Fort Leonard Wood, MO · Member since 2018 · 62 posts · 20 votes
Ok so there was a water leak about 5 feet from the meter outside of the home. The tenant notified me of the leak 27 Jan and it was fixed 3 Feb. I spoke with the water company and the leak began during the billing cycle between 20NOV - 20DEC. The bill was issued early January. Her bill at the time was 229, indicating a leak. She did not inform me until she received her second high bill from the cycle from 20DEC -20JAN, receiving the 514.92 bill end of January. I will agree to pay the first bill and for the usage from 27 Jan - 3 Feb ( when leak was fixed) but do not agree with paying for the remainder. My justification is due to the fact that her inability to pay her bills on time resulted in the leak being undetected for approximately a month! Am I right or wrong?
The first bill isn't high enough to have her concerned. The second bill is. She notified you as soon as she knew about the water leak. If the utility company will work with her, she may be able to not have to pay the bill, as there was a repair needed. If the bill does need to be paid, it is your responsibility as the property owner to come to a meeting of the minds on this. After all, it is your property, and hence your leak.
@Mike Cumbie yea we explored that option. They didn’t budge as well. But like you said we came to a solution. I appreciate you keeping up with the thread.
When the tenant received the initial bill, they were then informed of the difference in the amount of the bill. Whether they read it at that time is on no consequence under the law correct?
--------------------------------------------
The question is whether the "difference in the amount of the bill" was big enough to put the tenant on notice that there was a problem. The only statement you have with respect to "normal" water bills is the landlord's statement (I paraphrase) that -- around here, water bills typically run 50 -60 --. You have ZERO statements about what THE TENANT's water bill typically was.
Remember, utilities fluctuate. The first bill covered (probably) the Christmas holidays. Guests, cooking, cleaning, -- all those things lead to increased water usage. She was late in paying, so she should pay the late fee. But the increased water usage do to a structural failure of the house? That's on the landlord. Unless and until there is something to show that she was on notice of a leak, then her late payment status is irrelevant. As I pointed out to the OP, his lease calls for actual knowledge, NOT mere suspicion. SHOULD she have notified him or her suspicions? Of course. But he has to pay for the increased water use as well as the cost of repair. She should pay any late fee for nonpayment and what HER typical January bill would be.
I would not pay the bill. That'll just start a string of issues she'll throw your way trying to get you to pay things. It sounds mean but my landlord would never pay my bill for me. @Robert Kough
When the tenant received the initial bill, they were then informed of the difference in the amount of the bill. Whether they read it at that time is on no consequence under the law correct?
--------------------------------------------
The question is whether the "difference in the amount of the bill" was big enough to put the tenant on notice that there was a problem. The only statement you have with respect to "normal" water bills is the landlord's statement (I paraphrase) that -- around here, water bills typically run 50 -60 --. You have ZERO statements about what THE TENANT's water bill typically was.
Remember, utilities fluctuate. The first bill covered (probably) the Christmas holidays. Guests, cooking, cleaning, -- all those things lead to increased water usage. She was late in paying, so she should pay the late fee. But the increased water usage do to a structural failure of the house? That's on the landlord. Unless and until there is something to show that she was on notice of a leak, then her late payment status is irrelevant. As I pointed out to the OP, his lease calls for actual knowledge, NOT mere suspicion. SHOULD she have notified him or her suspicions? Of course. But he has to pay for the increased water use as well as the cost of repair. She should pay any late fee for nonpayment and what HER typical January bill would be.
This is a legal question that I am speaking of and not a moral one as I indicated above that I would pay north of 1/2 as I would hold the tenant responsible for the late notice(In this specific case the tenant admitted to a delay in notifying the owner). The answer you provided was moral with no legal precedent
Again, we are talking about a municipality where the tenant contracts with a municipality to provide water and the owner has zero access to the agreement nor is a party to the agreement. The tenant and tenant only receives the bill to which every bill I have seen contains the amount of water used along with the days in the billing cycle. Many also contain a graph of how much water was used in different moths throughout the previous year. So, when the cost of the water bill goes up 3-4 times in one month, the onus is on the tenant to notify the landlord at that point as the discrepancy is obvious at that point
Legally, the repair is 100% on the landlord unless there is an agreement in place stating otherwise. The excess water bill is 100% on the tenant as they are the responsible party to the municipality and have a duty to notify the landlord in a timely manner. Again, I have said several times that I believe the landlord has a moral obligation in this case but not a legal one
@Robert Kough Someone who isn’t a homeowner probably had no idea that indicates a leaks, it was probably not them just being negligent. I personally would reimburse them 50% for those 2 months. If it went on longer than that then I wouldn’t.
Glad to see you and your tenant came to something that you both found fair! You’re happy, she’s happy, everyone’s happy! Hopefully this leaves a good taste in her mouth and she stays for another 15 years!
Ok so there was a water leak about 5 feet from the meter outside of the home. The tenant notified me of the leak 27 Jan and it was fixed 3 Feb. I spoke with the water company and the leak began during the billing cycle between 20NOV - 20DEC. The bill was issued early January. Her bill at the time was 229, indicating a leak. She did not inform me until she received her second high bill from the cycle from 20DEC -20JAN, receiving the 514.92 bill end of January. I will agree to pay the first bill and for the usage from 27 Jan - 3 Feb ( when leak was fixed) but do not agree with paying for the remainder. My justification is due to the fact that her inability to pay her bills on time resulted in the leak being undetected for approximately a month! Am I right or wrong?
As others here know, I'm very tenant-sympathetic. But, in this case, I think your proposal is very reasonable.
I think in legal terms - what would a court think was "reasonable." That's the word that all courts base decisions on - what sounds reasonable? I think your proposal is based on good and fair reasoning. You're willing to pay for the increased water bill - and by the way, you only have to pay for the amount that is above her average bill, not the whole amount - from the time it was discovered.
Most rental agreements state in them that it's the tenant's responsibility to bring problems to the attention of the landlord. If yours has this clause, you're covered by your contract. But, even without a contract, it's still - reasonable - to put responsibility on a tenant who is responsible to pay all utility bills, to have to notify her landlord of a problem if she then wants to make him/her responsible for the problem.
There is a way to present this to the tenant in a non-combatant way. I'd just say that "you know it's not fair to say I should be responsible for a problem that you didn't tell me about." I wouldn't make it about her not paying her bills on time. That's kind of an attack or criticism. You learn to spin things in a way that tenants can get on board with.
So, instead of "you should pay your bills on time," you go with "well, you know it's not fair to say I should be responsible for something I didn't know about, right?" "But, what I can do is pay for the amount that's above your average bill for the time I knew about the problem and for the time when the leak happened before you knew about it."
@Robert Kough After thinking about this a little bit and understanding the settlement that you came to with Your renter... Perhaps situations like this should be clearly spelled out in lease agreements. In other words explaining why timely payments of utilities are important for discovery of infrastructure problems. And the ramifications of their neglect Allowing a problem to become a larger problem. There's clearly would also apply in the case of a roof leak or any other noticeable maintenance issue that could be resolved saving the Property owner money and the Compromised living standard
There is no doubt that the portion of the supply line from the meter to the home is the responsibility of the property owner and, therefore, the duty to repair or replace it. There is a separate issue of the tenants responsibilities to pay bills on time and report any property defects to the landlord. I think you came to a reasonable settlement with your tenant and, hopefully, you both learned from the experience. In closing, utility companies are difficult to deal with and they will slap a lien against your property no matter who did or didn't catch the leak. Might I suggest you inquire about "Third party notification" with your water and electric company as owner of the property. This way you too would have received the over run notice, I would think. Just my thoughts.
@Sam Martin i agree completely. I plan on putting this exact scenario in the lease agreement somehow to avoid this from even being a question next time