This is outright THEFT by the city. I hope she demands interest. Get a lawyer dear. Do NOT let the city cogs deny you YOUR money just because it may cause them some extra work or bureaucratic headaches.

MY Mountain View does not steal from it's citizens. This is outrageous, please keep us informed!

You would not think that a City that claims to be above the fray morally, could deliberately choose not to do the right thing.
I suspect it is the bureaucratic staff who does not respect or understand who is funding their generous salaries and benefits. Without regard to what the law says, it is immoral and gutless of the City not to refund the overpayment and perhaps pay interest. Bigger concern for residents is the tone deaf City Management, shame on you Betty Kong. It goes to show none of them have worked in the real world like the rest of us.

Who was the highest level manager to approved the 3-year payout? Patty Kong or Dan Rich? They should be formally reprimanded by the City Council. How could they have possibly imagined that refunding 15% of the overpayment was "doing the right thing"? This is one of the most tone-deaf actions I can ever recall the City of Mountain View taking.

Can you take a city to small claims court?

And people wonder why people dislike and distrust government. IT IS NOT A MATTER of the city not being REQUIRED to pay it back. It is a matter of morality.

What Quinn and Kong are saying is "The city took money from her that it did not deserve (theft), but the law allows us to get away with that."

Am I understanding this correctly? The City caused this problem decades ago, they just discovered theirr error and now refuse to pay the homeowner the funds due? Hiding behind CA Government code is unacceptable. Officials say it remains a mystery exactly why Salles was overbilled for so many years. but gave assurances that the problem was isolated to her address AND that no one else was affected. So if it remains a mystery how can they possibly know it is an isolated incident and that other homeowners were affected, that makes no sen

I sincerely hope Ms Salles is relentless in the pursuit of her full refund. You can bet if one out the big developers was in her situationthey would have a phalanx of lawyers demanding full payment with interest.

SHAME!

Ridiculous. It's not like this is millions of dollars that would be consequential to the city. It's $5,400 and it should be repaid in total to her! But please, let's not encourage hiring lawyers. Surely this can be fixed without a bunch of lawyers taking their cut out of a legal fight.

It's a fairly common concept in law that a taking of property that goes unchallenged is actually legal if sufficient time has passed. Property line disagreements are a common example; if you put a fence around your land, and inadvertently or deliberately fence in part of your neighbor's land, and it isn't challenged for 7 years, that land inside the fence is legally yours.

Keeping money that a customer overpaid is a similar concept.

But I wonder if that applies to commercial businesses, or if there are different rules for overpaying a business versus overpaying a public entity.

In the real world, if a customer over pays a business (which is common), if the business is not able to return the funds to the rightful owner after a set period of time, the escheatment process kicks in and the funds are remitted to the state who will
hold it until the owner claims it. In this case, the owner keeps full title and is only penalized by loss of use (no interest accrues). Google "California Unclaimed Property" for details.

It appears local governments play by a different set of rules, either way, our City "Executive" Management has embarrassed us once again. I hope Ms. Salles will keep the pressure on by taking this to a City Council meeting if the City does not come to its senses.

If this is indeed an isolated incident, I don't see why the City of MTV can't make an exception and pay the entire amount for the period of the error. It's not a lot of money for this City. Why not? Maybe not to set a precedent if they make a really big boo boo.

The builder applied for TWO hookups to the city sewer. That is why the city does not feel obligated to return the money. It doesn't matter whether or not the hookup was used. It was ordered.

The homeowner should have examined their bill decades ago. The city should not have to dip in this year's budget to pay more than they are legally obligated to. Three years has probably to do with a civil statue of limitations. Sure, state law would ultimately protect the city, but it's much easier and cheaper to quash a lawsuit based on the standard statue of limitations. It would never go past an initial hearing.

How would you like to receive a notice from the city stating that you underpaid for the last twenty years and now owe $20,000. You would argue the opposite--that the city should not receive any of the money you underpaid!

While a company may not be obligated to refund overpayments, this is a different situation. Ms. Salles had no knowledge of the overpayment, as she had not lived in mt view before buying her home in November1996, and mt view utilities first service was 12/6/96. The first bill arrived and was paid. How would one know that the amount was incorrect having never lived in mt view nor received a previous bill from them?
It would be impossible for Salles to debate a bill within the "allowable" year when there was no indication of billing for two units on the statement. Absolutely criminal and unethical. Shame on these "leaders."

This woman is morally right. And yet the City isn't morally responsible. If the city set a precedent that was in opposition to California Government Code, who knows what it could lead to.
A suit would have to involve a statewide agency. Unless it were done pro bono, more legal costs would be incurred than would be awarded. Somebody pays for pro bono; it'll be hard to find a lawyer willing to justify this effort.

There was no possible way Ms. Salles could have been aware of the double hookup - as it was not listed on her bill. (And there is no comparison to a "lot line" takeover, as this was absolutely unknown by the owner, and there was no way she could possibly be aware of it until notified by the City.)
I hope the City will do the morally right thing and refund the entire amount. This is money confiscated from Ms. Salles - and needs to be repaid in entirety. She has absolutely NO fault here.

If anyone knows of a petition or a way to reach people in leadership positions in mountain view, please post here! This is utter nonsense and the worst part is that they don't know how it happened, so it could happen to YOU! How dare they act like they are doing her a favor by giving her a measly $1030 of the 5040 that they owe her? Just refund the money and quit making yourselves look like greedy shills.

Well, we know where the offices are. People should drop by during business hours to voice their opinion on the matter. This really is outrageous. It would be nice to see steady stream of concerned (but respectful) citizens stopping by to share their voice with those who work for us.

Someone should also notify one of the local TV news shows that do consumer protection stories. Michal Finny from 7 On Your Side is one of them.

Unfortunately, 7 on your Side (ABC news, Michael Finney) doesn't handle municipal issues, so they wouldn't be able to investigate this issue.

The thing that's so disturbing about this is that it's a small local example of what's happening in our current administration, i.e., It's our fault, we're not taking responsibility, and we don't care about you, deal with it. As MV attorney Quinn said "We don't know how the mistake occurred but we want to fix it going forward." If you don't know how it occurred, how do you fix it going forward?

"When an overpayment like this occurs we have our policies that we follow, and we're going above and beyond that here." Above and beyond? This is far below and away, IMO.

And Mt View? Is $5,400 going to break the bank? Given that you've benefited so much from development both commercially and residentially over the last 15 years, how about heeding that "Don't be evil" standard set by the company that's brought you such benefit.

Who knows how to put an issue on the next ballot to compel the city to act morally in such cases?

I'm disappointed, but not surprised, that Mountain View city government is taking the selfish and morally reprehensible road. Adding insult to injury, they pat themselves on the back for their mercy, stealing only 70% of the ill-gotten gain rather than 90%.

To the responsible party, shame on you. You had the opportunity to do the right thing and you chose not to.

In general, one must present a written CLAIM FOR DAMAGES to a California government entity before suing for damages (money). But sometimes there are other steps required before suing for some things. A lawyer out there should research the matter and post his or her findings (free of charge). Maybe, apart from refunds, this is a matter to report to the county CIVIL GRAND JURY.

This seems like negligence on the part of the city to me. Sending out non-itemized bills is designed to deceive. The city has an obligation not to deceive. So, sure, no refund. But instead, damages plus penalty. $10,000 becomes $25,000. This isn't an overbilling. It's a deception. Specifically because the overcharge is not refundable, it's negligence. Maybe you can only go back 5 years, but there should be a penalty in addition to the lost sum plus interest. Hmm, might work out to $10K after all.

Oh, instead of deception, I should have said it's a fraud. The statue of limitations on a fraudulent action is 3 years from the date the fraud is discovered. I guess the whole amount plus penalty and interest can be collected. Yes, definitely hire a lawyer. The city would get off easy to only refund the overcharge.

Any updates, Mountain View Voice? We're so appreciative you told this story and would love to see the city refund the entire amount of the overcharge.

@Jayne

If anything changes, I'll be sure to post it.

-- Mark