British Gas charge just for having a pipe

[cabvol]

Hi,

A client has approached us (the advice centre I work for)

 

claiming that British Gas are charging him merely for having a gas pipe enter his privately rented flat.

 

The client says that,

even though he has no gas appliances,

no meter and

no account with British Gas,

the company is charging him because they say that the pipe to his property has to be maintained.

 

The pipe is "capped".

 

The client says he has lived there for 16 years and this is the first time BG have attempted to charge him.

 

According to client BG told him they only introduced this in September last year.

 

No-one in the office has ever heard of such a charge before.

 

Can this be correct?

 

Obviously, if true, the charge should be made to the property owner, not the tenant?

 

Has anyone else been charged in this way?

 

Thanks in advance for any info

[dpick]

I think I would be saying if you want to charge then remove your flaming pipe. More ideas to rip off the public though how can they charge as there are more than 1 gas supply company.

 

 

dpick

[dontcallmesammy]

You're referring to the Daily Standing Charge, and every energy supplier charges it - it was OFGEM that insisted it was brought back in, so it's not exactly fair to attack British Gas for this.

 

Whether or not your supply is "capped" - if there's a live pipe and/or meter, regardless of whether any gas is being used, they have to charge the Daily Standing Charge. You can get around this by having the meter removed (note; if you're not the homeowner, you need permission from the landlord/housing authority).

 

The current Standard DSC for British Gas is £0.26 per day. There are suppliers that will charge less, likely, but everyone charges it.

Edited March 7, 2014 by ims21

[barns66]

I understand from first post there is no meter fitted in the flat.

[dontcallmesammy]

in which case that hasn't been updated with the national grid's database, as that's where suppliers get the meter info for their accounts from. It may be worth contacting BG and asking them to investigate this...without getting angry at the agent on the other end. The probability of this having happened on purpose is extremely slim.

Edited March 7, 2014 by ims21

[barns66]

Do you work for British Gas ???

[dontcallmesammy]

Do you work for British Gas ???

 

No. I just don't buy into propaganda, and sure, some big companies like BG should be demonised for some things they do - but I'm a big supporter of calling them all out for the right reasons, rather than following the sheeple.

Edited March 7, 2014 by ims21

[king12345]

I bet the invoice was addressed to the 'occupier'.

It's an old [problem] from british gas, same as when a property is sold and they invent some debts to be paid by the new 'occupier'.

If it's not in your name ignore it and never, ever give them your name otherwise they will bill you left right and centre for the rest of your life.

Any mail I get addressed to the 'occupier' is duly sent back unopened marked as 'unsolicited mail'

You don't need a stamp for that, just cross the address off and write on the envelope 'unsolicited mail, return to sender'.

[cabvol]

I think this may be the answer I was searching for!

 

 

The case in question was not one I was working on personally. The adviser working on it threw it open to general discussion as she could not see what was happening.

 

 

Like dontcallmesammy says the chances of it happening are so slim that it didn't occur to the adviser that BG might be informed that there is a meter when, in fact, there isn't and why no-one had heard of this problem before. It would also explain why one particular company (in this case BG - probably the property's last supplier) are demanding payment when there would otherwise be potential for every supplier to jump on the bandwagon!

 

 

Thanks again. It was because I didn't want the adviser to go off "half-cocked" that I sought opinion here!

 

 

Thanks for the info which I hope will solve the matter successfully for the client!!

[king12345]

As you work for British gas or a contractor at the call centre can you explain the policy on chasing non existent debts addressed to 'the occupier' which are not as rare as you think.

Is the £20 bill sent to many people buying a property a standard charge to fill BG wallets or an 'admin error' as they described it to me when I bought my house?

If it is an 'admin error' why do they insist on having personal detail of the 'occupier' instead of just wiping the bill off?

[ericsbrother]

It is an unforseen problem with the new rules for energy billing as previously th supply companies could ignore the meters that werent connected etc but now they have to account for them to Transco or whoever so people with a capped off pipe or no supply but a meter are getting bills that by law thay are obliged to pay.

[king12345]

It is an unforseen problem with the new rules for energy billing as previously th supply companies could ignore the meters that werent connected etc but now they have to account for them to Transco or whoever so people with a capped off pipe or no supply but a meter are getting bills that by law thay are obliged to pay.

If someone is not a BG customer (or any other company) why should they pay for having a capped pipe in their property.

The pipe belongs to BG and if this someone is not using it BG could rip it away and sell it for scrap.

If what you're saying was 'the law', all gas companies could run pipes into private properties and charge the owners.

Nonsense.

If I don't subscribe to a service and if fact I do not use that service, then by law I don't have to pay for it.

Or should train and bus companies charge us because they run a service on our doorstep even if we don't use them?

[SuperVillain]

If I don't subscribe to a service and if fact I do not use that service, then by law I don't have to pay for it.

Or should train and bus companies charge us because they run a service on our doorstep even if we don't use them?

 

Arguably the service is having a gas supply that could be made live, not simply using gas.

 

And taxpayers do pay towards public transport, regardless of whether they use it, like with many other things.

[nottslad]

If you've moved in to a property with the supply capped or meter removed, these charges are unenforcable.

 

They will try to argue that a Deemed Contract exists, however Deemed Contracts are only in existence once a supply has been used: the Gas Act 1986 (as amended by the Utilities Act 2000) states:

 

Deemed contracts in certain cases

 

8(1)Where a gas supplier supplies gas to a consumer otherwise than in pursuance of a contract, the supplier shall be deemed to have contracted with the consumer for the supply of gas as from the time ( “the relevant time ”) when he began so to supply gas to the consumer.

(2)Where—

 

(a)the owner or occupier of any premises takes a supply of gas which has been conveyed to those premises by a [F378gas transporter] in pursuance of arrangements made with the transporter by a gas shipper, or by a person authorised to make the arrangements by an exemption granted under section 6A of this Act;

 

(b)that supply is not made by a gas supplier, or by a person authorised to make it by an exemption granted under section 6A of this Act or an exception contained in Schedule 2A to this Act; and

 

©a supply of gas so conveyed has been previously made by a gas supplier,

 

the owner or occupier shall be deemed to have contracted with the appropriate supplier for the supply of gas as from the time ( “the relevant time ”) when he began to take such a supply; but nothing in this sub-paragraph shall be taken to afford a defence in any criminal proceedings.

 

 

The key message here is that a deemed contract only comes in to existence when a supply is used. BG are obviously trying to recoup some of the costs imposed on them by national grid