What are the possible repercussions of failing to pay, or alternatively register for utility bills? A common trope among self styled sovereign citizens is that there's effectively no real need to pay for utilities. Because they &quot;can't&quot; shut them off. I can easily imagine some human rights type legislation that states that it's illegal to discontinue one's electricity water and heating due to failure to pay or destitution. But I also can easily imagine that the cost would become a civil debt that may be pursued like others, through the county court and ultimately through bailiffs' visits. Unless, still completely speculating in the spirit of providing inspiration for prospective answers, when various utility service providers when privatised through deregulation and outsourcing and pawning off the functions of the government under Thatcher there were provisions to placate anti austerity forces by ensuring that the new privatised/outsourced entities were heavily regulated and didn't operate &quot;too&quot; much like a for profit business.
england-and-wales The household that doesn't pay its water bill cannot by law be cut off or restricted from the water supply. However, there have been reports that some companies have disconnected households anyway, claiming the premises were not occupied. In some circumstances the gas or electricity supplier may disconnect the domestic consumer that is not paying its bills. However, &quot;Suppliers must take all reasonable steps to avoid disconnecting an energy supply for debt. It should always be a last resort and avoided wherever possible&quot; (Ofgem, the regulator). The question asks for &quot;possible&quot; repercussions, not probable or usual. So here are some &quot;possible&quot; repercussions. The utility company may pursue the debt; first by mail, then via a debt collection agency and may ultimately seek court orders to resolve the matter one way or another. Generally, utility companies and the regulator Ofgem don't want things to get to court and will try to agree a repayment plan with the debtor and/or (in the case of electricity or gas) offer to install a prepayment meter. There are payment support options for households in financial difficulties but the question seems to be about outright refusals to pay. All creditors pursuing a debt are expected to follow the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. This should be followed before a court order for a County Court Judgment for the debt can be made. Failure to follow the protocol does not invalidate the debt but can affect the court's decision. If the creditor wins a county court judgment (CCJ) against the debtor, the debtor will be obliged to pay the debt at a rate the court decides is appropriate. A CCJ is recorded on the Register of Judgments, Orders and Fines. The Register is checked by companies to determine the credit-worthiness of applicants for credit cards, loans, mortgages, some bank accounts and rental agreements. If the debtor pays the full amount within one month of the CCJ, the record can be removed from the Register. If the debtor pays later, they can get the record marked as 'satisfied' - it will stay on the register for six years but searchers will see that the debtor paid the debt. If the debtor sticks to the payment plan the record can reflect this. Otherwise the record of the debt remains on the Register for six years. If the debtor still refuses to pay, the debtor may expect visits from bailiffs who will ask for payment and, failing that, the bailiffs might try to remove property to sell at auction to raise money to cover the debt and the bailiffs' costs. The creditor may seek an order for an attachment of earnings or an attachment of benefits / benefit deductions. In this case, the employer or benefits agency is ordered to divert money from the wages or benefits to the court that made the order, and the court sends the money to the creditor - the debtor doesn't receive that money. (The benefits attachment is likely more appropriate for non-payment of council tax.) The creditor may seek a third-party debt order, which orders the debtor's bank to freeze money in the debtor's account to the amount of the debt. The creditor may seek a charging order, which secures the debt against the debtor's property (e.g. their home if they own it). This can be followed up with an order for sale, which obliges the debtor to sell that property and the debt will be paid from the proceeds. The creditor could seek a court order that allows them to change the utility meter on the property to a prepayment meter. In this case the debtor has not been disconnected as such but they must pay (or get help to pay) in advance for their electricity or gas consumption. As noted earlier, the last resort is disconnection of the gas or electricity supply. In terms of criminal law, I don't know if any such debtors have been charged with illegal abstraction of electricity or gas but those seem like &quot;possible&quot; charges.
In the U.K., bankruptcy law applies to individuals and partnerships, while the U.K. insolvency law applies to companies. In an insolvency proceeding, there is administration (the rough equivalent of a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the U.S.)or a liquidation (the rough equivalent fo a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in the U.S.). In administration, the administrator of the company renegotiates debt payments so that carrying costs of office buildings can be brought to less than rental income, if possible, and if not, or if it is a liquidation in the first place, sells the building at auction to the highest bidder and stiffs unpaid creditors if this is not enough to pay them all according to priority and pro rata within each priority ranking. Simple. Negative value property is trickier. Sometimes someone can be paid to take it over (this happens often with depleted oil and gas wells that have to be plugged), if there are sufficient funds to do so. The administrator may instead disclaim the property. A disclaimer under this section— (a)operates so as to determine, as from the date of the disclaimer, the rights, interests and liabilities of the bankrupt and his estate in or in respect of the property disclaimed, and (b)discharges the trustee from all personal liability in respect of that property as from the commencement of his trusteeship, but does not, except so far as is necessary for the purpose of releasing the bankrupt, the bankrupt’s estate and the trustee from any liability, affect the rights or liabilities of any other person.. . . (5)Any person sustaining loss or damage in consequence of the operation of a disclaimer under this section is deemed to be a creditor of the bankrupt to the extent of the loss or damage and accordingly may prove for the loss or damage as a bankruptcy debt. Basically, a court decides what to do with it. If no one claims it and it has been disclaimed by the administrator, it escheats to the Crown (i.e. the U.K. state) as it would if a decedent's estate with no creditors or heirs. This disclaimer process is similar to the process in Australia described in the answer by @DaleM and has the same name in U.K. law as it does in Australia. Escheat can still occur in England and Wales, if a person is made bankrupt or a corporation is liquidated. Usually this means that all the property held by that person is 'vested in' (transferred to) the Official Receiver or Trustee in Bankruptcy. However, it is open to the Receiver or Trustee to refuse to accept that property by disclaiming it. It is relatively common for a trustee in bankruptcy to disclaim freehold property which may give rise to a liability, for example the common parts of a block of flats owned by the bankrupt would ordinarily pass to the trustee to be realised in order to pay his debts, but the property may give the landlord an obligation to spend money for the benefit of lessees of the flats. The bankruptcy of the original owner means that the freehold is no longer the bankrupt's legal property, and the disclaimer destroys the freehold estate, so that the land ceases to be owned by anyone and effectively escheats to become land held by the Crown in demesne. This situation affects a few hundred properties each year. Although such escheated property is owned by the Crown, it is not part of the Crown Estate, unless the Crown (through the Crown Estate Commissioners) 'completes' the escheat, by taking steps to exert rights as owner. However, usually, in the example given above, the tenants of the flats, or their mortgagees would exercise their rights given by the Insolvency Act 1986 to have the freehold property transferred to them. This is the main difference between escheat and bona vacantia, as in the latter, a grant takes place automatically, with no need to 'complete' the transaction. Thus, the toxic property would escheat to the Crown, but not the Crown Estate (defined below, which would not claim it since it has no value) and no one else would claim it. So, it would be technically owned by the government but not administered by anyone, unless the government affirmatively decided to do so. The Crown Estate is a collection of lands and holdings in the United Kingdom belonging to the British monarch as a corporation sole, making it the "Sovereign's public estate", which is neither government property nor part of the monarch's private estate. As a result of this arrangement, the sovereign is not involved with the management or administration of the estate, and exercises only very limited control of its affairs. Instead, the estate's extensive portfolio is overseen by a semi-independent, incorporated public body headed by the Crown Estate Commissioners, who exercise "the powers of ownership" of the estate, although they are not "owners in their own right". The revenues from these hereditary possessions have been placed by the monarch at the disposition of Her Majesty's Government in exchange for relief from the responsibility to fund the Civil Government. These revenues thus proceed directly to Her Majesty's Treasury, for the benefit of the British nation. The Crown Estate is formally accountable to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, where it is legally mandated to make an annual report to the sovereign, a copy of which is forwarded to the House of Commons. The Crown Estate is one of the largest property managers in the United Kingdom, overseeing property worth £12 billion, with urban properties valued at £9.1 billion representing the majority of the estate by value. These include a large number of properties in central London, but the estate also controls 792,000 ha (1,960,000 acres) of agricultural land and forest and more than half of the UK's foreshore, and retains various other traditional holdings and rights, including Ascot Racecourse and Windsor Great Park. Naturally occurring gold and silver in the UK, collectively known as "Mines Royal", are managed by the Crown Estate and leased to mining operators. Also, while not strictly on point, the Environment Agency in the U.K. may criminally prosecute people who were involved in breaking the environmental laws in question, if they are still living. (In Colorado, where I live, most toxic mines date to the 19th century, were abandoned, everyone who was personally involved with them is dead, and the state and federal EPA try to clean them up as funds become available, sometimes making the problem worse due to unexpected mishaps that occur in the cleanup process.)
The most minimal elements of theft are: An unauthorised taking or use of another's property; and An intent to permanently deprive that person of that property or its use You've authorised the fee as per the terms of service that you agreed to. If you didn't read the terms of service, you are deemed to have read it. As the first element is not satisifed, no, it's not theft. As to what that fee is for, it's not really a question of law, but because they're a business and they are entitled to recover the costs of providing products or services and make a profit when you use their products or services, I fairly confidently would say that they're charging you to recover the costs of providing you their products and services as well as to make a profit from your use of their products and services. But again, not a question of law.
Possibly In most contracts, the parties sign in their capacity as people (or agents for other people). However, some contracts are signed in the capacity as the owner of a piece of land and the contract transfers with the land. The liability rests with the current owner and, if unpaid, creates a lien over the property. These are particularly common in contracts with utilities or where the contract involves the a structure on the land. Surprise, surprise, the situation you describe involves both. You need to refer back to your contract for the land as these types of contracts are usually disclosed (unless they are a function of local law because everyone just knows - I don't know anything about Pa. law on this) and the original contract with the gas company. Your settlement may have also involved you paying a figure to purchase the gas in the tank as at the date of settlement. For example, in new-south-wales, council rates and water rates attach to the land as a matter of law and the vendor pays the purchaser for any amount they have paid in advance (or vice-versa if they are in arrears). Electricity and piped gas don't; the vendor ends their account on or before settlement and the buyer opens a new account on or after settlement and each pays for their own use. Propane for portable bottles doesn't but for fixed installations does as a matter of contract with the gas company.
You owe money if there is a contract obliging you to pay. Whether you receive what you pay for (e.g. services) only affects your stance when suing for non-performance/damages; your obligation to pay still stands until the court decides it does not (or there is a mutual agreement to discharge the contract). It is irrelevant whether the original payment method still works or not. If it does not but you still owe money — you have to pay. The ability to turn the credit card off is just a handy feature. It does not affect your contractual obligations in any way except for when the terms explicitly provide for it (like automatic cancelling subscription when payment method fails).
Say I build myself a faraday cage/wave screen around my house, potentially resulting in poor nework coverage for my neighbours. Questions about land property and constructing permits apart, can I be sued for that? By the network operator? by the neighbours? In most countries, the use of the radio spectrum is regulated (who may send what on which frequency, at which power, etc.). As part of these regulations it is usually forbidden to interfere with the reception of radio waves. So if what you do causes your neighbours to have reception problems, then yes, that will most likely be illegal. In France, the government agency responsible for these problems is ARCEP (Autorité de Régulation des Communications Électroniques et des Postes). If someone notices reception problems, they can complain to ARCEP, as explained for example on the page Le traitement des plaintes en brouillage ("Handling of complaints about jamming"). While you will probably not go to prision for jamming reception, you could have to pay a significant fine. This article on cell phone jamming mentions a penalty of "up to six months in prison or a 30,000 € fine" for "selling or installing" a cell phone jammer. In addition to that, anyone harmed by the reception problems could sue you in civil court and try to collect financial damages (how much that would be will be up to a judge to decide). That said, note that a faraday cage around your house should not hinder reception outside your house. A faraday cage only influences reception inside the cage, not outside. However, that is off-topic here :-).
In general, you still need to pay for the drink. If you had purchased the drink (on credit, ie a tab or similar as you appear to have done), and you had offered the vendor CASH, and he had refused, [if you can prove you offered him cash] he would be unable to pursue you for the debt (technically you would still owe it to him, but as he had declined government issued tender the government won't act on his claim, so he has no remedy available to him to extract payment - although he can refuse to serve you in future etc). Paying through a debit card is not the same as paying cash - although the money goes out of your account and into his, its not "legal tender" in the same way cash is.
Until the estate is settled and the interest in the house is definitively resolved, the estate has to pay property taxes. There is no requirement for the house to be insured, unless there is a mortgage and insurance is mandated by the lender. The duties of the personal representative generally include taking reasonable steps to protect the assets of the estate, which would include reasonable insurance coverage -- which the estate would pay for. Necessary maintenance would also be included in the things that are to covered by the estate, for example the cost of repairing a broken water pipe (which can cause serious loss, if not repaired). Freshening up the paint in preparation for selling the house, assuming that the house is to be sold and the assets divided, would also be covered by the estate. Utilities, on the other hand, are not within the realm of things that need to be done to protect the interests of the beneficiaries: that is a benefit to whoever lives there, making it their responsibility. The question is foot-dragging is a separate issue, one that should be resolved with the aid of your lawyer. I do not understand why he would maintain that the estate is responsible for paying the utilities.