Woman Slapped With $4,000 Water Bill

[Moonbeam]

My meter guy is gone because his job is gone. He used to march right by my window here where I sit and I could wave to him. But no more. Now I never see a single living soul anywhere. His kids are gone too because they had nothing to eat. The readings are now done by radio and robot. Now one guy sits on his ass somewhere doing the healthy physical work of thousands. He'll die young. They are developing a robot to replace him too. Have you signed up for electronic payment? I just hope the Amazon flying drone knows how to say hi. I wonder how those will taste with buckshot spice and carrots.

 

[Moonbeam]

Also please provide video of woman being "slapped" with the bill this must be a new collection tactic to violently assault customers with their outstanding bills.

You might want to google the expression, "slapped with a bill".

 

[tnt118]

"The word “estimation” appears in large print on the bill, right below the bill summary.

I'm an intelligent, educated and reasonable person. I expect that a bill that says estimate is, within a reasonable amount of time, reconciled with an actual reading and accounted for (up or down) in a future bill. They are noting that the CURRENT bill is an estimation. That's fine. Not that they would ever do that in perpetuity. That's an outright failure on their part.

 

[Fern]

The utility company is poorly run. They're at fault here.

Fern

 

[HeXen]

People have more things to do in their time than start to wonder about how long they have been paying "estimates". There is reasonable expecations that it would not go on for 9 years straight. Takes a real hardass that doesn't have that problem to make it out to be the consumers fault. I think the fault flows both ways here. Otherwise how about we let all the business's procrastinate?

She owes what she used certainly but they should offer her interest free incremental payments. 9 years is pure lazy employees.

 

[Moonbeam]

People have more things to do in their time than start to wonder about how long they have been paying "estimates". There is reasonable expecations that it would not go on for 9 years straight. Takes a real hardass that doesn't have that problem to make it out to be the consumers fault. I think the fault flows both ways here. Otherwise how about we let all the business's procrastinate?

She owes what she used certainly but they should offer her interest free incremental payments. 9 years is pure lazy employees.

The way I see it she should have to pay it for her part of the fault and they should refund her payment for their part of it.

 

[dmcowen674]

The utility company is poorly run.

They're at fault here.

You don't say. Shocking

 

[OverVolt]

Should the title say "Women mailed $4,000 water bill" just saying.

To slap her with it is unnecessary. I know she ignored the estimate part all that time and should have known better but all they gotta do is place it gently in the mailbox.

 

[pcgeek11]

They are both equally responsible IMO and should at a minimum split the bill 50/50.

 

[waggy]

The way I see it she should have to pay it for her part of the fault and they should refund her payment for their part of it.

I agree. They should have come out sooner then 9 years. While yes it is her bill they should offer to cover half.

 

[Tweak155]

They are both equally responsible IMO and should at a minimum split the bill 50/50.

This. She didn't call for a reading, and they didn't come out to do it themselves. To add to it though, $37 difference per mo does sound kind of high? Unless her bill is normally like $300/mo, but I doubt it.

 

[cubby1223]

The only reason to reduce a bill is if there is sufficient reason to believe there will be more revenue/fewer costs as a result of reducing the bill than sticking to the original amounts. I don't see that as being the case in this situation.

(okay, another reason to reduce a bill is if you are friends with the person who owes, or that person is providing a personal favor back, but we usually classify that as corruption, just mentioning it as the technicality against the absolute statement I wrote above)

I run most functions of the business I work in, including invoicing, and I take personal responsibility if I let one go for a few months without sending out the invoice, reducing and sometimes skipping invoicing altogether. But I also work for a for-profit business, rather than a not-for-profit public utility.

 

[Mark R]

The utility company is poorly run. They're at fault here.

Yup. My experience is that after 1 year with no access to the meter, they start sending out loads of urgent letters requesting a customer reading.

If it gets to 2 years, then they're off to court, and by 2 years 6 months, the meter reader will be visiting with a bailiff, locksmith and a warrant to obtain access to the meter by force if necessary.

That said, a debt should never have been allowed to build up over that period - the normal policy I've come across, is that if a debt has built up, and the utility is partly at fault, then the debt only has to be repaid in instalments equal to the period over which it was accumulated. So if a meter hasn't been read for 3 years, and there is a shortfall, the bill payer will be allowed to pay in instalments over 3 years.

 

[Matt1970]

I'm an intelligent, educated and reasonable person. I expect that a bill that says estimate is, within a reasonable amount of time, reconciled with an actual reading and accounted for (up or down) in a future bill. They are noting that the CURRENT bill is an estimation. That's fine. Not that they would ever do that in perpetuity. That's an outright failure on their part.

I think I place a larger portion of the blame on the customers part. It does also say "You should contact MDC for an actual reading to prevent errors and hardships.” You would think the water department would make a stronger effort to get an actual reading but that does not remove all responsibility from the customer.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by Matt1970
"The word “estimation” appears in large print on the bill, right below the bill summary.

I'm an intelligent, educated and reasonable person. I expect that a bill that says estimate is, within a reasonable amount of time, reconciled with an actual reading and accounted for (up or down) in a future bill. They are noting that the CURRENT bill is an estimation. That's fine. Not that they would ever do that in perpetuity. That's an outright failure on their part.

You see the Country is full of people like Matt that think that failure in perpetuity especially by people in Corporations and Government is perfectly OK.

 

[Matt1970]

Originally Posted by Matt1970
"The word “estimation” appears in large print on the bill, right below the bill summary.



You see the Country is full of people like Matt that think that failure in perpetuity especially by people in Corporations and Government is perfectly OK.

And why is it you think it's not her fault when the lady was flat out ignoring the request to contact the water department? Did she think that didn't apply to her? Did she think it would go away? Almost every post you make wreaks of a lack of responsibility for your own or other peoples actions. Do you even wonder why almost the whole forum disagrees with everything you post?

 

[piasabird]

If they are replacing the meter, how do you know the old one can be considered accurate? Did they test it the way they do radar guns? How long is the life expectancy of a water meter? 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years? Do they ware out over time?

I understand that a customer would be expected to pay for the water used, but the water company should be required by law every so often to physically check the meter. I cant believe there is no regulation or law about this.

What about calcium buildup?

 

[dmcowen674]

And why is it you think it's not her fault when the lady was flat out ignoring the request to contact the water department? Did she think that didn't apply to her? Did she think it would go away? Almost every post you make wreaks of a lack of responsibility for your own or other peoples actions. Do you even wonder why almost the whole forum disagrees with everything you post?

They took her money for 9 years.

Don't ya think they should know what they are taking her money for?

 

[zinfamous]

A bill for $4,000 right before the holidays is not exactly what Dawn Pelligrino was expecting,

:hmm:

Well of course her water is more expensive. What did she expect?

 

[Jhhnn]

The only reason to reduce a bill is if there is sufficient reason to believe there will be more revenue/fewer costs as a result of reducing the bill than sticking to the original amounts. I don't see that as being the case in this situation.

(okay, another reason to reduce a bill is if you are friends with the person who owes, or that person is providing a personal favor back, but we usually classify that as corruption, just mentioning it as the technicality against the absolute statement I wrote above)

I run most functions of the business I work in, including invoicing, and I take personal responsibility if I let one go for a few months without sending out the invoice, reducing and sometimes skipping invoicing altogether. But I also work for a for-profit business, rather than a not-for-profit public utility.

I'm sure they spend a fortune on PR, grooming public perception. And now they'll also get to deal with higher official entities who may decide that other aspects of their operation bear scrutiny. The first thing they'll want to know is how many other customers might be in similar situations. They may not like the answer.

It's a can o' worms that flew out of a corporate blindspot calling your competence into question, rightfully so.

It's an opportunity to make lemons into lemonade. Identify any customers who may be affected & declare an amnesty on bills you accidentally underestimated if they'll agree to having a new meter installed. Send 'em special notices in the mail along with a media campaign, send somebody to their house if they don't respond in the first couple of months. Don your corporate halo. It's cheap publicity of the best kind.

 

[werepossum]

The power company estimates the usage on our farm land, but we have to provide an actual reading every 3 months or they come out to read it themselves (at our expense).

Estimating for 9 years? Asinine.

This, exactly. (And Dave and tnt.) The water company made a representation that this was a reasonable estimate of her bill. If they couldn't be bothered to read it for nine years, they need to eat the additional consumption. They have denied her the ability to modify her consumption for nine years.

 

[werepossum]

Should the title say "Women mailed $4,000 water bill" just saying.

To slap her with it is unnecessary. I know she ignored the estimate part all that time and should have known better but all they gotta do is place it gently in the mailbox.

+1

If they are replacing the meter, how do you know the old one can be considered accurate? Did they test it the way they do radar guns? How long is the life expectancy of a water meter? 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years? Do they ware out over time?

I understand that a customer would be expected to pay for the water used, but the water company should be required by law every so often to physically check the meter. I cant believe there is no regulation or law about this.

What about calcium buildup?

Excellent point.

:hmm:

Well of course her water is more expensive. What did she expect?

+1

Hell, +2

 

[Belegost]

This, exactly. (And Dave and tnt.) The water company made a representation that this was a reasonable estimate of her bill. If they couldn't be bothered to read it for nine years, they need to eat the additional consumption. They have denied her the ability to modify her consumption for nine years.

As far as I'm concerned without an actual reading done in 9 years, I would argue that more than a few of those years were billed fraudulently. To make an estimated billing is fine, provided the estimate has some reasonable basis for being accurate. After a couple years of continued estimation with no solid reading, it seems like the estimate is no longer tied to anything real, and has no basis for being accurate.

I don't feel that just put a short sentence on some part of the bill (and without a copy of the actual notice I'm dubious about how visible it was) is sufficient notice. After some time of the customer not responding, I feel the utility company had a responsibility to escalate the communications, direct letters, a visit from a service person, and if no resolution was found, stopping service. Billing someone for amounts with no relation to actual services rendered is not appropriate.

Further, it's not clear how the $4,000 figure was arrived at. The articles states:

The local water department says that once a new meter is placed in a home, it can tell how much water usage the homeowner has used since the last reading of the meter, which is what happened in Pelligrino’s case.

I'm an engineer, and I have a hard time understanding how this new meter can measure water flow that occurred 9 years previously. Maybe someone here has insight into how they can get such a measurement.

I'm thinking they either took a final reading on the old meter; which is probably not terribly accurate over a 9 year period for a meter that was outdated to begin with, and may not even be possible since most such meters have a rollover point. Or more worrisome they measured usage with the new meter for a short time and then back estimated the usage over 9 years, which would be just shady.

 

[Jhhnn]

As far as I'm concerned without an actual reading done in 9 years, I would argue that more than a few of those years were billed fraudulently. To make an estimated billing is fine, provided the estimate has some reasonable basis for being accurate. After a couple years of continued estimation with no solid reading, it seems like the estimate is no longer tied to anything real, and has no basis for being accurate.

I don't feel that just put a short sentence on some part of the bill (and without a copy of the actual notice I'm dubious about how visible it was) is sufficient notice. After some time of the customer not responding, I feel the utility company had a responsibility to escalate the communications, direct letters, a visit from a service person, and if no resolution was found, stopping service. Billing someone for amounts with no relation to actual services rendered is not appropriate.

Further, it's not clear how the $4,000 figure was arrived at. The articles states:

I'm an engineer, and I have a hard time understanding how this new meter can measure water flow that occurred 9 years previously. Maybe someone here has insight into how they can get such a measurement.

I'm thinking they either took a final reading on the old meter; which is probably not terribly accurate over a 9 year period for a meter that was outdated to begin with, and may not even be possible since most such meters have a rollover point. Or more worrisome they measured usage with the new meter for a short time and then back estimated the usage over 9 years, which would be just shady.

I think the misunderstanding comes from the original article-

http://www.wfsb.com/story/27549836/...-water-bill-dating-back-nine-years?hpt=us_bn7

The MDC said once a new meter is put into place, it can tell how much water has been used since the last reading.

"It" means the MDC, not the new meter. They last read the old meter in 2005, used the final reading when it was removed to adjust the bill. That's assuming it ran the whole time & that it didn't run slow in age. It seems highly unlikely that it could run too fast.

 

[werepossum]

As far as I'm concerned without an actual reading done in 9 years, I would argue that more than a few of those years were billed fraudulently. To make an estimated billing is fine, provided the estimate has some reasonable basis for being accurate. After a couple years of continued estimation with no solid reading, it seems like the estimate is no longer tied to anything real, and has no basis for being accurate.

I don't feel that just put a short sentence on some part of the bill (and without a copy of the actual notice I'm dubious about how visible it was) is sufficient notice. After some time of the customer not responding, I feel the utility company had a responsibility to escalate the communications, direct letters, a visit from a service person, and if no resolution was found, stopping service. Billing someone for amounts with no relation to actual services rendered is not appropriate.

Further, it's not clear how the $4,000 figure was arrived at. The articles states:

I'm an engineer, and I have a hard time understanding how this new meter can measure water flow that occurred 9 years previously. Maybe someone here has insight into how they can get such a measurement.

I'm thinking they either took a final reading on the old meter; which is probably not terribly accurate over a 9 year period for a meter that was outdated to begin with, and may not even be possible since most such meters have a rollover point. Or more worrisome they measured usage with the new meter for a short time and then back estimated the usage over 9 years, which would be just shady.

Agreed, but I suspect that Jhhnn is correct and this is just bad writing. However, I agree completely that the water company should not have continued to bill based on its wild-assed guess. (An estimate requires some sound basis to differentiate it from a guess, and an almost $40 error per month argues for wild-assed guess.)

I think the misunderstanding comes from the original article-

http://www.wfsb.com/story/27549836/...-water-bill-dating-back-nine-years?hpt=us_bn7



"It" means the MDC, not the new meter. They last read the old meter in 2005, used the final reading when it was removed to adjust the bill. That's assuming it ran the whole time & that it didn't run slow in age. It seems highly unlikely that it could run too fast.

Calcification. As the diameter shrinks, the velocity must increase. Depending on the type of meter, this is a known problem, and a modest build-up of deposits can cause up to a 25% over-registration. Also, a lot of the older meter designs are extremely sensitive to mounting; the wrong position or insufficiently uniform flow (not enough straight pipe) can make a meter inaccurate from Day One, although usually the problem is under-registration during low flow.