Benefit National Property Management, Inc.

Thank you for your inquiryWe offer the following explanation:| As the property that is in questions is a unit that sits on a large working agricultural property, the owner of the home will not provide a copy of the property's total water billPer the lease agreement the tenant agreed to pay a
flat $per month fee to account for their water usageThere is not a separate meter for the unit and the owner is under no obligation to provide their personal billing other than to account for such billing on the itemized statement| As stated, the customer was aware and agreed via e-mail that the charge was fair, per the contract, and the charge was properly itemized on the security deposit itemization.Attachments:Clause In Lease Agreement Regarding Item In Question

Thank you for acknowledging there are no sub meters on the premises. This is now in direct violation of Senate Bill 750. See attached. Effective 1/1/15, the landlord was required to install sub meters where multi dwellings reside.
I am requesting a full refund of the water billings for which the Landlord did not accurately bill for or provide invoices for said usage.
SB 750
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 13, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
[redacted], Chair
SB 750 (Wolk) - As Amended: August 8, 2013
SENATE VOTE : 27-11
SUBJECT : Water meters: Multiunit structures
SUMMARY : Requires, as of January 1, 2015, that individual
water meters, also called submeters, be installed on all new
multifamily residential units or mixed commercial and
multifamily units and requires that landlords bill residents for
the increment of water they use. Specifies landlord and tenant
rights and obligations. Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes findings that the purpose of this bill is to encourage
water conservation in multifamily residential buildings while
ensuring that practices for water service billing are just,
reasonable, and include appropriate safeguards for both
landlords and tenants.
2)Requires each water purveyor that sells, leases, rents, or
furnishes, or delivers water service to a newly constructed
multiunit residential structure or newly constructed mixed-use
residential and commercial structure for which a water
connection is submitted after January 1, 2015 to ensure each
individual unit be metered or submetered as a pre-condition to
new water service.
3)Requires the applicant to provide appropriate documentation to
the water purveyor identifying the location of the water
meters or submeters.
4)Prohibits the water purveyor from imposing an additional
capacity or connection fee or charge for submeter that is
installed by an owner or his or her agent.
5)Defines "low-income housing," "billing agent," "landlord,"
"property," "rental agreement," "renting," "submeter," "water
service," and "water purveyor," for the purpose of the
statute.
6)Exempts low-income housing, student dormitories, long-term
SB 750
Page 2
health care facilities, time-share properties, and residential
care facilities from the requirement to submeter.
7)Requires that meters or submeters conform to state rules and
regulations governing devices that weigh and measure and be
installed and operated in compliance with specifications for
measuring devices and that plumbing fixtures conform to state
laws governing habitability of dwellings and water
conservation.
8)Specifies that water purveyors are not responsible for
ensuring compliance with installation, certification,
maintenance, and testing of water submeters and associated
onsite plumbing.
9)Requires a landlord that intends to charge a tenant separately
for water service to provide specified disclosures in writing
regarding the tenant's billing, testing, and repair rights,
among other provisions, in at least 10-point type, prior to
executing a rental agreement.
10)Prohibits a landlord from separately charging tenants for
water service unless the submetering system is installed,
operated, and maintained as specified, including easily
accessible for the tenant to read.
11)Provides that the amount of the water bill shall be
calculated by multiplying the water volume as determined by
the submeter for the billing period by the rate(s) for the
volumetric usage established by the water purveyor for
residential use (volumetric use charge).
12)Specifies that the monthly bill for water service may only
include four charges: the volumetric use charge; a portion of
the fixed charges from the water purveyor divided equally, or
by proportion of volumetric use charge, among all property
units; a fee for the landlord's billing costs, up to $4 or 40%
of the amount actual billed for water use, whichever is less;
and a late fee, if applicable, and as specified under this
bill. Prohibits a landlord from imposing any periodic,
connection, termination or other fee, however denominated.
13)Provides that if a water system in a dwelling unit does not
function properly, including plumbing leaks that allow
unnecessary water consumption or a malfunction submeter, the
SB 750
Page 3
landlord should investigate and, if warranted, repair the
condition.
14)Requires a landlord who is notified of leaks or other
conditions causing water consumption or a submeter reading
indicating constant or abnormal water usage to repair the
condition within 10 days or be:
a) Restricted to charging the tenant, for the period after
the 10 days, $15 for the month's water use, or actual
usage, whichever is less; or,
b) Allowed, at the landlord's option, to charge a maximum
of 50 cents per day for those days between the two meter
readings, or actual usage, whichever is less, if there are
meter readings for both before and after the repair; and,
c) Prohibited from charging for water usage if the
condition is unrectified for 6 months after the
investigation.
15)Allows the landlord, consistent with current laws governing
landlord entry, to access the tenant's unit for purposes of
installing, reading, repairing, testing and maintaining a
submeter or repairing or testing a water fixture the tenant
reports is in need of repair.
16)Provides that if a monthly submeter reading is unavailable,
the landlord shall advise the tenant and bill at a rate equal
to 75% of the tenant's average monthly use based on the three
prior months. If billing for the three prior months is
unavailable, the use charge for days that data is unavailable
shall be 50 cents. If readings remain unavailable for six
months, the volumetric use charge shall be zero.
17)Allows a landlord to impose a late fee of up to $7 for bills
overdue by 20 days and a late fee of up to $10 if any amount
is unpaid after 50 days. Allows a landlord, under specified
circumstances, to deduct late bills or bills of tenants who
have vacated from the security deposit, as well as other
remedies, but prohibits shutting off water from an occupied
unit.
18)Penalizes a landlord who violates this bill's provisions by
allowing the tenant to recover up to three times the amount of
actual damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and a
civil
penalty of one month's rent unless the landlord can show the
SB 750
Page 4
violation was in good faith and not part of a pattern and
practice of violating the this bill's provisions.
19)Allows a city, county, city and county, or district to
enforce this bill's provisions.
20)Specifies that landlord and tenant rights and
responsibilities, as established in this bill, shall apply
whenever submeters are in use, including submeters installed
as required by this bill; however, does not require units to
be retrofit with submeters or affect the billing at units with
installed but unused submeters to begin billing in accordance
with
21)Does not preclude or preempt ordinances that regulate
submetering if they were adopted prior to January 1, 2013.
22)Does not prohibit a water purveyor, city, county, or other
local agency from adopting and implementing its own
submetering program as long as such program is at least as
stringent and the requirements of this bill.
23)Provides that the rights and obligations provided by this
bill may not be waived and any waiver is void.
EXISTING LAW
1)Requires urban water suppliers, that do not get water from the
federal Central Valley Project to install water meters on all
municipal and industrial service connections and to charge
each customer based on actual volume of water delivered.
2)Each water corporation with 500 or more service connections
that is not already subject to water metering requirements
under the existing Water Measurement Law must currently
install a water meter on each new service connection and must
retrofit each unmetered service connection by January 1, 2025.
3)Authorizes Building Standards Commission (BSC) to approve and
adopt building standards. Every three years a building
standards rulemaking is undertaken to revise and update the
California Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California
Code of Regulations).
4)Provides that the Division of Measurement Standards (DMS)
SB 750
Page 5
within the Department of Food and Agriculture (DFA) has
general enforcement supervision of the laws relating to
weights and measures and measuring devices, and provides for
the enforcement of those laws and the inspection and testing
of measuring devices in each county by the county sealer.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : The purpose of this bill is to promote water
conservation by making tenants in multiunit buildings aware of,
and billed in accordance with, their water usage.
As the Pacific Institute highlighted in the report Waste Not,
Want Not: The Potential for Urban Water Conservation in
California, water conservation is the largest, least expensive,
and most environmentally sound source of water to meet
California's future needs. The installation of water meters on
multiunit residential and mixed use commercial buildings has
been shown to encourage increased conservation by making
homeowners, business owners, or renters aware of the amount of
water they are utilizing. Conceptually, this legislation is
similar to a draft ordinance requiring submetering that was
adopted by the City of San Diego on April 5, 2010. San Diego
adopted its ordinance after a report from the City of San Diego
Office of the Independent Budget Analyst found that multifamily
units comprised 44% of the total housing in San Diego, the trend
was increasing, and multifamily properties achieved a 15% to 39%
water savings when submetered.
This bill would require installation of water submeters in all
newly constructed multi-residential dwellings, for which an
application for water connect is received, after January 1,
2015. This bill is prospective and does not require an owner of
an existing multifamily dwelling to install submeters, retrofit
existing submeters, or use existing submeters that are currently
unused.
Supporting arguments : The author states that the California
water supply is under intense pressure and that to "make
environmentally and economically responsible choices,
Californians must have accurate information about their water
usage and cost" so that they can "use existing supplies as
efficiently as possible." The author advises that 46% of
Californians live in multi-family housing but for 80% of those
tenants there is no correlation between water use and cost
SB 750
Page 6
because the cost of water is included with the cost of rent,
charged as a flat fee, or allocated some other way based on a
master meter. Other supporters add that this "important bill
includes several consumer and tenant protections" and by
requiring the landlord to charge residents for water service
based on the actual volume of water it "establishes a pure
pass-through system for water costs" and "promotes increased
water conservation." Supporters state that water metering and
volumetric pricing are essential tools towards a secure and
reliable water future in California.
Opposing arguments : Opponents to the bill state that they
support the goal of encouraging water conservation but that "the
bill does not provide just and reasonable practices for
landlords" and "seems to only target landlords for liability and
penalties." For example, opponents advise that they are
concerned that the cap on the amount that can be charged for
late fees means landlords lack any effective remedy in the bill
to compel payment of the water bill whereas penalties against
landlords for errors in billing or faulty meters are excessive.
Opponents maintain that the bill places "unnecessary burdens on
both property owners and utility billing companies" by, in some
cases, asking "for information that simply does not exist." In
addition, opponents are concerned that there may be an
inadequate supply of water meters even though the bill mandates
their installation prior to water service.
This bill was heard in Assembly Housing and Community
Development Committee on July 3, 2013.
Previous legislation :
AB 19 ([redacted]) of 2011 was substantially similar to this bill but
did not include the administrative fee that is in this bill.
Two other previous attempts to introduce submetering, AB 19
([redacted]), AB 1975 ([redacted]) and AB 1173 ([redacted]), failed because of,
among other concerns, potential impacts to low income tenants.
Those concerns are resolved in this bill.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support

California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (sponsor)
Natural Resources Defense Council (sponsor)
SB 750
Page 7
The Western Center on Law and Poverty (sponsor)
California Advocacy Committee of the U.S. Green Building Council
California American Water
California League of Conservation Voters
California Municipal Utilities Association
California State Association of Electrical Workers
California State Pipe Trades Council
California Water Association
Clean Water Action
Contra Costa Water District (if amended)
County of Los Angeles
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Environmental Defense Fund
Environmental Health Coalition
Housing Long Beach
Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles
Long Beach Water Department
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (if amended)
Planning and Conservation League
San Diego County Water Authority
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Sierra Club California
Sonoma County Board of Supervisors
Sonoma County Water Agency
Western State Council of Sheet Metal Workers

Opposition

Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles (unless amended)
Apartment Association of Orange County (unless amended)
Apartment Association, California Southern Cities (unless
amended)
California Apartment Association (unless amended)
East Bay Rental Housing Association (unless amended)
El Dorado Irrigation District (unless amended)
Nor Cal Rental Property Association (unless amended)
San Diego County Apartment Association (unless amended)
Santa Barbara Rental Property Association (unless amended)
Utility Conservation Coalition (unless amended)
Utility Management and Conservation Association (unless amended)
Analysis Prepared by : [redacted] / W., P. & W. / ###-###-####
SB 750
Page 8

Any repairs that she has requested have been submitted to the owner or the home warranty company the same day. As you can see by her complaint, many repairs have already been completed with some still existing. The warranty company controls the process of dispatching contractors along with the owner...

for repairs outside the home warranty. As of 9/2/16, the warranty company has taken care of additional repairs as requested and noted in an email received from her. The tenant just recently moved in which is why she has not received any utility bills as of the date of this complaint and her move in checklist was emailed to her on 8/25/2016 at 9:18am which is the day before the Revdex.com complaint letter.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted].  On or about August 25th, I received the move in checklist, a telephone call from the plumber requesting a date to come out and make the repairs  and a call from the maintenance technician  to replace the tile that he stated had been missing for 2 years. While I find the original request  has now been satisfied, there is still the irrigation issue in the front yard that we are working through.  Regardless, I am still surprised  by the lack of professionalism displayed from most of the associates in this business and a bit surprised there was no offer for a hotel stay during the week we were out of hot water.Thank you. Thank you.

CA Civil Code 1954.204 is inapplicable as the property in question does not utilize utility sub-meters.  As is clearly stated in the customer's response: "Before executing a rental agreement, a landlord who intends to charge a tenant separately from rent for water service in a property with submeters shall clearly disclose the following information.....This property has not at any point utilized or had installed utility sub-meters.Attachments:CA Civil Code Snippet

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/06/03) */
Security deposits do not offer the company or vendors any financial gain. Residents are charged the actual amount of the vendor invoice which is included in the deposit itemization. We are currently trying to negotiate a resolution with the...

owner to settle this which the Revdex.com complaint was filed before we even had a chance to provide a final response. Her Revdex.com desired resolution is to receive $385 back but that is not the actual amount she recently submitted in an email of $250. She received verbal estimates over the phone for house cleaning and carpet cleaning but when the work was actually performed, the cleaning charge was actually $35 more and carpet cleaning was $20 more.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2016/06/08) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I was quoted less than what was charged in two instances and I was billed for two services that I was NEVER informed about. Let me be very clear in terms of what I am seeking:
1) I am seeking a refund on bills from the Tile and Grout, $385. Did you try to negotiate this with me and ask for a different amount? Yes. Am I willing to be flexible, somewhat.
2) I am also seeking refunds from RNR services of $158 for services that I already performed in the apt before leaving, never agreed to, and these services are outrageously billed. I changed all the bulbs, I should not be charged $10 to change ONE bulb.
As far as the carpet cleaning charging me $20 more than promised, that's fine.
Cleaning lady promised me $140, not $175.
I want $35 back.
I want all these, UNAUTHORIZED charges back.I find your practices to be unjust and unethical. Just because you have someones deposit, does not mean you give away their money.
Thanks,
Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 16, 2016/06/29) */
Hello
The business has approached me and offered a settlement, which I will accept . I'm accepting it because I don't have the time or the energy to keep pursuing this when its taking so long. The vendors are not being scrutinized for when they take of people, but there's only so much I can do to make things fair.
Thank you for your attempts to assist.
[redacted]
Final Business Response /* (4000, 15, 2016/06/29) */
This tenants accusations of us using security deposits for any type of gain to us or the vendor is completely false and we would be happy to provide any photos and documentation. Specifically to why the tile was cleaned and how dirty it was.
The tenant was offered a settlement in writing on 6/27/16 at 12:39pm but has not responded.
Another email was sent at 2:26pm asking if she received the settlement offer and her response was "Perhaps there was a cross in the email. Let me check and get back to you soon. I am en route".
Still no response as of 6/29/16 at 10:22am. No further rebuttal is needed as an offer has been made or we are willing to settle this in small claims court.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2016/07/20) */
We have been in contact with Mr. [redacted] and the owner regarding his deposit deduction many times with no resolution or agreement from the owner. The pet urine damage caused by Mr. [redacted] cats has costs the owner additional expenses to try...

and rectify the urine smell along with many complaints about the urine smell from the new tenant. No civil codes have been violated or deductions made in bad faith. The owner is not willing to negotiate any further and we are willing to settle this in small claims court as the last course of action.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 10, 2016/07/21) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
While Benefit National has responded to all of my correspondence, no effort at resolutions have been made by the management company. I have made numerous requests for the return of our security deposit that has been unlawfully withheld. My claim that these securities have been withheld in bad faith has been substantiated by California Civil Code 1950.5 and 1950.7. Mr. [redacted] has refused to acknowledge his company's wrongdoing.
The alleged pet urine damage was never supported with any photographic proof of staining. The only stain in question had been in the residence prior to my family even occupying the property.
The bad faith deduction was for "carpet replacement" even though the carpet is beyond the serviceable life of the carpet. The carpet in question had been in the property long before the owners even took ownership of said property (in excess of five years). Additionally, the owners nor Benefit National could provide proof of purchase or warranty information on the carpet. Because of all this, we are not responsible for carpet replacement.
If the pet damage was so bad, why was there zero mention or annotation of it during the pre move out inspection or even the final move out inspection?
There is a reason why Benefit National has such poor Yelp! reviews, stay clear of this property management company, zero ethics and extremely poor customer service.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 14, 2016/07/22) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Unfortunately, I know that we were legally bound by paragraph 30 of our contract for the ridiculous $925 commission charge, even though your broker, [redacted], met the new tenant at our residence and left my wife and I to finish showing the property after she left. Therefore, legally, we only stand to be reimbursed $490 of our security deposit that was withheld by Benefit National. Even though I believe I have interpreted the previously cited California Civil Code accurately (and been reassured by legal council) it is not worth the risk of being responsible of court costs in the event the presiding judge interprets the law differently.
[redacted], and his associates at Benefit National, have not conducted themselves as professionals nor in an ethical manner. We were charged for alleged "damages" that were never annotated of brought up at any point during our residency or the final move out inspection. These damages did not occur until after the new tenant had singed their lease agreement and taken possession of the property in question.
My wife and I were ideal tenants that took exceptional care of this property and only filed three complaints in five years regarding issues any homeowner would be required to address. Benefit National's response to these were that I as the tenant was responsible and the following year's rental agreement was amended to highlight the appliance or issue as the tenants responsibility.
To all those that read this: avoid this company at all costs.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 12, 2016/07/22) */
No further resolution is available via email or the Revdex.com. We have already communicated this to Mr. [redacted] several times that we are ready to let a judge decide this case. We would be happy to provide anyone details regarding Mr. [redacted] accusations.