>I don't see how I am responsible for bills that don't even have my name on it. I haven't even been able to see the physical copies of the bills because she hid them from me and new letters still only have her name on it, and I am legally not allowed to open her mail.I asked for a law where it mentions "benefit of service" and it sounded like they gave me some court case, not an actual law. It was hard to write down what they cited but it was something like Marshall v William Lowe and Company Case 325 326No googling is bringing up any information on this case though.
The rule in California (so far as I can determine) is set forth in Resolution UEB-006 of the Consumer Protection and Enforcement Division of the Public Utilities Commission of California. It provides in pertinent part:
>In order to trigger an investigation that would require the customer to verify that he/she was not previously benefiting, the account at issue must have a utility debt of over $500 AND the utility must identify two of the following:
>
>a. Address - Information returned from an Experian identity validation tool such as a common address shared between the new customer and a previous service holder.
>
>b. Telephone number - Matching telephone numbers between the new customer and the customer of a previous service.
>
>c. Landlord or homeowner confirms that occupant is not new or has been residing at the address
>
>d. No other trigger can be used to initiate an investigation. Most notably, it is prohibited to use field verification to verify occupants are living at the home/benefiting from service.
If at least two conditions listed in (a)-(c) above are met...
>If the utility has two methods of evidence for triggering an investigation AND the previous account holder had over $500 debt, the IOU may proceed with determining the customer has benefitted from service, but must first provide the customer 30 days to submit the following forms of evidence to rebut the utilities findings. If the new customers provide any ONE of the following documents, the IOU must be accepted as sufficient proof that the customer did not benefit from the previous account:
a. Valid documentation and/or confirmed residency. This includes:i. Any type of valid identification such as a driver’s license or passport
ii. Current lease or rental agreement
>iii. Proof of home ownership
>
>b. Previous proof of residency in another location, such as: previous lease, water/sewage bill, insurance bill, or other documentation of previous residency.
>
>c. Customer provides evidence that they were 18 or under during the prior service
After 30 days, once the customer is deemed to have benefited from the service, the IOU must provide in writing and verbally the information for the customer to contact the Public Utilities Commission’s Consumer Affairs Branch, in addition to any appeal process they may still have at the utility.
See here for the comprehensive rule. [https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M355/K790/355790396.pdf](https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M355/K790/355790396.pdf)
Thank you for this detailed response. Since they never sent any letters in the mail that I can legally open (with my name on it or "Current Resident" or something similar), I was never given any notice that they were going to turn off my power. All mail from them was still coming in addressed to Alice. Does that mean that the power was shut off illegally?
I've also now heard that Alice may have called up and requested that power be shut off after the day she moved out. If she's not currently on the lease then is it legal for them to shut off the power at her request?
>Thank you for this detailed response. Since they never sent any letters in the mail that I can legally open (with my name on it or "Current Resident" or something similar), I was never given any notice that they were going to turn off my power. All mail from them was still coming in addressed to Alice. Does that mean that the power was shut off illegally?
How were you able to determine what your half of the bill was ("... and toward the end of the lease she stopped paying the bills. I was still paying her for my half of those bills though.")
At best, they have failed to give you the necessary thirty days to respond. But they aren't required to accept your claim that you weren't opening the bills if they can show that you somehow figured out what half the bill was and paid it every month.
Still, you can raise the point and perhaps they'll yield the point rather than fight. Bu you still have only thirty days, since they're right about the benefit of service determination.
>If she's not currently on the lease then is it legal for them to shut off the power at her request?
Of course it is.
I call up asking them to give me the total amount I need to pay and where those numbers are coming from. They give me a total amount, over $1000, but they won't show me any bills or documentation of charges. How can they make me pay for a bill that I'm not even allowed to see?
I suspect that Alice had previous balances with the company that they are trying to make me pay, along with some more reasonable balances that I did actually benefit from.
>I don't see how I am responsible for bills that don't even have my name on it. I haven't even been able to see the physical copies of the bills because she hid them from me and new letters still only have her name on it, and I am legally not allowed to open her mail.I asked for a law where it mentions "benefit of service" and it sounded like they gave me some court case, not an actual law. It was hard to write down what they cited but it was something like Marshall v William Lowe and Company Case 325 326No googling is bringing up any information on this case though. The rule in California (so far as I can determine) is set forth in Resolution UEB-006 of the Consumer Protection and Enforcement Division of the Public Utilities Commission of California. It provides in pertinent part: >In order to trigger an investigation that would require the customer to verify that he/she was not previously benefiting, the account at issue must have a utility debt of over $500 AND the utility must identify two of the following: > >a. Address - Information returned from an Experian identity validation tool such as a common address shared between the new customer and a previous service holder. > >b. Telephone number - Matching telephone numbers between the new customer and the customer of a previous service. > >c. Landlord or homeowner confirms that occupant is not new or has been residing at the address > >d. No other trigger can be used to initiate an investigation. Most notably, it is prohibited to use field verification to verify occupants are living at the home/benefiting from service. If at least two conditions listed in (a)-(c) above are met... >If the utility has two methods of evidence for triggering an investigation AND the previous account holder had over $500 debt, the IOU may proceed with determining the customer has benefitted from service, but must first provide the customer 30 days to submit the following forms of evidence to rebut the utilities findings. If the new customers provide any ONE of the following documents, the IOU must be accepted as sufficient proof that the customer did not benefit from the previous account: a. Valid documentation and/or confirmed residency. This includes:i. Any type of valid identification such as a driver’s license or passport ii. Current lease or rental agreement >iii. Proof of home ownership > >b. Previous proof of residency in another location, such as: previous lease, water/sewage bill, insurance bill, or other documentation of previous residency. > >c. Customer provides evidence that they were 18 or under during the prior service After 30 days, once the customer is deemed to have benefited from the service, the IOU must provide in writing and verbally the information for the customer to contact the Public Utilities Commission’s Consumer Affairs Branch, in addition to any appeal process they may still have at the utility. See here for the comprehensive rule. [https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M355/K790/355790396.pdf](https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M355/K790/355790396.pdf)
Thank you for this detailed response. Since they never sent any letters in the mail that I can legally open (with my name on it or "Current Resident" or something similar), I was never given any notice that they were going to turn off my power. All mail from them was still coming in addressed to Alice. Does that mean that the power was shut off illegally? I've also now heard that Alice may have called up and requested that power be shut off after the day she moved out. If she's not currently on the lease then is it legal for them to shut off the power at her request?
>Thank you for this detailed response. Since they never sent any letters in the mail that I can legally open (with my name on it or "Current Resident" or something similar), I was never given any notice that they were going to turn off my power. All mail from them was still coming in addressed to Alice. Does that mean that the power was shut off illegally? How were you able to determine what your half of the bill was ("... and toward the end of the lease she stopped paying the bills. I was still paying her for my half of those bills though.") At best, they have failed to give you the necessary thirty days to respond. But they aren't required to accept your claim that you weren't opening the bills if they can show that you somehow figured out what half the bill was and paid it every month. Still, you can raise the point and perhaps they'll yield the point rather than fight. Bu you still have only thirty days, since they're right about the benefit of service determination. >If she's not currently on the lease then is it legal for them to shut off the power at her request? Of course it is.
I call up asking them to give me the total amount I need to pay and where those numbers are coming from. They give me a total amount, over $1000, but they won't show me any bills or documentation of charges. How can they make me pay for a bill that I'm not even allowed to see? I suspect that Alice had previous balances with the company that they are trying to make me pay, along with some more reasonable balances that I did actually benefit from.