I should probably mention however, that using those services - especially the “We’ll manage EVERYTHING for you” type may limit your options severely. Other options are - of course - available and it’s highly recommended you shop around first - splitting things up may get you a better deal!

Wow, some good information coming out here, thanks.

Earlier, I shared the threads with my (potential) landlord. I've rented of him before, he's ok. He says you are a well informed  bunch, but suspects you are a little bias towards the utility companies. (His words)

I've just copied what he replied

"What utility companies know but don't tell anybody is that the landlord is only responsible for paying for electricity if the property is empty. Section 6, clause 3(i) of the 1989 Electricty Act.

Whenever a property is occupied the liability for the electricity always lies with the tenant, or if there are multiple tenants, then any one of the tenants. (Joint and several liability). This applies even if the landlord offers 'bills included in the rent'. A clause in an AST saying the landlord pays can not out-trump the law of the land which says the occupier is liable.

At anytime the landlord can inform the utility company that he is relying on the law which makes the tenants liable. The landlord stops collecting the proportion of the rent that was for gas and electricity, steps back and leaves the utility company to engage directly with the tenants, who are their customers using the supply.

If there is no smart meter (that can remotely be switched to prepayment mode) the utility company has great diffuculty in managing the situation from then on.

The tenants are reluctant to give their names as they know they will be held liable for all the supply so there is nobody to recover the debt from.

A utility company can only chase a debt against a named person, no name, no recovery process can start.

In order to encourage utility companies to implement a fair system for managing utility bills with several tenants in shared properties, landlords of HMO's with a single meter should hold out on getting smart meters installed for as long as possible"

Pick the meat off that as they say.

And pick the meat I shall…

There ARE cases where the Landlord chooses to “own” the supply, making them fully liable for it until such time the tenants are made to take it on. There are in fact high-rises where Landlord Sub-Metering is in full deployment in a way where that law cannot be applied - because it’s physically impossible to do so. I’ll give you one example - Bridgewater House in Worcester (and no, I don’t live there!) is a massive High-Rise that is physically wired up in such a way that there’s one giant Supply Meter for the entire building and a bazillion Sub-Meters for all the apartments. AFAIK none of the Sub-Meters run in any kind of Prepayment Mode - they all run in “Credit Mode”.

The developer of that place has basically screwed themselves over in that regard - if all tenants fail to pay, then the developer may find themselves ending up with a huge bill for the entire building that they can’t collect on - and that particular rule about liability does NOT apply because the developer deliberately wired the place up that way, rather than doing it properly. Let’s just say I have industry contacts who work in that area and know the place a little too well…

Oh, and yeah. Because it’s considered a Non-Domestic Supply into the building, that means Domestic Tariffs are NOT available for anyone in that building. Everyone living there has to deal with paying the hyper-expensive Non-Domestic/Business Tariffs which are something like 500% more expensive and can’t change supplier because they don’t have that option. Fun! To make it worse, Warm Home Discount doesn’t work there either - and nor did the Energy Bill Support Scheme. :)

They could totally fix it of course and do it properly, but that means spending tons of money they won’t ever recover and knocking out loads of electricity supplies to carry out the works. So I doubt they’ll ever bother now.

That trick also doesn’t work at all if Sub-Metering is in use - because the Tenant won’t be hooked up directly to the Supply Meter. It ONLY works where the Tenant can potentially directly engage with the Supplier because the Meter they’re on is directly hooked up to the National Grid with no upstream meter between tenant and street.

Either way, the Supplier will chase the last known contact - whoever that may be. I’ll say this much - OVO is VERY capable of identifying who’s living at a property, Smart Meter or not. I know the methods they use, but will not reveal them for obvious reasons. All I’ll say is that if you link yourself to that address in basically any way, shape or form, OVO’s Collections Team WILL find you sooner or later.

I must at this point give you a fraud warning. It sounds like what you and your landlord doing may potentially amount to fraud, so I’d advise you think VERY carefully about your next steps.

As for not swapping the Meter to a Smart Meter? Easy, the Supplier can arguably just pull the plug on the entire supply eventually because the Meter will become non-compliant meaning it can’t be used and they CAN force an upgrade if the Meter is End of Life. It’ll break eventually so it’s only a matter of time…

And that’s before I mention they can just force-entry with a warrant to either Force-Fit a Smart Meter in Prepayment Mode OR just Disconnect the entire supply anyway. OVO doesn’t need to know who’s there - they can enforce such warrants whether they get your details or not. And since “Persons Unknown” is a thing that the Courts recognise... Checkmate. :)

TBH, there’s also little to no benefit for the Landlord to install Landlord Sub-Metering anyway. Ofgem is explicitly clear that a Landlord CANNOT make any profit whatsoever off of reselling energy to tenants via any means whatsoever. They can charge a bit extra to cover their costs, but there’s a very thin line that’s easy to break. Given there’s no advantages to this route, it’s better to just split things up anyway (if needed) and let the tenants deal with the supplier directly IMHO.

You and your landlord can protest as much as you want - as is your right - but at the end of the day I just don’t see your desires ever being met. There’s a VERY good reason I did my research into the thread below and spoke to multiple DNOs before I answered it!

Oh, and one other thing - and this is the killer blow! If there is no name attached to the supply, then there is no supply. That’s literally the only possible status that allows no-one to be attached to it! And that only happens when it’s still being created - but that state doesn’t last long - or when the supply has been fully and permanently decommissioned. Double Checkmate!

And the absolute Triple Checkmate trick? For the Landlord to successfully shift liability to the Tenant, he’d be expected to provide proof of who’s currently living at the property - IIRC he’s legally required to keep records of this anyway - and present that to the Courts if requested to do so. More importantly, presenting it to OVO is basically how he’d be able to close the Temporary Landlord Account and kick the Tenants into opening their own. OVO won’t necessarily action this on his word alone.

I rest my case.

I haven't read all of Blastoies’ reply - it's christmas and I'm sat in the pub.

All I would say is that the landlords statement is interesting, but would be more interesting if there was a weblink to back that “legal” opinion up.

To me it looks like a mix of legislation and semi-legal opinion taking that legislation out of context.

But as I say - beer on board here.

PS. I hope you are enjoying things too, I know being between properties can be stressful at this time of year.

Enjoying it I am. I've landed with a right load of experts here.

My landlord was down the pub also. He sent this definition for you to chew through over Christmas.

1989 Electricity Act, Schedule 6 Clause 3(1) states: -

"Where an electricity supplier supplies electricity to any premises otherwise than in pursuance of a contract, the supplier shall be deemed to have contracted with the occupier (or the owner if the premises are unoccupied) for the supply of electricity as from the time (“the relevant time”) when he began so to supply electricity."

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to say that the landlord is only liable when the property is unoccupied, so if the landlord backs out of any 'all inclusive' contract, the tenants are left holding the hot potatoe.

Bounce that one round the pub.

You are correct, however there’s still a flaw in your logic. A change of that nature constitutes a major/significant change to the Tenancy Agreement, one that would require re-negotiation and pre-approval from the Tenant before it could happen. Otherwise the Landlord risks breaking Contract Law for not providing something listed in the Tenancy Agreement as being handled by the Landlord.

When it comes to a HMO, the Landlord is still kinda “occupying” the parts of the building where there’s no bed e.g. the corridors between rooms, hence remains liable for electricity/gas usage in those parts of said building. As such, he cannot escape total liability. OVO et al could still argue he’s liable for the supply on the basis that the supply comes into his house and that only individual rooms are rented out rather than the whole property being rented out to one tenant exclusively. The “Tenant is responsible” thing only works when a single Tenant occupies the entire property - it doesn’t strictly apply when it’s a HMO or Lodger regardless of how many different tenants/lodgers are in the place.

Simply abandoning the All Inclusive thing without re-negotiating the contract would result an an Instant Breach Of Da Tenancy. Good luck with that one in Court - the Landlord would almost certainly lose.

Arguably, the Landlord would also have to make the arrangements to migrate the Tenant(s) off of Sub-Meters at the Landlords expense too, if they’re currently installed.

I think my landlord is down the pub with a few other landlords 'cause he's come back pretty quick. Sounds like there is an arm chair solicitor with them.

"Totally agree with your point about the legal trouble a landlord would be in if they tried to unilateraly back out if an all-inclusive contract with the tenants. But as long as the landlord received some consideration from the tenants then the new arrangement would be legally binding.

Regarding the common parts of the house, what you say about the landlords liability would be a fair point if there were sub-meters in the rooms that tenants have exclusive use of.

But in a HMO with a single electricity meter, then the simple defence from the landlord would be 'I'm not using and lecky me lord and the property is not 'unoccupied'. The law says the occupier using the supply is liable, not guilty me lord.

Even OFGEM are not sure. Although they agree in general that it is the occupier using the supply who is liable, they add the addendum that the interpretation of the law is up to the courts and to date there is no case law for guidance.

One reason for the lack of case law is likely to be that if the utility companies get a hint of this being tested in court they would rather settle than risk loosing and there being a president set.

Keep up the good work, you are worth you weight in gold.

Watch this space".

Like I say, when you convert a property to a HMO without doing the job fully and seperating the supplies then things start to get messy, both practicaly and legally.
That’s why it’s often discussed on LL/Tenant forums, you see cases where it has gotten into a complete mess.

PS. Not quite the same thing but legally the Landlord is always liable for Council Tax on a HMO, they can charge their tenants a higher rent to cover it, but in the end it's always the LL's responsibility to pay the CT on a HMO.
Most councils already charged the CT lke that anyway, but in December 2023 it became law that all councils have to do it that way:
https://chli.co.uk/2024/01/26/new-legislation-means-landlords-to-pay-council-tax-for-hmos/

There is no real reason why the same kind of thing couldn't be done for utilities, although it would be more complicated for the LL as utility bills vary rather than being a fixed amount like CT.
A major consideration against that happening at the moment is that again any such a move would cause many HMO landlords to evict their tenants and sell up, not helping the housing shortage at all.
(My previous LL has already sold all his HMOs and other residential properties and now just does commercial lets rather than residential).

If we’re being honest, there’s another big reason why I feel having the Tenants be directly hooked up to an energy supplier makes more sense - it’s the only way they can get things like the Warm Home Discount, proper freedom of choice over their tariffs and any future EBSS style schemes.

Sub-Metering setups are ineligible for any of that, as are cases where the Landlord controls the supply.

Good point. Plus for some of the more environmentally aware younger renterd there is something not quite right about living in a shared house where the bills are all inclusive. 

The problem being there is no direct relationship between the energy tenants use and the cost of that energy. Drive past a student halls of residence on a cold day and half the windows are wide open! I know, I used to do it.

IMHO any government concerned about preventing energy waste, should ban all inclusive tenancy agreements.

For my part I would prefer a pay monthly credit meter in a shared house, then the onus on not wasting energy lies with those who are paying for it. A smart meter read out monitor would help. 

The landlord says run this past the learned forum people and see what they say about whether the landlord should pay off the tenants debts

"OVO won't change the prepayment meter until the landlord pays off the debt accrued by the previous tenants. OVO fitted the prepayment meter while the tenants were still living there, (that makes it the tenants account, yes?). Then they loaded the debt on the meter and the tenants reduced the debt through the meter being programmed to extract a weekly amount.

When the tenants had left, OVO held the landlord responsible for the outstanding balance.....

....and when OVO sent the landlord his first bill, they addressed it to the rental property and the bill related to charges more than 12 months old.

For that one, I’ll ask ​@Bradley_OVO to verify, but I believe there’s a way to remove the debt blocker and allow you to migrate to Pay Monthly once your PAYG account has been successfully opened. It’s not your debt, so OVO won’t expect you to pay it at all. IIRC as long as a NEW account is opened in your name and OVO is satisfied the existing debt has nothing to do with you or any other current tenants, the migration should be possible.

Your landlord will need to discuss the remaining balance with OVO - only he can do that I’m afraid. But I suspect he may need to chase the former tenants over it, so I’d recommend seeking legal advice on that.

What I do know is that calling 0800 069 9831 allows you to make a one-off payment to either pay down part of a debt balance, or totally wipe it out in one go with full payment. Either one would result in the appropriate level of repaid debt being removed from the Meter and (if appropriate) debt collection functionality being disabled.

Whatever has already been repaid will be considered as paid off and will be removed from the calculations.

The Back Billing Rules aka the 12-month write off thing does NOT apply if an attempt to issue a bill was made, such as via PAYG. It only works if no bill was issued at all. I don’t think that’ll work this time. Either way, it’s not as simple as “it’s too late now cuz 12 months have passed lol” - it’s stupidly complicated!

In some ways, his best option might have to be just pay the debts off and chalk it up to a learning experience (with the option to recover that from the former tenants later). Failure to pay may have severe negative consequences for his credit record, so caution is advised.

The landlord cannot be made legally responsible for an ex-tenants bill - unless the account was in the LL's name all along. (and strange things like that do happen in HMOs).

If the account was in the ex-tenants name then they are responsible, and it's them who will/should be chased for that debt.

If the account was in the LLs name then it’s the LLs account and so the LL is responsible, no matter who was actually paying the bills or topping up the meter.

However if the utility account was not in the LL's name then it is not their responsibility.

In the case of a prepayment meter then the LL (or anyone else) opening a new account in their own name should result in the debt charge being removed from the prepayment meter.

Here's a couple of good articles about it:
https://help.openrent.co.uk/hc/en-gb/articles/4411974008977-Who-is-responsible-for-unpaid-utility-bills
https://www.splitthebills.co.uk/advice-centre/landlord-utility-bills-responsibilities/

PS. As Blastoise has already noted - the Back Billing rules in the Standard Conditions of Supply are not as simple as many people seem to think, in fact they are pretty complicated.
I know because I have had to look into them carefully, and I recently won such a case against a previous supplier who hadn’t billed me at all for 5 years. (they had sent some random ‘statements’ now and again, but not any actual bills/payment demands).
That’s a very long story and it’s taken the Ombudsman and over 3-years since I left them.

Nukecad…

The landlord says your good, and wishes you worked for the Energy Ombudsman.

He says ..."Pre OVO, whenever SSE had a problem collecting payments from my shared house their solution was to tell the tenants that the landlord was responsible for the bills and then remove the tenants name from the bill and put the landlord's name on it.

The tenants, of course didn't make any payments (why should they!), so when a prepayment was fitted and the debt was loaded on, SSE then said, (as you referred to) the prepayment meter was in your name so you are liable.

Trouble is SSE didn't contact the landlord despite having his phone number so I didnt know about any debt or even that a prepayment meter was installed"

So yes, I see what you mean when you say "strange things do happen that result in landlord's names ending up on bills".

It's also precisely why my stance is that the Landlord should NEVER take control of supply except for the purposes of looking after it during void periods between tenants. As soon as someone moves in or you sell up, you should absolutely kick yourself out of the system and require the new occupier to sign up to the suppliers themselves.

Hope you don't mind me saying that. 

SSE, or any supplier, would be legally correct to do that if whoevers name was on the account had left the tenancy.

Once there is no tenancy in place then the property owner, ie the landlord, becomes responsible for utilities.

Although strictly if the tenant had done a runner before the end of their tenancy then the tenancy hadn’t ended until a Posession Order is obtained from the court and the tenant ‘evicted’, even though they had left they still had a tenancy which should be ended legaly.

However the utility supplier will fall back on the position that the tenant has left and is not coming back, so in their eyes the LL should be resposible for ongoing supply/usage, and so they will switch the supply to a new account in the LLs name.
They should not however carry any debt owed by the ex-tenant onto that new account.*
The landlord could dispute that switch, because until a PO is obtained and the tenant ‘evicted’ the tenancy is still in place and so utilities are still the ex-tenants responsibility if their name was on the account.

What usually happens in practice is that the LL accepts the switch of ongoing utilities to their name, after all the tenant has gone.
The Utility supplier chases the ex-tenant for any debt built up before that switch.*

Of course it looks messier in a HMO with multiple tenants, but once you cut it down to being just one tenant, the one who’s name was on the utility account and has now gone, then it’s still the simpler 1-tenant, 1-landlord situation.
 

*One caveat to that ‘debt’ situation - If its been a while since the tenant did a flit then the new account in the LL’s name will be held responsible for supply/use since they left, ie the LL’s new account will be backdated to that leaving date.
That means that anything that had been used since that date (say by the other tenants in a HMO) is the LL’s responsibility on their new account.
Which is one way that a LL can end up responsible for a utility ‘debt’ after a tenant has left a HMO, it isn’t really the ex-tenants debt, (although legally that's debatable) it’s what has been used since they left.
As said, things can get messy with billing in a HMO.

I think that’s enough brain work for Christmas day, I’m off to the pub (again) for an hour or so before I cook dinner.
Hope you enjoy your day.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PS. Your posts keep changing from third person to first person, can we take it that you are in fact the Landlord here?

Whether you are the LL or the tenant doesn’t matter to us, but if we know which it is then we can usually give better advice depending on which.

for example you talk here both as if you are the tenant and the LL:

their solution was to tell the tenants that the landlord was responsible for the bills and then remove the tenants name from the bill and put the landlord's name on it.

The tenants, of course didn't make any payments (why should they!), so when a prepayment was fitted and the debt was loaded on, SSE then said, (as you referred to) the prepayment meter was in your name so you are liable.

Trouble is SSE didn't contact the landlord despite having his phone number so I didnt know about any debt or even that a prepayment meter was installed

I find it hard to imagine that a tenant would not know there was a prepayment meter in the place they were living.
However it’s quite possible that a landlord may not be aware that the meter had been changed.
(Yep, messy but not unusual, I have seen lots of threads like it before on LL/tenant forums).

Nukecad wrote: -

Your posts keep changing from third person to first person, can we take it that you are in fact the Landlord here?

Reply: -

All text between the speech marks " ...... " are the landlords words.

"As this is an OVO sponsored forum, your fairness in the points you make and your offer to assist is appreciated. 

With reference to your paragraph..

SSE, or any supplier, would be legally correct to do that if whoevers name was on the account had left the tenancy.

My fault, I didn't make it clear, but in the situation I described, the tenants did not leave the property.

The property was a shared property where the tenants had, for 5 years been responsible for paying SSE direct. Tenants changed yearly.  I had never been involved in supplying details to SSE or asked by SSE to supply any details

One day SSE just told the tenants that the landlord was responsible for the supply and after they recorded an actual (credit) meter reading, they took the named tenant off the bill and replaced it with my name.

SSE billed the property for the next 9 months up to the time the tenants provided another actual reading. 

The point being the two actual reading indicate the tenants remained in the property.  

SSE didnt contact me even though I gave them my details in case they ever needed to contact me. 

SSE now say that they created a deemed contract in my name because the property was void, but all the 9 months of bills were for 'units used only', there was no standing order/daily charge. ( I would expect bills for void periods to include a daily charge, would you think thats right?)

5 years later SSE put the onus on me to prove the property was occupied by saying I had to produce tenancy agreements, but they have never even asked me if I ever used tenancy agreements.

When asked, SSE have been unable to produce evidence that the tenant's contract with me was determined, and unable to produce evidence that the contract they had with the tenant had been terminated.

I made a complaint, they failed to investigate properly and deadlocked my complaint. Afyer that, they refused to engage saying 'the matter has been fully investigated'.

Your input, or anybody elses input on how to help resolve this situation would be appreciated.

I'm happy to clarify any points that don't make sense.

(Written whilst watching Gavin and Stacey .......it's nuts.  Merry Christmas to all)"

It is still not clear just where YOU stand in this matter - are you the Landlord, the tenant, or someone else?

The way that last post is written it seems that you are “someone else” and the landlord may be best asking here themselves rather than getting things second hand.

Could you please clarify that so that we know just who we are in conversation with?
For all we can tell at the moment you could even be a student and this is you xmas homework.

This advice is written as I would to the Landlord:

From what you have said then it sounds that you have a fairly strong case that you were not responsible for paying the bills. the tenants were.
(I can only assume that the tenants had told SSE that they were moving out or had moved out and that is why SSE thought there was no tenancy and so a void period).

You say that you have been through the OVO complaint process and got a Deadlock letter/email.

‘Deadlock’ in a complaint has a specific meaning, that you cannot agree and neither side is going to budge.
In which case your next stage would be a complaint to the Energy Ombudsman for arbitration.

You could wait until you get debt colleltion action and are taken to court for the debt,if that hasn’t happened already*. but the Ombudsman arbitration is free and a court likes to see that arbitration has been at least tried.

*Let me know if you are being contacted by debt collectors. I have advice - that works - on how to deal with them and keep them quiet.

To be practical:

As you have now had that ‘Deadlock’ notification, and if it hasn’t yet got as far as a County Court summons, then you should escalate your complaint with the Energy Ombudsman.
https://www.energyombudsman.org/our-process

The Ombudsman cannot investigate a dispute that is already proceding to court.
You need to raise you complaint with the Ombudsman within 12 monhs of the ‘Deadlock’ notice.

Tips (from experience):

• Keep things clear and to the point when raising your Ombudsman complaint and supplying the Ombudsman with your evidence.
  ie. Stick to the facts and evidence regarding the billing, don’t go rambling off into side issues.
• Supply the Ombudsman with everything that you can, including any/all corespondence with SSE/OVO about the complaint. Don’t send things that you already have in dribs and drabs,(that looks like you are trying to hide things) - but do send anything new that you get to keep the Ombudsman up to date.
• It can take time for the Ombudsman to collect and weigh the evidence from both sides, but while that is happening you can quickly see off any debt collectors who may contact you about the arrears, it just takes the right wording which I can advise on.
• Remember that whilst the Ombudsmans decision and ruling is not binding on you any directions that the Ombudsman issues to the supplier shoud/must be acted upon by them.
  (Of course if the Ombudsman shuld rule against you and then then things do procede to court the supplier can rely on the fact that the Ombudsman agrees with their view).

For completeness, although you have probably already seen it, here is the OVO complaints procedure which also tells you that you can compain to the Ombudsman after ‘Deadlock’ has been reached: https://www.ovoenergy.com/feedback
 

Andrew Burton wrote : -

All text between the speech marks " ...... " are the landlords words.

"All the previous post was between speech marks, as is the following post"

Nukecad wrote : -

This advice is written as I would to the Landlord:

"Understood, and thanks for the guidance on making an application to the Ombudsman, that will be useful.

I am interested in knowing your advice on how to deal with debt collectors, please share, but I am aware its Christmas, please just reply when it is convenient for you"

Nukecad wrote : -

(I can only assume that the tenants had told SSE that they were moving out or had moved out and that is why SSE thought there was no tenancy and so a void period).

I agree that is a fair assumption to make when no evidence is available. It is exactly what I initially thought so I asked SSE for more details. I took ages to get a useful response because they kept hiding behind the deadlock decision saying the matter has been fully investigated.

As I mentioned in the previous post, I now know that the tenant's remained in the property so that the assumption that 'the tenants had left ' is a weakness in SSE's argument.

When challenged SSE eventually revealed that their policy on declaring if a rental property was void is - we treat a property void if we have not had any contact from the tenants or the landlord and, if we make a mistake (eg the property is still occupied, then), we would expect the tenants to notify the landlord and the landlord to make contact with us.

This might have worked if SSE hadn't first told one of the occupying tenants that by making a part payment you had made yourself reponsible for the whole bill. ​​It seems that a tenant just paid what they regarded as their shate of the bill but they failed to appreciate that, regardless of any interpetation of any tenancy agreement that might have been in place or any assumptions made the tenant, the law of the land says that each tenant is jointly and severally responsible for the electricity bill.

SSE's decision to remove the named tenant from the bill seems to be a mistake, this is because the 1989 Act says that the occupier using the supply is liable  and SSE's general deemed terms and conditions say (something like) if anybody else is occupying the property and using the supply they are jointly and severally liable for the whole bill.

So, rather than taking this tenants name off the bill and putting the landlords name on it, SSE should have created a deemed contract in the tenants name and held them responsible for the whole bill.

I am correctly understanding how the 1989 Act and SSE's deemed terms and condition are intended to work?"

I’m finding it difficult to understand just why you continue to not tell us just what your status is in this matter.

If you have been behaving in such an unforthcoming and roundabout way in your complaints to SSE/OVO then I can easily see how you have had difficulty making any progress.

It is difficult to engage with, or even to trust (believe?) what you are told by, someone who appears to be trying to hide something.

If you want good advice about an issue you are having then you have to give the real, full, information about exactly what is happening.
If you don’t do that then you are likely to get incorrect advice.

However:

I am interested in knowing your advice on how to deal with debt collectors, please share, but I am aware its Christmas, please just reply when it is convenient for you

I’ll take it from that that you are already getting letters/emails from debt collectors.
(Even though you haven’t said that you are).

My general, not tailored, advice for dealing with Debt Collectors is already visible on this forum if you care to look for it.
See my post here:

Nukecad wrote :  -

Whether you are the LL or the tenant doesn’t matter to us, 

Andrew Burton says: -

You picked 'Nukecad' as your Forum handle, I picked a name called 'Andrew Burton' for mine. They are both just that, Forum handles.

All text between the speech marks " ...... " are the landlords words.

"You are a excellent advisor, you any others have helpied me more than you will ever know. Your advice on dealing with debt collectors is also useful, thank you.

Let's not get bogged down on who is who.⁴

Let's talk general, non-SSE/OVO specific, points.

It would be good if you, or any other forum reader, can share their experiences or conclusions to solve the riddle of whether - 

Q(1) The part of the Electricity 1989 Act which says the occupier using the supply is liable can be fairly applied to tenants occupying shared houses on a single meter supply, and

Q(2) Whether, if the terms and conditions of an electricty supplier state that all occupiers using the supply are equally liable for the whole bill, the utility supplier can just charge any one occupier for the whole bill. 

Q (3)  - Whether anybody on this forum kmows whether it is a legal requirent for landlords to supply written tenancy agreements to tenants, and if there is a legal requirement then is there any legal orregulatory requurent for landlords to supply copies of tenancy agreements to electricty suppliers, and for landlords to provide utility companies with meter readings when tenants move in and out.

Q(4) If a utility company is provided access by the occupiers of a rented property and removes the credit meter and installs a prepayment meter (and doesnt notify the landlord), and then loads the tenants debt onto the meter, and the tenants then start repaying that debt,  then in whose name should the electricity account be in.  The tenants name, or the landlord's name."

Let's not get bogged down on who is who.

Let's talk general, non-SSE/OVO specific, points.

Sorry but I am no longer prepared to answer someone who is being pretty shifty about just who they are.

We are volunteers who give our time freely here to help others who are experiencing problems.

I am no longer even sure that you yourself have any such problem.

The question formatting of your last post makes me think even more that you are asking these questions as part of some coursework/homework rather than doing that work yourself.
You won’t learn anything by someone just giving you answers that you copy.
 

Listen ​@Andrew Burton , I think we need to have a little chat for a moment to set some expectations here. Having reviewed the thread so far along with some other stuff that only our Backstage Passes give us, I’m afraid I do have to agree with ​@Nukecad about your intentions. It does seem as if you’re being evasive - perhaps deliberately - about what your own role is in all of this and we have asked you multiple times to either explain yourself and/or ask your Landlord to swing by directly. So far, you have failed to do so to our satisfaction. As a result, I’m afraid we’re kinda forced to place a bit of a restriction on you until we can clear this situation up.

To continue talking to us here about this matter, I’m afraid we must insist that you identify yourself in the context of just “who” you are with regards to the stuff you’re asking about. Not your IRL identity obviously, but whether you are in fact an affected Tenant, the Landlord, some guy in a pub, a Law Student or someone else entirely. We rely very heavily on people being honest and transparent with us and I should advise you that we’re very good at detecting attempts at deception by those who try to hide their intentions from us - I’m quite literally a trained cybersecurity professional myself and I’m well versed in exactly those techniques so folks can’t fool me easily.

As a reminder, we also check for AI/GPT content on a random sample basis. Any posts found to be primarily AI Generated will likely get nuked by the Forum Moderators unless it actually adds useful value. Because yeah… That’s a thing we have to worry about now...

If you’re just curious, we’re OK with that and we don’t mind having said discussions with curious folks - but please, just tell us that upfront, so that we can focus our limited time on other matters that come onto the Forum and prioritise those who need us most. We’re always happy to chat with folks - it’s the best part about being here - but if something urgent comes up, that has to take priority over threads like this one. We quite literally get a huge range of folks swinging by every day and we patrol the place constantly to keep watch for anything from just what’s the latest energy saving scheme that OVO’s been cooking up in the kitchen, to crazy weird/complicated wiring setups blocking Smart Meter upgrades, to customers of basically any supplier crying their eyes out because they’re Off-Supply and struggling to get help for an emergency repair. We answer ALL of those questions whenever we can and if we’re not around, there’s usually someone else who’ll swing by and provide some kind of answer within 24 hours on average. That is the raw power of this Forum.

I must remind you however, that the OVO Forum is NOT a Homework Helper Forum, so if you’re trying to use us purely to cheese your way through school/college/university, please consider not doing so as that’s generally frowned upon on Internet Forums (especially ones of the type that the OVO Forum is designed to be!) and gobbles up Forum Volunteer time with stuff that realistically is probably either better suited for Reddit, or doing your own research.

I can promise you now, that if you use us purely to cheese your way through such assignments, you will almost certainly fail the course which may have further negative consequences later on. After all, what value is a qualification to you if you didn’t actually earn it through your own efforts and instead just paid someone else to get it for you and stick your name on the certificate?

So, can I please ask what it is that you’re expecting from us? We absolutely NEVER charge for our time - let alone ask for tips/donations - but we also reserve the right to suspend and/or withdraw our services from those we feel are taking advantage of us.

If you refuse to reveal exactly what it is you’re trying to do here, I’m afraid this conversation will end here. You are, of course, free to simply walk away and not tell us, and if you choose that path, we won’t chase after you. But if you do choose to reveal yourself, we kindly ask that you allow us to get back to helping those who genuinely do need our help before we reply to you again, assuming that is, that we decide to resume our conversation with you.

I should also remind you that the OVO Forum has a policy of NOT trampling on the Ombudsman. If you’ve already been to the Energy Ombudsman and they’ve ruled in favour of the Supplier, nothing we can do here will change that - and in fact, we actually won’t provide any help to change that ruling either because we quite simply can’t get tangled up in it. Your only recourse at that stage - assuming you’ve already appealed for a valid reason and exhausted that too - is via the Courts. Ultimately, unless you qualify for the appeals process, the Energy Ombudsman won’t review the case again once they’ve closed it and any remedies (if applicable) have been actioned.

All points accepted, especially the one about the Ombudsman, I totally agree.

Let's be clear that any likely past poor concerns raised or implied over SSE's management does not in any way imply that there is any concerns with the current management at OVO

Nukecad and Blastoise186, I have nothing but appreciation and admiration for you both for the time you put in helping forum members. Lets not fall out.

I see I may have upset you, that is not my intention. Thanks for your balanced, non-offensive replies.

Sorry for any confusion.

By their very nature, forums are used by people anonymously. People often raise questions saying they are on hehalf of ex-partners, neighbours and even fictitious members of their families. It may be their own issue they are raising, we may never know.

On a forum, nobody knows who anybody else is, and in the big scheme of things it doesn't really matter. 

What matters is the substance of the question. 

Let me demonstrate by an example the anonymous nature of Forum users.

I hope somebody rises to the challenge of chipping in with their view. This would be welcome.

But for my part, much satisfaction has already been achieved by finding an outlet to get this off my chest in sharing it. Getting some constructive replies would be a bonus.

                         ...................... 

The situation from the tenant's point of view.

Scenario 1 

I am an ex-tenant in a shared rental property where SSE were the supplier. Shortly after I moved in SSE came and removed the credit meter and installed a prepayment meter.

We had no warning. Should we have been told?

SSE loaded the debt the previous tenants had accumulated,  onto the meter. They then programmed the meter to extract a fixed amount each week to repay this debt.

Unknown to me at the time, for the next 6 months until I moved out, I was helping repay the debts of previous tenants extending back 2 years.

Is that right? (Does the back billing rule apply)

Shortly after the prepayment meter was fitted, the tenant who slept in the bedroom with the prepayment meter moved out because they kept getting disturbed when the meter needed topping up (the old usb token type), and if they were out, or away weekends, the rest of us got annoyed because we couldn't get in her locked room to top the meter up when we needed to. 

When housemates wouldn't contribute their share it caused friction, and we often argued and fell out. The mood in the house changed.

We didn't deserve to have a prepayment meter fitted because, as far as we knew, we hadn't done anything wrong.

One of the housemates who had been there for over 2 years explained that 2 years earlier SSE had told her that the landlord was responsible for paying the electricity bills. 

She thought this was strange because her tenancy agreement (which SSE had a copy of) said it was the tenant's responsibility to pay the bills to SSE, and she had been paying them.

When she moved in, 2-1/2 years before the prepayment meter went in, she had phoned through a meter reading and had paid the last 2 quarterly bills that were raised. 

These bills were posted, later, she registered for e-billing to save £6:00/month.

But after 6 months, SSE told her that the landlord was responsible for the bills and they removed her name from the bill and replaced it with the landlord's name. For the next 2 years SSE emailed copies of the landlord's bills to her. 

She, nor any of the other 3 tenants in the house made any payment for 2 years because they never had any bills in their names. 

They kept getting post for the landlord from SSE but just put it in a drawer or threw it away.

Within 15 months of the prepayment meter being installed the house became vacant because we could not get organised to top the meter up before if ran out. 

Food in the fridge and freezer was always going off, housemates were walking round with candles at night, the back-up batteries in the smoke alarms kept bleeping and your laptop would suddenly crash if the supply went off. 

By the time everybody had left, 90% of the debt remained on the meter. 

I have been tracked down and I am being told I must pay back the whole 90%. 

Q A - Is it my debt, do I have to repay it? 

Can anybody advise me on this. Is the above clear? If not, please ask me to clarify any points that do not seem to make sense.

Scenario 2 

The same situation from the landlord's point of view.

I am the landlord of a shared house which has been supplied by SSE continuously since it was first let as a shared house. 

The tenants have always been responsible for paying SSE direct. It had a credit meter. (Later SSE removed this meter and put a prepayment meter in without letting me know)

I rarely used written tenancies and in 40 years as an HMO landlord, none of the 'Big 6' utility providers, including SSE, have ever asked me to be involved with any administration in providing meter readings or notifying them when tenants change. 

SSE never asked me (a) whether I ever used tenancy agreements, and/or (b) if I did, they never asked me to send any.

In 7 years, SSE only phoned me once. This was when they used the mobile number I had given them 3 years earlier to call me for assistance. 

They said they needed access to read the tenant's meter. I obliged and phoned the tenants to arranged access.  As far as I knew they got their meter reading. 

3 -1/2 years later I took over the property which had been abandoned. I phoned SSE to set up an express contract for the electricity but nobody at SSE mentioned anything about a debt or any account. 

I found a prepayment meter had been fitted in a tenant's bedroom, and as I was renovating the house to continue letting it as a shared house, I did not want a prepayment meter in the house.

As has already been agreed on in this thread,  shared rental houses cannot function safely or effectively with a prepayment meter in. Especially, (with the pre-smart meter type that use a usb stick), if that meter is in a tenant's bedroom.

When I registered for the supply I topped up the meter and, knowing the landlord is responsible for the supply when the property is unoccupied, I paid off the debt for the previous 6 weeks that the property had been empty for.

I put in a request to change suppliers to the utility company that supplied gas to the property. 

SSE rejected the request. Initially no reason was given.

5 months after I made the first request, SSE told me I had a debt on my account and that the DAP prevented the transfer. 

As I had received no bills, I asked SSE to send me copies. I saw that the bills were in my name but for 2 years they had been emailed to an occupying tenant with the rental property address on. (SSE had my billing address on file!)

The most recent bill was 37 months old. (Rendered invalid  by the back billing rule). 

It now turns out that this bill was the 90% balance remaining on the prepayment meter after the tenants, over a 15-month period, had been paying off the initial debt that was loaded on to their prepayment meter.

Long story, (you did ask for detail), but just 3 more straight forward questions to consider.

Q 'B' - is this debt the landlord's liability 

Q 'C' - Is this debt the tenant's liability 

Q 'D' - As the debt has never been correctly billed, can the debt be recovered from any party? 

Spin the wheel, all answers are winners.

All answers will be acknowledged and appreciated.

No right or wrong answers. After reading the above accounts I would be interested to know what anybody thinks. (Including Blastoise186 and Nukecad, if you are still up for it)

3 cheers for the forum and all who use it.

I’m afraid both myself and Nukecad have made our position crystal clear. Unless you identify your actual role in this matter - which is very relevant and very reasonable to ask for - then we will not advise further.

Given that Nukecad is also the debt specialist on this Forum, not having his advice could seriously hurt your chances of getting this resolved. So we’ll give you one final chance - please identify your role in this matter in your next reply, otherwise both of us will fully disengage from you.

Chicken

I'll do you a deal.

You both declare the relationship you have with OVO

This is so forum users who have concerns over OVO's service levels and procedures can be reassured and have confidence that you are acting in the best interest of the customers, not of OVO

I've read many of both of you posts, some would say there is a sniff of 'towing the line' and 'peddling advice that protects OVO'. I'm not sure myself.

Who knows, as you dont idenify yourselves but hide behind a 'forum handle', there is a good possibility you are both on the books of OVO and, if you have any enterprise in you, you are on the forums of a few other utility companies as well. (Different forum handles no doubt)

I wouldn't blame you if you were 'paid advisors to deflect the flack', nice work if you can get it.

Let's face it, apart from Octopus, (who aren't perfect but a head and shoulders above the rest), the level of service of gas and electricty supply companies in the UK is very poor.

Blimey, its not rocket science, they only supply one product each, one comes through a pipe, the other through wires! What is so hard about that?

Just look at the number of complaints received by OVO (100,000+ every 3 months, at 2-3% thats in line with the rest, but its still far too many).

Think of the costs of the administration staff to handle the complaints, and the cost of running the Ombudsman service (some say the Ombudsman service are paid for in part by the Utility companies they defend, but I have no evidence to support that).

Anyway, as you have made clear 'we do not pick on the Ombudsman on this forum'. Good advise to protect the Ombudsman!.....  If its found out they are suspect and not impartial, the whole system would collapse.

All these costs come out our bills.

So come you potentially secret undercover men, hidding behind 'Blastoise186' and 'Nukecad'....swing by and come clean.

Who are you really?

Unless you each put a convincing argument that you are in fact independent and are not supported by OVO, then forums users cannot take your advice as good impartial advice.

On receipt of a satisfactory explanation from both of you, I will expand on who I am.

Your next post could be the most important post you have ever made. Go for it.