Hey ​@Nparry ,

This is a little complex and I think ​@Nukecad is better placed to figure this one out than I am.

Hang in there for a bit! With that being said, it might not be your problem to pay off that existing bill if the landlord or the letting agent messed up...

Hi ​@Nparry 
It seems a simple enough situation, albeit a bit of an odd one.

I do have a few concerns though - more about what you have not said rather than what you have.

One concern I have is that if your partner had set up an account with a supplier, even for just one day, then they should have had a final bill when that account was closed again because they would be liable for the Standing Charge and usage for that one day - but you/your partner don’t mention that final billing happening at all.

First question - Is this perhaps ‘All inclusive’ so the rent already includes the bills?
Double check the Tenancy Agreement.

I don’t believe that is the case here though, I believe that the Lettings Agent has cocked-up.
Which would explain why they are now dodging calls. They will be in a panic while they work out what to do.
(And I doubt that the LL has even been told about it yet).

I do have an idea what might have happened here:
It is usual practice for the utility accounts to be put in the LL’s name when a tenant moves out, the LL is responsible for the bills when the property is not tenanted.
Then the new tenants open new accounts in their name when they move in,
So maybe the LA simply got their timings wrong/late, and then didn’t notice what they had done?

PS. It does make me wonder about the status/situation with other things.
Other utilities, and Council Tax liability being the main ones.
(Unless it’s a HMO where the LL is responsible for CT anyway, but it doesn’t sound like it is).
Your partner may want to check those too.

As things appear to stand:-

A Lettings Agent is appointed by a LL to act on their behalf, any decisions and actions  that the LA makes and takes on the landlords behalf are legally binding on the LL.

If a Lettings Agent appointed by a landlord has set up a new utility account in the LL’s name then that’s legal, it is the LL’s account and the LL’s responsibility to pay any charges and bills for it.

So any debt that may now be owing to the supplier will be the LL’s debt to pay, and legally that’s that.
You cannot be chased by a supplier for a debt on an account that is not in your name.

If the LL has a problem with what the LA has or hasn’t done then it’s the LA they need to sort it out with, legally it has nothing to do with the tenant.

If the tenant is feeling kind (and it sounds as if your partner may be) then they could reimburse the LL for what they have used, and that the LL now owes to the Utility company.
IF they do reimburse the LL then they should of course get a detailed receipt for it from the LL, one stating exactly what it’s for and including copies of all the bills.

Just for completeness; the LL could try to sue the tenant for the money.
I doubt that a court would grant it in such circumstances, particularly if the tenant can evidence that they did set up a utilities account but the LA then had the utilities transferred back into the LLs name, but it’s possible.

I would expect at the very least that your partner will be asked to put the utitities in their name again going forward, assuming they are staying in the property.

However at the worst - even though it’s entirely a cockup by the agent I would not rule out that a S21 notice may be on it’s way.
Yes that would be unfair, but S21s are ‘No Fault’ and so you can’t challenge why they have been issued.
(One reason why S21s are being abolished is because they are often used unfairly).
Sorry, but I used to be active on a landlord/tenant forum and know that’s how many LLs would react to such a situation, hopefully your partners LL won’t do that but ….

(PS. Also note that the Lettings Agent can also issue a S21 with out the LL knowing anything about it, the LA can’t evict anyone, only the actual LL can go to court to get a posession order. but some LAs will use them as an empty threat - another reason for abolishment).

I am posting my views with complete respect for the views of others who have posted, especially Nukecad, who goes the extra mile to help those who ask questions.

These are my views but I welcome evidence based arguments that support or contradict what I believe. Such feedback is healthy and helps us understand things better.

However, until there is a binding court ruling on who, between a landlord and an occupying tenant is liable for electricity charges in a rental property with just one supply meter, then all anybody giving guidance can do on this forum is offer advice based on their experience or what they believe is correct.

IMHO, the problem landlords and tenants have is that the Utility Companies, and the Energy Ombudsman service, work together to set the agenda to suite themselves.

I have heard of examples when the Ombudsman has been specifically asked to make a ruling on whether the occupier or the landlord is liable for the electricity supply in a rented property with just one supply meter.

The Ombudsman completely avoids answering the question.

This, I believe, may be to protect the utility companies from having to introduce a new department to 'identify the tenants in a rental property, to keep track of when tenants arrive and leave and collect meter readings' (understandably an extra cost to the utility companies, but arguably something that is their business to do).

So the Ombudsman have created their own special rule which says that in this situation they use the general principle that all Ombudsman use. This states that the landlord is responsible until it is proven otherwise.

This is not fair as it is more within the power of the utility companies to do.  (With their resources of paid field agents and paid customer service departments, with access to registered voters, council tax records, credit agencies, etc)

Landlords do not pay themselves, nor get paid by utility companies, for carrying out administrative duties on behalf of utility companies. (This needs to change).

The Ombudsmans special rule is despite their not being any laws that require landlords to provide written tenancies to tenants, and no laws or regulations requiring landlords to share the data they hold on their tenants. The tenants are the customers of the utility company, surely they should find out who they are.

GDPR prevents utility companies from telling/confirming the names of their customers to landlords (even though the customers are the landlords tenants)

I suggest in this case, that regardless of any administration errors by the letting agent, and taking into account that the tenants expectation that, because they did get in touch, they also believe they are liable, then the default position, is that, from the time they began to use the supply, the tenant, by way of occupation and usage, is liable for the supply.

(This view is based on my interpretation of schedule 6, clause 3(i) of the 1989 Electricty Act)

The landlord would only be liable if the property is empty (same Act) and the supply is used and their is a standing charge, or if no supply is used and there is a standing charge  then they are just liable for the standing charge.

Equally, I would understand if the landlord just buckled to pressure from the utility company and coughed up. If so, its a good, but an incorrect, outcome for the tenant.  

Out of interest, what was the outcome?

                    ....….............................

Win some, lose some but always challenge if you believe something is not fair.