There are several double poles in my hood and I they piss me off.
According to G. L. c. 164, § 34B , a utility company has the obligation to remove the double pole within 90 days. If it doesn't it technically is in breach of the statute.
According to the small claims court of Massachusetts I can bring a claim "for amounts sought for damages, for multiple damages or statutory penalties,..."
If I understand this correctly, me (an individual) can sue a company in a small claims court for breaking the law (statutory penalty) even if I didn't incur any damages.
Perhaps this is a way to get rid of double poles in our fair city, and maybe even pocket some cash.
Talk amongst yourselves
According to G. L. c. 164, § 34B , a utility company has the obligation to remove the double pole within 90 days. If it doesn't it technically is in breach of the statute.
According to the small claims court of Massachusetts I can bring a claim "for amounts sought for damages, for multiple damages or statutory penalties,..."
If I understand this correctly, me (an individual) can sue a company in a small claims court for breaking the law (statutory penalty) even if I didn't incur any damages.
Perhaps this is a way to get rid of double poles in our fair city, and maybe even pocket some cash.
Talk amongst yourselves
no subject
Date: 2010-04-07 10:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-07 12:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-07 02:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-07 11:02 am (UTC)Not all statutes provide a right of private action. Some statutes have laws that can only be enforced by the state, for example the attorney general can sue a utility for breaking the law. I don't know whether this law provides a right of private action, but I would _suspect_ (having done no actual research mind you) that you would at least have to show that you were being personally harmed in some way by the presence of the double pole.
Small claims court does allow for statutory penalties, but only in cases where you have a right of private action under the statute.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-07 01:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-07 12:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-07 01:18 pm (UTC)Is your hood Leipzig?
Date: 2010-04-07 02:12 pm (UTC)Re: Is your hood Leipzig?
Date: 2010-04-07 02:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-07 02:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-07 02:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-07 03:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-07 03:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-07 02:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-07 03:03 pm (UTC)why is this something to be pissed off about and create a lawsuit for?
no subject
Date: 2010-04-07 03:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-07 03:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-07 04:57 pm (UTC)For the ones which have been doubled a long time, they probably just fell off someone's radar and a reminder will suffice.
I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.
My guess is that the law is actually set up to give the city leverage over the utilities, and trying to abuse it to get personal money isn't going to go over well unless you've been harmed. As for the city using it as a revenue source, you would need to compare the money spent against the money retrieved. And there is the potential for a very simple result: less (or slower) maintenance, which leads to more problems.
What puzzles me is...
Date: 2010-04-07 04:31 pm (UTC)Re: What puzzles me is...
Date: 2010-04-07 04:37 pm (UTC)also the fact that utility poles and exposed utility lines are generally thought of as a 3rd world country relic here in "zee europe" and are rarely found making the cities much more appealing.
Re: What puzzles me is...
Date: 2010-04-08 03:41 am (UTC)Re: What puzzles me is...
Date: 2010-04-08 07:28 am (UTC)Re: What puzzles me is...
Date: 2010-04-08 12:49 pm (UTC)withold permits
Date: 2010-04-07 04:57 pm (UTC)I'd start with a call to 311 and see where that gets you.
PS. Just got the double pole joke.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-08 03:03 am (UTC)