Oh it’s fupping on.
Or is it?
Darragh Doyle writes:
“Almost in direct contradiction to what “they” said here and here. Customer service rep giving out wrong information?”
Anyone?
Update:
Legal Coffee Drinker writes:
“I believe I mentioned in my earlier post (‘No contract No Consent’?), under Section 21 of the Water Services (No. 2) Act 2013 (read in conjunction with the definition of ‘customer’ in Section 2 of the same Act) liability for water charges rests on the ‘occupier’ of the premises in respect of which the charges have been levied.
“Where the owner of premises has let premises under a tenancy, he is no longer the ‘occupier’ of that premises for the duration of that tenancy. This is because the essence of a tenancy is that the tenant has exclusive occupation of the premises for the duration of the tenancy, with the landlord no longer having the right to occupy it – or even enter it without the permission of the tenant – during that period.”
In the circumstances, there is no possibility that a landlord could be deemed an ‘occupier’ of premises for the purposes of liability for water charges in respect of any period while a tenancy of that premises is ongoing.
What may have caused confusion is that Section 21(5) provides that the ‘owner’ of premises is deemed to be the occupier of the premises until they prove otherwise. All a landlord has to do is produce a tenancy agreement to remove any contention that they are liabie for water charges for the duration of that agreement, placing this liability for such charges exclusively on the tenant.”
UPDATE:
