# Wrongly/unknowingly pursued by Utility-provider resulting in conviction



## Fugitive (20 Jan 2017)

*My complaint concerns Utility Provider, and their insufficient or deficient processes in identifying correct persons for court prosecution, of which I fell victim to*

Background to complaint

PART 1

- As landlord, I rented out a rental property in 201314 and almost immediately entered into difficulties regarding payment of rent.

- Unknown to me, someone after the date the tenancy commenced, tampered with equipment supplied by Utility Provider to supply the house, and as a result, the tenants enjoyed free use.

- At a date in late 2015, Utility Provider became aware of this and took away the equipment.  They then looked to see who arranged for the supply i.e. whose name was on the account. The account was in my name - I had my name on the account as I'd had meters (of the Pay-As-You-Go variety) installed, and - frankly - did not see any necessity to change.  

- Utility Provider served papers on me at the rented property address but these were never passed onwards by the tenant to me. (Incidentally, by then the PRTB in a Tribunal hearing had found in my favour in a case re rental-arrears; tenants were a no-show)

- The first court-date came and went without my appearance as I had no knowledge of this, and a second date was set.

- Utility Provider again served papers on me at the rented property address and the tenant signed receipt (the Judge later adjudged this 'satisfactory service') but again these were never passed onwards by the tenant

- The tenant upped-and-left, vacated the property early 2016; I took possession almost immediately and after an argument with the tenant over PRTB-mandated rental arrears owing to me, and clothes remains in the house- the house was set on fire by persons unknown.

- It was noted some days later in the aftermath of the fire and visit by the fire-brigade; that the equipment was removed, but it was assumed that this was standard operating procedure by the Fire Brigade.

- The second court-date came and as I had no knowledge of this, I didn't appear.  The Judge satisfied himself that service was satisfactory (I am not disputing/arguing that, he knows the law better than I) and the court-case went ahead in my absence.  I was found 'Guilty As Charged' and a Bench Warrant issued for my arrest!

PART 2

- Some months passed, when the house is being renovated and readied for leasing again.  I rang Utility Provider to be reconnected to the Network, and after a few attempts finally received the first of three calls from a person in the Utility Provider from his mobile (!).  These three calls, at first vague and without full detail gradually increased until by the end of the third call I was fully aware I was now a convicted criminal with a warrant out for my arrest, and all that was left was to be brought before a judge for sentencing - 6 months, or a EUR5,000 fine, or both!

- I recall telling a friend this sorry saga and they asked me how did I know all this was real, that it wasn't a prank etc as to that point the relevant phone-calls were all from a mobile phone number.  I had to ring Utility Provider 's landline myself and establish that there was in fact such a named person working there for the penny to drop. 

- There followed some more calls and emails between me and the Utility Provider where I established my bona-fides and they realised they prosecuted me in error.  I cannot fault them once this point was reached, EXCEPT to say that the least that they could have done was to offer to pay for my legal costs (solicitor fees) in obtaining a 'set-aside' of the conviction, and extinguishing of the warrant.  This was refused point-blank, without explanation - they would commit to their solicitor not contesting the 'set-aside' of the conviction which had to be done before a Judge in the relevant court.

- Not trusting Utility Provider after suffering under deficient procedures, I took a day's leave from my employment and travelled to the Court under my own expense and represented myself in court. I had received quotes of EUR1,200 by solicitors to do this work, which I could not afford (as well as paying that sum of money to restore my good name to where it should have always been stuck-in-my-craw) – I also had only 21 days from first date of my knowledge of the conviction to achieve a set-aside. I achieved my set-aside and the outstanding warrant was quashed/extinguished etc.

PART 3

I am still more than a little angry that;

- With a little investigation, it could be seen that the property was a rental property (4 webpages on the PRTB website details all rental properties in any county) and simple visits would show there was no-one by my name living in the property.  My name had featured on bills and correspondence with previous Utility-providers identifying myself as landlord over the years - that the first name found in relation to the supply was prosecuted.  Utility Provider have also recorded that the tenant signed 'receipt' of the service executed on me at the address also! 

- A criminal conviction is a serious matter.  Apart from destroying a person's good name - for some, it can devastate careers and livelihoods.  In my career, I have had to sign various assurance forms and certificates including Central Bank Probity forms ensuring I was of good character, good standing and adequately qualified etc.  Were I not to have arranged - myself - the Utility-supply but had gotten my contractor to do this small bit of work in renovating the house, I would right now (January 2017) still be a convicted criminal unknown to myself!

- My good name has already suffered.  I had applied to assist a charity I am already involved with, with their childcare and I had submitted the Garda Vetting forms prior to all these events. I do not know which checks the Gardai undertake as part of their background checks but one must assume that if one has a Warrant for Arrest outstanding; that it would be noticed.  This has two parts - I immediately had to notify the charity of a possible Fail on the Vetting and to my consternation but understandably they said they would have to decline my offer to help-out  - until the matter was resolved. (No smoke without fire) 

The second part of this - as my better-half pointed out, I had notified to the Gardaí that I was free-at-large living in my current address and almost thumbing-my-nose at them to come and get me!  My better half viewed all of this with some distress.  I travel for work and at any stage I could have been stopped in Dublin Airport by an Gardaí at passport-control - luckily this didn't happen the few instances I travelled in 2016.  I had to notify my employer too in case they wanted me to travel for a certain industry sales conference in the States, that I might have difficulty getting on the flight! I also could have been picked-up at any stage at any Garda Checkpoints over Xmas. I am quite angry that my liberty was threatened for roughly 8-9 months of 2016, and only by luck - me, making the call to be reconnected - that I managed to get in front of this, (with no offer of legal-representation from Utility Provider).

- It is not right Utility Provider walk away with only solicitor costs for a ½ day's court appearance. 

- It is not right that their systems are not up-to-scratch for such a serious, serious matter particularly when it comes to court-dates where the possibility of court-convictions (and imprisonment) can happen. 

- It is not right that they, while satisfied as to my bona-fides and willing to agree to a 'set-aside', were not prepared to pay for my costs in righting this wrong.

(Against this I will say I was treated with courtesy by the individuals of the Utility Provider. I do not want any comeback on them themselves personally. I do believe - strongly believe - that where an innocent person's liberty and livelihood and reputation has been put at risk, or even potential risk of devastating outcomes; that Utility Provider should acknowledge this and pay an appropriate penalty or compensation as well as revamping their procedures and policies to ensure this can never happen again - casting innocent bill payers as suspects without even basic preliminary reasonableness/sanity checks.)


I have contacted the Regulator but they are unsure if all the above is within their remit.


----------



## cremeegg (20 Jan 2017)

A disturbing story, and a lesson to all landlords.

Congratulations on resolving the situation, I am not sure I could have coped so well. 

Looked at from the utility providers point of view I am not sure that they behaved as badly as you think. The equipment was tampered with, your name was on the account. The fact that they agreed with the set aside, well of course this was the right thing for them to do, but they could have been difficult about it.

I must say that I would not be as understanding of the judges position. Clearly as a matter of fact notice was not served on you. They judge accepted the tenants signature, this may be acceptable in law, but I certainly dont think it was binding on the judge. If he or she had done a better job ascertaining the facts, you would never have been convicted, especially as this was a criminal matter.


----------



## Fugitive (20 Jan 2017)

Was the Utility-Provider at fault for quickly looking for a name on a bill to prosecute without further investigation?  After all, I'd inserted PAYG meters hardly the actions of someone looking to fiddle .. .. ..

Should they have investigated further when there was no sign of the intended person turning up in court, and missing court the first time?

It is only by luck I discovered all this.  If someone else had reconnected the property, I would never have known until that time passing through the airport, or stopped at a checkpoint and I'd be hauled off for a night in the Cells before sentencing !  (Yes, sentencing!)


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Jan 2017)

Agree with cremeegg

The utility provider is not the culprit here, it's your former tenant.

You have to understand that they have thousands of these cases ongoing at any time.  They can't employ private detectives to research everything and everybody. 

It would also have been processed by fairly low level clerical employees. 

The lessons are 
Landlords should not have the utilities in their name - or else put their permanent address on the bill. 

Or better still, avoid being a landlord - although this is probably the worst case I have heard of.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Jan 2017)

Fugitive said:


> - With a little investigation, it could be seen that the property was a rental property (4 webpages on the PRTB website details all rental properties in any county) and simple visits would show there was no-one by my name living in the property. My name had featured on bills and correspondence with previous Utility-providers identifying myself as landlord over the years - that the first name found in relation to the supply was prosecuted. Utility Provider have also recorded that the tenant signed 'receipt' of the service executed on me at the address also!



I don't get this. 

You were the only person whom the utility provider could have pursued.  Your name was on the bill.  Presumably the subject property was the address on the bill? 

In a repossession case, where service can't be personally served, the Registrar tells the bank to post a notice on the door. But that would not have helped you either. 

I think if I was the utility provider, I would pursue you for the electricity used.  You did sign for it after all. 

You could then pursue the tenants. 

Brendan


----------



## Fugitive (20 Jan 2017)

I agree re private detectives etc.  But simple checks would have introduced doubt - and then, perhaps private detective work is warranted. 

Simple checks would have confirmed I identified myself previously as being the landlord, I'd installed PAYG meters, I actually by email (still have it!) had queried Nil bills with another utility company*, who assured me there was nothing for me to do !

I did sign for the Utility but I installed meters also to prevent unscupulous tenants from bill-hopping (and look how that turned out for me!)




*One supplied the energy and sends the usual bills etc, the other connects/disconnects the equipment.


----------



## elcato (20 Jan 2017)

Without being picky here, why did you leave the utility bill address as the rented property when surely all other correspondence for utilities such as PRTB, property tax, NPPR must have been to your actual home address ? If these are in the same address then you may need to make sure all these are up to date and there isn't another problem lurking.


----------



## Leo (20 Jan 2017)

Moving this thread here as there's an important lesson for all landlords here.


----------



## Fugitive (20 Jan 2017)

Thanks Elcato, no issues there.


----------



## Bronte (20 Jan 2017)

As a landlord you have my utmost sympathy.

I will be sending this story to my landlord organisation.

I do not think the Utility did anything wrong.  As far as they were concered it was your bill.  Your responsibility.  I have some bills in my name.  But they come to my home address.  I would never allow correspondance to go to my rented address.

I also think the courts didn't do anything wrong.  If proper service is served by a signed registered post acknowledgment than you can't fault the judge.  I'd imagine such cases are common.  The idea of private detective work for this is laughable.

Thank you as a landlord for this warning.

What was the arrangement you had for the bills to be paid in the rented address?  As in how would the tenant know the amount and how did he pay it?  Is it a pre paid card thing?  But there would still be a bill wouldn't there?  Or not?  I guess it means you don't have to have meter readings?


----------



## Bronte (20 Jan 2017)

Fugitive said:


> I did sign for the Utility but I installed meters also to prevent unscupulous tenants from bill-hopping (and look how that turned out for me!)
> 
> .



What is bill hopping and how does it help unscrupulous tenants?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Jan 2017)

Bronte said:


> What is bill hopping and how does it help unscrupulous tenants?



Presumably hopping from a house at the end of a lease without paying the electricity bill? 

Brendan


----------



## Bronte (20 Jan 2017)

Not sure if it's that or if it's changing provider constantly.  But I thought you had to have a deposit now.  The last tenant that left with an outstanding ESB bill, I gave her work address to the Utility.  Always handy as a landlord to have as much info as possible on people.  It only drives up the price of the utility for everybody to have to pay for this carry on.


----------



## Fugitive (20 Jan 2017)

How confident can the Utility Provider be that they're getting the correct person when they go for the name who arranged for installation of meters (i.e. no bills, should be no arrears either) and when they can't contact the person?

Seems like a huge wasted exercise on their side when they can't prove to the Court that the suspect benefited financially. 

What does it say when a conviction can happen without a defence present !

Incidentally I did get a note that there were no units being used for that supply (and hence no costs to the tenants), I emailed the Utility Provider asking was there anything I should be doing and why might this be the case.  No reply.  I didn't pursue as I assumed that the couple were sleeping at their parent's house round the corner where they got their meals.


----------



## Leo (20 Jan 2017)

Fugitive said:


> Incidentally I did get a note that there were no units being used for that supply (and hence no costs to the tenants)



That really should have alerted you that there was meter tampering going on.


----------



## Fugitive (20 Jan 2017)

Ok. Upon receiving the note from the Utility who sends out the bills in 2015, and not 2013 as may be stated elsewhere - I queried how there might be no units being consumed in the property for those 2-3 months.  I identified myself as the Landlord then.  As it happened, the tenants had changed supplier which was why I had to identify myself as Landlord (IIRC).   

I was told by the Utility Provider that no units had been consumed since 2013!  I asked what should I do, if there was anything required from me. I did say one reason for the Nil usage might be that they changed providers (criminality never entering my head).  At a later date, I got my tenants to change from bill-now to PAYG which is why my name was on it.


----------



## Fugitive (20 Jan 2017)

Is it not of interest here to anyone that they simply decided prima facie that I was the guilty party?  Shouldn't there be more checks? No-one concerned about wrong persons receiving criminal convictions unknown to themselves?


----------



## elcato (20 Jan 2017)

Fugitive said:


> Is it not of interest here to anyone that they simply decided prima facie that I was the guilty party? Shouldn't there be more checks? No-one concerned about wrong persons receiving criminal convictions unknown to themselves?


This site deals with facts. It is not for looking for hugs.


----------



## odyssey06 (20 Jan 2017)

I can imagine something similar happening in a shared rental where the bill is in one tenant's name and the other tenant plays silly buggers...
A system, which appears to have been designed with 1897 in mind, where a person can accept "served papers" without any ID is open to abuse... In the year 2017, would it kill them to take a photo of the person who signed???

But, I wouldn't hold out much hope of reform... the moral of the story is to be defensive and protect yourself.


----------



## Leo (20 Jan 2017)

Fugitive said:


> As it happened, the tenants had changed supplier which was why I had to identify myself as Landlord (IIRC).



There's a question there as to how they were able to do that without your approval as account holder.



Fugitive said:


> I did say one reason for the Nil usage might be that they changed providers



Provider changes won't result in zero readings. Only zero usage can give a zero readings. Meter readings are still carried out by the network owners who make them available to service providers.


----------



## Leo (20 Jan 2017)

Fugitive said:


> Is it not of interest here to anyone that they simply decided prima facie that I was the guilty party?  Shouldn't there be more checks? No-one concerned about wrong persons receiving criminal convictions unknown to themselves?



Unfortunately in this case it seems you kept the account in your name, and therefore in accordance with the contract you entered into, you were the responsible party.


----------



## Fugitive (20 Jan 2017)

@Leo: With the greatest of respect, while I entered a contract - I am not responsible for the criminal actions of others, which even the supplier agreed with when I got in touch.  

I approached this site for help and 'next steps', not to be raked over the coals for the criminal actions of others.


----------



## Bronte (21 Jan 2017)

Nobody is saying that you are responsible for the criminal action of others.  It could happen to any one of us, which is why it is a good idea not to have utility bills in your name. We are allowed point out that fact to you.  You are angry, rightly so. But your anger at us, the courts and the utility are misplaced. The tenant, who was a bad one from the beginning is where your anger should be directed.

You are acting like you had no hand act or part in this but you not only has the utility in your name, you didn't use your home address, you knew the tenant was bad, and you knew no units of electricity were being used. You explained this to us with a very odd rxplaination of you 'assuming' the tenant was staying elsewhere.

You have also totally exaggerated the arrest warrent, being frogmarched to Mountjoy from the airport! It seems there was a very simple court procedure to set aside the conviction at zero cost to you.

And I don't get the story about the 'equipment' being removed in 2015 by the utility, and the fire brigade reference to it in 2016.

In addition you've never answered if from 2014 there were utility bills and what was beng done with them?  I suspect you just let them at the rented property for the tenant to deal with?


----------



## mathepac (21 Jan 2017)

In reading your OP I had a degree of sympathy for the circumstances you ended up in but reading the post of experienced landlords here it certainly appears there were basic steps you could have taken to avoid ending up on the wrong side of the law.

In light of this, I'm convinced responsibility lands on your own doorstep, literally as well as figuratively.


----------



## cremeegg (21 Jan 2017)

Mathepac, I am, as you will understand, in fear of quoting your post, but I would like to respond to two points.

As an experienced landlord and the first poster to suggest that the OPs anger at the utility provider was misplaced, I would like to pint out that my overwhelming reaction to the situation is wow! what a terrible thing to happen. I don't agree with Bronte's view of a total exaggeration. There was a criminal conviction recorded against the OP, he was fortunate to be able to set it aside.

Of course the guilty party here was the tenant, but the case shows just what pitfalls there are for landlords. There is no easy solution to the question of whose name the utility bills should be in. If in the tenants name and they don't pay, the landlord can be left with reconnection charges , if left in the landlords name at least you can have sight of the account, though of course you can be left with an unpaid bill.

To be honest I don't think many landlords plan for extreme cases such as this. No one would be a landlord if they thought this was anything other than an extreme and unlikely event.


----------



## mathepac (21 Jan 2017)

Am I happy that the OP had a criminal conviction recorded against him by simply signing a contract with a utility company, certainly not. Was it the fault of the judge, the process server, the tenant or the electricity supplier, absolutely not. People signing contracts need to be aware of the consequences of breaching them. The simple expedient of having the correct contact details on the contract would have saved lots of unnecessary trouble and worry.


----------



## Fugitive (21 Jan 2017)

@Bronte.  Not a simple legal matter, but one I can and did handle but not one most posters here on this side could.

@mathepac.  Its almost the equivalent of blaming the homeowner for leaving a window open for a burglar.

The phrase 'set aside' means in law effectively the equivalent of an annulment; I had been anxious that I not have to lodge an appeal (and the conviction forever recorded destroying my career) and there was a short timeframe under law to do this.  I had to meet the lawyers of the other side too and agree the process.  The Airport-Mountjoy trip was referenced to me by the Warrants Garda of the relevant police station, his story and not mine.


For the record; it was gas and not electricity.  And as already pointed out, I initiated the correspondence with the Utility Provider telling them I was the landlord and asking what if anything should I do ...


----------



## Fugitive (21 Jan 2017)

@Bronte "You are acting like you had no hand act or part in this but you not only has the utility in your name, you didn't use your home address, you knew the tenant was bad, and you knew no units of electricity were being used. You explained this to us with a very odd rxplaination of you 'assuming' the tenant was staying elsewhere."

If the Utility Provider accepted my bona fides - why can't you?


----------



## mathepac (21 Jan 2017)

Fugitive said:


> Its almost the equivalent of blaming the homeowner for leaving a window open for a burglar.


Correct. An apparently small oversight with potentially serious consequences - loss of property stolen and consequential damage, followed by the insurer denying the claim. Same thing, householder / landlord's oversight / fault.


----------



## Leo (22 Jan 2017)

Fugitive said:


> @Leo: With the greatest of respect, while I entered a contract - I am not responsible for the criminal actions of others, which even the supplier agreed with when I got in touch.



While you are not responsible for their actions, you entered a contract where you agreed to be liable for any damage or tampering to their equipment and to pay for all usage. 



Fugitive said:


> I approached this site for help and 'next steps', not to be raked over the coals for the criminal actions of others.




Your focus for next steps seems to be solely in seeking compensation from the utility. My advice is to forget that course of action entirely as there is no merit in it.


----------



## Bronte (23 Jan 2017)

OP _With a little investigation, it could be seen that the property was a rental property (4 webpages on the PRTB website details all rental properties in any county) and simple visits would show there was no-one by my name living in the property. My name had featured on bills and correspondence with previous Utility-providers identifying myself as landlord over the years - that the first name found in relation to the supply was prosecuted. Utility Provider have also recorded that the tenant signed 'receipt' of the service executed on me at the address also!_

Why would the utility need to know this.  They don't care if it's a rented property or not.  It is entirely irrelevant to them.  What is relevant is that they chase the person responsible for the bill.  You. 

What has previous utility providers got to do with anything.  The ESB can't ring up Bord Gais to find out anything about people.  That's confidential information. 

It is true the tenant sigmed the receipt.  For you.  Because that is all a court requires. Proof of service.  If you had the bill at your home address the criminal tenant would not have been able to do this.


----------



## Bronte (23 Jan 2017)

OP _A criminal conviction is a serious matter. Apart from destroying a person's good name - for some, it can devastate careers and livelihoods. In my career, I have had to sign various assurance forms and certificates including Central Bank Probity forms ensuring I was of good character, good standing and adequately qualified etc. Were I not to have arranged - myself - the Utility-supply but had gotten my contractor to do this small bit of work in renovating the house, I would right now (January 2017) still be a convicted criminal unknown to myself!_

It is now resolved.  You do not have a criminal conviction.  A satisfactory outcome.


----------



## Bronte (23 Jan 2017)

_OP My good name has already suffered. I had applied to assist a charity I am already involved with, with their childcare and I had submitted the Garda Vetting forms prior to all these events. I do not know which checks the Gardai undertake as part of their background checks but one must assume that if one has a Warrant for Arrest outstanding; that it would be noticed. This has two parts - I immediately had to notify the charity of a possible Fail on the Vetting and to my consternation but understandably they said they would have to decline my offer to help-out - until the matter was resolved. (No smoke without fire)_ 

This is now also resolved.


----------



## Bronte (23 Jan 2017)

OP _It is not right Utility Provider walk away with only solicitor costs for a ½ day's court appearance. 

- It is not right that their systems are not up-to-scratch for such a serious, serious matter particularly when it comes to court-dates where the possibility of court-convictions (and imprisonment) can happen. 

- It is not right that they, while satisfied as to my bona-fides and willing to agree to a 'set-aside', were not prepared to pay for my costs in righting this wrong.

(Against this I will say I was treated with courtesy by the individuals of the Utility Provider. I do not want any comeback on them themselves personally. I do believe - strongly believe - that where an innocent person's liberty and livelihood and reputation has been put at risk, or even potential risk of devastating outcomes; that Utility Provider should acknowledge this and pay an appropriate penalty or compensation as well as revamping their procedures and policies to ensure this can never happen again - casting innocent bill payers as suspects without even basic preliminary reasonableness/sanity checks.)
_
I don't think they should have to compensate you at all.  You in fact wasted their time because they went after the wrong person who is now off scott free because you didn't have the bill in the tenants name. 

In whose name is the bill now?


----------



## Bronte (23 Jan 2017)

Fugitive said:


> Incidentally I did get a note that there were no units being used for that supply (and hence no costs to the tenants), I emailed the Utility Provider asking was there anything I should be doing and why might this be the case.  No reply.  I didn't pursue as I assumed that the couple were sleeping at their parent's house round the corner where they got their meals.



This makes no sense whatsoever.  How would someone have zere electricity just because they eat elsewhere?

Also did you give the utility the name of the tenant and the parents address.


----------



## Fugitive (23 Jan 2017)

I'm interested in the policies/procedures being updated of that Utility Provider to simply not jump at the name on the bill and prosecute without rudimentary checks.

I think the discussion has run its course with more heat than light being generated, thanks to all.

(@Moderators, feel free to close this thread)


----------



## Leo (23 Jan 2017)

Fugitive said:


> I'm interested in the policies/procedures being updated of that Utility Provider to simply not jump at the name on the bill and prosecute without rudimentary checks.



That would make no sense from the utility's perspective. They require all customers to enter into a legally binding agreement, and provide an easy process to reassign accounts as tenants change. Why would they then go to further expense and hassle on the off chance that the person who signed that agreement reneged in the terms? How would they even legally go about trying to figure out who the consumer was and hogwlong they have been in situ without trapping themselves in a data protection minefield?



Fugitive said:


> I think the discussion has run its course with more heat than light being generated, thanks to all.



The light is being shone, you just need to be receptive to it.


----------



## Seagull (24 Jan 2017)

I find it rather strange that it's considered acceptable notice that the tenant who is responsible for the criminal act is allowed to sign receipt for the court papers. Of course the person responsible for criminal damage in a rental property is going to notify the landlord that there is a problem resulting in a summons. Isn't it time that there was a revision of the rules about what comprises "satisfactory service"?


----------



## Setanta12 (24 Jan 2017)

The lesson here for Fugitive is - don't come to AAM with a sorry-ass sob-story.  As someone pointed out above, its the equivalent of leaving a window open and he's to blame for everything for everything that followed. (The electric company doesn't have to find culprits, they go after the name on the bill; Shoot first, with questions later.)


----------



## mathepac (24 Jan 2017)

Like An Post, I believe process servers (court officers) are contracted to deliver to an address, not to a named individual. The signature is proof of delivery, not proof of identity.  This is different to personal service where a server asks  "Are you mathepac?" and  hands you or touches you with the papers saying something like "you've been served with xxxxx". No signature required, just an affidavit or sworn testimony of service.


----------



## Setanta12 (24 Jan 2017)

Still, you gotta feel for the guy - this is a publicly owned company who prosecuted the wrong person or else why did they allow the 'set aside'?


----------



## odyssey06 (24 Jan 2017)

Setanta12 said:


> its the equivalent of leaving a window open and he's to blame for everything for everything that followed.



Eh no he isn't to *blame*. He didn't leave a window open and get flooded by an act of god... Rather, he didn't protect \ defend himself as best he could against the malicious intent of another party, so let's not lose sight of the actual responsible individual(s) here.


----------



## mathepac (24 Jan 2017)

The signatory to the contract at the address given in the contract is the person responsible. The wrong person was not prosecuted. The utility company know nothing of third parties, i.e. tenant(s), and can only operate within the bounds of the contract, which limits their powers of redress. It really is that simple.

If the OP wishes to pursue the tenant of foot of their contract, to seek redress, he is entitled to do so.


----------



## odyssey06 (24 Jan 2017)

mathepac said:


> The signatory to the contract at the address given in the contract is the person responsible.



The OP did not cause the damage. He is not to blame for it having occurred. 
And he has been found by ESB to be not responsible - or else why did ESB set it aside?


----------



## Leo (24 Jan 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> The OP did not cause the damage. He is not to blame for it having occurred.
> And he has been found by ESB to be not responsible - or else why did ESB set it aside?



The OP didn't mention any damage, I'd imagine the charge is one of illegally tampering with the meter and non-payment for usage over that period. As the signatory to the connection and supply agreements, the OP has accepted responsibility for the equipment and payment for all usage. 

I'd imagine the 'a tenant did it' defence is a common one in these cases, but in fairness to the ESB they seem to have been quite reasonable in this case in accepting the OP's story.


----------



## jim (24 Jan 2017)

Just trying to get a better understanding of this...



Fugitive said:


> - The tenant upped-and-left, vacated the property early 2016; I took possession almost immediately and after an argument with the tenant over PRTB-mandated rental arrears owing to me, and clothes remains in the house- the house was set on fire by persons unknown.



So the house was set on fire immediately after you took possession of it. Did you report this to the Gardaí and what was the outcome of their investigation?



Fugitive said:


> - It was noted some days later in the aftermath of the fire and visit by the fire-brigade; that the equipment was removed, but it was assumed that this was standard operating procedure by the Fire Brigade.



So after the fire the equipment that had previously being tampered with (by persons unknown to you) was removed (again by persons unknown to you) from the property. Was this reported to the Gardaí? Was it separate to the house been set alight or was it done during the house being set alight?


----------



## AlbacoreA (25 Jan 2017)

Fugitive said:


> Was the Utility-Provider at fault for quickly looking for a name on a bill to prosecute without further investigation?  After all, I'd inserted PAYG meters hardly the actions of someone looking to fiddle .. .. ..
> 
> Should they have investigated further when there was no sign of the intended person turning up in court, and missing court the first time?
> 
> It is only by luck I discovered all this.  If someone else had reconnected the property, I would never have known until that time passing through the airport, or stopped at a checkpoint and I'd be hauled off for a night in the Cells before sentencing !  (Yes, sentencing!)



From experience I would always change the utilities to the tenants name. Its prevents a lot of issues. 
That said the tenants have changed it back to the LL without the LL knowledge before they moved out and have got a bill that the LL had to go chasing the tenant for. 
Even when the LL was not on the account the utilities have put the amount outstanding on the tenants account to another property and account that LL was one.

So my experience and opinion is they will bill whomever they can find. It seems to me that the utilities seem to go beyond their legal remit, and without due care and there doesn't seem to be any official regulation of their activity.


----------



## Bronte (25 Jan 2017)

jim said:


> So after the fire the equipment that had previously being tampered with (by persons unknown to you) was removed (again by persons unknown to you) from the property. Was this reported to the Gardaí? Was it separate to the house been set alight or was it done during the house being set alight?



What I couldn't figure out is why the OP said this, but he also said the utility found out about the equipment prior to this, in 2015, and took away the equipment then.


----------



## Setanta12 (26 Jan 2017)

Fugitive said:


> - It was noted some days later in the aftermath of the fire and visit by the fire-brigade; that the equipment was removed, but it was assumed that this was standard operating procedure by the Fire Brigade.





jim said:


> So after the fire the equipment that had previously being tampered with (by persons unknown to you) was removed (again by persons unknown to you) from the property. Was this reported to the Gardaí? Was it separate to the house been set alight or was it done during the house being set alight?





Bronte said:


> What I couldn't figure out is why the OP said this, but he also said the utility found out about the equipment prior to this, in 2015, and took away the equipment then.



No pun intended Bronte - but I think the OP 'burnt' you with his question of why won't you accept his word, when the Utility Provider does!

Rereading the OP's story again - there's a lot there.  I guess the OP will have to confirm the story himself, but reading it slightly differently; if inspecting the damage from the fire, the OP only noticed for the first time the missing equipment, then it reads okay.  (@Fugitive, can you confirm?) (@jim, it sounds like there's another story there re the fire - but the key takeaway for me, is that the Utility Provider apparently rolled-over without fuss and paid for their own 1/2 day in court - why?)


----------

