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).
