£10,000 Electric bill for 8 years

[pelham9]

So what has the supplier been doing for the past six years?

 

They have not (so the OP says) read a meter or communicated with the property's occupants during that time. If the OP is being economical with the truth I would have expected that estimated bills would have been rendered long before 6 years and court action to disconnect would have been taken ages ago.

 

Why has it taken six years to get to this situation? It is because of the inefficient systems that the utility employs and the billing code should operate against them.

 

Of coirse they can render a bill for six years (or even 8 years).There is nothing to stop them doing that. The question is should the OP take advantage of the billing code and only pay for the last year's proven usage. I maintain that he should. It is not a matter of honesty - it is a natter of forcing the inefficient supplier to put in systems that prevent this kind of nonsense.

[mattlamb]

But because the OP has not done anything (save what I have already stated they did) the billing code would not apply. It only applies when the customer has informed the supplier that they have moved in and when. They have not done this.

[mattlamb]

I would add that if a property is marked as "long-term vacant" which I'm assuming it was at one stage in the distant past, twice in successive quarters - then the address would be removed from the quarterly reading schedules (or however often they used to read the meter then - we don't know who the supplier is). The supplier would not then be able to get a reading without someone notifying them that the property is being lived in.

Edited July 31, 2009 by mattlamb

[NN4]

I hope you don't mind me jumping in. My sister is with Eon and owes £3,000 which is 3 years worth of bills. She was paying by £45 per month by direct debit for the last 18 months but had to close the account and now has basic saving account. She has just received her latest bill and they are now chasing her with a vengence for the £3000 as she has missed 1 payment of £45. This is the first time she has heard from them with regard to the huge amount she owes them. She has offered to pay £90 at the end of August (which she can do with my help on this one occassion) and then carry on with the £45 per month. They have refused and have said they now want £100 per month which she just cannot afford. She is at her wits end. Thoughts would be appreciated.

[Bookworm]

So in response to Bookworm's post - the supplier is perfectly entitled to send the OP a bill, estimated or not.

Wrong. Limitations Act 1980.

 

 

The Limitation Act 1980 states that most debts can become ‘statute barred’ after 6 years (12 years for mortgages and secured loans). This means they become unenforceable – you still owe the money, but the creditor can no longer take action to recover it.

 

 

This can only happen if:

• the creditor hasn’t contacted you (at your last known address) or taken action (e.g. court action) in that time
  and
  
• you haven’t made payments or acknowledged the debt in that time.
  

QED. ;-)

[mattlamb]

The electric has been used within the last six years (or most of it anyway) so how can this legislation apply??!! You are clutching at straws Bookworm.

[mattlamb]

NN4, has the supplier obtained a meter reading recently after the readings were estimated for ages? I'm imagining she has been paying £45.00 per month by Direct Debit but the statements have used estimated readings for a long time. And is this £45.00 towards the electric, the gas, or both?

[Bookworm]

The electric has been used within the last six years (or most of it anyway) so how can this legislation apply??!! You are clutching at straws Bookworm.

And you have obviously no knowledge of how the LA1980 works. Usage (alleged or otherwise) doesn't equate acknowledgement of the debt.

 

Fact is, supplier didn't make contact for over 6 years, customer didn't acknowledge he owed the monies to that supplier for same, debt is statute-barred.

 

Don't tell me that I am clutching at straws when you don't understand the first about the relevant legislation. We get it, you think OP should pay whatever he's been told to pay without questions. Fortunately for him, you don't have a say, the law does and it is, in this instance, firmly on the side of the OP. You may not like it, but that doesn't change a thing in that you are wrong from start to finish in this matter. ;-)

[Surfer01]

I do not understand why every one is getting in a froth about 6 years when the supplier can only charge for 2 years based on an estimate of a month's supply.

In other words they do a reading, every week for a month and then base the consumption on that and generally it is fairly accurate, that is if the heating is not on electric or a tumble dryer is used on a regular basis.

I cannot stress strongly enough that people should try and take a reading as often as possible but at a minimum of onece every three months. This will help save you money in the long run. Also it is dead easy to find out who your supplier is by phoning the local distribution company and if that fails, switch supplier anyway. There is no such thing as free electric but people tend to bury their head in the sand and hope for the best and I am one of the first to hold my hand up to the practice as I used to do the same but no longer as I hate other people controlling my life.

[bedlington83]

I do not understand why every one is getting in a froth about 6 years when the supplier can only charge for 2 years based on an estimate of a month's supply.

I think its mostly at mattlamb's inconsistencies. On the one hand he believes that the electricity company, in spending eight years not reading, billing, trying to establish who was using the electricity that it supplies, or maintaining the meter has been a bit "slap-dash" but has done nothing wrong. The OP on the other hand, in spending eight years making no attempt to find out who supplied the electricity is a thief that deserves all that he gets.

 

He has also ignored requests to explain the discrepancy in his attitude or justify his belief that the consumer is responsible for ensuring accurate readings are taken, that bills are received and that they are responsible for determining who supplies the property. If I moved in somewhere and didn't know who supplied the premise I think I'd be tempted to wait for a bill rather than go to the time and trouble of finding out who it was.

[mattlamb]

Bookworm, you have laid out how the LA1980 works. As you have laid it out, it does not apply in this case. The OP has used electric since six years ago. The reading he phoned in with is about six years ago (so he says). You pay for electric as you use it or in arrears, so that means the electric charges have become due within the last six years so how can the legislation apply?

If you look at any advice books or information about how to deal with your electric or gas payments, it advises you to contact the supplier to let them know you have moved in.

[Deb T]

Bookworm, you have laid out how the LA1980 works. As you have laid it out, it does not apply in this case. The OP has used electric since six years ago. The reading he phoned in with is about six years ago (so he says). You pay for electric as you use it or in arrears, so that means the electric charges have become due within the last six years so how can the legislation apply?

If you look at any advice books or information about how to deal with your electric or gas payments, it advises you to contact the supplier to let them know you have moved in.

 

 

I think Bookworm has more than easily demonstrated that your distinct lack of knowledge where the legislation is concerned is ever apparent. Quit while the goings good, your information served on this thread is both atrocious and inconsistent and serves no purpose other than to confuse the issue.

[NN4]

Hi Mattlamb. She has not had a meter reading for a very long time. All bills are estimated. The £45 is for the Electricty and Gas and was set by Eon. It doesn't appear that this included any arrears so that's probably why the arrears are now so high.

[pelham9]

NN4

 

Best to start a new thread.

 

They have refused and have said they now want £100 per month which she just cannot afford.

 

She should continue to pay tthe £45 per month and ignore their demands for £100 pm for the time being. Good thing that she cannot pay by direct debit otherwise they would attempt take £100 even though this is not agreed.

 

In your new thread it would be as well to show us exactly what has happened over the past 3 years or longer if this is relevant - when did they last take a meter reading.

[Tricky Dickie]

Ignoring any moral questions is it not the case that the liability for payment for any energy supplies lies with the person or entity that requested the energy company to supply energy to the address in question and that if they can not establish who that was then they have no legal redress.

They have previously taken people to court using the argument of 'beneficial usage ' and lost.

[mattlamb]

The majority of people do not sign up to an electric supplier when they move in to an address. They carry on with the same supplier that was previously supplying the address to the previous occupier, ie: it is a deemed contract. If no-one contacts an electric company to tell them when they move in, what happens? Should the electricity supplier cut the electric off, only to reconnect it when someone contacts them? The occupier can't have it both ways. They would say that it would be unlawful to disconnect them without a warrant, yet they are not registered as a customer because they haven't informed the supplier they have moved in!

 

And no-one has been able to dispute what I have said about LA1980. As Bookworm has laid it out, LA1980 does not apply here. You don't pay for six years worth of electric in advance. The six years only begins once the bill has been sent. Furthermore, the second part about the occupier not having admitted to the debt is irrelevant because the first part of the legislation has not been met. Notcie the word AND not OR near the bottom of Bookworm's outline of LA1980.

Edited August 5, 2009 by mattlamb

[mattlamb]

Deb, my postings have been consistent, and I feel not atrocious. If you can't add anything to the debate, don;t bother saying anything.

[mattlamb]

Another point that hasn't been answered in this thread - we do not know whether an electric supplier has come out to try and read the meter at all or not. If a customer lives in a rural location, it is extremely likely that the meterreader would only try and read the meter once each quarter or however regularly the supplier in question reads the meters. ie: the meter-reader will not go back a second time so the occupier would not know whether the meter-reader has attempted to read the meter or not.

 

If someone has not contacted the supplier to tell them a property is lived in, then the supplier would not send out a bill because there is no customer to bill that they know of. That does not mean the supplier's computer records don't show an attempt to read the electric meter - they may well be able to show attempted readings on these records (forget what the official term for these records is called). But if they are unaware of anyone living at an address, they won't produce a bill without any reading being obtained. Just imagine the outcry from some of the caggers here if an electric supplier attempted that! The supplier is damned if they do and damned if they don't in some eyes. The supplier's code only applies if the customer has made some effort to contact the supplier. Without them having done this, the code does not apply.

[Bookworm]

And no-one has been able to dispute what I have said about LA1980. As Bookworm has laid it out, LA1980 does not apply here. You don't pay for six years worth of electric in advance. The six years only begins once the bill has been sent. Furthermore, the second part about the occupier not having admitted to the debt is irrelevant because the first part of the legislation has not been met. Notcie the word AND not OR near the bottom of Bookworm's outline of LA1980.

No-one needed to because your interpretation is incorrect. The 6 years doesn't kick in once the bill has been sent. Otherwise, no debt would ever be statute-barred, all the creditors would have to say is "we never sent a bill in the first place".

 

It's really quite simple, and you are making it complicated because you don't like the answer: The company supplied the goods. They didn't request payment within 6 yrs (at least) of supplying them, and the OP didn't acknowledge the debt. Therefore, under LA1980, the debt is statute-barred. Furthermore, the 6 yrs limit kicks in backwards, so to speak. The LA runs from the time when one discovers the cause for action. In other words, OP is covered for the last 6 yrs from when the company started making demands on him, and of course further back. So, strictly speaking, the clock only starts ticking for the company to start charging him from when they contacted him recently.

 

Regardless of all the above, even if a judge were to discard the LA1980, the burden of proof would STILL be on the company to prove how much power the OP used and not just throw an estimated number in the air and hope it sticks.

[NN4]

Pelham 9

 

Will start new thread. Will get all info I can from her before I post.

 

Thanks for help.

 

NN4

[mattlamb]

No, Bookworm. You are trying to use the LA1980 legislation to back up your point when it doesn't in reality back up your point at all. Electricity is supplied on an ongoing basis, not all at once. You are not supplied with electric in advance of when you use it. And of course the legislation would apply if someone got billed and then the creditor took no further action for a further 6 years after sending the bill. The occupier would have proof of the bill - requesting it from the company if they no longer have the bill.

 

Now the Op has been billed, the electricity company will send more bills to the OP in future quarters. maybe some of these will use real readings, maybe they won't be able to obtain access in which case the OP will get estimated bills again.

The suppliers have now sent a bill to the OP in name, having found out the OP's name. That means the OP now must deal with the matter, rather than doing nothing. As long as the supplier attempts to read the meter in future, they can chase for the existing and future money due - estimated readings based or not. As I havve already pointed out on more than one ocasion, the Op did not attempt to contact the supplier with details of their having moved in. Therfore, the industry code does not apply.

[Bookworm]

I am not "trying" to use anything, I am merely explaining the law as it stands.

 

You, on the other hand, seem unable to understand the difference between a statutory instrument and a voluntary industry code which has no strength in law whatsoever.

 

You also don't seem to grasp the difference between supplying and billing, which is a bit of a worry. You also seem to have absolutely no understanding of what "burden of proof" implies.

 

You are quite correct that the OP should do something, and I don't think I have said otherwise. What he must do, in case the company thinks he's a soft touch and tries to get a bogus judgment against him, is send them a letter saying: a) statute-barred, b) even if it weren't statute-barred (which it is), burden of proof is on you.

 

After that, he would do well to start keeping a close eye on the meter so that should the company try to play silly buggers, he can then provide accurate readings from now on.

 

I see little point in continuing this argument with someone who just doesn't want to understand the facts, I have explained quite clearly how things stand and it is up to the OP to check the facts (for which I have given links before) and decide how he wants to proceed from there.

[bedlington83]

Deb, my postings have been consistent, and I feel not atrocious. If you can't add anything to the debate, don;t bother saying anything.

Who is this comment directed at?

[Bookworm]

Who is this comment directed at?

#62, I should think.

[HP Mum]

I find this thread most interesting.

 

I am in a similar position myself, with British Gas.

I renovated my property 9 years ago, had the road dug up and new gas pipes put in to feed the property, had a new meter installed, and immediately rang and gave BG the key number to the meter. Since then and now, BG have never, not once, sent anyone to read the meter. Not once did BG send a "Dear Occupier" letter. Not once did BG send a bill. So the property has had 8 years of free gas.

 

In the meantime, the property has had many long and short term tenants, none of whom contacted BG to give readings and BG never contacted the tenants. Finally in Oct 08 BG sent an estimated bill backdated to start 2001. Since then I have been in protracted correspondence with BG. I have taken and given them a reading and have had very polite correspondence with one dept, albeit we have got nowhere in 8 months !! On the other hand, the collections dept has been sending threatening letters saying they are going to get a warrant to disconnect the gas supply.

Finally I wrote a letter to the very nice polite guy in customer relations, copying it to the collections dept, telling him to talk to the rude man in collections as obviously he was unaware that my account was in dispute and of the billing code restrictions and of the Limitations Act. I am waiting to hear back from them both now !!

 

I guess I am guilty, like the OP here, of knowing the property was being supplied and not billed. But having given them my name and the meter key code, I do believe that it was/is their responsibility, as the Billing Code specifies, to be a responsible supplier and contact the consumer for readings and payment. In 8 years BG failed to be a responsible supplier to me or any of the tenants. To date, despite 6 letters asking them to send someone on specified dates (in writing) to read the meter they have failed. Infact, BG are still sending bills and threatening letters to "Dear Occupier" despite having re-notified them my name in Oct 08.

 

In my opinion the OP should only be liable for a period where his/her consumption can be proven, within the Billing Code limitations of billing: ie:- 12 months of the (first) last bill.

 

My 2p worth of contribution