Huddle Utilities PAPLOC Now Claimform - Shared Student Accommodation Util resellers - Elec/Gas debt

[Myth_007]

Hi all, I've read some of the other claims and tried following the same format. Do let me know if some of the points are excessive or need to be edited/removed. 

 

The Defendant contends that the particulars of the claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

Lack of Contractual Agreement: The defendants contest the claim on the grounds of the absence of a direct contractual agreement between the defendants and the claimant. The payments made by the defendants were to the lead tenant, acting as an intermediary, and not directly to the claimant. As such, there is no contractual obligation between the defendants and the claimant.

 

Joint Liability Dispute: The defendants refute the claim of joint liability for the outstanding amount. The defendants assert that they made payments in good faith for their respective share of the utility expenses. Any outstanding balance is attributable to other tenants who failed to fulfill their financial obligations. The defendants cannot be held accountable for the debts of others.

 

Confirmation of Balance Settlement: The defendants stress that they acted in good faith to settle the outstanding balance, as evidenced by the confirmation received from the claimant  on 23/10/2023 that the account was closed. Any subsequent demands for additional payments are unwarranted and contradict the claimant's previous acknowledgment of settlement. It is concerning that the claimant subsequently reopened the account and pursued further demands for payment, contradicting their earlier acknowledgment of debt settlement and closure of the account.

 

Misrepresentation and Confusion: The defendants raise concerns regarding the actions of the claimant, specifically regarding the changing account numbers and inconsistent billing practices. The backdating of bills and failure to inform the defendants about available options, such as split liability packages, has led to confusion and misrepresentation of the financial obligations.

 

Inconsistencies in Claims: The defendants highlight the inconsistencies in the claimant's demands, as evidenced by the varying amounts communicated by the claimant. Despite repeated attempts to reconcile the discrepancies, the claimant has failed to provide a clear and consistent account of the outstanding balance owed.

 

Unfair Targeting: The defendants assert that singling out only two tenants out of ten for money claims is unjust and discriminatory. The defendants emphasize that they never agreed to assume joint liability for the financial obligations of others and seek fairness and equity in the legal proceedings.

 

The defendant paid the lead tenant a fixed sum monthly bill without fail for the extent of the rental period of the accommodation their contract was associated with, ending in June 2023.

 

After moving out, a month later, the claimant wrote to state that an outstanding sum existed. Further stating, as one of the 10 tenants at the time, I now owed them the full sum instead of my 1/10 proportion of said debt, as 10 students were at the dwelling. The defendant. They also intimated that they were legally allowed to charge me the full sum if the other renters were not to pay their share under some equal and joint severity rule.

 

Despite sending numerous requests prior to the court claim being raised for copies of said bills for said utilities covered by the agreement, the claimant failed to send any clear bills. This included a CPR 31.14 on 19/02/204 sent via post.

[dx100uk]

bit too detailed almost a witness statement.

i'd not reveal all your cards yet till WS time.

their POC is vague and devoid of any specific info.

your defence should mirror the same 

thread title updated

[Myth_007]

Noted. What points that I have made should I include in my defence? 

How about 1,4, 9, and 110?

[Myth_007]

I have received my DQ. I just had one question regarding it, what do I need to put for the question where it asks, Do you consider that this claim is suitable for determination without hearing?

[AndyOrch]

Detailed in the link

 

 

[dx100uk]

what defence did you file?

dx

 

[dx100uk]

are you going to update us ever?

dx

 

[Myth_007]

Hi, Sory been busy.

I haven't had any updated after I filed my DQ.

It is updated as received on my portal.

Only thing is, the case got transferred to a court closer to my area.

[dx100uk]

so you a received the notice of transfer 

when was this:...

also

On 21/03/2024 at 12:00, dx100uk said:

what defence did you file?

dx

 

[Myth_007]

I did not receive a notice via post but in my claim status it shows my claim was transferred to a court I requested in my DQ, as it is closer to me. 

 

Defense I filed: 

1.       The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

2.       The defendant paid the lead tenant a fixed sum monthly bill without fail for the extent of the rental period of the accommodation their contract was associated with who was responsible to make payments to the claimant, ending in June 2023.

3.       After moving out, a month later, the claimant wrote to state that an outstanding sum existed. Further stating, as one of the 10 tenants at the time, I now owed them the full sum instead of my 1/10 proportion of said debt, as 10 students were at the dwelling. They also intimated that they were legally allowed to charge me the full sum if the other renters were not to pay their share under some equal and joint severity rule.

4.       Despite sending numerous requests prior to the court claim being raised for copies of said bills for said utilities covered by the agreement, the claimant failed to send any clear bills. This included a CPR 31.14 on xx/xx/xxxx sent via post.

5.       The defendants stress that they acted in good faith to settle the outstanding balance, as evidenced by the confirmation received from the claimant.  Any subsequent demands for additional payments are unwarranted and contradict the claimant's previous acknowledgment of settlement.

6.       Pursuant to OFGEM code of back billing rules the alleged charges relate to charges which have not been billed correctly by Co-operative Energy and are therefore prevented from charging.

With the court’s permission the Claimant is put to strict proof to: -

a) show and disclose how the Defendant has entered into an agreement.

b) show and disclose how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.

c) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.

7.As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation                  that the money is owed.

8.It is therefore denied that the defendant is indebted to the claimant as alleged or at all.

Edited April 28 by Myth_007