Q: Recently, all the tenants in our building received a notice from the management office indicating that we are now going to be billed monthly for water as part of the landlord’s efforts to assist in “global conservation of water.”The notice said each rental unit’s “pro rata share of the bill will be calculated from a predetermined formula based on the number of occupants in your apartment, using a weighted occupant count.”

Yesterday I got the first bill. Can they legally do this? There are about 500 units in the complex, none of which has a water meter. The units range from one to three bedrooms. I’m just one person and my bill is going to be around $30 a month. Is this a new trend we have to look forward to?

Tenants attorney Steven R. Kellman replies: Any fee for water usage without a water meter will be inaccurate and unfair but it may be legal.

Without a water meter, it is simply not possible to accurately determine the amount of water you use. It is ironic that the water billing system that is promoted as furthering “global conservation” actually promotes the exact opposite.

When the tenant is charged a flat fee for water no matter how much is used (i.e. $30 for one person), there is no reason to conserve water.

Excessive usage by one tenant will be paid, on a pro rata basis, by all the tenants when the bill is divided out into the residents in the 500 units. The number of occupants in a unit may correlate somewhat with water usage (more people usually means more water users) but it may not. It is quite possible for two people who do not conserve water to use more than four people who do.

There is no state law as of yet prohibiting such a billing system, but that does not mean it is legal or right.

I do see this and other billing systems emerging as a trend, especially as water rates continue to rise. If these were fought, I think some judges would look at these lease provisions with suspicious eyes and maybe even declare these water billing rules arbitrary and unenforceable.

Also, if an apartment owner charges the tenants, as a whole, more than their total bill for the complex, then the landlord may run afoul of the Public Utilities Commission because he would be acting like a water utility company by selling water at a profit without a license to do so. Until the PUC or the Legislature clears this matter up, the legality of such water billing systems remains unresolved.

Q: What is the best action for a renter if he feels the landlord is unfairly retaining part of his security deposit? Suppose he has rented the property for three years. Would the renter still have to pay for carpet cleaning and washing or painting the walls?

Property manager Griswold replies: I always recommend that the renter send a letter to the landlord requesting more information and justification for the charges, including asking for copies of invoices. The landlord must provide such information to the tenant upon request.

Charges for carpet cleaning and washing of walls can be legitimate regardless of the length of tenancy as the civil code section allows landlords to legally deduct for all cleaning. Such cleaning is not subject to any allowance for ordinary wear and tear. Painting could also be proper but typically is considered to be subject to the ordinary wear and tear allowance.

Thus, after three years, the landlord may only be able to charge for a portion of the painting costs. The actual charge will be a function of when the unit was last painted and the quality of the paint job, plus the number of occupants — a single person would be expected to leave less wear and tear than a family of five.

Send questions to Rental Roundtable, 5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92121-1743, or by e-mail to rgriswold@retodayradio.com.

Source:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/22/REGELLR8JR1.DTL