactly what happened. Send them a copy of the receipt. Next phone the Energy Ombudsman and ask them to intervene as a matter of urgency. If someone turns up to execute the warrant then tell your story and show your documents to the police if present. If police are not present then call them.

I used the term pigheaded to describe Eon in a previous post. I think that pig is growing extra heads !! Does the bill they have sent you include any meter readings etimated or not. If it does not then it is not an adsequate bill so the Billing Code is still running. Is it possible for you to post a copy of this bill so that we can all see it. You will need to black out any personal details and scan it. You can post it either as a PDF document or use Photobucket. If you are going to the Ombudsman you will need to know what Eon have been doing over the past four years so SAR them for everything they have on their computer about the account including all transcripts of telephone converations. You are entitled to this information which will cost you £10. So Eon have told you that the only knew that the account was theirs in Nov 2009. So no bills from Eon before that! - they were lying. Trouble is that this was from a telephone conversation which will probably go missing.- please stop talking to them on the phone and get everything in writing! No bills for 4 years was entirely their fault You were happy with S&S and Eon's insistence that they owned the account from the outset of your occupation has and will cause you an lot of trouble. They could easily have left things as they were requesting the distibutor to regularise their database in favour of S&S. I personally would be so cross about all this that my aim in life would be to cost Eon enough to make it less likely that they will do such a thing again. Have you thought why S&S paid back TO YOU what they had taken over the four years that they considered the account was theirs. They could equally paid this money to Eon. They would have known that Eon had not billed you and that the Billing Code would apply and that Eon's intransigence would cost them dear - sweet revenge! Make Eon pay for this nonsense.

The problem is that on the phone they can blind you with figures. It is always better to get everything in writing so that you can look at the figures and get advice. You do not say at any time that you have received a bill of any sort -they seem to be telling you what you have to pay over the phone. Ask them for a bill. Remind them that the billing code applies for one year before the first bill you receive and that they are losing money for every day they delay. When you get that bill post it so that we can check what Eon are doing.

. This would only apply if the contract were a signed paper contract. Then it wpuld be unlawful to attempt to change the contract to someone else. Proper signed contracts a very uusual these days simply because deemed contracts are so advantageous to the utilities. Deemed contracts are with all adult occupiers of a property and each occupier has a responsibility to pay any bills.(joint and several). Usually one occupier agrees to pay the bills and correspond with the utility and for administrative reasons the utility puts his 'name on the account'. This does not make him the sole contract holder. The utility still have a contract with the other occupiers and they are at liberty to change the 'name on the account' to any one of them. So there is nothing unlawful in what Eon have done if as is very likely the supply is under a deemed contract..

I do not know what they a having to think about. They are clearly at fault and the billing code applies. One thing that they might well say is that you did not ring them to tell them you were occupying the property so how could they know who to bill etc. Answer is You had no idea that Eon thought they werre the supplier and you were billed by S&S and paid them. It seems to me from Eon''s actions that they did not consider that they were the supplier until recently! - so how could you know? If they knew that they were supplying from the outset why then did they not send bills to you at your address. They say they sent bills to the wrong address for 4 years. This is a lie as it is inconceivable that if they had sent bills out that they did nothing about the non-payment of those bills.

Have you checked that there is anything adverse on your credit reference agencies files? If there is nothing there then it cannot appear in any credit report. Do you check your CRA files regularly? When I check mine there are nearly always errors some of which are adverse. This matter has always been in dispute and it would be unfair practice (OFT) and libel (which you can sue for) to put anything whatever on your CRA files.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=441405&in_page_id=2B British Gas have not yet got their computer systems correct !! They are hopeless. Sounds as if LCS is worse. Complain immediately to the Energy Ombudsman. BG will have to pay the Ombudsman. Write a letter of complaint to BG and then refuse to talk on the phone saying ' I will not talk to you until I have a satisfactory reply to my complaint in writing'. Ignore, ignore ,ignore LCS completely. If they ring you put the phone down. If this gets annoying complain to Trading Standards (part of OFT who licence debbt collectors) saying that they are chasing you for a phantom debt which they have acknowleded is not owed. These people know that you owe them nothing so they cannot take any action against you so let them continue to chase their own tails and spend their money doing so. Just laugh at their stupidity and do not get upset. It is not your job to sort them out and you are wasting your time talking to BG's customer service or LCS in any way. When they stop hassling you ask for compensation - £200 would not be unreasonable.

This story is typical of the many problems that arise from mal-administration of the supply to newbuilds. First there is the mixup over the original supplier -if Eon were the original supplier how did S&S think they were your supplier and vice versa. It is possible that here were two entries an the distibutors database a) for the correct postal address and b) for the HA's address. S&S could be supplying under the a) entry and Eon could be supplying under b) - they say they have billed the HA address. If this were the case there would be two MPAN/MPRN numbers for the same meter at different addresses. Have you any indications? There are three posible scenarios 1)Ether EON or S&S or both thought they were the supplier but neither or both were paying the distributor. In this case the distibutor would not have been paid or been paid x2. Something would have happened sooner than 4 yearrs (wouldn't it?) 2) S&S were the original supplier and were paying the distributor. They certainly acted as if this was the case, billing you and receiving payment from you. You were quite happy with this situation. However the outcome of the behind the scenes dispute suggests that Eon did have a prior claim to the account. 3) After 4 years Eon suddenly realise that they had a claim to to account and have been paying the distibutor. They start proceedings to get the account back to them. There would have been enquries to S&S aind the disributor and the findings were in Eon's favour. S&S give in but insists that your payments be refunded to you if they do not keep the account.( a very clever move ). Databases will be changed all round so that any discrepencies are covered up. Eon have now got a choice between a) leaving the account with S&S and this is the simplest option. S&S are happy as is the customer. All payments to the distibutor would be regularised. However Eon are pigheaded and want their pound of flesh so they opt for b) taking the account back. They calculate that i) you have the refund from S&S fron Eon and so have no difficulty in paying them ii) You will accept only a token or even no payment in compensation. iii) you will not have heard of the billing code or if you have that they can bluff you that it does not apply. The billing code applies you have not received bills at the metered address. That has not happened. It is their error that they have an incorrect address. The billing code applies. They claim that over 4 years they have sent your bills to the HA. The HA deny that any such communication has been delivered to their address. If it had they would have readdressed it to you or returned it to Eon. The conclusion is that Eon sent no bills so the billing code applies They claim they sent bills but they they cannot claim that you have paid them. If they sent the bills why have they not investigated 4 years of non payment. Conclusion is that they sent no bills and the billing code applies. I totally agree with the sentiments of your last post except that the 'few hundred pound' is not nearly enough. You should invoke the billing code and pay considerably less for your fuel usage to date and in addition expect compensation for all the inconvenience this has caused you. The billing code was instituted at the request of the regulator so that the many billing errors that the utiliies commit due to inadequate systems are punished by monetary loss. If this does not happen they have no incentive to improve. Please invoke the billing code to improve their service for others.

Do accept that the bill is correct?

A builder will almost certainly have arranged gas electricity and water suppliers for your new build. So ask them who the suppliers are. When a builder wants to have utility supplies within a property he has to apply to a disributor who will supply fit pipes wires etc up to and including the meter. Once this is done the builder will almost certainly need to use the utilities in finishing the house. He will therefore apply to any supplier he chooses to supply fuels and the local water company to supply water - you will need to supply meter readings when you move in to account for the builder's usage. The supplier pays the distributor for the use of the distributor's facility and for fuel or water used, adds profit and bills the customer. All very neat and tidy but it often goes wrong and this is because both the distributor and the suppliers tend to sit in front of computers, use contractors to do the work and rarely do onsite checks (for meter numbers and addresses) and have not yet produced a sytem to cope with the fact that at some time the address of the property has changed from a builder's site address to a full postal address. When you ring the suppler given by the builder it is not ucommon for the suppler to deny that they supply the property or that the address you give even exists! Try the builders site addres if you know it. The are sometimes mixups over the meter number so although you know who is supplying you they may not find you on their database. What then? I would take the next step in any case just to be certain that both distibutor and supplier are singing the same song - this can save endless problems in the future. This also applies if your builder is not cooperative. Give the distibutor a ring and ask them to check the address and meter number they have , who the supplier is and the MPAN/MPRN number. Do not be surprised if you cannot be located on their database! Phone your local water company and National Grid for fuell suppliers - there are a number a small distributors but NG are first in line.

1) No DCAs try it on and many people pay so why not? DCAs are not honest. 2) No But there is no harm in asking for them!! If this were ever to go to court and you win you can include amounts to cover this in your claim for costs. Likewise for the Ombudsman What do you mean by this? Eon can use a collection agency in two ways. If there is an unresolved dispute either route would be cosidered 'unfair' by OFT a) as an agent. In this case Eon owns the debt and can sue for it. They are only using agents because they are masters of harrassment and dishonest threats. Eon pay them to do this so any administrative costs are Eon's. You are perfectly entitled to ignore the collection agency and continue a dispute with and make payments to Eon - best practice if you value your sanity. b) Eon sell (assign) the debt to a collector. There must be a proper deed of assignment between Eon and the collector. Eon can do this without you permission but they MUST inform you in writing otherwise the assignment is void - it is Eon not the collector who must do this. The collector can sue for the debt if they can prove it. They will usually win and the court will make an arrangement fot the debt to be paid maybe by instalments. Added charges will be ignored by the court so you should not pay them at any time. In both scenarios the collector is not likely to be given all the paperwork by Eon. You can get the collector off your back in a) by ignoring them and in b) by asking for full proof of the debt which they will not have. In both a) & b) you can tell them that the debt remains in disputte with Eon who should not then have involved them - if they continue their acttivities you will report them and Eon to OFT or Trading Standards.

If Eon hve sold the debt to SRJ then SRJ must have a deed of assignment in there hands. You also should have had a letter from EON telling you that the debt has beem assigned to SRJ. In the absence of these two items you can assume that SRJ is acting as agent for EON i.e. they are Eon so there is nothing to stop you paying Eon direct.

Surely all adult occupiers have a joint and several responsibility for payment. This is not confined to the people named on the account.

Gas industry regulators. National Grid: UK Gas Distribution The first time you rang NG you were told that nobody supplied your address. The second time you rang you were told that the pipes were put in by XOserve who were therefore the distributor and incidentally would not answer your queries. These people laying pipes and independent distributors!?? Until 01/05/2005 thery were a department of NG! At that time amongst other functions they took over the databases of the other distribitors to make one central reference database. You can access this by ringing them on a O870 number - not exactly what you were told. Having read the above references do you not smell a damage limitation exercise going on. If you were not registered with NG then NG would lose the cost of the gas you have and will use until you do register correctly. If SG can recover for five+ years nobody loses. If SG can recover 1+ years (billing code) then NG only loses 4 years gas. Either way collusion between NG and SG means that something is recovered. You have NGs first reponse and I would be sure that this is correct - you were not registered at that time. NG would have used XoServe's database. So your second contact is fantasy and you are being conned. It is alleged that the suppliers are at loggerheads but these people will talk to the devil where money is concerned. Remember that when you first contacted SG they siad they had no record of you -when did they suddenly find you -I would suggest just before the first bill otherwise you would have been billed sooner. You ask what you should do about the £800 of which you have paid £100. The first thing to do is to cancel your direct debit mandate at your bank. Otherwise it is quite likely you will find they will take the whole £700 from your bank account in one go which could be embarrassing for you. If you agree that the £700 owing is correct then ask them for a reasonable instalment plan paid by standing order. Even if you feel you should not pay anything (as I do) you may be heartily sick of all this and take the line of least resistance and pay up. Otherwise keep investigating. You have never stated whether the start reading given on the bill they have sent you is an estimate. If so the whole bill is a total guestimate. They realise that they are supplying you and send a first bill at that time -on what do they base their figures? Should you inform them that you have been in the house 5 years? No what good will that do? The 4 years they have not billed you for is not recoverable so why provoke a possible bill for the whole five years. The fact that they have not billed you until now proves to me that you were not registered. It would be interesting to find out who they consider was living in your house during the four years that they think you were not. One of your problems is that your communication both with NG and SG has been by phone which can be denied. Why not get proper evidence by writing to them and refusing to talk on the phone?

Morrcroft are acting as agent for UU so they ARE UU. The debt is owed to UU and not to Moorcroft. Your complaint must be accepted by UU - if they try to put you back to Moorcroft then complain at once to the Ombudsman. A debt is only 'assigned' when it is sold to Moorcroft. There has to be proper documention and the proof of the debt (basically the bills and accounts) has to be pased to Moorcroft as they own the debt. You must be informed of the assignment by UU. All this is done very slackly by the participants and it is often the case that the DCA does not have the documents to prove the debt. So why has UU employed Moorcroft and are paying them for this service? UU do not wish to do the job themselves because they are not set up to be as unpleasant , dishonest, unfair and intimidatory as Moorcroft whose methods are much more successful in extracting the last penny. They do not wish to be seen as the author (though they are) of DCA methods. UU do have an inhouse DCA (Concilia) but inhouse DCAs are a [problem] set up to fool the public and are not very successful.

Water meters are bad news for water companies. In nearly every case and certainly yours the amount they can get for water is considerably reduced if a water meter is fitted. So they will not fit them unless they are forced to do so. You are entitled to have a meter fitted if it is possible and not unreasonably expensive for them. Just to say it is 'not possible' is not good enough and you should ask for a full report from them. The most likely reason they will give is that the flats are not self-contained and use some water in common - e.g. a header tank in the roof of thr property that supplies toilets, cental heating and water to hot water heating systems. You should know exactly why it is not possible as with quite smsll expense it may be possible to run all your water usage off the single mains supply to your flat and in this case metering is possible. There must be one tap in the flat which is supplied direct fom the mains for drinking puposes. At the noment they are not charging you for metered usage so on what basis are they charging you? Befor 1991 all properties paid water rates and if your property was built before that date they may be charging on the ratreable value. If the property was built or converted into a number a flats since 1991 they have to charge on an 'assesment'. How they do this varies with each water company. It will depend on the size of the flat and nunber of occupants etc or possibly a comparison between properties where metering is installed. One thing to look out for is that if the property had a rateable value then when it was converted into flats this rateable value was not apportioned properly between the flats. It is perfectly possible for each flat to be paying the cost of water for the whole building!! So find out why the fitting of a meter is 'not possible' and ask on what basis you are being assessed at present. It would best to write to them for this information - you are very unlikely to get correct answers from customer services.

Newbuilds are covered by the billing code. Ringing NG is crucial as what you will have to pay depends on whether or not there is a MPAN number for your meter. No MPAN number will mean that you only pay from thr date you set up the account. This unlikely as SG and NG will likely have got their story straight by now. In this case NG makes the loss. If their is a MPAN number then the billing code will apply and SG will be the loser of all but the year before the bill. Check your bill a) Is it for the correct meter? The meter number must be on your bill. They appear not to have taken a meter reading fom the correct meter for five years. If this is the case you will not even have to pay the year that they have billed. b) Is the first meter reading on your bill also estimated? This is very likely as though you have had a meter reader that was before the start of this bill and there was a problem then ? correct meter. That will mean that the year's usage is a complete guess and should be challenged. c) SG or is it BG? You have used both.