If you feel happy about that – then yes. I don't see that there is any disadvantage at the moment.

Good. Keep it for a rainy day ... real soon

On the strict wording of the statute, I don't think that a judge would have any choice.

On one hand what you say sounds quite logical. However, you are inventing words into the statute. Have you looked at the statute? Have you seen anything in the statute which supports what you say? What you are saying is that the effect of the statue is vulnerable to manipulation by a dishonest customer. I think you're right.

Incidentally, somewhere else in the Npower code or an ofgen code is a bit about treating customers fairly. It will be helpful if you can find that because that will come in useful as well at some point

Well my preference is to leave out any reference to the back billing code at this point. I think that it is important to try to get them to counterclaim against you on it. If you mention it now, then it may be something that they will simply delay upon and delay upon – or maybe simply not even bother which will leave the matter at large. I think this needs to be sorted out.

The OP is correct. Manxman is wrong and is becoming a troll. I don't intend to be go further on this except to say To summarise, the burden of proof is on the dealer to show that the defect was not there – certainly within the first six months. Furthermore, if there is a defect, than the quality/severity of the defect is not relevant. It entitles you to your right to reject within 30 days or your right to reject after a failed repair during six months. Only after six months do the normal common law rules of contract come in play. But even then, it is not a question of proving or disproving a defect. It is simply a question of showing that you have not had satisfactory service/quality from the item for a reasonably expected period of time. I would certainly agree that these are very heavy burdens/responsibilities for any dealer. But this is what consumer-facing legislation is all about. It's all about consumer protection and the reason for it is that if you place the burden upon the dealer then it creates a huge incentive upon the dealer to be careful or if the dealer has to source his goods from a manufacturer then it puts pressure on the dealer to put pressure on the manufacturer to make sure that goods are of a sufficient quality. As far as I'm concerned, this is good social planning – and we all benefit – including the car dealer when that car dealer goes off to buy other things such as computers, telephones, music systems, televisions, and even their own vehicle. It encourages quality control at source – and this is highly desirable and is only achievable by having this kind of consumer legislation.

Who were the organisers of the raffle? What cause or organisation was the raffle in aid of? I'm not aware of recent case law but I expect these kinds of questions have come up a lot with the huge increase in online gambling et cetera. Personally I have always thought that the notion of "intention to create legal relations" is a fairly dated idea and although I'm sure it does have relevance nowadays, I'm pretty certain that it is a concept which is easy to overcome. If this raffle was clearly held by some nonprofit organisation for a cause like your local school and it was basically being run by parents and pupils then I think the tenancy would be to say that there might not have been any intention to create legal relations. If this is an organisation where the people who run it are being paid salaries for running the organisation and also running the raffle – and also if the raffle is not directed simply as a pretty small defined groups such as the parents and children at a school, then my tenancy would be to say that it is a binding contract. So a couple more answers please

Probably replaced by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. <<<< follow the link

Don't forget you will have to send them a letter of claim

Well I suppose that you will need to keep it as minimal as possible. Something like How would that be for a starting point?

If you have sent the SAR to the water company by email, it would probably be a good idea to send a copy by letter as well. If you have only just sent them the email then don't forget that it is a bank holiday today. What I don't understand so far is why they should have identified you as the responsible party. If this is clearly an error on their part then they will have to absorb all the costs. If it is an error on your part that I'm afraid that you may be liable. Can you try to explain carefully why it is that they have you down is the responsible party. Also, is the actual water bill – substantive part not the collection costs – has that now been paid?

Please give more details about the collection agency. You say that you are able to get something in writing from your ex-partner that you are not responsible. I suggest that you get that immediately. Is your ex-partner prepared to take responsibility for the debt? The jump from £890-£3200 sounds enormous and it sounds to me as if they must've moved this up to the High Court for enforcement. You will get more specialised help soon – but in the meantime send the water company an SAR and get the statement from your ex-partner.

Also, without wishing too much to wake up this discussion once again, the above quote is quite wrong. It would be correct if it said:- So to summarise, the burden of proof is on the dealer to show that the defect was not there – certainly within the first six months. Furthermore, if there is a defect, than the quality/severity of the defect is not relevant. It entitles you to your right to reject within 30 days or your right to reject after a failed repair during six months. Only after six months do the normal common law rules of contract come in play. But even then, it is not a question of proving or disproving a defect. It is simply a question of showing that you have not had satisfactory service/quality from the item for a reasonably expected period of time. I would certainly agree that these are very heavy burdens/responsibilities for any dealer. But this is what consumer-facing legislation is all about. It's all about consumer protection and the reason for it is that if you place the burden upon the dealer then it creates a huge incentive upon the dealer to be careful or if the dealer has to source his goods from a manufacturer then it puts pressure on the dealer to put pressure on the manufacturer to make sure that goods are of a sufficient quality. As far as I'm concerned, this is good social planning – and we all benefit – including the car dealer when that car dealer goes off to buy other things such as computers, telephones, music systems, televisions, and even their own vehicle. It encourages quality control at source – and this is highly desirable and is only achievable by having this kind of consumer legislation.

In addition to the above question, could you please tell us which water company you are dealing with. You will need to get the judgement set aside. From what you say, you should have actually no difficulty at all. However you will need to pay a fee for the set-aside application and I'm afraid that you will probably have to bear the cost of this in the end or maybe get your ex partner to bear the cost - unless you can show that they were in error in identifying you as the responsible party. You should contact the water company and send them an SAR. You should also contact the court and asked them for a copy of any documents they have got including a copy of the judgement. Ask them to email them to you. The basis for getting a set-aside is that you didn't receive the claim documents and also that you have a reasonable chance of success if you are permitted to defend the claim. From what you say, there should be no problem showing either of these to be true. In particular you say that you can get a letter from your ex partner confirming that you are not the responsible person. Frankly you should be able to contact the water company and put this to them and I can't imagine why they wouldn't be prepared to consent. Water companies are not particularly aggressive and they simply want to get their money and then out to get you as are many debt collection companies. Please answer the questions that have been put to you.