I am being chased by a debt collection company, BW Legal, for an unpaid energy bill from E.ON despite never having been a customer and having no connection with the property in question. BW Legal required me to prove I had left the address, which was impossible as I never lived there. I sent an energy bill for my actual address, and a screenshot of my electoral roll address history, but have had no reply.
AD, Brighton
You wrote in response to an Observer report on the same issue. BW Legal represents PRAC Financial, which bought customer debts in the name of “The Occupier” from E.ON. It suggested that malice may be behind my follow-up investigation, and said it appreciated my interest in the matter, but didn’t see any basis for my inquiries. Although it only removed you from its records after my intervention, it justified linking you to the address by pointing out that the evidence you provided showed you lived in the same square – albeit in a different part with a different postcode.
BW then congratulated itself on its handling of your case, claiming the closure of the account within two weeks shows “how expediently matters were resolved – simply by communicating”. In fact, you received confirmation that your name had been delinked four days after my “communication” and 34 days after you first told BW Legal it had contacted you in error.
Debt collectors have no right to require an individual to prove they are not liable for an unpaid bill, according to solicitor Gary Rycroft of Joseph A Jones & Co LLP. “The burden of proof lies with the debt company,” he says.
The Information Commissioner’s Office, and the Solicitors Regulation Authority, say they are investigating complaints about BW Legal. The Financial Ombudsman Service at www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk, can consider unresolved complaints about debt collection agencies.
Email your.problems@observer.co.uk. Include an address and phone number. Submission and publication are subject to our terms and conditions
• This article was amended on 28 January 2022. We regret that, due to an editing error, an earlier version said BW Legal confirmed it had issued “further payment demands” after the customer disputed the bill. In fact, the company had said it did not contact the customer about the balance after that time, other than to request evidence that they were not liable for the bill.
