Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • OK, I've sorted out using the correct terminology to refer to the parties.   The original document was absurdly long and filled with waffle. I reduced it. Then MiE did so further – twice. I've continued on the theme and have merged (13) & (14) as I don't think we need to go into detail of why a £2000 payment because £1500, it'd just confuse the judge.  Feel free to disagree!   I've sorted out the new numbering and references to paragraph numbers.   IMO (16) needs beefing up to explain why the builder disappeared, but simeon seems to not want to explain this properly, so so be it.   Apart from that it looks about ready to go.   Counterclaim   1.      The original Claimant agreed to undertake building work (Project 1) at the original Defendant/now Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property in relation to 3 specific areas of work for an agreed price of £4300.  The work was:   a. To underpin the bay window at the property, b. To replace and repair a previously-removed chimney breast and, c. To install a new beam to the patio door.   2.      It was agreed that Project 1 was to be carried out under the instructions of a structural engineer engaged by the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant and that the Claimant’s work would be as a result of instructions received following the structural engineer's assessment of the property.   3.      Between June and July in 2020 the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant provided the Claimant with a full copy of the structural engineer's report which detailed instructions to the Claimant for the works to be carried out.   4.      It was agreed between the parties that the works would commence on 13 August 2020.   5.      It was agreed between the parties that payments for Project 1 would be made in three instalments. The first payment would be made at the start of the Claimant's work. The second payment would be paid at the halfway point of the Claimant's work. The final payment would be made on completion of the total works.   6.      The Claimant commenced work on 13 August 2020 and the first instalment due was paid.     7.      On 24 August 2020 the Claimant asked the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to arrange an inspection of his work by the Building Control Inspector.  The Claimant also stated that Project 1 was approaching mid-way and the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant paid the second instalment due.   8.      The Building Inspector arrived to inspect the Claimant’s work but the Claimant was absent.  The inspector was obviously very displeased by the standard of the Claimant's work.  The inspector spoke to the Claimant by telephone, asking him why he was absent and interrogating him about the work he had done.  The inspector then gave him some instructions over the telephone and also left a list of instructions with the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to be passed on to the builder.  The building inspector then said he would be getting in touch with the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s structural engineer with his findings and the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant should hear from the engineer soon.   9.      The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant passed on the Building Inspector’s instructions to the Claimant who agreed to follow them.   10.  The structural engineer visited and recommended piling to complete the underpinning for Project 1.  The Claimant explained that he could not undertake this work. The structural engineer then suggested an alternative company to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to do the necessary work and this company was engaged by the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to complete the necessary piling at an additional cost to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant of £3300. (See receipt at Attachment1).   11.  The Claimant asked if the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant needed any more work to be done and, despite the problems encountered on Project 1, the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant agreed on 7 September 2020 to have more work done (Project 2) at an agreed price of £2580 and on similar payment terms to Project 1.   12.  As work commenced on Project 2 and was continued on the remaining work for Project 1, the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant had occasion to make several complaints to the Claimant regarding the standard of his work.   13.   Barely a week after starting on Project 2, the Claimant demanded payment for that work.  After a period of negotiation the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant paid the Claimant  £1500 in cash.  Both parties agreed that this left a balance outstanding on Project 2 of £1080.   14.  It later came to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s attention that the Claimant had removed material (including a steel beam) from the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property that the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant suspects either belonged to him or had been paid for by him in connection with Project 1.  When challenged the Claimant admitted he had done this.  The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant has included the value of this material in his counterclaim detailed below.   15.    On 21 September 2020 the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant highlighted and sent a snagging list to the Claimant (Attachment 2).  Over a month later the Claimant sent an employee to attend to this work.  It was not carried out satisfactorily and resulted in an updated snagging list being sent to the claimant (Attachment 3).  All of this snagging work remains undone by the Claimant.   16.  Apart from the outstanding snagging work referred to in para 16 above, the Claimant also left other work from Projects 1 and 2 uncompleted.  That work which was not completed is listed at Attachment 4.   17.  During the course of carrying out work on Projects 1 and 2 the Claimant also negligently caused substantial damage to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property (as itemised in Attachment 5) by not executing the work with the skill expected of a reasonable tradesman.   18.  The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant seeks an order from the court directing the Claimant to pay to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant the sum of £nnnnnnn {Simeon - put in the actual total amount here) in respect of:   (a)   the cost of the piling referred to in para 10 above which the Claimant could not undertake and another contractor had to be paid to complete; (b)   the cost of completing work the Claimant had left undone from Projects 1 and 2 referred to in para 16 above; (c)   the cost of remedial work to put right the damage negligently caused by the Claimant and referred to in para 17 above; and (d)    the cost of the steel beam referred to in para 14 above.   A receipt in respect of item (a) - see Attachment 1 - and two priced quotes in respect of items (b) and (c) - see Attachments 6 and 7 - are attached in support of this counterclaim.
    • If you look at your credit file..what debts show that youve not recently paid or not paid in a longtime?   might give a clue?
    • Hi I'm after some help with trying to get my wedding car hire deposit returned. I'll provide a bit of a chronological background to try and keep things clear. January 2020 - Began booking church, venue and other services for our Wedding for 29th May 2021 - 100+ guest during the day, and 200+ on the night. 25 Jan 2020 - Attended Exclusive Wedding Cars (EWC herein). Booked and Paid deposit for 1 Beetle and 3 Camper Vans = £400. Corona came along and we were in and out of lockdowns. Competitions and Markets Authority (CMA) brought out some guidance for Wedding Services 7 Sept 2020. In mid January, we got back in contact with EWC via text, expressing our concerns over the wedding and Government imposed Public Health measures(we were currently in lockdown and no idea when things would return to normal), and that we were looking to move the wedding forward 1 year. 3 Feb 2020 - Emailed to cancel our Wedding date of 29th May 2021, after text had been sent and Steve replied asking for it to be sent via email. We asked if 28th May 2022 was available. 5 Feb 2020 - EWC replied to say they could not fulfill our new date due to other commitments. 7 Feb 2020 - We replied that we would have to cancel our booking with EWC, but would be in touch if dates changed again. 22 Feb 2021 - Government published Guidance (Roadmap out of Lockdown) - Stated, “Not before 17th May…Up to 30 people will be able to attend weddings…”. *Note again our wedding was for 100/200+ guests at the Stadium of Light, so not reasonable to have the same venue for 30 people. 5 Jan 2022 -  Called and spoke with Steve to see if they had any availability (any cars at all) for our date. He was driving and so couldn’t confirm.                         Exchanged some texts on the same day to which he replied in the evening, that they had nothing, but to keep in touch due to cancellations. 15 Jan 2022 - Started an email thread asking about deposits and their return. EWC went straight on the defensive saying we wouldn't be getting it back and we should check the contract. We asked for a copy as we were not given a copy when we booked. 17 Jan 2022 - Emailed to ask for the return of our deposit. EWC replied that since we cancelled within 4 months of the wedding date, they now wanted the remaining balance of £850, and we should check the contract. We asked for a copy of the contract again, and that we would seek legal advice. EWC replied with ever increasing sarcasm, saying we would receive notice demanding the remaining balance of £850 in the post. I replied that if they didn't supply a copy of the contract I would send them a SAR.   20 Jan 2022 - Sent a letter via Post and email, asking EWC to reconsider their position. We stated we believe the contract to have terms that would be deemed unfair; terms that were not clear; there is a ‘Significant imbalance’ concerned with the parties’ rights and obligations, which can be seen as disproportionate financial sanctions; their ‘Terms and Conditions’ appear to seek to remove the consumers rights, while removing their obligations, but allowing them to make an unjustified windfall gain. We also stated that we believe the guidance and statements by the CMA, suggested that since the wedding we had planned couldn't go ahead (we'd be breaking the law with the numbers we wanted) on our planned date, and that a reasonable person wouldn't expect the wedding to go ahead when we cancelled the date, that we should receive a full refund as they were not out of pocket. We gave EWC 14 days to respond...it took them 6 hours, basically refusing our request while coated in lashings of sarcasm and arrogance.   I'm guessing my next step would be Letter before Action? Any help much appreciated. Attached is the "Contract" - removed the signatures, but you can see the whole contract. The booking form has no Ts&Cs or costs of any kind, just addresses, personal info and the vehicles.     EWC-Contract.pdf
    • The firm's shares fell more than 20% as investors worry that demand for its pricey exercise machines is waning.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

PRAC/BW chasing deceased mothers £89 EON bill.


Recommended Posts

Hi,

I have just received a letter at my address from BW Legal/PRAC on behalf of Eon in the name of my deceased mother who passed away in May 2020. In the letter, it says she owes E.ON a sum of £89.59. 

 

Last year she was transferred into a care home for palliative care from hospital in February and therefore would not be returning to her council house and I informed council, utilities etc etc. We had 3 weeks to clear her house which we did. We cleared the house and handed it and the keys over to the council. We then informed Eon that the house is now empty and is in the possession of the council. Mum passed away in May 2020.

 

I was her executor of her will. The will was very basic and it was just small possessions to give to family. There was no money to leave. In a part of the will was she had life insurance policy which was spent on a headstone for her and my father. 

 

Please advised what to do next. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Arh probate - A Tough one. 

Once of the team will be along - Pretty sure you just need to send confirmation of her passing (Death Certificate) and confirmation that no further money exists in the estate. 

 

But weirdly enough - CARP Financial and Borked & Witherings Legal do initial background checks on their portfolio purchases so they should already know this. 

Hold out for a member of the team here... 

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If EON still own the debt, then write to them with a photocopy of the death certificate advising them that there are no funds remaining and that the Council took the property back from xx/xx/xx date.    Enclose a copy of the debt chasing letter from BW Legal and advise EON to ensure that no further letters regarding this matter are sent.

 

Because of the amount,  once the letter is received, they should just cancel the debt and stop writing.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to PRAC/BW chasing deceased mothers £89 EON bill.

do as above

stuff and all anyone can really do.

a dca is NOT a BAILIFF. zero legal powers

 

i would suggest that this debt has been SOLD to PRAC, and PRAC's letters do not state at the top 'our client EON'

 

 

 

dx

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I know that you are probably in a bad place right now but if it is correct that they've been informed and they have simply not processed the information correctly then frankly I would be after them for wrongful processing of personal data causing distress and I reckon the compensation payment would probably be in the region of £500 in the circumstances.

If you want a hand then we are here for you

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I phoned up BW and informed them of the circumstances. I was asked to provide proof etc. This is the email and actual letter I sent to all parties involved (E.on, PRAC and BW)

 

Following my telephone call with your agent on the 4th December 2021, I wish to inform you that my mother xxxx xxxx passed away on the xxth May 2020. I enclose a copy of her death certificate for proof as requested. 

 

My mother has never resided at this address. It was used as a care of address whilst she was moving into a care home for palliative care. E.on was informed of the circumstances as soon as possible.

 

I was also informed by your agent that no further action would be taken and that I consider this to be end of the matter. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really would send eon and also PRAC each a subject access request. It costs nothing and it may help you to understand what has gone on and also the route out of it

Link to post
Share on other sites

My best guess is that when we surrendered the house back to the council, we informed them of the utilities already in place and that the council didn't contact eon. 

The council was going into lockdown that day and I guess things got missed etc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would send them an SAR as well.

I would find out who had made the mistake then I would go in all guns blazing – although that may not be to your taste.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry I intend to get to the bottom of this. 

I assume that I cannot be chased for this in anyway ? Or if I am chased I can ignore and not play their game ? 

It's just the principal of it all. To ask my mother to pay a "debt" 18 months after her death isn't on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no you can't

yes you can ignore

 

have you a PRAC letter par chance?

does it say our client EON.?

 

i suspect EON sold the debt on to a debt buyer (PRAC) hence the letter from BW states our client PRAC.

 

it would say our client EON if the debt was not sold on.

 

a dca can't assign a debt to a 'solicitor' (even if it is a fake paperwork one in a way as its PRAC using their letterhead in the same printer) when they are not the debt owner.

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What fun it would be if it went quite far with "collectors" turning up at my door. Imagine the service charges adding up and all for nothing 😜

 

Yes I do have a PRAC letter and it does say Our Client E.ON.

Link to post
Share on other sites

really, they should not be putting a sols onto her, as thats just another DCA then now anyway.

 

you might well get some serious compo out of EON for this.

 

atrocious behaviour for EON.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The actual timeline is mum transferred from hospital to care home 18 Feb. We cleared house etc and handed keys back to council 17 March. We informed Eon on the 17 March and gave a final meter reading (Key meter) We assumed that was it. Mum died 25 May in care home. 

Don't know if this makes a difference ? 

 

Just remembered that when giving final meter reading to Eon, the final balance was worked out to be in credit for what they are chasing for now £89.59.

They sent a cheque to my address. It was spent on admin for her estate, death certs, letters to creditors etc.

 

Also BW are saying the debt owed is from the 7th March to 10th May 2020. 

This clearly cannot be possible. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then if you want to press forward, send the subject access requests. There could be some reasonable compensation here – and maybe your mother would be pleased about it.

Until you send the SARs, I'm afraid everything is speculation

Link to post
Share on other sites

so its an old bill that they found she had not paid when closing the account.?

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No not a bill at all.

She was in credit by £89.59 when the account was closed. 

They sent the check to her care of address (my address) as she was in a care home.

Edited by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, HertsCorn said:

My mother has never resided at this address.

 

so the eon A/C was never in her name anyway?

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

EON may have paid £89 refund in error and now they want it back.

 

Up to you really. But once you have sent the copy death cert that should stop any further communications.  You can of course look to take this further, but whether you would easily gain any compensation, is the question that you need to ask yourself.  They may dig their heels in and you then get into months of ping pong communications.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, dx100uk said:

 

so the eon A/C was never in her name anyway?

Yes it was in her name at her address. 

She used my address as a care of address when she moved into a care home. 

I was managing her affairs from my address while she was in the care home. 

Eon was made aware of this and agreed to it. 

She/we used the Royal Mail redirection service from her old address to my address. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, unclebulgaria67 said:

EON may have paid £89 refund in error and now they want it back.

That's their problem. They said account was £89 in credit when it was closed. Sent the cheque after about 3-4 weeks.

They can't get it back from dead people. Unless they hold a seance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So we are talking about money which they may have paid her an error.

This is well over 12 months ago.
When was a refund actually made

How long ago did they start chasing for this debt?

What are BW legal proposing to do about this debt? Are they chasing you personally or are they chasing your deceased mother?

It is most unlikely they'll take any action on a debt this size – but if they did then there is clearly an estoppel.

It might also be worth looking at the effect of the backbilling code on this. If the time between making the refund and the time they started chasing for it is more than 12 months, then they are breaking the code.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to hear about your mother's death @HertsCorn

 

I had a similar situation with E.On when my mother died and I was her Executor, although not involving DCAs. Some organisations seem unable to grasp that the person they claim owes the bill is no longer alive. I did find though that once I'd provided the Death Certificate that was the last I ever heard of it. Even debts my mother had owed and I was willing to pay from the Estate were never collected.

 

Can you clarify your post #7. Have BW agreed that they will not pursue you for payment and won't contact you again? Have they confirmed it in writing?

 

In answer to your general question about whether they can pursue you personally the answer is no (assuming you weren't personally guaranteeing your late mother's E.On account, which I'm sure you weren't). As Executor you have to settle the bills of the deceased out of the Estate but you were fully entitled to assume that E.On had closed the account as they'd sent you the closing account balance by cheque after you had given them the final reading. Neither Executors nor family members are legally responsible for the debts of someone who has died. And even if the Executor had been negligent no-one is likely to pursue court proceedings for £89.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, BankFodder said:

So we are talking about money which they may have paid her an error.

This is well over 12 months ago.
When was a refund actually made

How long ago did they start chasing for this debt?

What are BW legal proposing to do about this debt? Are they chasing you personally or are they chasing your deceased mother?

It is most unlikely they'll take any action on a debt this size – but if they did then there is clearly an estoppel.

It might also be worth looking at the effect of the backbilling code on this. If the time between making the refund and the time they started chasing for it is more than 12 months, then they are breaking the code.

Refund was in March/April 2020.

 

The first I became aware of this was the 4th December 2021 via letter to my address.

 

BW wants to offer a 70% reduction to about £26ish.

They are not chasing me personally. They are chasing my dead mother. 

 

I'm not paying towards their Christmas party drinks bill. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...