A Company representative received a damage claim on Saturday, Feb10, 2018, indicating a claim against the Company. A Company representative contacted the customer utilizing the phone number on the claim. At that time the representative realized the claim had inadvertently been entered
incorrectly and was actually an insurance claim against the customer for damages to Company facilitiesThe representative acknowledged the customer was obviously upset in regard to the accident and unsuccessfully tried to explain the error and that the claim would be forwarded to the correct department within AEPOn 2/15/a Company supervisor spoke with the customer and assured the customer the Company would conduct further communications with the customer’s insurance company The Company apologizes for any miscommunication in regard to this situation
The company is withholding service to the applicant until [valid] proof of household change information is received, in accordance with rules and regulations governing utilities in the service areaThe complainant is not considered a bona fide owner of the disputed property. Public records
indicate the property is owned by another partyThe company confirmed the complainant is purchasing the property on a rent to own basis. Until the deed is in the complainant’s name, the complainant is considered as a lesseeThe applicant, whom is considered as sub-lessee, has past associations with the complainant. The complainant admits they were business partners in the past, but evidence suggests they have resided together at prior addressesThe company offers several options to alieve the dispute: The applicant can provide a lease or core utility bill (water, electric, or gas) spanning 11/2015-present proving residency elsewhere. It cannot be another address at which the complainant had prior service. This will show the applicant didn’t benefit from the use of service under the complainant.The complainant can provide proof of residing elsewhere currently by verifiable lease or core utility bill in their name at a new address. This will demonstrate the complainant will not benefit from the use of service under the applicant’s name.The complainant can pay the bill owed the company
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
I faxed all information that was asked of me by the representative ***, I have conformation the fax went through to the fax number that "***" gave to meThis is ridiculous my son and I have lost everything during this past months we have had to pick up and move in with my mother in Florida, I since started a job and sent confirmation of this as well as evidence ofRent to Own document proving I did not own this property stated as they first arguedThen sent confirmation of my moveWhat else can I do? I have just recently moved to Florida as of 9/15/how am I supposed to have bills in my name here to prove I have moved here with my parents? This is my bill and no matter the relation between two people should not have influence on services being rendered to whom ever as long as they pay there bills
Apparently this customer filed a high bill complaint with the SCC previously and stated she would be in touch to advise when she was available for a meter test but never did so, so SCC Staff closed the complaintUpon receiving a disconnect notice from the Company the customer called back to the SCC
with the same complaintThe company is addressing the concern with the SCC and an order has been created to test the meterA company representative has spoken to the customer, and she advised she will be home on April and Company representatives are coordinating with the meter department to have the test done on one of those two dates
I thought we did the right thing sending a professional heating and air conditioning company to make the repairs. If we are found to be at fault, then we will pay the $165.00 rather than have a negative Revdex.com report to our name for work we did not do
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved
Regards,
*** ***
A Company representative met with the customer on 1/10/and determined electricity usage remained high with a constant load on the meter. The customer was using a watt space heater on a back porch/laundry room to keep the water from freezing. The representative explained the
heater could result in usage exceeding 1,kwhs per month if used continually. On 1/11/the Company issued a meter test and installation of a recorder for days. The representative advised the customer of the pending meter test and temporary recorder installation. The customer read the meter at 4:pm on 1/11/18, and kwhs had been used, after the space heater was turned offThe Company tested the meter on 1/12/and the meter tested accurate showing the customer was using amps at time of test resulting in approxkwhs per monthThe customer was advised of the meter test results and on 1/18/the representative again contacted the customer to advise the recorder would be removed
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference,
details of the offer I reviewed appear below
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.] what does MrBoiman then intend to do in order to honor his LIFETIME WARRANTY? Two leaks after the completion of his work (the second leak bigger than any we ever experienced) is certainly not acceptable and is certainly not honoring his end of the contract We have experienced damage and loss in our basement HE SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE TO AT LEAST REDO THE POOR QUALITY WORK DONE
Regards,
*** ***
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint
ID ***, and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.I received the $over payment via electronic transfer to my account on April 'I do not understand why this could not have been done within 3-business days after I contacted the company on March 'about the over paymentBecause of a week delay in returning the over payment the bank transferred $in Overdraft Protection money to cover my other billsOn March 'I made "*** **" of AEP aware that this may happen if the over payment was not returned within 3-business daysThat $overdraft protection will cost me approx$plus interest at 24% I fail to understand why this situation could not have been resolved in a timely mannerThe $was not returned until March '17, days after I asked "*** **" for her Supervisor's name and contact informationIt was not until the third time I asked for this information that "*** **" wrote to me and said "***", her Supervisor, will call you if I give her my phone numberI replied that my phone number has not changed since she called me at that number seven (7) times, including calls the day before, but I gave it to her again anyway to forward to "***""***" has not called to dateI am satisfied that my money is back but not satisfied at all with the way AEP handled this situation
Regards,
*** ***
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved
Regards,
*** ***
On 6/1/a company forestry representative visited the property and spoke with the customer’s spouseThe representative moved the limbs to open access to the adjoining propertyThe representative later contacted the customer by phone and explained the steps taken to resolve the problemThe
company’s policy on debris removal was also explained and the customer was advised the remaining limbs would not be removedThe customer conveyed satisfaction with the clearing of the access
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action
would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Account # requested is: ***
Regards,
*** ***
The Company’s Terms and Conditions of Service provide that a notarized lease can be required before granting service to any new applicantThe company requests this documentation when there are prior issues at an address
As of 03/15/2016, the applicant complied with the Company’s request and no
additional payments are requiredThe applicant was advised on 3/15/the company released the LIDV requirements and service is scheduled to be connected within 1-business days
I have reviewed the response offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
The entire response is inadequate: "The customer later exited the house with a dog that was displaying aggressive behaviorThe dog "pinned" the contactoragainst the house. " - he never asked for the dog to be removed, the contractor was never "pinned" against the house(I have video) The contractor ONLY stated that the dogs were being aggressive once he noticed he was being filmed- he also stated in thevideo several times that I "sicked" the dogs on him - meaning that it was purposeful and intended to cause harm - this term also attaches a malicious mode to the action and I knew I would be asking the dogs to cause attack and harm.If this was the case, why did he not flee or act as though he was scared/upset? The fact remains that he was asked if the power would be flashed - he made the connection interruption in an improper and unprofessional manner and caused my work to experience delay and damage - my computer was compiling a program and was interrupted during this episode. He never apologized and became instantly aggressive in his responses. AEP also has a file on the house where in it asks if we have dogs, Multiple contractors from AEP including this contractor have been at the house previously and have never had an issue with the dogs. Further - since this contractor was at the house previously - and the dogs are always out - he is aware and familiar with the situation. "The contractor apologized and then proceeded to change a second meter located on customer's property."False- Contractor never apologized. At this point I checked the computer to see if the power had flashed - I informed the contractor of the issue - he shrugged and said he did not care. "The customer became very “heated” and verbally abusive and turned another dog out on the contractor."I asked politely for name and ID info for the contractor - contractor flat out refused to provide. So I began video recording. Contractor stated he would sue me if I posted anythingAgain - I have the video we can see what his actions and actual statements were."The second dog was also very aggressive and again pinned the contractor near the house." Near the house - how - it's a large open backyard. Did he pin the contractor on his back? Why did the contractor not ask for help? Why if the dogs were aggressive did the contractor remain on the site without asking for the dogs to be removed and put inside? Surely, it is not worth risking a dog bite in order to change two meters - I mean he could wait until the dogs were removed right? It would take secondsThe answer is he was already aware of the dogs from previous visits, he got caught out causing an issue to a customer and thinks he might get in trouble so he develops his own narrative. " The contractor noticed at this point the customer was taking photos and filming the incident with a cell phoneThe customer asked the customer not to post anything on social media. The contractor left the property and notified an AEP representative of the incidentAn AEP representativeunsuccessfully attempted to contact the customer on 10-10-at 8:AM at which time the call was transferred to voice mail. The voice mail message stated the mail box was full and call was disconnected" "the customer asked the customer"? No the Contractor flat out said he would sue if anything was used against him. Not social media - just that a suit would follow if the info was used. I have no voicemail from AEP, but if I was AEP and actually attempting to apologise - I would probably call back a second time.
Regards,
*** ***
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved
Regards,
*** ***
The company charged the deposit in accordance with applicable guidelines for the State of VirginiaA copy of the approved terms and conditions of service is attachedThe company declines to waive the deposit
A company representative called the customer on 4/11/and explained a deferred deposit was incurred due to delinquent paymentsThe customer indicated they understood, but had made a payment for $on 4/The representative agreed to waive the deposit as a one-time courtesy if the customer
could pay total balance remaining after the depositThe customer agreed to pay the remaining balance of $on 4/via BillMatrixThe representative recapped with the customer that we agree to waive deposit this time only but could not waive a second time should they be billed again due to delinquent payments
The customer was mailed a disconnect notice on 6/3/for the past due balance of $302.30, stating the electric service was scheduled for termination after 6/16/16. The Company also emailed the customer the current bill that included the disconnect notice for the $for termination after
6/16/and the current bill of $203.00.The bill also states the 6/27/due date is the “New Charges Due Date”. Newly generated statements do not include termination notices already produced. Customer are disconnected on any and all prior disconnect notices for past due amounts. It is not required to pay new amounts included in the newly generated bill to get service restored. When payment for the past due charges were not received the Company attempted a phone contact to notify the customer of the pending disconnect date on 6/15/16, but there was no answer. An order to disconnect the service was issued on 6/20/and completed on 6/23/16. The customer called and made payment for RN and service was reconnected by 4:09pm on 6/23/
On 1/25/a company representative advised the customer the Company planned to test the meterThe representative visited the premise on 1/26/18, 1/29/and 2/15/18, and each time recorded the load on the meter. A recorder was also placed on the meter for a weekThe meter test results
showed the meter accuracy was within acceptable limitsThe customer was provided a year use history which showed previous winter months with similar usage or higher usage highlighted. The results of the manual readings showing the customer averaged from 45-kwh per day everyday was also provided. The customer’s usage is very consistentThe recorder showed something coming on a few times every hour at watts, this is probably a refrigerator. It also showed a heat pump or electric heat signature, something running long periods at 6k watts. This is probably a heat pump or some kind of electric heat. The customer was provided printouts from the recorder and meter test resultsThe representative also notified the Forestry Department of the customer’s concern that the Company had failed to cut a few trees, as promised
A Company representative received a damage claim on Saturday, Feb10, 2018, indicating a claim against the Company. A Company representative contacted the customer utilizing the phone number on the claim. At that time the representative realized the claim had inadvertently been entered
incorrectly and was actually an insurance claim against the customer for damages to Company facilitiesThe representative acknowledged the customer was obviously upset in regard to the accident and unsuccessfully tried to explain the error and that the claim would be forwarded to the correct department within AEPOn 2/15/a Company supervisor spoke with the customer and assured the customer the Company would conduct further communications with the customer’s insurance company The Company apologizes for any miscommunication in regard to this situation
The company is withholding service to the applicant until [valid] proof of household change information is received, in accordance with rules and regulations governing utilities in the service areaThe complainant is not considered a bona fide owner of the disputed property. Public records
indicate the property is owned by another partyThe company confirmed the complainant is purchasing the property on a rent to own basis. Until the deed is in the complainant’s name, the complainant is considered as a lesseeThe applicant, whom is considered as sub-lessee, has past associations with the complainant. The complainant admits they were business partners in the past, but evidence suggests they have resided together at prior addressesThe company offers several options to alieve the dispute: The applicant can provide a lease or core utility bill (water, electric, or gas) spanning 11/2015-present proving residency elsewhere. It cannot be another address at which the complainant had prior service. This will show the applicant didn’t benefit from the use of service under the complainant.The complainant can provide proof of residing elsewhere currently by verifiable lease or core utility bill in their name at a new address. This will demonstrate the complainant will not benefit from the use of service under the applicant’s name.The complainant can pay the bill owed the company
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
I faxed all information that was asked of me by the representative ***, I have conformation the fax went through to the fax number that "***" gave to meThis is ridiculous my son and I have lost everything during this past months we have had to pick up and move in with my mother in Florida, I since started a job and sent confirmation of this as well as evidence ofRent to Own document proving I did not own this property stated as they first arguedThen sent confirmation of my moveWhat else can I do? I have just recently moved to Florida as of 9/15/how am I supposed to have bills in my name here to prove I have moved here with my parents? This is my bill and no matter the relation between two people should not have influence on services being rendered to whom ever as long as they pay there bills
Apparently this customer filed a high bill complaint with the SCC previously and stated she would be in touch to advise when she was available for a meter test but never did so, so SCC Staff closed the complaintUpon receiving a disconnect notice from the Company the customer called back to the SCC
with the same complaintThe company is addressing the concern with the SCC and an order has been created to test the meterA company representative has spoken to the customer, and she advised she will be home on April and Company representatives are coordinating with the meter department to have the test done on one of those two dates
I thought we did the right thing sending a professional heating and air conditioning company to make the repairs. If we are found to be at fault, then we will pay the $165.00 rather than have a negative Revdex.com report to our name for work we did not do
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved
Regards,
*** ***
A Company representative met with the customer on 1/10/and determined electricity usage remained high with a constant load on the meter. The customer was using a watt space heater on a back porch/laundry room to keep the water from freezing. The representative explained the
heater could result in usage exceeding 1,kwhs per month if used continually. On 1/11/the Company issued a meter test and installation of a recorder for days. The representative advised the customer of the pending meter test and temporary recorder installation. The customer read the meter at 4:pm on 1/11/18, and kwhs had been used, after the space heater was turned offThe Company tested the meter on 1/12/and the meter tested accurate showing the customer was using amps at time of test resulting in approxkwhs per monthThe customer was advised of the meter test results and on 1/18/the representative again contacted the customer to advise the recorder would be removed
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference,
details of the offer I reviewed appear below
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.] what does MrBoiman then intend to do in order to honor his LIFETIME WARRANTY? Two leaks after the completion of his work (the second leak bigger than any we ever experienced) is certainly not acceptable and is certainly not honoring his end of the contract We have experienced damage and loss in our basement HE SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE TO AT LEAST REDO THE POOR QUALITY WORK DONE
Regards,
*** ***
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint
ID ***, and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.I received the $over payment via electronic transfer to my account on April 'I do not understand why this could not have been done within 3-business days after I contacted the company on March 'about the over paymentBecause of a week delay in returning the over payment the bank transferred $in Overdraft Protection money to cover my other billsOn March 'I made "*** **" of AEP aware that this may happen if the over payment was not returned within 3-business daysThat $overdraft protection will cost me approx$plus interest at 24% I fail to understand why this situation could not have been resolved in a timely mannerThe $was not returned until March '17, days after I asked "*** **" for her Supervisor's name and contact informationIt was not until the third time I asked for this information that "*** **" wrote to me and said "***", her Supervisor, will call you if I give her my phone numberI replied that my phone number has not changed since she called me at that number seven (7) times, including calls the day before, but I gave it to her again anyway to forward to "***""***" has not called to dateI am satisfied that my money is back but not satisfied at all with the way AEP handled this situation
Regards,
*** ***
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved
Regards,
*** ***
On 6/1/a company forestry representative visited the property and spoke with the customer’s spouseThe representative moved the limbs to open access to the adjoining propertyThe representative later contacted the customer by phone and explained the steps taken to resolve the problemThe
company’s policy on debris removal was also explained and the customer was advised the remaining limbs would not be removedThe customer conveyed satisfaction with the clearing of the access
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action
would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Account # requested is: ***
Regards,
*** ***
The Company’s Terms and Conditions of Service provide that a notarized lease can be required before granting service to any new applicantThe company requests this documentation when there are prior issues at an address
As of 03/15/2016, the applicant complied with the Company’s request and no
additional payments are requiredThe applicant was advised on 3/15/the company released the LIDV requirements and service is scheduled to be connected within 1-business days
I have reviewed the response offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
The entire response is inadequate: "The customer later exited the house with a dog that was displaying aggressive behaviorThe dog "pinned" the contactoragainst the house. " - he never asked for the dog to be removed, the contractor was never "pinned" against the house(I have video) The contractor ONLY stated that the dogs were being aggressive once he noticed he was being filmed- he also stated in thevideo several times that I "sicked" the dogs on him - meaning that it was purposeful and intended to cause harm - this term also attaches a malicious mode to the action and I knew I would be asking the dogs to cause attack and harm.If this was the case, why did he not flee or act as though he was scared/upset? The fact remains that he was asked if the power would be flashed - he made the connection interruption in an improper and unprofessional manner and caused my work to experience delay and damage - my computer was compiling a program and was interrupted during this episode. He never apologized and became instantly aggressive in his responses. AEP also has a file on the house where in it asks if we have dogs, Multiple contractors from AEP including this contractor have been at the house previously and have never had an issue with the dogs. Further - since this contractor was at the house previously - and the dogs are always out - he is aware and familiar with the situation. "The contractor apologized and then proceeded to change a second meter located on customer's property."False- Contractor never apologized. At this point I checked the computer to see if the power had flashed - I informed the contractor of the issue - he shrugged and said he did not care. "The customer became very “heated” and verbally abusive and turned another dog out on the contractor."I asked politely for name and ID info for the contractor - contractor flat out refused to provide. So I began video recording. Contractor stated he would sue me if I posted anythingAgain - I have the video we can see what his actions and actual statements were."The second dog was also very aggressive and again pinned the contractor near the house." Near the house - how - it's a large open backyard. Did he pin the contractor on his back? Why did the contractor not ask for help? Why if the dogs were aggressive did the contractor remain on the site without asking for the dogs to be removed and put inside? Surely, it is not worth risking a dog bite in order to change two meters - I mean he could wait until the dogs were removed right? It would take secondsThe answer is he was already aware of the dogs from previous visits, he got caught out causing an issue to a customer and thinks he might get in trouble so he develops his own narrative. " The contractor noticed at this point the customer was taking photos and filming the incident with a cell phoneThe customer asked the customer not to post anything on social media. The contractor left the property and notified an AEP representative of the incidentAn AEP representativeunsuccessfully attempted to contact the customer on 10-10-at 8:AM at which time the call was transferred to voice mail. The voice mail message stated the mail box was full and call was disconnected" "the customer asked the customer"? No the Contractor flat out said he would sue if anything was used against him. Not social media - just that a suit would follow if the info was used. I have no voicemail from AEP, but if I was AEP and actually attempting to apologise - I would probably call back a second time.
Regards,
*** ***
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved
Regards,
*** ***
The company charged the deposit in accordance with applicable guidelines for the State of VirginiaA copy of the approved terms and conditions of service is attachedThe company declines to waive the deposit
A company representative called the customer on 4/11/and explained a deferred deposit was incurred due to delinquent paymentsThe customer indicated they understood, but had made a payment for $on 4/The representative agreed to waive the deposit as a one-time courtesy if the customer
could pay total balance remaining after the depositThe customer agreed to pay the remaining balance of $on 4/via BillMatrixThe representative recapped with the customer that we agree to waive deposit this time only but could not waive a second time should they be billed again due to delinquent payments
The customer was mailed a disconnect notice on 6/3/for the past due balance of $302.30, stating the electric service was scheduled for termination after 6/16/16. The Company also emailed the customer the current bill that included the disconnect notice for the $for termination after
6/16/and the current bill of $203.00.The bill also states the 6/27/due date is the “New Charges Due Date”. Newly generated statements do not include termination notices already produced. Customer are disconnected on any and all prior disconnect notices for past due amounts. It is not required to pay new amounts included in the newly generated bill to get service restored. When payment for the past due charges were not received the Company attempted a phone contact to notify the customer of the pending disconnect date on 6/15/16, but there was no answer. An order to disconnect the service was issued on 6/20/and completed on 6/23/16. The customer called and made payment for RN and service was reconnected by 4:09pm on 6/23/
I talk to John Boiman and he says we do not agree with the customer’s request for a refund
On 1/25/a company representative advised the customer the Company planned to test the meterThe representative visited the premise on 1/26/18, 1/29/and 2/15/18, and each time recorded the load on the meter. A recorder was also placed on the meter for a weekThe meter test results
showed the meter accuracy was within acceptable limitsThe customer was provided a year use history which showed previous winter months with similar usage or higher usage highlighted. The results of the manual readings showing the customer averaged from 45-kwh per day everyday was also provided. The customer’s usage is very consistentThe recorder showed something coming on a few times every hour at watts, this is probably a refrigerator. It also showed a heat pump or electric heat signature, something running long periods at 6k watts. This is probably a heat pump or some kind of electric heat. The customer was provided printouts from the recorder and meter test resultsThe representative also notified the Forestry Department of the customer’s concern that the Company had failed to cut a few trees, as promised