Wrongly/unknowingly pursued by Utility-provider resulting in conviction

[Setanta12]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

- 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?

- 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]

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]

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]

- 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?

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?)