Mr. Zhang rented a house in July, believing the agent had told him the electricity would be billed under the peak-and-off-peak tariff model. He recently discovered this was not the case.

Mr. Zhang said he wanted a cheaper place to live, hoping to save every bit he could. He works odd jobs and rented a room in July through the Wo Ai Wo Jia (I Love My Home) agency, located in the Shuiting Renjia community in Hangzhou's Linping District. He pays 420 yuan per month in rent for one room, with Hangzhou Aijia Property serving as the leasing agent on the contract.

Regarding the electricity fees, Mr. Zhang said he contacted the property manager, a Mr. Cao, and was explicitly told the building used a peak-and-off-peak tariff system, with different rates for peak and off-peak hours. He noted that the phone conversation was not recorded, and no written record was kept.

The apartment has four rooms, each rented to a different tenant, sharing a single electricity meter with costs split equally. The electricity bill for June totaled over 300 yuan, while July's bill exceeded 600 yuan. Concerned about the rise in costs, Mr. Zhang contacted the power supply bureau and made an unexpected discovery.

He was told that the house did not have separate peak and off-peak metering, and was billed at a single flat rate. The difference across June, July, and August could amount to nearly 300 to 400 yuan total. According to provincial development and reform commission documents, if a peak-and-off-peak tariff is applied, the peak rate is 0.56 yuan per kilowatt-hour, and the off-peak rate is 0.28 yuan per kilowatt-hour. Without that tariff, the flat rate is 0.53 yuan per kilowatt-hour. Both tariff structures are subject to tiered pricing.

Mr. Zhang's rented unit consumed 1,051 kilowatt-hours in July, placing it in the second tier at 0.588 yuan per kilowatt-hour. Under peak-and-off-peak pricing, the corresponding peak rate would be 0.618 yuan and the off-peak rate 0.338 yuan. Billing at that structure would have resulted in a charge of 508 yuan, saving nearly 110 yuan. In August, usage reached 1,309 kilowatt-hours, with 1,283 kilowatt-hours billed at 0.838 yuan per kilowatt-hour and 26 kilowatt-hours at 0.588 yuan. Since the exact tier-specific peak-and-off-peak usage could not be determined, Mr. Zhang calculated using the 0.838 yuan rate's corresponding prices of 0.868 yuan for peak and 0.588 yuan for off-peak, yielding a total of 965 yuan and potential savings of about 124 yuan.

Mr. Zhang argued that if the property manager or Wo Ai Wo Jia had informed him the house did not use split peak-and-off-peak billing, he would have rented from a different landlord. He is demanding the difference be refunded to the tenants.

In chat records, however, the agent Mr. Cao stated he had never promised a peak-and-off-peak tariff. When questioned about how he had originally explained the electricity charges, Mr. Cao replied that it was simply standard residential electricity, and he had said nothing more. The store manager in the communication group added that the handover document listed the electricity rate and that Mr. Zhang should have raised any objections at that time.

Mr. Zhang emphasized that he moved in on July 7th and had requested a property handover then, but the actual handover document was not signed until July 29th. Given the time lapse, he overlooked the rate details and believes he should not bear the July electricity difference. When visiting the store, the manager declined an interview.

Later that day, Hangzhou Aijia Property issued a written response stating that a review of the store's communication records turned up no evidence of any such commitment. If Mr. Zhang can provide call recordings or chat logs as proof, they will re-examine the case, noting that the electricity rate is determined by the power supply bureau and the signing date of the handover document does not affect the billing calculation. They are currently coordinating with the landlord to apply for the peak-and-off-peak tariff.

Mr. Zhang does not accept this outcome. He believes that even if the agent made no explicit promise, they should have clearly informed him that the property was not on a peak-and-off-peak tariff, rather than simply saying it was residential electricity.