Accidental use of water and water company?
tra...@optonline.net
heater in his rented condo had sprung a major leak. He said it was
running about like half of a wide open sink faucet rate. The friggin
thing was about 23 years old. I remember seeing the label on it, how
the area around the pipe connections looked corroded, etc. I warned
him about it and told him to make sure he shut off the water when he
was away on trips, but obviously, he didn't.
Good news is that the water was handled by the sump pump. Bad news is
a lot of water may have been billed. Not sure about the gas, as he
shut the thing off without finding out if the thing had been fired up.
The water coming out was cold, but at that flow rate, it could just be
that it couldn't heat it fast enough. He did say he didn't hear it
running. I'm hoping the water put the pilot out, but on the other
hand, from where it was leaking, it sounds like it was the anode rod
fitting area at the top of the tank that went.
Just wondering, does anyone have any experience in what happens with
the water or gas company in a case like this. Do they expect full
payment for the water/gas? Or if you can show it was an accident do
they negotiate or give you a break?
Also, what are views on the landlord's responsibility for paying for
the water/gas if the utility company does not? In the general case,
where it just happens to say a reasonably new water heater, it would
seem to me this is a grey area as to whether the landlord would be
responsible to pay for water. In the case of a 20+ year old water
heater, I think he has a much better case, as it's well known that
these things usually fail long before that, so it looks like a case for
negligence could be made.
RicodJour
The major causative factor was your friend ignoring your advice and
warning. There's the negligence for you. The landlord may or may not
have been aware of the age and condition of the water heater. Unless
your friend sent a letter to the landlord alerting him to the heater's
imminent demise, then expecting the landlord to rollover on the
gas/water bill is highly unrelaistic. He's already facing a larger
than usual monthly cost in replacing the water heater and probably
won't take kindly to be asked to spring for more money to cover utility
bills.
The gas and water companies have no role in this. If you consume, you
pay.
This is one of those situations where the tenant escaped a bullet.
Expecting to be reimbursed for the bullet is ridiculous. I wouldn't be
stoking the fire for compensation from the landlord or utility
companies, but rather pointing out the tenant's role and ultimate
responsibility. Throw in a "I told you so." or three so they learn
something and will listen to you next time.
R
Edwin Pawlowski
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> Just wondering, does anyone have any experience in what happens with
> the water or gas company in a case like this. Do they expect full
> payment for the water/gas? Or if you can show it was an accident do
> they negotiate or give you a break?
Of course they want full payment. It went through the meter so you pay.
If you don't pay, everyone else pays a little more to make up the
difference.
If , at the end of the week, your employer said he really didn't need what
you did on Tuesday, would you accept that he won't pay you?
Grandpa
> [...]
>
> Just wondering, does anyone have any experience in what happens with
> the water or gas company in a case like this. Do they expect full
> payment for the water/gas? Or if you can show it was an accident do
> they negotiate or give you a break?
>
> Also, what are views on the landlord's responsibility for paying for
> the water/gas if the utility company does not? In the general case,
> where it just happens to say a reasonably new water heater, it would
> seem to me this is a grey area as to whether the landlord would be
> responsible to pay for water. In the case of a 20+ year old water
> heater, I think he has a much better case, as it's well known that
> these things usually fail long before that, so it looks like a case for
> negligence could be made.
>
Never know what you can get unless you ask. Contact the utility
companies for their policy for such events. They should have one. Also
discuss it with the landlord. The only real people with answers here are
the utility companies and the landlord. Ask them.
--
Grandpa
What is that dripping from my fingers?
Why it looks like time.
Bart Byers
>
> The gas and water companies have no role in this. If you consume, you
> pay.
>
In my town, water meters read like odometers. The meter reader is
competent and reliable. The retired couple across the street used about
2500 gallons per month. They were thrifty and sensible. They would not
water their lawn or even their shrubs.
One month they were billed for something like 15,000 gallons. They
couldn't account for it. They would certainly have heard that much
water running in the house, such as in a stuck toilet. It was a
drought. I'd been over there frequently and would have noticed wet
ground if a hose had been left on.
They had to pay. All bills before and after were normal. Other people
in town have had the same experience. What could cause it?
Oren
The person "billed" for the account will be the one to pay. When I
had tenants, the lease specifically indicated they paid all utilities
and those accounts were in their names. Some things like garbage pick
up and association fees could not be placed in the tenant name, but it
was written in the lease that they pay them.
I always had an emergency fund for big items, like a broken AC, water
heater, etc. Tenants, by the lease were to notify me if any broke..
I think the landlord should fix the water heater as he has a vested
interest keeping property in good shape.
I had one leak and guess I lost about 500 gallons, just looking at the
bill that I paid. A neighbor lost somewhere close to 5,000 gallons
due to a main from the meter to the house that broke from a tree root.
The builder fixed the water line, I think he paid the water.
Oren
BobK207
RicodJour wrote:
> tra...@optonline.net wrote:
> > A buddy of mine was away for a week and returned to find that the water
> > heater in his rented condo had sprung a major leak. He said it was
> > running about like half of a wide open sink faucet rate. The friggin
> > thing was about 23 years old. I remember seeing the label on it, how
> > the area around the pipe connections looked corroded, etc. I warned
> > him about it and told him to make sure he shut off the water when he
> > was away on trips, but obviously, he didn't.
> >
> > Good news is that the water was handled by the sump pump. Bad news is
> > a lot of water may have been billed. Not sure about the gas, as he
> > shut the thing off without finding out if the thing had been fired up.
> > The water coming out was cold, but at that flow rate, it could just be
> > that it couldn't heat it fast enough. He did say he didn't hear it
> > running. I'm hoping the water put the pilot out, but on the other
> > hand, from where it was leaking, it sounds like it was the anode rod
> > fitting area at the top of the tank that went.
> >
> > Just wondering, does anyone have any experience in what happens with
Having been a landlord........I'd have to agree with R & Edwin except
for maybe the fact that the landlord (IMO) should know the age &
condition of his equipment.
That said, you did warn your friend about the w/h AND gave him a
preventative measure. It's one of those unfortunate situations....he
would have probably caught the leak had he been in town.
I figure at 5 gpm & $1.50 per 748 gallons he's got about $100 water
bill coming (could be as much as $200 depending on water rates or less
if my flow rate guess is high)
Depending on the heating capacity (BTU / hr) of the w/h , nat gas rates
in his area & whether the pilot stayed lit......my guess is that the
guess bill is going to be an extra $75.
To quote my former 85 year old neighbor......"a cheap lesson; nobody
got hurt, nothing got ruined".
If the sump pump had failed to keep up & he had expensive stuff down
there, the whole situation could have been a lot worse.....$$$$'s.
He should consider himself lucky & listen to his knowledgable friend.
Maybe his insurance MIGHT cover his ultility loss?
cheers
Bob
tra...@optonline.net
Abe wrote:
> >> Just wondering, does anyone have any experience in what happens with
> >> the water or gas company in a case like this. Do they expect full
> >> payment for the water/gas? Or if you can show it was an accident do
> >> they negotiate or give you a break?
> >Of course they want full payment. It went through the meter so you pay.
> >If you don't pay, everyone else pays a little more to make up the
> >difference.
> relief if the water usage was found to be caused by a leak, and within
> the next billing cycle you provide proof (receipts) of repair.
>
> In my case, I had the main going from the meter to my house spring a
> leak caused by a rock that had, over time, finally punctured the line.
> I got an astronomical bill. I immediately called a good plumber, who
> located and repaired the leak. I then submitted the correct paperwork
> to the water district, and on the next bill, they gave me 50% relief
> for the excess water usage, calculated by comparing the previous year
> usage for the same billing cycle to the current year.
Thanks, Abe, that's what I was looking for, some real world actual
experience, as opposed to "it's your own fault, what do u expect,
yaddda yaddda yaddda.
tra...@optonline.net
So, the tenant is now the one responsible for making sure the building
structure and utilities are properly maintained? And it's there fault
if something that is way beyond it's expected service life fails and
damage results? That's a new concept. The place passed a CO
inspection. Should they then hire a home inspector to review
everything, give opinions and document everything that they find wrong?
And how would the typical landlord react to that?
Amazing that you have more empathy for the landlord who has to pay for
a new water heater after 23 years, than the tenant who was not in
control of deciding when to replace it.
I don't think it's at all ridiculous for the tenant to be looking for
reimbursement. In fact, I think if it went to small claims, the tenant
would have a pretty good case.
RicodJour
>
> Thanks, Abe, that's what I was looking for, some real world actual
> experience, as opposed to "it's your own fault, what do u expect,
> yaddda yaddda yaddda.
Why are you assuming my advice on the utility company reaction isn't
actual experience?
And it was the tenant's fault. When you're made aware of a potentially
damaging situation, and you ignore it, you've bought the situation.
Now obviously the landlord and utility companies won't know that you
explicitly warned the tenant about the water heater, but you and the
tenant do. Now it shifts from a question of home repair into the area
of ethics.
You're looking at a couple or three hundred bucks in utility bills.
And you and/or the tenant is looking for a way to slide out of this one
for free.
Abe's situation was completely different. It was a hidden condition
where a rock pierced a buried water line. Ask Abe if he would have
ignored an ancient water heater after he had been warned about its
inevitable demise.
Personally, I'd be thanking the landlord for having a sump pump that
was in place and working.
R
Edwin Pawlowski
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> Thanks, Abe, that's what I was looking for, some real world actual
> experience, as opposed to "it's your own fault, what do u expect,
> yaddda yaddda yaddda.
>
The yaddda yaddda yaddda I gave you was based on a 60,000 gallon use of
water over the norm. The water department did come back to verify the
reading since it was unusual, but they sent the bill and we had to pay it.
If you want to come to Uxbridge MA, I'll show you the meter and you can
verify the readings and bill.
BobK207
This whole situation is not exactly cut & dried;
the water heater was old, the landlord did or should have know it's age
& conditionm
the CO inspection should have flagged the w/h
your friend should have listened to you about turing the water off
your firend could have had someone house sit or at least do a walk
through
your friend is in physical posession of the property; the eyes & ears
on site, he had
material knowledge of a potential problem; information not given
to the landlord
like R said, this has slide over to the area of ethics since there
conditon was recognized.
maybe someone's insurance can cover it or maybe the two parties can
split the extra bills
bottom line, you discovered a potential problem (like a smoldering
fire? but not as bad) & your friend choose not to act or pass on that
information; in the legal world I believe this is call contingent
liabiltiy.........no one (excpet for you) in this situation has
entirely clean hands, the truth be told.
cheers
Bob
Oren
>Thanks, Abe, that's what I was looking for, some real world actual
>experience, as opposed to "it's your own fault, what do u expect,
>yaddda yaddda yaddda.
Don't like responses you get here - to bad. My comments were real
world. I know the difference in a "new smiling tenant" and one that
later shows "true colors".
Oren
Les
assume a certain amount of water usage goes down the sewer in the
summer months. The rest of the water bill does not have the sewer
charge. Not sure if they have their own fixed numbers or if they use
your average water usage. In the summer months this "rate reduction"
is automatic. Likewise, if you tell them you will be filling your
swimming pool, you can provide the before and after water meter
readings and they will charge you only for the water (not sewer). The
swimming pool example is first-hand from my neighbor.
tra...@optonline.net
What the hell are you talking about now? A new smiling tenant and one
that shows true colors? It was the landlord's water heater that
sprang a leak and caused the problem. I've seen plenty of cases in
small claims where a tenant had property damaged do to a pipe breaking.
And in just about every case, the landlord wound up responsible and
had to pay for the damages. Or are you the kind of landlord that
doesn't replace a 23 year old water heater and then says it's all the
tenants fault?
tra...@optonline.net
Wow, that's big of you. You THINK the landlord should fix the water
heater? As opposed to doing what? Some great landlord you must be.
PS: Just because the lease says the tenant pays the utilities doesn't
absolve the landlord from winding up having to pay in small claims,
because the issue obviously is that the tenant would not have incurred
this expense had the landlords 23 year old water heater failed.
>
> I had one leak and guess I lost about 500 gallons, just looking at the
> bill that I paid. A neighbor lost somewhere close to 5,000 gallons
> due to a main from the meter to the house that broke from a tree root.
> The builder fixed the water line, I think he paid the water.
Oh my! The builder paid? Why would he ever do that instead of the
homeowner paying?
>
> Oren
mm
wrote:
>
><tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>
>> Thanks, Abe, that's what I was looking for, some real world actual
>> experience, as opposed to "it's your own fault, what do u expect,
>> yaddda yaddda yaddda.
>>
>
>The yaddda yaddda yaddda I gave you was based on a 60,000 gallon use of
>water over the norm. The water department did come back to verify the
So what happened that took 60,000 gallons?
spamT...@yahoo.com
revenue enhancement.
D
Oren
Read my thread. I said the landlord should fix the water heater. Read
my thread where I said I kept an emergency fund for major things like
AC, water heater .... meaning things essential to a tenants well
being. So don't give me a phriggn lecture, as I may day dream.
Anyway the person billed should pay the bill. No claim for property
damage from the tenant? No the sump pump worked, so get a date.
You may be this tenant, so back off if you think I will sign-off on a
way out of a water bill or the landlord's responsibility.
Oren
Oren
Still don't like answers you get, so you must attack. Tell us the
tenant's responsibility in this case.
>PS: Just because the lease says the tenant pays the utilities doesn't
>absolve the landlord from winding up having to pay in small claims,
>because the issue obviously is that the tenant would not have incurred
>this expense had the landlords 23 year old water heater failed.
The court has to WIND 'em up. Go ahead take up your friend's cause.
You may be his best advice, that he did not take before.
>> I had one leak and guess I lost about 500 gallons, just looking at the
>> bill that I paid. A neighbor lost somewhere close to 5,000 gallons
>> due to a main from the meter to the house that broke from a tree root.
>> The builder fixed the water line, I think he paid the water.
>
>Oh my! The builder paid? Why would he ever do that instead of the
>homeowner paying?
The builder planted the tree at or near the water line and was under
warranty, not like a 23 yo water heater..........
Oren
lee houston
"Bart Byers" <junkyard_...@mymacmail.com> wrote in message
news:j7OdnY-JNcyCvSjZ...@flxtek.net...
> RicodJour wrote:
>> In my town, water meters read like odometers. The meter reader is
> competent and reliable. The retired couple across the street used about
> 2500 gallons per month. They were thrifty and sensible. They would not
> water their lawn or even their shrubs.
>
> One month they were billed for something like 15,000 gallons. They
> couldn't account for it. They would certainly have heard that much water
> running in the house, such as in a stuck toilet. It was a drought. I'd
> been over there frequently and would have noticed wet ground if a hose had
> been left on.
>
> They had to pay. All bills before and after were normal. Other people in
> town have had the same experience. What could cause it?
Possibly the water company was sending out estimated usage bills
which were low and then finally got around to actually reading
the meters??
lee
HeyBub
>> The yaddda yaddda yaddda I gave you was based on a 60,000 gallon use
>> of water over the norm. The water department did come back to
>> verify the
>
> So what happened that took 60,000 gallons?
>
Four female visitors for a week?
tra...@optonline.net
RicodJour wrote:
> tra...@optonline.net wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Abe, that's what I was looking for, some real world actual
> > experience, as opposed to "it's your own fault, what do u expect,
> > yaddda yaddda yaddda.
>
> Why are you assuming my advice on the utility company reaction isn't
> actual experience?
>
> And it was the tenant's fault. When you're made aware of a potentially
> damaging situation, and you ignore it, you've bought the situation.
> Now obviously the landlord and utility companies won't know that you
> explicitly warned the tenant about the water heater, but you and the
> tenant do. Now it shifts from a question of home repair into the area
> of ethics.
>
> You're looking at a couple or three hundred bucks in utility bills.
> And you and/or the tenant is looking for a way to slide out of this one
> for free.
No, I'm more interested in who is legally responsible. I see small
claims cases regularly where a water or sewer pipe breaks, damages
tenants property and the landlord winds up having to pay. This seems
very similar.
As for who knows what, first, all I gave was my opinion. There is
nothing to say that my opinion or advice was right. I'm no plumber or
home inspector. It's also clear the landlord knew how old the water
heater was, because she has owned it the whole time.
>
> Abe's situation was completely different. It was a hidden condition
> where a rock pierced a buried water line. Ask Abe if he would have
> ignored an ancient water heater after he had been warned about its
> inevitable demise.
>
> Personally, I'd be thanking the landlord for having a sump pump that
> was in place and working.
Why should the landlord be thanked for having a working sump pump,
which the basement requires to begin with to keep it dry?
>
> R
tra...@optonline.net
> >heater? As opposed to doing what? Some great landlord you must be.
>
> Still don't like answers you get, so you must attack. Tell us the
> tenant's responsibility in this case.
The tenant's responsibility for what? The landlord knew how old the
water heater was. The condo passed a CO inspection in Dec. What more
do you want? Just because I gave an opinion, that now turned out to be
right, that means the landlord has no responsibility?
As for attacking, call it what you want. But when a water heater
bursts and you say:
"I think the landlord should fix the water heater as he has a vested
interest keeping property in good shape."
I think it pretty much shows where you're coming from. Most reasonable
people would say the landlord must replace the water heater because the
landlord is responsible for it as a most basic part of the rental
contract.
>
> >PS: Just because the lease says the tenant pays the utilities doesn't
> >absolve the landlord from winding up having to pay in small claims,
> >because the issue obviously is that the tenant would not have incurred
> >this expense had the landlords 23 year old water heater failed.
>
> The court has to WIND 'em up. Go ahead take up your friend's cause.
> You may be his best advice, that he did not take before.
>
> >> I had one leak and guess I lost about 500 gallons, just looking at the
> >> bill that I paid. A neighbor lost somewhere close to 5,000 gallons
> >> due to a main from the meter to the house that broke from a tree root.
> >> The builder fixed the water line, I think he paid the water.
> >
> >Oh my! The builder paid? Why would he ever do that instead of the
> >homeowner paying?
>
> The builder planted the tree at or near the water line and was under
> warranty, not like a 23 yo water heater..........
Whether the water heater had a warranty or not is irrelevant as far as
damages go. And I've never seen a home warranty that includes
coverage for paying for water or gas that was billed as a result of a
leak. The fact that the builder who paid for the repair and the lost
water, planted a tree nearby that contributed to the problem seems
pretty similar to a landlord choosing to continue using a 23 year old
gas water heater.
So, I'd say your example does prove that in at least some of these
cases, someone other than the homeowner/tenant does pay for the lost
water. We've also seen that others have reported utilities cutting
breaks to help as well.
>
>
> Oren
Pete C.
More likely they misread the meter. Had that happen several times on
electric meters where they would misread an upper digit. Had to call in
corrected readings. Even if I didn't call in corrected readings it would
be corrected at the next proper reading since it's a continuous count,
not a monthly reset. The bills after that 15,000 gallons were likely not
"normal", but rather "minimum" charges that showed little or no water
use, just the base charge.
In my case anything from 2,000 gal down is the base charge. I did once
blow a 3/4" fitting past the meter and it dumped about 12,000 gal before
I found and fixed it. The lawn was nice and green for a while in the
area sloping downhill from the meter pit.
Pete C.
tra...@optonline.net
Charlie Morgan wrote:
> I think YOU should pay for all this misery. It's clear that you did
> not make a strong enough effort to make your friend take your warnings
> seriously. You really failed badly, and just look at the result. While
> you are at it, I think you should apologize to the landlord for not
> notifying him of this clear danger before disaster struck.
>
> CWM
Your roof is in very bad shape and so is your furnace. That is my
opinion, for which I have I have no qualifications as an expert. Now
you must replace it immediately. Do it now!
Bob
"HeyBub" <heybub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12baqh6...@news.supernews.com...
Was the week worth it?
Bob
Bob
"Les" <lester...@rttc.army.mil> wrote in message
news:1152727780....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
My utility charge for sewage based on the winter water usage rate.
Bob
tra...@optonline.net
Charlie Morgan wrote:
> Among other items, it calls for replacing not just one furnace, but also the
> boiler in the other wing of the house. This is a single family residence of
> about 5000 sf. with two wings. One half forced air and the other baseboard hot
> water.
>
> The roof is also in bad shape and will cost about $75k - $100k to correct.
>
> Meanwhile, I think you should stop being such a busy-body.
Since when is asking for what experience others have had in similar
situations being a busy-body? Isn't that what this newsgroup is about?
Apparently it interests you enough to keep posting, even when you
have no direct experience to contibute.
Your friend should
> sort out his own problems. You have already demonstrated that he doesn't value
> your opinion, anyway. Why are you still trying to insert yourself in the
> situation? Time to butt-out ...if you are smart.
>
> CWM
m Ransley
tennant. Did the landlord have in the lease to turn off the water heater
when leaving, no he did not, no one does, so why should the tennant be
responsible, he is not. Utility companies may or may not understand the
landlords problems. Of course all will want the tennant to pay, but its
not his equipment that failed, he rents, not owns.
tra...@optonline.net
Charlie Morgan wrote:
> answers that agreed with what you had already decided. Add to that, that you are
> not even a legitimate party to the issue, and we are left with the reality that
> you are simply a meddler.
>
> Find a better hobby.
>
> CWM
Excuse you? No, fuck you. You called me a busy body and a meddler.
Who the hell appointed you to decide who has a legitimate question or
what questions are appropriate to the newsgroup.
zero
>A buddy of mine was away for a week and returned to find that the water
>heater in his rented condo had sprung a major leak. He said it was
>running about like half of a wide open sink faucet rate. The friggin
>thing was about 23 years old. I remember seeing the label on it, how
>the area around the pipe connections looked corroded, etc. I warned
>him about it and told him to make sure he shut off the water when he
>was away on trips, but obviously, he didn't.
>
>Good news is that the water was handled by the sump pump. Bad news is
>a lot of water may have been billed. Not sure about the gas, as he
>shut the thing off without finding out if the thing had been fired up.
>The water coming out was cold, but at that flow rate, it could just be
>that it couldn't heat it fast enough. He did say he didn't hear it
>running. I'm hoping the water put the pilot out, but on the other
>hand, from where it was leaking, it sounds like it was the anode rod
>fitting area at the top of the tank that went.
>
>Just wondering, does anyone have any experience in what happens with
>the water or gas company in a case like this. Do they expect full
>payment for the water/gas? Or if you can show it was an accident do
>they negotiate or give you a break?
An accident? That one chose NOT to repair/replace the heater as
required in order to gain money?
Notice I did not say to _save money_, but to gain money.
Saving money is taking care of business when you need to. Repair or
replace as needed so you DON'T dump 50,000 gallons of water or replace
half the wood in your home.
When one has no intention of being around for when it hits the fan,
they _gain money_ by refusing to address things when they should and
let the dice roll.
So the dice rolled and this time the house won. The contract between
landlord and tenant will show how smart the landlord really is.
-zero
TheNIGHTCRAWLER
mm wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:11:31 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> ><tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> >>
> >> Thanks, Abe, that's what I was looking for, some real world actual
> >> experience, as opposed to "it's your own fault, what do u expect,
> >> yaddda yaddda yaddda.
> >>
> >
> >The yaddda yaddda yaddda I gave you was based on a 60,000 gallon use of
> >water over the norm. The water department did come back to verify the
>
> So what happened that took 60,000 gallons?
Dumbski read a post about brain enemas.
After 60,000 gallons he's still a dumb ass.
tra...@optonline.net
Charlie Morgan wrote:
> You have just further proved my point. I'll bet lots of people just can't wait
> to try and help you the next time you post something here.
>
> CWM
I've been a long time poster here and regulars here can reach there own
conclusions. I can't recall you ever contributing anything here before
you chimed in with total nonsense.
Your very first post in this thread was:
"I think YOU should pay for all this misery. It's clear that you did
not make a strong enough effort to make your friend take your warnings
seriously. You really failed badly, and just look at the result. While
you are at it, I think you should apologize to the landlord for not
notifying him of this clear danger before disaster struck. "
Now, how stupid was that? I replied trying to dismiss it as a
possible joke, by saying your roof and furnace are shot, you should go
replace them. As if anyone seriously expects parties that are not even
qualified experts and are 3 times removed to start giving unsolicited
advice to a landlord that they don't know.
So then you chime back with the state of your roof, so obviously that
went right over your head. And then you tell me I'm a busy-body and
meddler, for asking a perfectly legitimate question, as if someone
appointed you moderator.
So, yeah, fuck off.
bam...@localnet.com
time bill based upon your average consumtion- it's worth looking into.
Also if the water did not exit back through sewage treatment you might
get relief from that portion of your bill.
tra...@optonline.net wrote:
> A buddy of mine was away for a week and returned to find that the water
> heater in his rented condo had sprung a major leak. He said it was
> running about like half of a wide open sink faucet rate. The friggin
> thing was about 23 years old. I remember seeing the label on it, how
> the area around the pipe connections looked corroded, etc. I warned
> him about it and told him to make sure he shut off the water when he
> was away on trips, but obviously, he didn't.
>
> Good news is that the water was handled by the sump pump. Bad news is
> a lot of water may have been billed. Not sure about the gas, as he
> shut the thing off without finding out if the thing had been fired up.
> The water coming out was cold, but at that flow rate, it could just be
> that it couldn't heat it fast enough. He did say he didn't hear it
> running. I'm hoping the water put the pilot out, but on the other
> hand, from where it was leaking, it sounds like it was the anode rod
> fitting area at the top of the tank that went.
>
> Just wondering, does anyone have any experience in what happens with
> the water or gas company in a case like this. Do they expect full
> payment for the water/gas? Or if you can show it was an accident do
> they negotiate or give you a break?
>
Edwin Pawlowski
Someone asked about the 60,000 gallon loss of water we had. It was a flush
valve in a bathrrom in a warehouse that is not used. No one even went into
that roomf or a long time.
tra...@optonline.net
bam...@localnet.com wrote:
> Some water companies provide catastrophe relief in the form of a one
> time bill based upon your average consumtion- it's worth looking into.
> Also if the water did not exit back through sewage treatment you might
> get relief from that portion of your bill.
My buddy spoke to the water company. They said they made a note in his
record of the event and that when he gets his bill, if it's higher than
normal to contact them and they will adjust it, which is what they do
in cases like this. Not clear exactly what adjusting it means, so
he'll have to wait and see.
Meantime, yesterday was a wasted day. He got hold of the landlord
first thing in the morning. Nothing was done, because her hack
handyman says he couldn't get in the condo, even though he has before
and no one has changed the locks.
Interesting side question. The hack she has is totally incompetent.
I've seen his work. An example of how he fixes things is to smear
joint compound over any cracks, holes etc, then paint over it without
any sanding. He's done this all over the place. And the areas he
paints are just the patch areas. He's too lazy to do any sanding or
paint an entire area, like a small bathroom ceiling, to make it look
right.
So, he's gonna take a look at the water heater. For those that think
the tenant is responsible for a lot of things, what should the tenant
do about who replaces the water heater? Is the tenant responsible for
making sure any required permits are pulled? Should they demand a
licensed plumber be called? Or should they just let the landlord's
hack do it, if that is what they intend to do?
Bart Byers
Once a month the reader can be seen walking down the street and writing
the reading from each reader. A reading approximately 12,000 gallons
high would mean more than one digit was misread. As soon as I heard
about the high reading, I checked the meter. The usage since that
reading was consistent with historic usage.
Pete C.
Usage based on the quantity listed on the bill, or the meter readings?
Do the actual reported meter readings before during and after the
mystery bill "add up"? If all readings subsequent to the mystery one
show the 12,000 gal from the jump then either the water went through the
meter to somewhere, the meter had a failure or the meter was changed.
Anything like a water softener that could have a back flush valve get
temporarily stuck and dump a lot of water unnoticed? Over 30 days 12,000
gal could be as little as .27 gallons per minute. Over a 7 day period
it's like 1.2 gpm so a back flush valve stuck on a weekly cycle and
freeing the next cycle could pretty easily dump that much.
Pete C.
TheNIGHTCRAWLER
Hehe.
It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy, dumbski.
How about that cite on pulling a permit for replacing a light switch
and receptacle, fool?
You do have one, don't you?
Oren
<thenigh...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>> Someone asked about the 60,000 gallon loss of water we had. It was a flush
>> valve in a bathrrom in a warehouse that is not used. No one even went into
>> that roomf or a long time.
>
>Hehe.
>It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy, dumbski.
He did not pay, dumbski.
>How about that cite on pulling a permit for replacing a light switch
>and receptacle, fool?
>
>You do have one, don't you?
When does school start, dumbski? You must be the first generation to
masturbate sitting up-right.
Sincerely,
Oren
Edwin Pawlowski
"TheNIGHTCRAWLER" <thenigh...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>
> How about that cite on pulling a permit for replacing a light switch
> and receptacle, fool?
>
> You do have one, don't you?
Now this was fun
http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/BBI/html/electrical_permit.html
http://www.co.chatham.nc.us/dept/centralpermit/web/When%20a%20permit%20is%20required.htm.
Electrical Permits Required
No person shall install, alter, repair, replace or relocate any electrical
material, appliances or equipment without first having obtained a permit for
the specific work to be performed.
http://www.ci.watauga.tx.us/publicworks/epermits.htm
WHEN IS AN ELECTRICAL PERMIT REQUIRED?
A person, firm or corporation shall not erect, construct, enlarge, add to,
alter, repair, replace, move improve, remove, install, convert, demolish,
equip, use, occupy or maintain a structure or building, service equipment or
cause same to be done without first obtaining a permit from the Public Works
and Parks Department.
TheNIGHTCRAWLER
Oren wrote:
> On 13 Jul 2006 12:17:41 -0700, "TheNIGHTCRAWLER"
> <thenigh...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> >
> >Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> >> Someone asked about the 60,000 gallon loss of water we had. It was a flush
> >> valve in a bathrrom in a warehouse that is not used. No one even went into
> >> that roomf or a long time.
> >
> >Hehe.
> >It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy, dumbski.
>
> He did not pay, dumbski.
Are you calling him a liar, retard?
"The water department did come back to verify the
reading since it was unusual, but they sent the bill and we had to pay
it. "
Or are you just stupid?
> >How about that cite on pulling a permit for replacing a light switch
> >and receptacle, fool?
> >
> >You do have one, don't you?
>
> When does school start, dumbski?
How original!
Did you make that up all by your little self?
Do you think it's a Usenet first?
TheNIGHTCRAWLER
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "TheNIGHTCRAWLER" <thenigh...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> >
> > How about that cite on pulling a permit for replacing a light switch
> > and receptacle, fool?
> >
> > You do have one, don't you?
>
> Now this was fun
You retards are easily entertained.
Was it as much fun as answering spammers?
> http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/BBI/html/electrical_permit.html
*An electrical permit is required before any new electrical wiring
and/or equipment is installed or before any existing electrical wiring
and/or equipment is altered.*
A switch and receptacle DO NOT fall under this cite.
They are "devices". Did you not know that, dumbski?
Strike one!
>tp://www.co.chatham.nc.us/dept/centralpermit/web/When%20a%20permit%20is%20required.htm.
Electrical Permits Required
No person shall install, alter, repair, replace or relocate any
electrical material, appliances or equipment without first having
obtained a permit for the specific work to be performed.
Again, no mention of "devices".
Strike two!!
> http://www.ci.watauga.tx.us/publicworks/epermits.htm
>
> WHEN IS AN ELECTRICAL PERMIT REQUIRED?
>
> A person, firm or corporation shall not erect, construct, enlarge, add to,
> alter, repair, replace, move improve, remove, install, convert, demolish,
> equip, use, occupy or maintain a structure or building, service equipment or
> cause same to be done without first obtaining a permit from the Public Works
> and Parks Department.
No mention of "devices", dumbski, but they seem to have everything
covered anyway.
So you found ONE cite from bumfuck Watauga!
Good boy.
Pat yourself on your dumb ass and be sure to get a permit anytime you
want to change a switch or receptacle.
Edwin Pawlowski
>>
>> WHEN IS AN ELECTRICAL PERMIT REQUIRED?
>>
>> A person, firm or corporation shall not erect, construct, enlarge, add
>> to,
>> alter, repair, replace, move improve, remove, install, convert, demolish,
>> equip, use, occupy or maintain a structure or building, service equipment
>> or
>> cause same to be done without first obtaining a permit from the Public
>> Works
>> and Parks Department.
>
> No mention of "devices", dumbski, but they seem to have everything
> covered anyway.
>
> So you found ONE cite from bumfuck Watauga!
Exactly. Now who is the dumski? I told you it existed but nooooo, you said
otherwise.
Fool
TheNIGHTCRAWLER
You are.
Only a dumbski would get a $35 permit to replace a 50 cent switch and a
$6 GFCI.
Only a dumbski would advise somebody else to do so, fool.
But you got that spam jihad going on for you, dumbski.
Good luck with that.
Edwin Pawlowski
> $6 GFCI.
> Only a dumbski would advise somebody else to do so, fool.
>
> But you got that spam jihad going on for you, dumbski.
> Good luck with that.
Oh, I have a fan club. How nice. You can follow me around like a little
puppy dog and make cute little nasty comments. Oh, you must make your
mother proud.
But true fans just admire their idol. I never advised anyone to get a
permit. You made that up in the nightcrawler brain that runs along your
flexible spine.
TheNIGHTCRAWLER
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "TheNIGHTCRAWLER" <thenigh...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> > Only a dumbski would get a $35 permit to replace a 50 cent switch and a
> > $6 GFCI.
> > Only a dumbski would advise somebody else to do so, fool.
> >
> > But you got that spam jihad going on for you, dumbski.
> > Good luck with that.
>
>
> Oh, I have a fan club. How nice.
Yes, your anti-spam work is quite inspiring.
Your electrical advise is a bit feeble-minded.
> You can follow me around like a little
> puppy dog and make cute little nasty comments.
I don't need your approval to do anything, fool.
(You sure are full of yourself).
You're not going to cry, are you?
> But true fans just admire their idol. I never advised anyone to get a
> permit.
Fool, you wrote:
"Yes, it may require a permit."
That's awful close to advising somebody to get a permit to replace a
switch and recepracle.
The correct answer was/is,
"No, you don't need a stinking permit to replace a switch and
receptacle".
Do you see the difference between the two statements?
One was made by a pussy.
Ask your wife to help you locate your testicles.
I'm sure he will be happy to help.
Bart Byers
The meter readings I made after the high bill were consistent with the
reading on the bill and convinced me there was no continuing leak. I
wasn't shown old bills, but they said their monthly usage had always
been consistent.
They had no water softener. Their heating system used air. Indoors
they had a washing machine, a kitchen sink, and one bathroom. It's a
small, quiet house. They would have noticed running water.
The soil under the house was dry. Outside they had two taps with 1/2"
vinyl hoses for rinsing. I think I would have noticed a wet area or
lush grass if 12,000 gallons had run from a hose.
Several months earlier, the town had hired a contractor to move the
meter from the street side of the sidewalk to the yard side. I suppose
the meter reader could have supplied false readings for several months
so the shocking bill would not be associated with a meter change.
This town has about 200 voters. The bill comes early in the month. At
noon on the 25th a $65 penalty is due. The bill and penalty must be
paid in cash even if the resident has paid for 30 years without bouncing
a check. The meter reader pulls meters on unpaid accounts at noon so
people will pay immediately. With cash required and a noon deadline,
it's ideal for skimming; to determine how much cash was collected, an
auditor would have to know exactly what time each account was paid.
A neighbor didn't realize his bill was unpaid until he saw his meter
being pulled. The town clerk said they had neglected to send him a
bill, but because he was ten minutes late, he was still responsible to
pay the bill and the penalty in cash. Another time, the reader came to
his door at noon on Christmas Eve. He said they were pulling meters a
day before the deadline because it was Christmas, but my neighbor could
avoid the hassle if he paid the reader the bill and penalty in cash on
the spot.
I think officials have been robbing water customers for many years, but
I don't understand how they could pocket the money if they replaced a
meter to overbill somebody who paid by check.
Edwin Pawlowski
> "Yes, it may require a permit."
> That's awful close to advising somebody to get a permit to replace a
> switch and recepracle.
>
> The correct answer was/is,
> "No, you don't need a stinking permit to replace a switch and
> receptacle".
> Do you see the difference between the two statements?
I comprehend out English language. Saying "it may require a permit" does
NOT mean "go get a permit". Did you drop out of school when they taught
that in 5th grade? Do you live in Washington? They want to know what "is"
is. Maybe you can help.
Thanks for trying though. I appreciate my fan club watching every move I
make. It is so endearing.
hal...@aol.com
responsiblity to replace the water heater... yeah sure...
it may not be the lazy handyman, many landlords are so fixated at
saving bucks handy guy is likely doing job as instructed.
if you see a bad job before moving in run away.
but rent is likely lower and everyone wants something cheap
nhurst
telling them to keep their meter. I'd even take out a loan for it, too.
That's just heinous.
-Nathan
Oren
<thenigh...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>Oren wrote:
>> On 13 Jul 2006 12:17:41 -0700, "TheNIGHTCRAWLER"
>> <thenigh...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>> >> Someone asked about the 60,000 gallon loss of water we had. It was a flush
>> >> valve in a bathrrom in a warehouse that is not used. No one even went into
>> >> that roomf or a long time.
>> >
>> >Hehe.
>> >It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy, dumbski.
>>
>> He did not pay, dumbski.
I'm sure he don't live in a warehouse, dumbski.
>Are you calling him a liar, retard?
"we had to pay" may mean a company, dumbski.
>"The water department did come back to verify the
>reading since it was unusual, but they sent the bill and we had to pay
>it. "
>
>Or are you just stupid?
I can do something about stupid...What can you do about being a
dumbski?
Oren
hal...@aol.com
run someone for office on a change the water company position.
heck if even half the customers refused to pay the bills the company
would reform itself
TheNIGHTCRAWLER
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "TheNIGHTCRAWLER" <thenigh...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> >
> > Fool, you wrote:
> > "Yes, it may require a permit."
> > That's awful close to advising somebody to get a permit to replace a
> > switch and recepracle.
> >
> > The correct answer was/is,
> > "No, you don't need a stinking permit to replace a switch and
> > receptacle".
> > Do you see the difference between the two statements?
>
> I comprehend out English language.
Too fucking funny!!!
Irony - look it up.
> Saying "it may require a permit" does
> NOT mean "go get a permit".
The correct answer was/is,
"No, you don't need a stinking permit to replace a switch and
receptacle".
> Did you drop out of school when they taught
> that in 5th grade? Do you live in Washington? They want to know what "is"
> is. Maybe you can help.
How is your testicle search coming along?
Won't your wife assist you?
What's his name?
TheNIGHTCRAWLER
Oren wrote:
> On 13 Jul 2006 14:06:39 -0700, "TheNIGHTCRAWLER"
> <thenigh...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> >
> >Oren wrote:
> >> On 13 Jul 2006 12:17:41 -0700, "TheNIGHTCRAWLER"
> >> <thenigh...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> >> >> Someone asked about the 60,000 gallon loss of water we had. It was a flush
> >> >> valve in a bathrrom in a warehouse that is not used. No one even went into
> >> >> that roomf or a long time.
> >> >
> >> >Hehe.
> >> >It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy, dumbski.
> >>
> >> He did not pay, dumbski.
>
> I'm sure he don't live in a warehouse, dumbski.
Non sequitur, retard.
(look it up)
> >Are you calling him a liar, retard?
>
> "we had to pay" may mean a company, dumbski.
Non sequitur, retard.
> >"The water department did come back to verify the
> >reading since it was unusual, but they sent the bill and we had to pay
> >it. "
> >
> >Or are you just stupid?
>
> I can do something about stupid...
I suggest you start in the near future, retard.
It may save you from any more embarrassment.
Edwin Pawlowski
> Won't your wife assist you?
> What's his name?
Yep, when you run out of facts, use derogatory remarks. Class act you are.
Oren
<thenigh...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>I suggest you start in the near future, retard.
>It may save you from any more embarrassment.
Like Jackie Gleason told his son in the movie:
When I get home I going to slap you mamma.
Oren
TheNIGHTCRAWLER
I'll take that as:
"No, he won't assist me and I don't have a clue to where my testicles
are".
> Class act you are.
Make sure you pull a permit when you replace a switch or receptacle,
dumbski.
It may be required, ya know.
TheNIGHTCRAWLER
> > > I can do something about stupid...
> >I suggest you start in the near future, retard.
> >It may save you from any more embarrassment.
>
> Like Jackie Gleason told his son in the movie:
>
> When I get home I going to slap you mamma.
Don't be stupid, retard.
Judging by your Jackie Gleason reference,
you must be on the other side of ancient.
My mother could simply kick your walker out from underneath you.
And if you persist, she could unplug your oxygen tank.
But don't worry, your colostomy bag is safe.
You would better serve yourself by addressing your 'stupid' problem.
Oren
<thenigh...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>You would better serve yourself by addressing your 'stupid' problem.
recalcitrant
(look it up)
Oren
TheNIGHTCRAWLER
Oren wrote:
> On 14 Jul 2006 08:45:31 -0700, "TheNIGHTCRAWLER"
> <thenigh...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> >You would better serve yourself by addressing your 'stupid' problem.
>
> recalcitrant
Fine.
Remain stupid.
Really, Alzheimers Oren, I couldn't care less.
Bart Byers
supported her have been voted out. In campaigning, the mayor and one
of the councilmen were quite outspoken in their anger, having been
victimized.
She works short hours. If the office is closed, you put your payment in
the night deposit slot. Once I happened to check my bank balance online
on the 24th. I discovered that the check I'd put in the slot on the
12th had not been cashed, which meant my water would have been
disconnected the next day. The clerk told me somehow they had not
received the check, and I had to pay a 10% penalty.
You avoid the penalty by paying before closing time on the 15th. Once I
arrived an hour before closing time. The place was locked and no car was
in the lot. I assumed the clerk was home sick. I put my payment in the
slot. The clerk charged me the penalty. She said sometimes they locked
up early to have a meeting, and in that case anyone who found the door
locked had to pay the penalty. As there were no cars present, she was
lying about the meeting. She took some time off and billed me for it.
It's unclear how she and her assistant fill their short hours, but she
is often there at night with the doors locked. People have warned the
council that she is not working but accruing overtime so she can retire
early and demand compensation.
The mayor and the council are against her but she continues to rule
because she knows how to fill out the forms the federal government
demands of a tiny town.
Bart Byers
got rich selling houses on a low clay field. Then came the Reagan Era,
when big government said if anyone had drainfield problems, the
taxpayers would have to pay for a sewer system.
We and other residents were disconnected from our wells and septic
systems so the town could bill us for what we didn't want or need. Some
insisted on staying on their wells because the water was safer. They
were required to have their wells metered so the town could bill them
for sewerage. Then the town billed them for their own water as well as
sewerage.
(In the Clinton Era, the EPA reversed itself, saying a good septic
system would work in almost any terrain and in a rural community would
be much cheaper and better for the environment than a sewer. However,
county officials have stuck to the Reagan Doctrine because it makes
taxpayers help fly-by-night businesses and those making a killing in
real estate.)
My monthly consumption is a third of the average. Those using less than
the average are billed a flat rate as if they'd used the average. We're
the ones who pay the town's overhead so those who use more water get it
wholesale. The one who pays the largest share of the town's overhead
would be the widow who doesn't use a drop because she's away in a
nursing home. Because the billing encourages waste, there have been
expensive problems with the EPA over the disposal of all that sewer
water. Bills are ten times higher than in 1988.
Andy Asberry
>A buddy of mine was away for a week and returned to find that the water
>heater in his rented condo had sprung a major leak. He said it was
>running about like half of a wide open sink faucet rate. The friggin
>thing was about 23 years old. I remember seeing the label on it, how
>the area around the pipe connections looked corroded, etc. I warned
>him about it and told him to make sure he shut off the water when he
>was away on trips, but obviously, he didn't.
>
>Good news is that the water was handled by the sump pump. Bad news is
>a lot of water may have been billed. Not sure about the gas, as he
>shut the thing off without finding out if the thing had been fired up.
>The water coming out was cold, but at that flow rate, it could just be
>that it couldn't heat it fast enough. He did say he didn't hear it
>running. I'm hoping the water put the pilot out, but on the other
>hand, from where it was leaking, it sounds like it was the anode rod
>fitting area at the top of the tank that went.
>
>Just wondering, does anyone have any experience in what happens with
>the water or gas company in a case like this. Do they expect full
>payment for the water/gas? Or if you can show it was an accident do
>they negotiate or give you a break?
>
>Also, what are views on the landlord's responsibility for paying for
>the water/gas if the utility company does not? In the general case,
>where it just happens to say a reasonably new water heater, it would
>seem to me this is a grey area as to whether the landlord would be
>responsible to pay for water. In the case of a 20+ year old water
>heater, I think he has a much better case, as it's well known that
>these things usually fail long before that, so it looks like a case for
>negligence could be made.
He may want to check his lease. They are not all the same.
When I was an apartment landlord, my lease required notice if a tenant
would be absent from the premises for more than 24 hours. It also had
a 24 hour pager number for emergencies for the simple reason, I didn't
want needed repairs to go unnoticed and unreported.
I had a backlog of tenants waiting to move in. I had the highest rent
on the street. I also had a modernization program; replace the stoves
this year, dishwashers next year, solar screens, etc. I believe people
are more appreciative when getting something new they did not expect.
I also involved the tenants in maintaining the property. Mostly the
kids; racking leaves, picking up litter, watering the grass, etc.
Five years after selling the property, I still get invited to
Christmas parties and graduations. Some have been there 20 years.
It takes a while to weed out the bad ones; tenants and landlords.
--Andy Asberry recommends NewsGuy--
Bob
> noon on the 25th a $65 penalty is due. The bill and penalty must be
> paid in cash even if the resident has paid for 30 years without bouncing
> a check. The meter reader pulls meters on unpaid accounts at noon so
> people will pay immediately. With cash required and a noon deadline,
> it's ideal for skimming; to determine how much cash was collected, an
> auditor would have to know exactly what time each account was paid.
>
> A neighbor didn't realize his bill was unpaid until he saw his meter
> being pulled. The town clerk said they had neglected to send him a
> bill, but because he was ten minutes late, he was still responsible to
> pay the bill and the penalty in cash. Another time, the reader came to
> his door at noon on Christmas Eve. He said they were pulling meters a
> day before the deadline because it was Christmas, but my neighbor could
> avoid the hassle if he paid the reader the bill and penalty in cash on
> the spot.
>
> I think officials have been robbing water customers for many years, but
> I don't understand how they could pocket the money if they replaced a
> meter to overbill somebody who paid by check.
In a town with 200 voters, it shouldn't be too hard to get the system changed.
Throw the rascals out.
Bob