A 650 euro water bill: an elderly family from Burgas disputes the charges, while the water utility company sends debt collection warnings instead of a solution

An elderly family from Burgas claims they are being pressured to pay a total debt of about 650 euros to "ViK" EAD – Burgas, even though they are disputing the charges and demanding a real technical inspection.

The case concerns an apartment in block 611 in the "Meden Rudnik" residential area. The building is new and, according to the family's relatives, was put into operation in 2023. Two elderly people live in the apartment — aged 79 and 76. They claim that their water consumption is typical and has not changed.

According to their relative, there is no visible leak, accident, flooding, or changes to the plumbing installation in the apartment. The dwelling has been recently renovated, with no signs of moisture, damage, or flooding. The family lives on the top floor, which, according to their relatives, raises even more serious questions about the "hidden leak" theory — if there had really been a leak capable of resulting in bills of 180–190 euros per month, there should have been visible consequences in the home or damages for the neighbors below.

From normal bills to sudden charges of 180–190 euros

According to a statement provided from the water utility's personal portal, in previous periods, the family's water bills were in the range of approximately 30–40 euros per month.

However, in 2025, higher charges began. The first two bills, although above the usual, were paid:

• period 25.08.2025 – 24.09.2025 — 83.45 €, paid;
• period 25.09.2025 – 25.10.2025 — 90.53 €, paid.

After that, the charges increased sharply:

• period 27.10.2025 – 26.11.2025 — 182.97 € principal;
• period 25.11.2025 – 25.12.2025 — 185.53 € principal.

According to the family, these amounts are disproportionate to the actual consumption of two elderly people and cannot be explained by normal water usage.

Complaint to the water utility and a visit with a "ready-made answer"

After the first unusually high bills, the family filed a complaint with "ViK" EAD – Burgas. In it, they pointed out that the charges do not correspond to actual consumption, that there are no leaks or accidents in the home, and they insisted on an inspection and recalculation.

It is important that the problematic charges are for the periods from 25.08.2025 to 25.12.2025. It was precisely then that the bills jumped first to 83–90 euros, and then to 182–185 euros.

According to the relatives, the visit by a representative of the water utility after the first complaint was only made in February 2026, when the bills had already normalized. For the period 22.12.2025 – 21.01.2026, the charge was 37.21 €, and for the period 28.01.2026 – 27.02.2026 — 37.18 €.

This means that even if one follows the water utility's logic of a possible leak, at the time of the visit, such a leak was not established through consumption — because the bills were already normal.

Nevertheless, according to the family, the water utility representative entered the bathroom, looked around, and stated that "there had been a leak." The relatives claim that no real technical inspection was performed — no check of the water meter movement was made while taps were closed, no measurements were taken, no specific traces of a leak were pointed out, and no damages, moisture, or flooding were found.

A report was drawn up, but the family claims it does not reflect a real inspection because, in practice, one was not performed. According to them, the water utility representative tried to force the elderly people to sign the report in a rude tone, but they refused because no real checks had been made and no evidence of a leak had been presented to them.

"There were no visible or invisible signs that there is or was a leak. There is no moisture, no damage, no flooding, no complaints from neighbors. This looks like a formal explanation with which the water utility is trying to shift the responsibility onto the consumer," the family's relatives claim.

The family is not refusing an inspection. On the contrary — they insist it be carried out objectively: with a check of the water meter, the seal, the actual readings, the movement of the water meter with closed taps, an inspection of the installation, and a written report with specific technical findings, not a predetermined conclusion.

Two normal months after the problematic charges

An especially important moment in the case is that after the series of problematic invoices for the period from 25.08.2025 to 25.12.2025, two normal reporting periods followed:

• period 22.12.2025 – 21.01.2026 — 37.21 € principal;
• period 28.01.2026 – 27.02.2026 — 37.18 € principal.

It was precisely in this period, when the bills were already normal, that the visit by the water utility representative took place.

According to the family, this casts doubt on the claim of a leak. If there had truly been a constant hidden leak, the high consumption should have continued every month. If the water utility claims that the leak was in the past, the family insists that specific evidence be provided for this — traces, measurements, technical findings, a report with a real inspection, or other objective data.

Such evidence, according to the relatives, has not been provided.

New invoice for 190 euros and a total debt of about 650 euros

After the two normal months, a high invoice suddenly appears again:

• period 27.02.2026 – 29.03.2026 — 190.51 € principal, including interest about 192.44 €.

Currently, a total amount due of about 652.79 € can be seen in the water utility's personal portal, with the main part of it, according to the family, stemming from the disputed charges.

Thus, the situation becomes even more inexplicable: first, there are high charges, then two normal months, then a new high charge. The family insists that the water utility explain this inconsistency with real data, not with a general statement about a "leak."

After the new invoice, another complaint was filed. Instead of a solution, however, the family received a message that they perceive as a debt collection warning.

The text of the SMS reads:

"ViK Burgas Vi informira, che imate fakturi s iztekl srok za plashtane, predstouat deystviya po sabirane na dalga. Tel: 070017177"

"We are not refusing to pay for the water actually consumed. We are disputing charges that do not correspond to the history of the bills, to the real situation in the home, and to the consumption of two elderly people," the family's relatives declare.

The case does not appear to be isolated

The problem comes against the backdrop of publications in other media regarding mass complaints in Burgas related to water metering and billing.

On March 20, 2026, BNT reported on a "boom of complaints" for water metering problems in Burgas and pointed out that the city's ombudsman had called on the local water utility company to react immediately.

BTA also reported that ombudsman Todor Stamboliev had received signals from citizens in recent months. Some of them mention problems with metering after replacing mechanical water meters with devices for remote data transmission to "ViK – Burgas."

Flagman.bg points out that the signals came mainly from residential subscribers in the "Meden Rudnik" and "Bratya Miladinovi" complexes, with problems becoming more frequent after replacing mechanical water meters with remote devices.

Darik reports on delayed issuance of water consumption bills and concerns that with the accumulation of periods, consumers could be faced with serious sums at once.

Other local publications also speak of citizens who report charges that many times exceed their actual consumption, as well as complaints about serious errors in reading.

Against this backdrop, the case with the elderly family from "Meden Rudnik" raises the logical question: is this a single case, or part of a wider problem with the metering and billing of water in Burgas?

Signals sent to institutions

Complaints and signals have already been sent regarding the case to a number of institutions, including:

• "ViK" EAD – Burgas;
• The Ombudsman of Burgas Municipality;
• The Energy and Water Regulatory Commission;
• The Commission for Consumer Protection;
• The National Ombudsman;
• Burgas District Administration;
• District Prosecutor's Office – Burgas.

The family insists on a full audit for the period from August 2025 to the present, clarity on whether the charges are based on actual, estimated, or official readings, the provision of the specific water meter readings, and a written report from a technical inspection.

Questions for ViK – Burgas

BurgasMedia.com will seek an official comment from "ViK" EAD – Burgas on the following questions:

1. On what grounds were the disputed amounts charged?
2. Are the readings for the disputed periods actual, estimated, or official?
3. Why was the visit after the first complaint performed only when the bills had already normalized?
4. What exactly was checked on-site and what specific technical actions were performed?
5. Is there a report drawn up from the visit and why did the family refuse to sign it?
6. If the water utility claims there was a leak, with what specific measurements, traces, or evidence was it established?
7. How is the fact explained that after the problematic charges, there were two normal months, and then again an invoice for about 190 euros?
8. How is it possible, given the claim of a leak in a new building, in an apartment with a new renovation and no visible signs of moisture, for there to be no established damages or signals from neighbors?
9. Will the collection of the disputed debt be suspended until the audit is completed?

The editorial board is ready to publish the position of "ViK" EAD – Burgas without editorial intervention.

Isn't it time for a public audit?

When it comes to elderly people, disputed charges, and debt collection warnings, institutions owe not a formal response, but a clear, verifiable, and documented audit.

The case raises a wider question: how many citizens in Burgas have received suddenly inflated water bills, how many of them have received a real explanation, and how many have been directed to the standard answer of a "probable leak"?

BurgasMedia.com will follow the case.