Wrongly/unknowingly pursued by Utility-provider resulting in conviction

F

Fugitive

Registered User
Messages
11
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.


 
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.
 
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!)
 
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.
 
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!
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Moving this thread here as there's an important lesson for all landlords here.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
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!)

.
Click to expand...

What is bill hopping and how does it help unscrupulous tenants?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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...
This site deals with facts. It is not for looking for hugs.
 
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.
 
Fugitive said:
As it happened, the tenants had changed supplier which was why I had to identify myself as Landlord (IIRC).
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top