EON Debt ...L C S claim addressed to The Occupier.

[overdone2]

On behalf of E on Electric I have a letter giving dates from LCS debt collectors.

For the first three weeks these were my default electricity suppliers. 

I changed via U Switch to EDF.

 

The letter is addressed to The Occupier. 

They said their investigation led them to believe that I had connection to the supply covering a three week period outlined by them. 

Without breaching the data protection act I don't see how they could get my legal name anyway.

 

You cant sue "The Occupier."

I didn't ask for the supply and signed no deal with them personally. 

What legal teeth do I have?

[dx100uk]

they haven't got your 'legal name', (i hope thats not a ref to freemen of the land twaddle)

 

they don't know who is at the property as EON's former customer left on xxx date

 

all they know is 'someone' must be using electric because their client EON has told them so.

so its addressed to 'the occupier' hoping to scam you.

 

any DCA like LCS are not bailiffs

and have

ZERO legal powers on any debt no matter what it's type.

 

the best legal teeth you have is ignorance!!

i like your style...

 

 

[unclebulgaria67]

Eon can find out who is registered at the moment for energy supplies at the address, as there is a central energy industry register. But LCS don't have access and Eon won't provide the details to LCS.

 

At some stage Eon will deal with this themselves, if they want to recover the amount.  They can check when the previous occupiers stopped being responsible for energy use at the address and when you registered. Of course it won't prove you were using energy at the address if there was a gap in between previous owners stopping their account and you registering supply.

[overdone2]

Well they got the accusation dates spot on and maybe because The H Association, who were responsible for the electric and gas to that point informed them. The start date to my switch has been given to them by someone, perhaps without mentioning any names. More legal teeth?  How can anyone get my name without breaching data protection act?  Credit reference Bureaus or voting list perhaps?

[dx100uk]

as i said...they don't need your name.

they have simply sent a letter on behalf of their client to the occupier, that they believe whomever is at the address now owes their client some money. nothing to do with data protection   Credit reference Bureaus or voting lists

 

 

 

 

[overdone2]

Dear New Tenant

 

L C S

!st Floor West Wing

Town Center House

The MerrionCentre

Woodhouse Lane

Leeds

LS2 8LY

 

02/03/2021

 

Our Case Ref xxxx

Re Our Client E.On

 

Outstanding balance: £37.xx

 

FINAL NOTICE

 

We have been instructed to act on behalf of the above named client to recover the sum of the outstanding of £37.xx for dual fuel consumed at X Whatever Road, Sometown , Anyplace. Despite our previous communications and offer of help we have not received payment or valid reason for non payment for the outstanding balance.

 

Until you have cleared the outstanding balance, your details may continue to be shared with a credit reference agency.  Other lenders may see information about the way you pay our client and the amount you owe them which could affect your ability to obtain future credit.

 

In order to prevent any further action and potential inconvenience, we would urge you to pay the full sum immediately or alternatively contact our office on 03445439130 quoting Ref xxxx to discuss your options. Alternatively please email us at [email protected] quoting your reference.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Rebecca Carter

For and on behalf of LCS

 

I suspect this is the kind of letter they send when they know they are stuffed?

 

 

[unclebulgaria67]

They are not going to continue chasing for £37, so will stop at some point soon.  Will go back to Eon, who will just make a note of the debt on their records.

[dx100uk]

should be sent to the landlord then.

 

[Ethel Street]

6 hours ago, overdone2 said:

We have been instructed to act on behalf of the above named client to recover the sum of the outstanding of £37.xx for dual fuel consumed at X Whatever Road, Sometown , Anyplace. Despite our previous communications and offer of help we have not received payment or valid reason for non payment for the outstanding balance.

 

Did you use electricity/gas in the 3 weeks before you switched to EDF? Who is supposed to pay for that ?

Edited March 9, 2021 by Ethel Street

[overdone2]

Yes but the landlord had them keep supplying the two fuels. Technically, I used the fuel.

 

[dx100uk]

then 'technically' you owe it.

 

 

[unclebulgaria67]

Some people don't see why they should pay in these situations as it was not their choice of energy suppliers.

 

However, this forgets the legislation which makes the energy user the liable party in these situations. This goes back to the late 1980's when energy supply was privatised and companies wanted certainty about who was responsible for paying for usage.

 

 

[AndyOrch]

The fact is that they (EON) were the energy supplier at the time you took residence...by default as you state...inherited...you used the fuel and didn't switch to your new supplier EDF until some three weeks later.

 

So you owe £37 for the first 3 weeks of your tenancy.

[dx100uk]

pay eon not the fleecing dca!!

 

dx

 

[overdone2]

 Before I decide upon my next course of action would someone be kind enough to confirm the following points of law?

 

1) That I have a presumption of innocence.

 

2) That on balance of probability, the burden of proof lies upon the prosecution.

 

3) That it is the case that I have the right to remain silent.

 

4)  They can show no intent to form a legal relationship with myself.

[Ethel Street]

You seem to be confusing criminal prosecution with civil claims. You aren't being prosecuted, people can't be prosecuted for debt. There's no such thing as 'presumption of innocence' or 'right to remain silent' in civil claims. No-one stops you remaining silent in a civil claim but there wouldn't be much point. It would just mean that by not entering a defence you'd be more likely to lose the case.

 

It is true that in a civil  case the claim is decided by the civil standard of proof, balance of probabilities.

 

I've no idea what 4) means. 

Edited March 10, 2021 by Ethel Street

[Manxman in exile]

"Before I decide upon my next course of action would someone be kind enough to confirm the following points of law?

 

1) That I have a presumption of innocence.

 

2) That on balance of probability, the burden of proof lies upon the prosecution.

 

3) That it is the case that I have the right to remain silent."

 

Yes - those three points are correct - if you are being prosecuted for a criminal offence - but you aren't, are you?

 

"4)  They can show no intent to form a legal relationship with myself"

 

That does sound like Freemen on the Land tosh...

 

EDIT: Cross posted with Ethel Street

 

 

Edited March 10, 2021 by Manxman in exile

[Manxman in exile]

3 minutes ago, Ethel Street said:

... I've no idea what 4) means.

 

Freemen on the Land...

[dx100uk]

urm as i suspected in post 2 ....

 

 

[Manxman in exile]

Just to clarify - I'm not suggesting that the OP is a raving loonie (am I allowed to say that?) - I'm just saying that he's quite possibly come across some dangerous freemen common law delusions somewhere on t'interweb.

[overdone2]

• "In its simplest form, intention to create legal relations means that the parties must intend to enter into a legally binding arrangement in which the rights and obligations of the agreement are enforceable.
• Often quoted by judge Rinder.
•  
• Also there is a potential for a criminal charge as obtaining goods and services without the intention of paying, does come under criminal law. They would have to prove this was the case though. They have no proof as yet.
•  
• Could this thread continue without ad hominen implications and in a professional manner please.

[unclebulgaria67]

@overdone2

 

Please read the legislation linked to below.

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/29/schedule/6/paragraph/3

 

Legislation which makes the occupier liable for energy usage.

 

 

 

[Ethel Street]

10 hours ago, overdone2 said:

• "In its simplest form, intention to create legal relations means that the parties must intend to enter into a legally binding arrangement in which the rights and obligations of the agreement are enforceable.
• Often quoted by judge Rinder.

Rinder's comment is of course legally correct and is one of the first things law students learn but is of no relevance in your case because:

 

(1) as Unclebulgaria has posted, the supply of electricity to a new occupier is deemed to be contract between you and the electricity supplier under the Electricity Act without the the usual legal requirements of a contract having been met. The contract starts from when you first start using the supply. (I assume the same is true for gas supply as well). 

 

(2) 'Intention to create legal relations' is only relevant to Judge Rinder's TV series because his programmes mainly feature disputes between friends and family.  The second thing contract law students learn is that agreements between family and friends are assumed not to be legally binding unless there's evidence otherwise. But agreements with commercial organisations are assumed always to be legally binding contracts unless there's evidence to show that wasn't intended. No court is likely to believe that the occupier of a premises thought EON intended that you could use the electricty/gas without paying for it.

[overdone2]

Thank you for the above information. I'm still digesting it.

[citizenB]

Have I missed something, you have admitted using the energy - despite whether or not it was your choice of supplier.  Why not simply pay what you owe and then you can forget about it. 

!!