Is the landlord Responsible?

[predestined]

Last year I started noticing my electrical bill beginning to esculate. After having an auditor come out and check my meter, and electrical appliances in my apartment, 1 bedroom, his conclusion was that corrosion on my water heater was probably caused by defected coils, causing overheating of water which in turn caused an excessive amount of electrical power usage. I notified the landlord, they installed a new water heater. Bills previously per month amounted to an average $86.00-to eventually esculating to $370.00 monthly. Now my bill is $1,576.00. Also during that period my electricity was shut off because I couldn't pay the bill so I was charged another $256.00 to have it turned on again. Now with new water heater installed they average approx. $86.00 monthly. Question is: Is the landlord responsible for any cost of electrical usage above the average $86.00 monthly? They offered me only $500.00. I asked them to contribute at least $1,00.00. I've been paying small payments all along to keep the electricity on. Help!!

 

[seniorjudge]

...They offered me only $500.00....

Take the money....

 

[predestined]

Is the Landlord Responsible

Why should I take the money when the it has been investigated by the dept. of utilities commision that the damaged water was the cause for the large amounts of electrical usage. Large amounts of brown corrosion and calcium deposits were found around the pipes connected to the water heater. I have pictures. The landlord replaced it, which concluded that they agreed that it was a damaged water heater, and now I'm stuck with an electric bill of over $1,300.00 minus my normal monthly cost for electricity. Paying for electricity that I didn't use. How fair is that? Maybe you have an extra couple of thousand dollars just laying around, but I don't ! Would a small claims dispute help?

 

[seniorjudge]

Q: Would a small claims dispute help?

A: 99% of small claims judgments go uncollected. So you have to decide whether you want to take a chance at getting $1300 (which chance is slim to none) OR take $500 up front.

Your choice.

(By the way, if your math skills are bad, $500 is more than zero dollars.)

 

[David_Staub]

I think it is probably unlikely that the landlord has any legal liability under the circumstances. His obligation was probably limited to providing a functional appliance. It is my understanding that almost all water heaters get more expensive to run over time, and today's appliances are more economical than an older model was even when new. If your landlord had a perfectly good five year old water heater that cost $120/month to run do you think he would have to replace it or pick up the extra $34/month that it costs to operate the less efficicient model? I don't think so.

Yours is an extreme case, but I think you should be satisified with the $500.

 

[seniorjudge]

I think it is probably unlikely that the landlord has any legal liability under the circumstances. His obligation was probably limited to providing a functional appliance. It is my understanding that almost all water heaters get more expensive to run over time, and today's appliances are more economical than an older model was even when new. If your landlord had a perfectly good five year old water heater that cost $120/month to run do you think he would have to replace it or pick up the extra $34/month that it costs to operate the less efficicient model? I don't think so.

Yours is an extreme case, but I think you should be satisified with the $500.

Good answer....