Common Problems
Notas finales
In some cases, you may not actually owe what a utility company says you owe. Learn about common problems with the amounts on bills.
Endnotes
37 . G.L. c. 209, §7 (but note that the constitutionality of this law has been questioned, see Pioneer Valley Postal Fed. Credit Union v. Soja, 2002 Mass. App. Div. 193 (Dist. Ct. 2002).
38 . Key v. Boston Edison Co., DPU 19355 (1978).
39 . 105 C.M.R. §410.354. Corey v. Boston Gas Co., DPU 19758 (1980).
41 . See the following summary process cases for discussions of incorrect metering (the courts may refer to this as cross-metering, even where the problem is incorrect metering rather than meters that are completely switched between tenants): Swedberg v. Welvaert, Mass. Housing Ct., No. 10-SP-0784 (Western Div.) (Aug. 2, 2010) (ordering three months rent as damages for cross-metering); Lavigne v. Dupelle, Mass. Housing Ct., No. 09SP3770 (Western Div.) (July 9, 2010) (unlawful to charge tenants for entire utility bill where there was one meter for building with two units) (even with dashes in between the case number); Lynn v. Adeeko, Mass. Housing Ct., No. 10-SP-1379 (May 4, 2010) (where metering problem resulted in tenant paying for electricity for common areas, tenant was awarded damages equal to three months of rent); Marquez v. Guerrero, Mass. Housing Ct., No. 09-SP-1658 (June 2009) (tenant awarded three months of rent as damages for cross-metering); Rainaud v. Worknick, Mass. Housing Ct., No. 04-SP-4449 (Jan. 19, 2005) (awarding tenant three months rent as damages for cross-metering); Shuman v. Burns,, Mass. Housing Ct. No. 98-00938 (April 1, 1998) (ordering three months rent as damages for cross-metering): Gilmore v. Lafreniere, Mass. Housing Ct., No. 88-SP-7406-WS (Nov. 1, 1988) (tenants unlawfully billed for heat and hot water, landlord required to pay whole bill as remedy). See also, Silva v. Brandon, Mass. Housing Ct., No. 96-CV-00136 (Southeastern Div.) (Nov. 18, 1996) (default judgment in civil action awarded damages for cross-metering).
42 . See 220 C.M.R. §§29.01-29.13.
43 . As the DPU noted in Rapice v. Mass. Electric Company, DPU 84-86-28, at 5 (Sept. 8, 1994), a "company may bill a customer retroactively for electricity used, but not originally billed, when that billing results from cross-metering that was not the fault of the Company [citation omitted]. . . . However, when the Department has determined that a Company was at fault for not discovering cross-metering after complaints from customers, it has found that a full abatement was warranted." See also Thomas v. Boston Edison Company, DPU 93-AD-30 (Nov. 1, 1994); Van Buskirk v. Boston Gas Company, DPU 3 (1982).
44 . 105 C.M.R. §410.190 (hot water), §410.201 (heating), §410.354 (gas and electric).
45 . See Knott v. Laythe, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 908, 910 (1997) (if the combined cost of rent plus utilities does not exceed the fair market value of the apartment with utilities included, tenant can only recover $25 and reasonable attorney's fees under G.L. c. 93A); Poncz v. Loftin, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 909 (1993), rev. den'd 415 Mass. 1102 (1993) (tenant cannot recover cost of paying for heat and hot water under verbal agreement with landlord when tenant never asked landlord to pay bills and cannot show that apartment was made uninhabitable by defective heating equipment or interruptions in service; tenant is entitled only to nominal damages of $25 and reasonable attorney's fees under G.L. c. 93A); Young v. Patukonis, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 907, 908-909 (1987) (verbal agreement to pay for heat or hot water is void). These decisions were based on the theory that the Sanitary Code allows landlords to shift the burden of payment to tenants via written agreement and that the failure to reduce a verbal agreement to writing does not in itself make the apartment uninhabitable.