Power companies - who pays between tenants?

[Maccachic]

Hmm interesting firstly I agreed with the OP but then what proof does the power company have that you didn't use electricity to show prospectus tenants thru, clean the place up etc since you have the keys and access to the property.

[Perry]

Electricity usage (and the cost thereof) is one thing.
But, even if the mains are turned off, where does
liability for the fixed daily (availability) charge lie?

[unhinged]

Electricity usage (and the cost thereof) is one thing.
But, even if the mains are turned off, where does
liability for the fixed daily (availability) charge lie?

If no one is signed up to the property, line charges are not charged, but if there is electricity use during that period line charges are applicable and should be charged to whoever has consumed that power. In this case the hot water and a lamp burning away 24 hours a day undedected by the property owner, if I was the retailer I would be going after the property owner?

[Gypsygirl]

Gotta say I have done loads of renovations using the power initially for a nearly a week before the power company rings up and I change it to my name for the rest of the reno, as soon as it is over, I ring and get the final reading. Only get charged from when it its put into my name! Figure it is only a small amount and if they ask I'll tell them, but they never do.

[Winston001]

I'm struggling to get the essence here: once the tenant leaves the owner switches the power off at the main meter - and noone is billed for line charges?

What if the owner uses a tiny amount - lights, vacuum but says nothing, there is no bill?

[unhinged]

I'm struggling to get the essence here: once the tenant leaves the owner switches the power off at the main meter - and noone is billed for line charges?

What if the owner uses a tiny amount - lights, vacuum but says nothing, there is no bill?

The retailer writes it off as loses and at the end of the day everyone pays by increased charges for the retailer to recover these losses

[Wayne]

Or the retailer takes the final reading from the previous tenant as the starting point for the new user and the new tenant pays!

[Winston001]

Hmmm...call me naive. At the moment my ownership flat is empty so I told Contact and they are billing me for any useage (negligible) plus line charges. Seems fair enough to me. I own the property, if the agents show tenants through they should be able to turn the lights on etc. So its my responsibility to keep the electricity connected.

[essence]

I instruct my leaving tenants NOT to disconnect the power, as the reconnection costs can be prohibitive.

I inform the electricity supply company that I have taken over the power from xxxx day. I go to the dwelling and turn off the HWC and make sure all lights etc are off.

I await monthly power bill(s).

It is cheaper to pay line charges and minimal usage, than it is to re-connect the power.

And if you use the correct company and time it right, you will get the six monthly rebate back to your account. So in fact, the electricity company is paying you to use their electricity!!

Paying the difference between tenants is more often than not is negligible and is just the cost of doing business.

Stop being a tight with your money, wasting time arguing about a minimal cost and just pay the difference.

You're losing more money by having the place vacant.

[Ahar]

Stop being a tight with your money, wasting time arguing about a minimal cost and just pay the difference.

You're losing more money by having the place vacant.

Normally I too would take the same stance.....stop whinging and pay

BUT........the powercos are trying to interpret the law to suit themselves

When I had the "discussion" with my bosses re this point, I said that the judge would likely be quite terse.....and depending on his mood could be extremely terse

Well, the judge was exceedingly unimpressed with the brilliant reasoning of the powerco......i.e. someone needs to be billed and it should be the LL's responisibility to pick up such losses

Judge told the powerco involved to not waste the court's time....that they had their remedy.....i.e. disco the property

And that just because this would cost the powerco, this cost was an insufficient reason to totally rewrite the laws regarding contract

I repeat, for those who missed what I told my bosses.............

A person who is not party to a contract is NOT bound by it

The judge was of the same opinion