[dwashbur]

When I moved into an apartment the then-manager said the electricity would be "taken care of." We didn't know what that meant, but we never got a bill so we concluded it meant the complex was paying for it. 10 months later, the utility company suddenly discovered it hadn't been getting paid for electricity use in this unit (duh - that still floors me) so they gave the current manager a bill for several months. Apparently they can only bill US for the past 4 months or so, hence they sent the bill for the previous months to the management. Management is now demanding that we reimburse them. Another rental manager has told me that we do not have to pay it, that since it was the management's mistake, they have to eat the cost. Is this correct, and if so, can somebody give me chapter and verse on this subject?

[dwashbur]

Afterthought - I'm in western Washington, near the Seattle area. That's probably relevant, duu-uu-uh.

[justcurious55]

What state? Do you have anything in writing about who is responsible for paying utilities?

[Fr_Chuck]

Is there a written lease, and I am sorry if I find it hard to believe that you did not ask about the electric for 10 months, the rental price should have been obvious if electric was included or not And it is always the users liability to call and have their own electric hooked up.

You can fight the law suit when the apartment people sue you ( and perhaps try to evict you) when you don't pay.
But the fact is you actually owe someone for 10 months of electric that you used.
** never heard of any 4 month rule.

But if you can get by only paying 4 months for 10 months of electric jump on it

[dwashbur]

The lease is vague, and the rent is high enough that it was reasonable to conclude the electric was included in it. There won't be any eviction, as we're moving out within the month already. According to the other rental manager I spoke with, in Washington at least it's the landlord's responsibility to change the utilities over; it was the same when we used to manage an apartment complex in Colorado. It would seem the statutes differ from state to state, which is why I belatedly included the fact that I'm in Washington.

[ScottGem]

Here's the thing. Even though it was management's fault, YOU still had use of the electricity. So the likelihood of you winning a law suit over this is small. I would suggest that you try to negotiate a settlement with the management company. Either that you pay the four months over time or settle for sharing the costs.

[excon]

Hello d:

Scott is correct. Whether the account should have been changed and who's responsibility is was to do it, is NOT the issue. The issue is who used the electricity and who should pay for it.

I don't know about this 4 month rule either (I live in Seattle), but I'd jump on it. You're being given 6 month of free electricity. If they sue you, you'll pay it ALL.

excon

[dwashbur]

I intend to pay the 4 months; that's not the question. The energy company will be sending me a bill for that part, at which time I'll make arrangements. The question revolves around the other part, because apparently some regulation prevents them from billing me for it. Instead they billed the apartment complex, and according to the manager that's how it works here. But the manager is wanting me to reimburse the complex for that part of it, and another manager is telling me I don't have to. For various reasons (not just because it gets me off the hook), I'm inclined to believe that second manager a lot more than I am the other one. I'm just looking for verification, preferably a direct reference in the regulations or whatever, of what I'm being told. I have no problem making an arrangement with the utility company for the 4 months, I intend to stay on good terms with them.

[excon]

Hello again, d:

Cool. I missed the part about your incompetent managers wanting to be reimbursed...

If it were me, instead of using the off the wall grounds of, "he was supposed to put it in my name", I'd use the legal grounds of estoppel. In a nutshell, it means that a wrong which has gone on for some length of time, and NOT stopped, has been deemed by the party who COULD have stopped it, NOT to be wrong. Think about that for a minute.

A secondary defense would be that the complex has a legal duty to mitigate your damages, and SHOULD have been aware, had they been paying attention, that they were piling up, yet did NOTHING to relieve you.

Those are BOTH legal issues that I believe would cause you to WIN any lawsuit they might contemplate filing against you, or you against them, for that matter. I'd write them a certified letter stating the above, and your refusal to pay. Certainly, they're going to try to keep your deposit. You might have to sue them.

Let me know.

excon

[dwashbur]

Hello again, d:

Cool. I missed the part about your incompetent managers wanting to be reimbursed...

If it were me, instead of using the off the wall grounds of, "he was supposed to put it in my name", I'd use the legal grounds of estoppel. In a nutshell, it means that a wrong which has gone on for some length of time, and NOT stopped, has been deemed by the party who COULD have stopped it, NOT to be wrong. Think about that for a minute.

A secondary defense would be that the complex has a legal duty to mitigate your damages, and SHOULD have been aware, had they been paying attention, that they were piling up, yet did NOTHING to relieve you.

Those are BOTH legal issues that I believe would cause you to WIN any lawsuit they might contemplate filing against you, or you against them, for that matter. I'd write them a certified letter stating the above, and your refusal to pay. Certainly, they're going to try to keep your deposit. You might have to sue them.

Lemme know.

excon

Hi Ex,
That's precisely what I was looking for. Thanks! I have no doubt they're going to try and keep my deposit, and I honestly don't care about that if they do. It's $$$ I haven't seen and hence won't miss if they keep it; when they do, I might try to wring their whatchamacallits a little, but that's about as far as I'll pursue it.

Again, thanks for the info. You made my day!

[ScottGem]

I would not be surprised if there was a public service regulation that prohibited a utility for back billing for more than 4 months. So it's the utility's fault they didn't realize the bill wasn't being paid. But that doesn't change the fact that you got to use the electricity and can be held responsible for the 4 months.

[dwashbur]

I would not be surprised if there was a public service regulation that prohibited a utility for back billing for more than 4 months. So it's the utility's fault they didn't realize the bill wasn't being paid. But that doesn't change the fact that you got to use the electricity and can be held responsible for the 4 months.

Agreed, and as I said, I intend to take care of the 4 months. My dispute is over the other part that the apartment management wants me to reimburse them for.

Ex,
Here's a draft of a letter to the management. For public-view purposes like this I have substituted X for the apartment company, and Y for the utility company. Did I leave anything out? I chose to hold your second factor in reserve in case I need to pile another principle on later.

We have now had an opportunity to seek legal counsel about this matter. As you yourself acknowledged, this oversight was an error on the part of X, not on our part. We acted in good faith, and were simply told when we moved in that the electricity would be “taken care of.” What that meant was not explained.
According to the laws and regulations that apply here, that portion of the bill that Y has billed to X is X’s responsibility, not ours. We will work directly with Y about the remainder, but we are under no legal obligation to reimburse X for the part that they have been billed. This is particularly true since, on grounds of estoppel, X should have known about this error and corrected it in a timely manner. The fact that it was allowed to go on for so extensive a period indicates tacit approval of the situation on X’s part, and hence acceptance of responsibility for the costs incurred. There are other regulations that also apply, and they add up to this: the pre-November bills are to be paid by X, and there is nothing in the law or statutes that requires us to reimburse X for any amount.
We therefore respectfully decline to reimburse X or any of its representatives, subsidiaries or others for these costs.

[ScottGem]

Now, I'm confused. My understanding was that the utility only billed the management company for 4 months once the utility discovered the error. I can certainly see a utility being restricted from billing for more than 4 months of arrears. I cannot see the management company being so restricted. So it shouldn't matter WHO was billed, the total bill should only be 4 months.

[dwashbur]

Now, I'm confused. My understanding was that the utility only billed the management company for 4 months once the utility discovered the error. I can certainly see a utility being restricted from billing for more than 4 months of arrears. I cannot see the management company being so restricted. So it shouldn't matter WHO was billed, the total bill should only be 4 months.

They billed the management company for the entire 10 months. When the management told them who we were and how to contact us, the utility said they would be billing us for the 4 months but the management was responsible for the rest of it. I just reports 'em, I doesn't explains 'em.

One of the things about this whole mess that just boggles my mind is the fact that it took the utility company almost a full year to realize these bills weren't getting paid! What kind of operation do they have there??

[dwashbur]

Grr, this board really needs a way to edit posts to accommodate sloppy-fingered people like me...

Scott, that's one thing that was bothering me; should the management be able to refuse to pay as well? Seems to me there's at least as much culpability here for the utility company as for anybody else, so maybe they should have to eat that 6 months' worth?

[ScottGem]

You're still new here, after you have some more posts under your belt you will be able to edit your posts, at least for a time.

I would contact the utility directly and find out what regulation they are citing that prevents them from billing you more than 4 months, but allows them to bill the mgmt company for the rest.

[dwashbur]

You're still new here, after you have some more posts under your belt you will be able to edit your posts, at least for a time.

I would contact the utility directly and find out what regulation they are citing that prevents them from billing you more than 4 months, but allows them to bill the mgmt company for the rest.

Good idea. I'll have to give that some thought over the weekend.

[dwashbur]

Good idea. I'll have to give that some thought over the weekend.

I was also toying with the idea of suggesting that the management look into the laws & regulations as well, to see if the utility is legitimately allowed to bill THEM. Thoughts?

[dwashbur]

Nobody has any more thoughts on this topic? I'm especially interested in opinions as to whether I should try to make the manager into an ally with a view to telling the utility company to eat the bill.

[dwashbur]

New development: the manager who tried to foist this on us was apparently fired a few days ago, so the place is between managers. Our lease is up and we're getting out of here by the end of April, so if they can stay in a state of cluster-**** until then...