Estimate, then double bill.

[Catscratch1]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Kansas

We are building a house out of town. Before construction we got all the quotes and estimates we needed to plan a budget. We got an estimate from the rural water district for our water supply. We compared this estimate to what it would cost to drill a well and decided rural water would be the better option.

The estimate was $6010. This included: the trench, line to the meter, a bore under the highway, and setting the meter. We were told the bore under the highway costs $1200 unless they hit rock. After a site visit they decided they would probably hit rock and said it would cost between $2300-$2800 due to the rock. This was all in the estimate.

We paid it up front and they ran the lines and installed the meter. After completing the install we received a bill of an additional $5400. Explanation for the added expense is that they ran 2000ft of line instead of 500ft, and that they hit rock during the bore and raised the bore cost to $4000.

I am meeting with the water district board in a couple of weeks. Do I have any rights in this situation? Are there any laws that keep billing within a certain percent of the estimate (I understand that estimates are sometimes wrong and that they can go up... but double!?)? It's not my fault that they didn't measure correctly or calculate correctly, but I'm being billed for it. We might have chose to drill a well instead of rural water if we had known the cost would be so high.

Should I contact a lawyer before meeting with the board? Do I have a leg to stand on or is an estimate not something that can be held accountable?

Thanks!

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Kansas

We are building a house out of town. Before construction we got all the quotes and estimates we needed to plan a budget. We got an estimate from the rural water district for our water supply. We compared this estimate to what it would cost to drill a well and decided rural water would be the better option.

The estimate was $6010. This included: the trench, line to the meter, a bore under the highway, and setting the meter. We were told the bore under the highway costs $1200 unless they hit rock. After a site visit they decided they would probably hit rock and said it would cost between $2300-$2800 due to the rock. This was all in the estimate.

We paid it up front and they ran the lines and installed the meter. After completing the install we received a bill of an additional $5400. Explanation for the added expense is that they ran 2000ft of line instead of 500ft, and that they hit rock during the bore and raised the bore cost to $4000.

I am meeting with the water district board in a couple of weeks. Do I have any rights in this situation? Are there any laws that keep billing within a certain percent of the estimate (I understand that estimates are sometimes wrong and that they can go up... but double!?)? It's not my fault that they didn't measure correctly or calculate correctly, but I'm being billed for it. We might have chose to drill a well instead of rural water if we had known the cost would be so high.

Should I contact a lawyer before meeting with the board? Do I have a leg to stand on or is an estimate not something that can be held accountable?

Thanks!

Generally you must be notified of any changes in costs that exceed the estimated cost, especially when the costs will be far outside the estimated amount. This allows the consumer the opportunity to choose to go ahead at the higher cost or not.

But this depends on what exactly you agreed to when you were provided the estimate. If you were informed that there could be a variation in cost if they encountered rock, and you agreed to go ahead knowing that the estimated amount may be quite a bit higher depending on what was found during the drilling, that might make it harder for you to fight the additional charge.

Were you given a reason for the 1500 foot difference in line length?

I think it might be worth your expense to have an attorney review the estimate and the invoice to see if you have good reason to fight the additional charge.

 

[Zigner]

quincy - would it make a difference that this is not your run-of-the-mill contractor estimate?

 

[Catscratch1]

Thanks for the reply.

We were told that charges could go over the estimate. But, the estimate included considerations for rock as we visited the site and all agreed that there would probably be rock. Therefore the normal bore of $1200 was raised up to $2300-$2800. We all agreed to this as everyone felt this was accurate and fair. The bill for bore ended up being $4000.

Explanation for the extra 1500ft of line was that they missed up while writing the estimate.

We were never notified that they were going to exceed estimate. They claim they didn't know they had gone over until they compared the bill to the estimate while doing final paperwork.

 

[Catscratch1]

To specify a little. We were told that it could cost more if they hit rock other than what they expected. They did not hit rock other than where they expected though and they charged extra anyway.

 

[Zigner]

To specify a little. We were told that it could cost more if they hit rock other than what they expected. They did not hit rock other than where they expected though and they charged extra anyway.

They also ended up running 4 times as much line as was quoted...

 

[Catscratch1]

They also ended up running 4 times as much line as was quoted...

I understand that, but should it be my responsibility to check their measurements and calculations... to do their work for them? I seriously would have considered drilling a well instead of using rural water if I had an accurate estimate to begin with. I feel like it should be wrong to give such a low estimate and then double the price once completed. Also, if I refuse to pay it isn't exactly like they can repo the work like a car and I doubt I get my original 6k back even if this goes south and we don't use their water. And, now that I've spent so much money it would be cost prohibitive to drill a well. Meaning they kind of have me where they want me.

 

[quincy]

First to Zigner - Yes, it makes a difference. A misrepresentation of costs in an estimate can be excused if it is an innocent misrepresentation based on unforeseen factors and if the consumer is made aware in advance that problems could arise that would change the estimate and increase costs. What the law generally protects consumers against are those contractors who come in with intentionally low estimates just to get a job and who then present the consumer with a highly-inflated bill after the work has been completed.

I don't see that there was any intentional deception here.

But it is possible that the costs, exceeding by so much the estimate given, could be argued as unconscionable. The final bill seems to violate the expectations reasonably held by Catscratch1 when forming the agreement with the contractor.

I think it would be worth an attorney's review prior to paying, at any rate.

 

[Catscratch1]

based on unforeseen factors

First - THANKS for the advice and explanations!

I'm frustrated not because it went over, but for two reasons: Nothing was "unforeseen" (the distance didn't change and they knew the rock was there to begin with, they planned for it in writing in their first estimate), and the amount of increase is so high.

I will call our attorney Monday morning and set up a meeting to go over actual paperwork and decide how to approach this situation.

Once again I have to say thanks for your time and expertise.

 

[quincy]

First - THANKS for the advice and explanations!

I'm frustrated not because it went over, but for two reasons: Nothing was "unforeseen" (the distance didn't change and they knew the rock was there to begin with, they planned for it in writing in their first estimate), and the amount of increase is so high.

I will call our attorney Monday morning and set up a meeting to go over actual paperwork and decide how to approach this situation.

Once again I have to say thanks for your time and expertise.

I think you are smart to sit down with an attorney on Monday, Catscratch1. There is such a disparity between the original estimate and the final billing you received that it seems a personal review would be worthwhile.

There is some case law out of Kansas, too, that indicates unconscionability could be an avenue to explore. Your attorney should know if there are other, perhaps better, things to consider that could support, if nothing else, a reduction in costs.

Thank you for the thanks. Good luck.

 

[justalayman]

how does it go from 500 feet to 2000 feet? That is not a simple miscalculation.



The other issue is;

was this an estimate or a quote? From your statements it is obviously an estimate and an estimate is generally not dependable in court, especially given the disclaimer; actual cost may exceed estimate.

the argument of it being an estimate but one you should be able to rely on no less than an actual quote is:

municipalities typically do not provide quotes. Therefor the estimate, for the purposes of a consumer, must be reliable lest there be no faith in the system in place. Estimates become meaningless allowing the government free reign to dupe people into requesting work only to be charged highly inflated prices once the work is completed. Obviously since a government enjoys special powers not available to the typical contractor, their rights to enforce the inflated price become nearly an absolute. Such actions are unconscionable and against public policy.

 

[single317dad]

municipalities typically do not provide quotes. Therefor the estimate, for the purposes of a consumer, must be reliable lest there be no faith in the system in place. Estimates become meaningless allowing the government free reign to dupe people into requesting work only to be charged highly inflated prices once the work is completed. Obviously since a government enjoys special powers not available to the typical contractor, their rights to enforce the inflated price become nearly an absolute. Such actions are unconscionable and against public policy.

The rural water district might not be a government entity; the two nearby my property aren't. Even if they aren't, their status as a utility might still hold them to the higher standard.

 

[justalayman]

The rural water district might not be a government entity; the two nearby my property aren't. Even if they aren't, their status as a utility might still hold them to the higher standard.

even if not a true government entity they are often quasi-governmental entities. They often enjoy most of the powers of the governmental entity they are replacing.

I suppose there are places where they are truly a private entity but given the concerns with rights of way and many other issues, most I have seen are at least a quasi-governmental agency (and typically an allowed monopoly provider)

but along with that, your statement of them being a utility would likely invoke more stringent rules and one thing you have not mentioned either: control by the states public utilities/service commission. That may be an avenue the OP may research as well.

 

[Catscratch1]

It was an estimate and it does say that costs higher than estimates will be charged to us. I contend that both the distance and rock were known before the estimate was given, therefore there is no reason they couldn't have given an accurate estimate. Nothing changed throughout this process and using known variables as an excuse to raise cost seems unfair.

I will research their status as a utility and government body (or regulated), or at least mention it to the attorney I talk with.

I can't get over this trapped feeling. If there is no legal action I have no leverage. I can't say come get your stuff and I'll drill a well. They won't just give back the $6k I paid up front. If I don't pay the extra $5.4k they won't give me water... I kind of feel screwed!

 

[justalayman]

I can't get over this trapped feeling. If there is no legal action I have no leverage. I can't say come get your stuff and I'll drill a well. They won't just give back the $6k I paid up front. If I don't pay the extra $5.4k they won't give me water... I kind of feel screwed!

I understand completely and if only a typical contractor, I would say you were sol (and there is nothing concerning time in that) but given the uniqueness of the water company here, I suspect there is some recourse. It would be great to hear how this turns out, if you care to come back and post.