The E bill is normally issued when the TNB officer is unable to tell the actual reading, more often than not due to locked main gate. Even if you notify them in writing to go and read the bill, they will turn around and ask you to provide the actual reading to them yourself, and following that, they will issue a new N bill. This is from personal experience.

One must note that TNB imposes a 50% surcharge for issuing E bills for 3 consecutive months. This is stated clearly in their website here:
http://www.tnb.com.my/residential/billing/...nd-charges.html


This move may seem novel but whether or not TNB wants to terminate electricity supply is solely up to their discretion. TNB rules dictate that if a bill is not paid, a notice commonly known as 'red letter' would be sent, giving the account holder (best not to use the term landlord/owner/tenant) to pay up within 7 days, failing which supply will be disconnected.

Now, in theory, it does sound like a good idea on TNB's part, but the problem lies in the execution. Sometimes the red letter arrives really late, like 3 months after the bill remain unpaid, or after a huge sum is racked up. Sometimes, even after a lapse of 7 days, TNB still fail to disconnect supply, until much later. As the supplier, TNB has a wide discretion on their part, i.e. the exact time when they want to disconnect supply of electricity to a particular premises.

So, Hansel, an account holder cannot tell TNB to put an allowable limit on supply,and they also cannot instruct TNB to put a limit on an allowable outstanding sum (like how mobile operators do with credit limit). As stated above, TNB has the discretion to decide when to disconnect supply, upon sending out the red letter.

So what can a landlord do to protect himself?

My 2 cents' idea:

1. Have a clause in the tenancy agreement whereby the landlord will inspect the monthly TNB bill (this can be done online, as correctly pointed out in earlier posts herein) and if the sum due and owing exceeds RM XXXX, the landlord shall have the discretion to make advance payment on behalf of the tenant, and retain the right to contra same from payment of subsequent rental.

Example: Rental - RM500/mth. Limit of outstanding sum: RM250 [a good figure would be the 1/2 month utility deposit already paid]

Sept 2011 - outstanding TNB payment of RM400 - landlord pays RM150 in advance on behalf of tenant (thus keeping the limit at RM250 as above).
Oct 2011 - tenant pays RM500 as rent, but only RM350 is deemed to have been paid - another RM150 is deemed as contra from payment of TNB excess by landlord on behalf of tenant.

* Better still - no limit - every month must clear all bills failing which landlord will clear on behalf and contra from subsequent rental. Better still?


That would be some kind of check-and-balance system between the landlord and tenant.

With regard to complaints against TNB as to why they still claim from owners despite the tenant themselves who opened an account with TNB cabut without paying, but TNB still refuses to reconnect supply to the premises until the owners themselves clear outstanding payment - my opinion is that TNB ought to be allowed to do so.

TNB's role is to merely supply electricity - TNB ought not be perturbed with private arrangements and dealings between owners of premises and tenants. Ultimately, the owner of the premises must pay the price for the folly of the tenant. TNB ought not be made to bear the burden of chasing after the tenants, despite the fact that the account was opened under the tenant's name. Reason?

To prevent fraud. An owner can come up with a tenancy agreement with a particular tenant (perhaps even with forged/stolen identification) - and after racking up a huge bill, the 'tenant' 'disappears'. TNB then disconnects the supply. Owner cries foul and claims that TNB should reconnect and go after tenant. TNB does so. Owner then comes up with another 'tenancy agreement'. The cycle continues and continues and continues. TNB ends up on the losing side, while owners keep getting their electricity connected, while TNB has to chase after the 'tenants'.

That's my opinion. A very interesting topic indeed.

Write to TNB to disconnect? Then to reconnect again are there charges imposed (like reconnection fee of RM10 or so)? How long would it take to reconnect?

Since it worked, I guess it'll be good. Mine is just a theory.

I did up some legal research on the topic and found most cases of negligence/breach of contract in favour of TNB. It does appear that they have quite a bit of discretion on their part, to the prejudice of us customers, of course.

But there was a case whereby a customer sued TNB for defamation and won the case. It is a 2006 case which was decided by a very brave and highly-respected judge, the late Justice Gengadharan Nair (sadly, he passed away due to illness in 2007). I managed to find it uploaded at the HBA website too. Do take a read. A fantastic and well-written judgment.

http://hba.org.my/laws/CourtCases/T/tnb.htm

Interesting - defamation via notice to disconnect and act of disconnecting electricity!