Utility Warehouse just broke into my house

[Blomquist]

OK, so I've taken on board all of your comments. I have spoken with UW and sent in my tennacy agreement and meter readings. Although I am to blame for the utility bill that I have clocked up since moving in, I do not feel that I am obliged to accept UW'S uninvited installment of prepayment meters and subsequent legal fees for installment etc. If they had sent a letter to the present occupier or contacted the LL or LA, or even knocked on my door, all of this could have been averted and I would have happily paid, instead now of it being a personal issue in that they broke into my house, changed locks and installed meters, all without notifying me.

 

I understand what speedfreek is saying:

 

I'd change that slightly

 

 

Quote:

result

 

One unhappy new tenant having had free gas/electric probably for many months and expected this to continue for many more has been caught out

 

But I do believe that this is a forum for informed people helping other people to overcome situations that they feel are out of their hands, NOT a place for personal discrimination based upon lack of knowledge or understanding. Speedfreek, you are as good as someone who goes onto forums for people who need help with alcholism and telling them they are the cause of their own problems and to just stop drinking. Perhaps work on your advice.

[Blomquist]

Just spoke again, with UW. They said they have recounted the debt, and that I will only be responsible for the debt owed since I moved in, and that the former tenant is due to pay her debt. However, he also said that I will incur legal charges and installment fees for the break in and installation. I asked him if it was fair that I was paying this and he said that it was. apparently they sent someone to talk to the past occupier in feb (when I was there) in order to set the wheels in motion for legal action, so I asked him if it was reasonable to hold me accountable for legal action they held against someone else, after a month of me living there. he didn't know the answer and told me to call the UW call centre (I thought this was the UW call entre?). I am sure this is illegal and I will refuse to pay the costs involved. If they can bill the past occupier NOW for her debt, they can also bill her for the legal work they started on her and finished on me.

 

Can anyone help me with this? Am I within my rights?

 

Thanks

[45002]

Just spoke again, with UW. They said they have recounted the debt, and that I will only be responsible for the debt owed since I moved in, and that the former tenant is due to pay her debt. However, he also said that I will incur legal charges and installment fees for the break in and installation. I asked him if it was fair that I was paying this and he said that it was. apparently they sent someone to talk to the past occupier in feb (when I was there) in order to set the wheels in motion for legal action, so I asked him if it was reasonable to hold me accountable for legal action they held against someone else, after a month of me living there. he didn't know the answer and told me to call the UW call centre (I thought this was the UW call entre?). I am sure this is illegal and I will refuse to pay the costs involved. If they can bill the past occupier NOW for her debt, they can also bill her for the legal work they started on her and finished on me.

 

Can anyone help me with this? Am I within my rights?

 

Thanks

 

The way i look at it and UW,you moved in Jan 2010 never contacted a utility company and ran up a debt and you will have to bear the legal cost

 

Even if the previous tenant had left with No debt and you moved in Jan 2010,never contacted a utility company and ran up a debt and you would still have to bear the legal cost..

 

You had 7 months free Gas and Electric up until now and your paying the cost now for not contacting them in the 1st place

 

Sorry

[Surfer01]

You should not be responsible as the warrant was issued for the previous tenant and not yourself.

[cab1ne]

The way i look at it and UW,you moved in Jan 2010 never contacted a utility company and ran up a debt and you will have to bear the legal cost. what legal cost. they have never issued blomquist with an arrears or court oreder in his name. dont forget he was only there a month before they broke in and fitted the pre pay meters (due to somebody elses arrears)

Even if the previous tenant had left with No debt and you moved in Jan 2010,never contacted a utility company and ran up a debt and you would still have to bear the legal cost.. yet again. only if they issued an arrears or court oreder in his name.

 

You had 7 months free Gas and Electric up until now and your paying the cost now for not contacting them in the 1st place there's no such thing as free Gas and Electric on pre paid meters (you are actually paying up front)

sorry

 

i am so pleased you are NOT my solicitor

 

could you please tell me when it has ever been a new tennants responsibility to inform a supplier when that property became empty, where the old tennant has moved to and when. ( i dont think so).

 

a pre paid meter is what it says, you can't create arrears on a pre paid meter, if you don't feed it then it simply don't work, (end of). but was does baffle me is. two meters probably pre loaded with £5 credit lasting near on six month

 

cab

[Surfer01]

Actually it is the responsibility of the old and the new tenant to make all effort to contact the utilities suppliers and this is easily done by contacting the distribution company or national grid, however that is not the issue here.

The prepaid meter will have the previous tenant's debt loaded onto it so that for a start is illegal. The PPM was installed recently hence the OP. Blomquist is fully entitled to be compensated for all damage and to request normal metering is re-installed at thr suppliers cost. If I were Blomquist I would pay the bill for the time I was in the place and find another supplier. I do not recommend bundling utilities.

UW would be liable for all these costs regarding court fees and bailiff charges..

[cab1ne]

Actually it is the responsibility of the old and the new tenant to make all effort to contact the utilities suppliers and this is easily done by contacting the distribution company or national grid, however that is not the issue here.

The prepaid meter will have the previous tenant's debt loaded onto it so that for a start is illegal. The PPM was installed recently hence the OP. Blomquist is fully entitled to be compensated for all damage and to request normal metering is re-installed at thr suppliers cost. If I were Blomquist I would pay the bill for the time I was in the place and find another supplier. I do not recommend bundling utilities.

UW would be liable for all these costs regarding court fees and bailiff charges..

 

"absolutely"

 

also when a rental becomes empty due to a moonlight flitter, the landlord has the title and deed to the property and is solely responsible for informing the utilities of the situation.

 

cab

[Surfer01]

You are correct about empty rentals but few landlords are aware that they should be taking responsility for the premises. This causes a problem as the supplier unless notified by the vacating tenant will continue to bill the previous tenant.

T & Cs normally state that it is the responsibility of the vacating tenant to inform the supplier but when last have you seen the supplier's T & C or read through them.

Please note that I said "responsibility", but you are not legally obliged to notify any one on leaving or entering any premise. Slight difference between the two.

[cab1ne]

You are correct about empty rentals but few landlords are aware that they should be taking responsility for the premises. This causes a problem as the supplier unless notified by the vacating tenant will continue to bill the previous tenant.

T & Cs normally state that it is the responsibility of the vacating tenant to inform the supplier but when last have you seen the supplier's T & C or read through them.

Please note that I said "responsibility", but you are not legally obliged to notify any one on leaving or entering any premise. Slight difference between the two.

 

kind of finds the loophole, one is responsible but not legally required:confused:

 

cab

[pelham9]

Of course you will not pay for UW 'unlawful' break-in and you are entitled to have your credfit meters reinstated. A visit to yourl local magistrate court is your next step to ascertain the details of the warrant and to claim it was unlawfully obtained

 

Warrants are issued by a magistrate court. It is as well to know how they go about it. There are hundreds of applications for warrants every day and it is an enormous burden for the courts. If the application is defended a proper hearing has to be set up and reeasonable time scheduled. So it is a great relief for the court when applications are undefended (which applies in 99% of cases) and the courts have devised a system that allows undefended cases to be 'heard' in batches.

 

The utilities collect their applications together say over a month ( there may be as many as 50). No defended case are included in the batch and if you turn up in court just before the hearing saying you wish to defend then the application will be withdrawn to be heard or not at a later scheduled date This will take ages and the utility who want quick payment will usually try another method of intimidation.

 

Having ascertained that none of the batch is defended the utility's warrant officer presents them to the nagistrate who will issue defaullt (undefended) warrants after minimal enquiries about the whole batch. The magistrate must be satified that the defendant has had the opportunity to defend (knows aboout the hearing), that the details are correct and that there are no reasons such as children, old age and infirmity that precludes him/her by law form issuing a warrant.

 

So the magistrate questions the warrant officer about all the warrants. How deeply she/he will enquire is up to him/her. The warrrant officer who has probably received his batch of applications that morning and in any case cannot know the details of each application will cross his fingers and answers these enquiries in a way that will obtain the warrants. He crosses his fingers because he knows full well that he is relying on a bunch of inefficient moppets when he says that everything in the application is correct and that the defendant knows of the hearing.. The warrant is granted.

 

UW say that they sent a person round in February on a pre-litigation visit and that you were in. It is inconceivable that this person did not ascertain the change in tenancy and that you owed nothing. The details of the application would be completely wrong if his report was lost or ignored.

 

UW say that they sent someone round to inform you of the hearing by hand but you were not in. Firstly 'by hand' why not by post.? They obviously had difficulty of communication with the last debtor tenant so to be sure a by hand communication was arranged, You were not in so why did they not arrange a further visit? Any communication from the court would have been addressed to the old tenant and readdressed to him in some way or another -you, the agent, the landlord or the Royal Mail. You were not given the opportunity to defend

 

So on two counts the warrant officer 'lied' to the court about the application for your address. Moreover these untruths induced the magistrate to issue the warrant. In my book that makes the warrant unlawful and it should be voided or set aside.

 

Once you have accomplished this UW have no leg to stand on and you can refuse their demands for any payment, demand resitution of your credit meters and demand heavy compensation.

 

The papers and TV love this kind of story - involve them.

 

Incidentally many people on this thread have said much about the reponsibilities of an occupier to inform a utility of his occupation. Whilst it is sensible to do so and your present problem would have not have occurred if you had informed them there is nothing in law or regulations which makes it your responsibilityy to inform a utility of anythimg. This is a problem that only arises with the adoption of deemed contracts and the utilities do not appear to realise that it is their responsibility by any means they have open to them (post, phone, visits to a property etc) to prove occupancy and not blame the customer if things go wrong. See the recent thread on this board started by kyjibos.

 

　

[shining Light]

The company instructed by UW to enforce the warrant would have made a visit (as confirmed by the OP) and if nobody was home, they would leave a letter. Why did the OP not respond to this letter?

 

Like I previously stated, this action would take a while to get to the "enforcement" stage so I guess that as far as UW were aware, the previous tenant/debtor was still there (not having been advised otherwise) but ignoring all efforts to sort out the problem.

 

To say there is no obligation on a new occupant to inform the utility company of a change of occupant is crazy, how many of the problems mentioned on this forum were as a result of a new occupier not bothering to tell anyone?That said, if the OP can prove he was totally unaware of this problem with the previous tenant he may have a case for not paying the extra charge. However, if he had any knowledge at all then all then this whole saga could have been avoided simply by speaking to the UW before the warrant was enforced.

[Surfer01]

The company instructed by UW to enforce the warrant would have made a visit (as confirmed by the OP) and if nobody was home, they would leave a letter. Why did the OP not respond to this letter?

 

Like I previously stated, this action would take a while to get to the "enforcement" stage so I guess that as far as UW were aware, the previous tenant/debtor was still there (not having been advised otherwise) but ignoring all efforts to sort out the problem.

 

To say there is no obligation on a new occupant to inform the utility company of a change of occupant is crazy, how many of the problems mentioned on this forum were as a result of a new occupier not bothering to tell anyone?That said, if the OP can prove he was totally unaware of this problem with the previous tenant he may have a case for not paying the extra charge. However, if he had any knowledge at all then all then this whole saga could have been avoided simply by speaking to the UW before the warrant was enforced.

 

If the letter is addressed to the previous tenant then yu have no right to open it. There is no obligation and as a distributor for this company called UW surely you should know this anyway. Read up on the MRA if you know what that is. How would they know who the supplier was if UW did not contact the current tenant?????

[pelham9]

The company instructed by UW to enforce the warrant would have made a visit (as confirmed by the OP) and if nobody was home, they would leave a letter. Why did the OP not respond to this letter?

 

 

You have that wrong. The information that the OP as defendant must have is the date,time and place of any warrant hearing. They claim they sent such a person to deliver this by hand. The OP was out. No further attempt was made and certainly the subsequent breakin was a complete surprise to the OP. At tha time of this ineffectual hand delivery there was no warrant so there was 'no company instructed by UW to enforce the warrant'. Your post calls into question the whole of the OP's story and I think you owe an apology.

 

 

UW SAY that they sent in February a prelitigation person around when the OP was in. If that had been the case it would have been grossly inefficient of that visitor not to have reported that UW had it totally wrong. I do not believe UW.

 

To say there is no obligation on a new occupant to inform the utility company of a change of occupant is crazy,

 

It may sound crazy but you need to face up to the facts as should the utilities who steadfastly put out this nonsense about customer obligations. UW have an obligation to bill the correct people and not to take any legal action without ascertaining the facts of occupation. There are many ways of doing this not the least being effective home visits. They do not measure up to their obligations and excuse themselves by the nonsense of 'how can we possibly know of a new tenant unless we are inforned'. They should and must keep themselves informed and they must learn to read the signs. In this case they were clearly trying to bill and otherwise communicate with the old tenant without success. In this situation it takes only a modicum of suspicion to surmise that their tenant has done a bunk. Why did they not investigate? Do you honestly believe that the visit in February took place -if it had they would immediately have learnt the true situation.

 

As you are a distibutor for UW (i.e. an agent) I advise the OP that any post from you is likely to be biassed.

[45002]

i am so pleased you are NOT my solicitor

 

could you please tell me when it has ever been a new tennants responsibility to inform a supplier when that property became empty, where the old tennant has moved to and when. ( i dont think so).

 

a pre paid meter is what it says, you can't create arrears on a pre paid meter, if you don't feed it then it simply don't work, (end of). but was does baffle me is. two meters probably pre loaded with £5 credit lasting near on six month

 

cab

 

cab1ne

 

You didn't read the whole of this thread did you

 

Blomquist said he moved in Jan 2010 and the Pre-payment meters where fitted on 12th July 2010,which he found out when he returned from work http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/utilities-gas-electricity-water/267414-utility-warehouse-just-broke.html

 

Common sense would tell you,if you move into a new house or flat you dont wait 7 months before contacting a Utility supplier

[stevo7790]

Hello Blomquist and my fellow Caggers.

 

I am not up with tenancy laws however I live with my OH who is a tenant.

 

When we first moved into our house that is rented we were told by our letting agent to wait for the bill.

A little over a month and we got a British Gas bill that was not ours, so without opening the letter we rang BG and gave the name the letter was addressed to and they dealt with it... they did ask us if we knew where the previous occupier lived, however that is none of our business.

We then got a letter from SWALEC who turned out to be our supplier and a welcome pack.

Apart from the BG stuff this is what we expected and in all fairness to to Blomquist we would have waited to as being naive we would no have known who to call. However at the very least we would have called the letting agent for some advice.

Any mail that is not addressed to us goes straight back in the post and thats it.

In our case it was both the previous occupier and land lord to a) sort out the final bill and b) give us a clean slate when we moved in which was as close as damn it done

 

If anything you do have to question why there was such a delay in not getting any utility bill, at the same time though... surely any bill would have been addressed to the old tenant so I am not sure what you were meant to do,

 

would it be possible to chance suppliers if there was a debt from a previous tenant?

[shining Light]

surfer01 you are right, ther is no obligation to open a letter addressed to the previous occupier but when suddenly receiving an official looking hand delivered letter with no postage stamp, almost everyone will open it and usually they will call the company who left it to let them know there are new occupants there.

 

Probably UW didn't visit in February, more than likely it would have been a 3rd party company and if that was the case then UW would act on information provided by them.

 

I am a distributor but I have only tried to offer possible explanations as to why this whole thing happened, I am not "blindly" defending the company.

[HP Mum]

Actually not almost everyone - as it is illegal to open mail not addressed to you !

The right thing to do is send the official letter back to sender with, if you want, a not known at this address on the envelope.

[zazen.warrior]

Post removed.

Edited July 29, 2010 by zazen.warrior

[kiptower]

regarding mail

 

 

the Law they seem to think applies is "to tamper with His/Her Majestys Royal Mail" ( Interfering with the mail ) you must remember these laws go back to the days of when mail went by stagecoach and there were highwaymen nicking it because they were often of value,

 

to intecerpt Mail before it gets to the destination letterbox is a different matter and a criminal offence, I dont mean collecting it from the postman @ your garden gate etc,

 

how many times do you get a window type envelope and the letter is badly folded only showing the address, then open it and its the wrong name

 

You clearly have a reasonable excuse to open mail delivered through your letterbox if you belive it may be the result of identity theft, some one using your address unlawfully etc therefore not committing any offence anyway

 

how many times do you get half a dozen letters through the letter box pick them up and just open them, there is no criminal intent there, or a child in the house picks up the letter and opens them ?

 

however the because the US Postal Service do have Laws on this , the confusion is people belive its the same in the UK,

 

this is where the myth stems from NOTE the words "in the course of its transmission by post" this has been finalised once put through your letterbox

 

From the Postal Services Act 2000

 

84 Interfering with the mail: general

 

(1)A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, he—

 

(a)intentionally delays or opens a postal packet in the course of its transmission by post, or

 

(b)intentionally opens a mail-bag.

 

(2)Subsections (2) to (5) of section 83 apply to subsection (1) above as they apply to subsection (1) of that section.

 

(3)A person commits an offence if, intending to act to a person’s detriment and without reasonable excuse, he opens a postal packet which he knows or reasonably suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him. they would have to prove by opening a letter this was your intent

 

(4)Subsections (2) and (3) of section 83 (so far as they relate to the opening of postal packets) apply to subsection (3) above as they apply to subsection (1) of that section.

 

(5)A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (3) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both

Edited July 18, 2010 by kiptower

[45002]

Royal mail by law has to return any mail unopened and marked Not known or left this address,return to sender,free of charge

[pelham9]

We have only UW word that somebody visited the OPs property bearing a letter addressed to the occupier or the previous tenant. We know nothing further.

 

The OP says that he did not get a letter addressed to the occupier or to him. If he had had a letter addressed in either of these two ways he would have opened it. Depending what the letter contained which could have been

a) the date time and place of a hearing for a warrant.

b) a date of warrant execution and a copy of the warrant

c) threats

 

If he had had a hand delivered letter addressed to the former tenant he would have either opened it or sent it back to UW. If he had opened he would have certainly have contacted UW. If he sent it back then UW have every reason to investigate which they did not do.

 

If any letter was hand delivered to the OP address then something was bound to happen which would have prevented the very serious action by UW of forceful enrty to a property while the tenant was not present using a warrant that was unlawfully obtained.

 

The alternative is that either UW sent no-one or that if they did send some-one that person did not post the letter through the OPs letterbox - he may even have visited the wrong property.

 

In view of the severe legal difficulty that UW are now in and the fact that their staff are individually in trouble it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the visit and the letter are a complete fiction.

 

Facts speak for themselves.

 

a) UW broke into the OP's property without the OP being present and changed locks and meters.

 

b) They did this on the basis of a warrant that must have been obtained unlawfully without the OP ensuring that he had a right to defend.

 

No amount of loud protests from posters that there are mitigating circumstances to explain UW's procedural errors can change these facts and the OP should suspect the motives of those posters.

 

Thiss disaster is overwhelmingly the fault of UW and there is no question that a court of law would find against them and demand restitution of the meters and award hefty compensation and costs against them.

 

Having confirmed that the warrant was obtained unlawfully the OP should see a solictor and sue UW. There is no fear that this will cost anything. - I cannot see that UW could contemplate their action being reviewd in a court of law.

[shining Light]

Actually not almost everyone - as it is illegal to open mail not addressed to you !

The right thing to do is send the official letter back to sender with, if you want, a not known at this address on the envelope.

You are wrong! In a previous life I was a Bailiff and it happened all the time. Besides, how could the occupier return the letter without opening it to see who it was from?? Also, if the previous occupant had left before the OP moved in then he probably didn't even know their name and would be perfectly within his rights to open the letter to ensure nothing "dodgy" was going on, after all, a hand delivered letter from a friend wouldn't have the whole address on it (just his first name probably) so it would be a course for concern, same applies if addressed to "the occupier).

 

Zazen.waaior and kiptower, thanks for your responses, good to see.

 

Pelham9 regarding some of your comments:

 

a) UW broke into the OP's property without the OP being present and changed locks and meters. Legal action

 

b) They did this on the basis of a warrant that must have been obtained unlawfully without the OP ensuring that he had a right to defend.

Warrant would have been obtained legally against the previous tenant and because nobody had contacted UW to notify them of a change of occupancy the action went ahead.

 

Having worked for 2 different companies in the past delivering notifications and enforcing warrants and from my experience I think I can say with certainty a letter would have been left.

 

It was certainly not uncommon for an occupier to lie as to their identity or to deny having seen a letter that I know was delivered because I had delivered it! (And no, I am not saying the OP is lying before you decide to jump on that comment).

 

However, things happen for a number of reasons. Perhaps the OP binned the letter without reading it thinking it was "junk mail" who knows, but it is a very one sided view to instantly say the company is at fault and that is that!! The legal process has to be followed and no company is going to willingly or knowingly bypass it.

 

 

Edited July 18, 2010 by shining Light

[Surfer01]

A bailiff that is now a distributor for a [problem] company. That says it all!

[zazen.warrior]

Post removed.

Edited July 29, 2010 by zazen.warrior

[shining Light]

A bailiff that is now a distributor for a [problem] company. That says it all!

Nothing but stupid, pointless insults to all....Bailiffs, UW, and me!

 

I offer possible explanations to the OPs original enquiry based on a little personal knowledge and experience and all you can do is throw in totally unnecessary and pointless insults!!

 

I think this just shows you up for the ignorant person you obviously are!