ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The matter came before me upon request of the Petitioner for a contested case hearing pursuant to the provisions of S.C.
Code Ann. §12-56-65 (C) (Supp. 2000). The Respondent notified the South Carolina Department of Revenue to setoff the
amount of utility bills owed by Petitioner against her individual income tax refund. Respondent claims that the setoff was
proper, and regardless, Petitioner failed to make a timely appeal of that decision. After notice, the parties appeared before
me on September 13, 2001, for a hearing at the offices of the Division.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Notice of date, time, and place of the hearing before this court was timely given to
the parties.
2. On June 23, 1999, Petitioner made her last utility payment to the Respondent for
service at her residence located at 403 Thomas Lane, Abbeville, South Carolina.
received at her residence . On September 3, 1999, utility service for the location was transferred to a new customer. At the
time there was an outstanding balance to Petitioner of $361.64.
3. On October 18, 2000, Petitioner was notified by the Respondent that they intended to have the debt setoff against her
individual income tax refund. Respondent notified Petitioner that after investigation he had found that she was responsible
for an outstanding debt on her utility account with the city. On October 30, 2000, the Petitioner filed a written protest of
such a setoff.
4. On December 14, 2000, an informal conference was held with Petitioner in which
she indicated she had moved from the residence in June 1999 and that the new resident was responsible for the bill.
5. On December 19, 2000, the Respondent notified Petitioner that after investigation
of the matter he had determined that Petitioner would be responsible for the bill. The Department of Revenue was notified
on the same date that tax refund setoff should be completed. The Respondent received no response from Petitioner.
6. On February 26, 2001, Respondent notified Petitioner that her tax refund had been
setoff but that she owed an additional $79.64. Pursuant to the letter, Respondent received a response from the Petitioner
protesting the setoff.
7. On March 9, 2001, the Respondent wrote Petitioner again and explained the
appeals procedure.
8. On March 15, 2001, filed for a contested case hearing with this Division.
9. The Respondent contends that the Petitioner did not file with this Division in a
timely manner. They also argue even if the Division does find a timely filing was made that the decision for the setoff was
proper.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. S.C. Code Ann. §1-23-600 (Supp. 2000) grants jurisdiction to the Administrative
Law Judge Division to hear contested cases under the Administrative Procedures Act.
2. S.C. Code Ann. §12-56-65 (Supp. 2000) grants jurisdiction to the Administrative
Law Judge Division to hear contested cases under the Setoff Debt Collection Act.
3. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §12-56-65 (C) (Supp. 2000), "[a] debtor may seek
relief from the hearing officer's determination by requesting, within thirty days of the determination, a contested case
hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division." The determination of the hearing officer for the City was made on
December 19, 2000, and that was when the notification was sent to the Department of Revenue. However, in the March 9,
2001, letter of Respondent to Petitioner, the decision was again explained to her in detail. Also, the City explained the
procedure to Petitioner to appeal the decision. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to assume that the March 9, 2001, letter
was the final decision for purposes of review by this Division. Petitioner did timely file from that letter.
4. Nevertheless, it does appear that the determination for the setoff was proper. The last payment Petitioner made to the
City was June 23, 1999. Between this time and the billing period which ended in September and was billed on October 1,
1999, Petitioner incurred a total of $361.64 in unpaid utility expenses. Petitioner's argument that the Respondent always
cuts off a utility on the 26th of the month if a bill is unpaid is without merit. It was not the Respondent's responsibility to
remove utility service from the home to protect the Petitioner from incurring more expenses. It was Petitioner's
responsibility to notify Respondent when she moved from the location. Failure to do so unfortunately caused the Petitioner
to be responsible for utility expenses that may have been generated after she no longer lived at the location.
ORDER
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby ORDERED that the decision made by the
Respondent pursuant to the Setoff Debt Collection Act is affirmed for unpaid utility bills in 1999 in the amount of $361.64.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________________
CAROLYN C. MATTHEWS
Administrative Law Judge
October 23, 2001
Columbia, South Carolina |
