Sanderson James Ride Again

[kingandy]

For those of you coming in late, during our tenancy with Sanderson James their incompetence and negligence led to our being uninsured during a break-in.

Now they have apparently informed United Utilities that we were still in residence at the property - and therefore liable to pay the water rates - for six months after we left.

I'll allow this may have been a miscommunication rather than a conscious attempt to pass an unwanted bill onto an undeserving patsy. They might have been asked "Who were the previous residents?" and duly answered in good faith. But any professional operation would have asked the purpose of the inquiry, and then the exact period in question, rather than just handing out contact details willy-nilly. We're now left in the position of having to prove we moved house 18 months ago. Luckily we still have the contracts, which are dated.

So, to reiterate, Sanderson James are apathetic, inept buffoons who are seemingly incapable of keeping track of something as basic as dates of occupation.

Comments

[vampire-hermes.livejournal.com]

Good to know.

[cuthrose.livejournal.com]

no its not a miscommunication, all agency try to pin unused bills on previous teneants.

[foul-temptress.livejournal.com]

Yep, Harvey Scott were liars and arseholes. Our current letting agent is shoddy as shit as well but we luckily have very little to do with them as the Landlords dad does everything for us.

[anne-l-davies.livejournal.com]

And this is why you inform the utility companies yourself, in writing and then with a follow up call if needs be, to ascertain that you are off the hook. Never, ever believe the agents if they say they will sort things out for you.

Besides, with water rates, if it's empty and unfurnished, there shouldn't be a liability at all.

[kingandy]

I'm reasonably certain that we did. I'm not 100% sure though. It was a year ago.

Certainly we were all paid up. I know we rang the electric people with a final read ... we might not have thought of the water people.

"if it's empty and unfurnished, there shouldn't be a liability at all."

That's especially odd then. Surely they can just tell them "the place was empty"? That does make it sound like incompetence, or incompetence compounded by subterfuge (they're not aware that there should be no bill for that period, and they want to palm the bill off on somebody else).

[anne-l-davies.livejournal.com]

Yeah, with water rates, there's a lot of confusion about how it works.

It is coupled with the fact that UU start automatically sending bills to the supply address, EVEN IF THEY KNOW IT IS UNOCCUIPED. You have no idea of the number of probate matters where I have to keep on explaining this to the clients because a bill has gone to the house!

From UU's point of view, they are waiting until someone moves in, finds the bill on the mat/pile of post behind the door and rings them to tell them when they've moved in - at which point UU will issue a revised bill to the new people, effective from when they moved in. But they send bills every 6 months, and I have matters where it can take a year or more for the house to sell.

When you move out of the current place, have a printed list of the utility bills, and the companies, take final meter readings and ring and write to let them know you have moved.

Also, you would think the agency would say "the place is empty", but that assumes the agency will do anything. In my experience they mostly won't - we have ones now who will charge us to obtain meter readings. And this on top of the % they are charging to sell the house!

If you haven't got this sorted yet, then ring UU and talk to them about it - the agency are plainly useless so and so's who are never going to botehr sorting it out!