Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Customer Complaint topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board asks staff to probe Rocky Top landlord billing dispute after city says no account existed
Summary
A Rocky Top landlord told the board he paid thousands for repairs and meter work and was prevented from placing a tenant's account in the tenant’s name; the city manager said no account existed and the district attorney sought restitution — the board directed staff to investigate invoices and the status of any criminal restitution.
A landlord from Rocky Top told the Tennessee Board of Utility Regulation he had paid multiple bills for repairs and meter replacements and was later blocked from transferring service to his tenant; Rocky Top city officials said no account had been established in the tenant’s name and that criminal restitution had been ordered.
Bradley Utley, the property owner, said he had paid invoices totaling more than $1,500 for emergency repair work and additional meter replacements and overtime charges. "I paid that and just kind of forgot about everything," Utley said when asked to explain why he had paid the city’s invoices despite believing the repairs were the city’s responsibility.
Rocky Top City Manager Mike Ellis told the board the city believed the tenant had not opened an account and that the district attorney’s office had instructed charging the property owner while pursuing restitution from the tenant. "There was no account period," Ellis said of the disputed billing.
Board counsel Matt Napolitano advised that, generally, utilities cannot force landlords to pay a previous tenant’s unpaid bill, and that civil restitution rather than utility collection is the usual remedy. The board nevertheless voted to direct staff to research two matters: whether criminal restitution was ordered and satisfied, and whether the invoices and charges the landlord paid were appropriate. The motion to approve staff recommendations was made by Candace Vannasdale and seconded by Paula Mitchell and carried.
Why it matters: The decision clarifies the board’s role — the TBOUR can press utilities to resolve billing or policy irregularities, but remedies for restitution commonly come through civil court or criminal restitution, not utility enforcement.
What happens next: Board staff will investigate the criminal case status, review the invoices and provide a briefing at the next board meeting. The city manager volunteered to review the invoices and work with the landlord in the interim.
