Wrongly/unknowingly pursued by Utility-provider resulting in conviction

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
@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.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
@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 ...
 
Last edited:
@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?
 
Fugitive said:
Its almost the equivalent of blaming the homeowner for leaving a window open for a burglar.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jim
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.
 
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?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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)
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

The light is being shone, you just need to be receptive to it.
 
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"?
 
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.)
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top