Avista

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:why were they able to send someone to repair the front fence and lay grass down in my yard but could not come back to finish the work? I was NEVER told that the repairs would be at my cost or I would not have authorized them to damage my property to begin withI know for future contact with Avista that I need to get something in writing and take photos of the entire processWh would I be responsible to pay for the damages and then hope they pay me back? Do they not have reports from their workers of the process and damages caused?

In response to Mrs***’s rejection response:
First, the crew that was at her property denies cutting the cable to her home and denies that the cable was down or lying on the ground when they left the site. Conjecture and speculation as to the cause of the damage, in light of direct testimony from the service crew denying the allegation, is insufficient to impose liability and pay a claim.
Further, in my experience our serviceman do not lie about damage to equipment belonging to third parties. Rather, it has been my experience that just the opposite is true. Our servicemen go above and beyond to make sure that any damage they cause has been noted, addressed and repaired. If the servicemen had damaged the cable line, they would have contacted the cable company and had it repaired that day. I do not believe that our crew damaged the cable line or that they are lying to me about damaging the cable line. The main reason I believe this is that there would be no penalty or harm to them if they did damage the cable line and no reason to lie about it
Second, regardless of the cause of the damage to the cable line (for the sake of argument let us assume that Avista did in fact damage the cable line), there are no damages that I can pay to Mrs*** under governing law and the rules and regulations of the Utility Commission governing Avista and liability claims. In her original request for compensation, dated June 22, 2015, Mrs*** requested that we pay for the following:
“lost wages in the amount of $due to having to wait for someone to inspect the pole for the outage, waiting for Xfinity to come and repair what your crew broke, not to mention the time on the phone with your company and Xfinity.”
Contrary to the assertions in her complaint, Mrs*** expressly requested payment for watching the work performed by Avista, i.e., “to wait for someone to inspect the pole for the outage….”
I cannot compensate Mrs*** for her voluntary decision to wait for Avista to address the outage or for Xfinity to repair its damaged line, regardless of who damaged that line. She did not need to be present for that work, she was not required to be present for that work, and she voluntarily chose to miss work. Under applicable law, even if liable, Avista cannot compensate for anything but actual damages incurred as a direct and proximate result of the damage. Her decision to wait on either Avista or Xfinity is not an actual damage incurred as a direct and proximate result of the damage to the cable line. Rather, it was the result of her voluntary decision to wait. She can chose to do what she wants, but her choice does not impose liability on Avista or require that Avista pay for her voluntary decisions or actions. For the same reasons, I cannot pay for her calls to either Avista or Xfinity
For these reasons, as well as the fact that the damaged cable is the property of the cable company, not Mrs***, I am required to deny Mrs***’s claim for damages
Regards,
*** ***

Good morning, Please see the attached document for the response to Mr*** complaint and let me know if I may assist further, thank youIn July 2016, Customer made arrangements for the extension of natural gas service to a residential property (the “Customer Property”) At approximately
the same time, Customer, through a property management company, engaged a third party vendor (the “Vendor”) to install a furnace, a tankless water heater, and an air conditioner This is believed to have been done in response to a series of advertisements circulated by the Vendor, touting both high efficiency gas appliances and the various rebate programs offered by Avista for customers who install such appliancesIt appears that a series of disputes subsequently arose between Customer and the Vendor This included allegations of damage to some flooring in the Customer Property, questions about whether the installation of the air condition had been authorized, and a dispute over the amount the Vendor had charged Customer for the installation Avista was not involved in the dispute between Customer and the Vendor Nonetheless, in the course of that dispute, Customer raised two concerns directed at Avista:The Vendor installed an 80% efficient furnace, which does not qualify for Avista’s 90% high efficiency furnace rebate program Citing a rulemaking promulgated by the Department of Energy (which was ultimately repealed before ever taking effect), Customer contended that federal code requires all new furnaces to be at least 90% efficient By “allowing” the installation of an 80% efficient furnace, Customer claimed that Avista was engaged in a programmatic violation of federal law Likewise, believing that Avista’s rebate programs were federally funded, Customer asserted that Avista out of compliance with various federal grant programs. Customer’s Initial Interaction with Avista Customer’s concerns were initially directed to one of Avista’s Demand Side Management (“DSM”) Program Managers (the “PM”) In response, the PM attempted to explain that (a) the 80% efficient furnace installed at the Customer Property was, in fact, code compliant; (b) Avista is not a code enforcement agency and does not “approve” installations; and (c) Avista’s authority was limited to determining whether the furnace installed at the Customer Property qualified for one of Avista’s rebate programs, which it did not In response, Customer’s interaction with Avista’s PM became aggressive

Good morning, The customer has a water pump, wood stove and heat pumpWood
is the customer’s primary heat source however he lives alone and is gone
approximately sixteen hours per dayWith no one home to stoke the fire the
heat pump is more than likely kicking on and causing
additional useIn
addition, heat pumps work best in moderate weatherWhen the temperature drops
below freezing a heat pump works much harder to heat a home and this is the
coldest heating season in the region in over twenty years
If the customer is checking his meter reads regularly and
comparing daily usage he will probably see a drop in usage on days when he is
home and able to keep the fire going to avoid heat pump usage
The meter was tested on 02-15-2017 with an accuracy of 100.1%The serviceman
talked to the customer and also left his phone number in case the customer had
any further questions

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me
I have attempted several times to send this response and it will not sendI am going to attempt to break out the message and may need to send a couple of the photos separately. I have attached the estimate for the fence that I obtained in JuneThey estimated the entire fence since they were there and broke out the section that was damaged on the top left of the pageIf you need them to break out the estimated section completely separate from the rest, with tax and all, please let me knowI have also attached a photo of the Avista truck working in my backyard showing the section of fence between my yard and my neighbor's, where they were working, as well as the pile of dirt from the large hole they had to dig to install the polesThe second photo shows the fence post up close to show that the section of fence is not nailed or screwed to the post in any way and being held there with twineThe third photo shows the section of fence that was damaged, with the two poles installed to show that it is post the installation, showing three different areas of the fence being held to the posts with twineI have additional photos of the fence but it will only allow for attachmentsI will work on obtaining the estimate for the sprinkler line that was damaged near the fence-line during the digging for the new poles and get that to you as soon as possible

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: I was not told about a re-connection fee when I spoke with your representative, or about a separate account being createdI would like a link, or copy of the recorded phone call where you state such, which is a fair request since "all phone calls are recorded"I never received either of the letters you are referencing, and would like proof that they were deliveredYour automated phone call is ludicrous , it is a robo call, requesting a callback with zero information startedWith the amount of scams going around, this is an unfair, and unethical business practiceYes, I answered the call, but declined to call the robo number back due to safety concernsEvery time you emailed me a bill, I logged in, and paid itHow is it my fault that my account showed no balance and was expected to pay an unknown amount?

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business' responseIf you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com,
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID *** and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
*** ***

Thank you for sharing this concern,
The customer submitted a claim for damage on
04-24-2017. On 04-25-2017, the customer was sent a contact/evidence
letter telling her, among other things, that she needed to make arrangements
for the repair of her sprinkler system and
fence as this was customer owned
property and Avista could not work on that customer owned property. See
attached letter. The letter also requested that the customer provide
evidence (a statement, photographs, etc.), that the damage was caused by Avista
so that a determination of liability could be made. The customer has not
responded to the 04-25-letter, nor has she called, emailed or otherwise
made any attempt to contact or communicate with claims regarding this
matter.
All repairs of her damage property must be done through a
contractor of her choice. If it is established that Avista caused the
damage and is liable for that damage, she will be paid the cost to repair the
damage and Avista will obtain a release of liability

Avista is
audited by the PUC which requires evidence in order to pay out on a claim –
hence the specific process.
 
Avista would also
like to make sure the repairs are performed by a professional in that field as
Avista is neither a fencing company nor a landscaping/sprinkler repair company. 
The repairs will not be at your cost if you provide proof that Avista caused
the damage as well as estimates from contractors (which will most likely be
freely given) for the cost to repair the damage.  Avista will provide
payment directly to you, if liable, and will then obtain a release  of
liability. That way any warranty issues with the work are with the contractor you
selected. Further, you will know who will be on your property and can have
assurance that the repair work is being done correctly.

Revdex.com,I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.  Regards, [redacted]

This matter has been resolved to my satisfaction.

Thank you for sharing your concern – I have provided a brief
account history below:
 
A Past Due Notice was mailed on 07-01-2017 which reflected a
due date of 07-20-2017. A Final Notice was mailed on 07-11-2017 which also
reflected the 07-20-2017 due date.
 
The...

Company received an email at 8:41 am on 07-13-2017
advising that partial payment had been made and that another payment would be
made around 07-25-2017. A Company Representative responded at 10:33am on
07-13-2017 to advise that we are unable to negotiate or notate payment
arrangements via email and to request that someone call the office to discuss
the account.
 
An automated collection call was placed on 07-20-2017 at
8:20am and was delievered to a voicemail box however the Company did not hear
from anyone to discuss the account until service was disconnected on
07-25-2017.
 
At the time of disconnect, the total account balance (231.95)
was transferred to a separate Prior Obligation account. When you spoke with a
Company Representative on 07-25-2017, education regarding the Prior Obligation
account was provided as well as a quote to restore service. The minimum amount
to restore service in Washington is half the requested deposit plus the
reconnect fee. You did not wish to pay the after hour fee (as it was after
4:00pm) and the Representative advised that you could call back the following
morning to pay and receive the regular (during business hours) reconnect fee. You
advised that you would make a payment online and ended the call.
 
A 100.00 payment was made online however the Company was not
contacted until Wednesday afternoon. A reconnect order was requested at that
time and service was reconnected Wednesday evening.  
 
The 16.00 reconnect fee will not be waived however the
remaining deposit balance will be split up over the next two bills and the
Company is happy to set a payment arrangement on the Prior Obligation balance
of 231.95. Please call 1-800-227-9187 if you wish to discuss payment arrangements
on that balance.
 
Thank you,
 
Dalila

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:Avista is responding to a different account than the one referenced in this complaint.  The correct account is [redacted].  The statement dates are 6/14/2017 (12 days) and 7/12/2017 (the following 18 days).If this billing situation justifies a $20 credit for one time that it happens, why wouldn't it be the same for each time that it happens?

Mr. [redacted],
Thank you for voicing your concern regarding your Auto Pay draw date. Prior to the Company’s system conversion a post card was sent to your mailing address to advise that your draw date would now fall on your bill due date (which can fluctuate by up to five days) as opposed to your...

previously chosen draw date. A contact phone number and an email address were provided in the event that there were any questions regarding the change.  I see that a copy of the post card was sent to you earlier this week at your request.
Your draw date was also updated to the 15th of each month earlier this week when you contacted the Company.
Since the system conversion your due date did fall on the 11th two out of four billing periods. Your payment was drawn on the 9th the other two months (April and June).
I am sorry to hear that you received an overdraft fee from your financial institution and I am happy to request a 30.00 credit be applied to your account as a one-time courtesy.
 
Thank you and have a great day,  
[redacted]

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received, your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Revdex.com,
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] 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.]
Regards,
[redacted] Well, Gee, big surprise that their 'impartial??' information concerning their meter comes directly from within their company. That's a good 'company man' there whose 'correct' response is one that benefits their company. He's wants to keep his job, and move on up the ladder. Of course they are going to say what benefits the company, when they know good and well, that there will NEVER be any way for me to PROVE otherwise...They dont have to prove it...they hold all the cards here. What  a shame that this large corporation has taken this approach, that alienates its customers, the American people, and society as a whole. Shame on all of you! That this multi billion dollar organization abuses it's customers over a MEASLY 78 BUCKS is truly pathetic.

Thank you for sharing your concern,
 
[redacted] (gas) and [redacted] (electric) state that the
basic or minimum charge must be billed in full – this means the Company is not
able to prorate the fee.
 
I have provided an overview of your recent...

conversations
with the Company regarding the basic fee(s).
 
On 04-17-2017 you contacted the Company to discuss the basic
fee and were advised that the basic fee is not prorated in the state of
Washington. Your call was escalated to a supervisor who further explained that
the basic fee is not prorated and that it applies to each billing period. She
offered to remove your Landlord Agreement so that you are not billed in between
your tenants’ accounts however you declined that option. You requested that
your call be escalated further however ended the call prior to being connected
with the Team Leader. Although the call ended prematurely the Team Leader
brought your account to the attention of the Billing Department. The Billing
Manager reached out to you on 04-19-2017 and you returned her call the
following day.
 
On 04-20-2017 you spoke with the Company’s Billing Manager. She
advised that the Company is not legally able to prorate the basic fee in
Washington per Commission rules (by which the Company is governed). A 20.00 credit
was applied to your account as a customer courtesy. You were educated that the
basic fee would continue to be billed in full.
 
On 07-03-2017 you contacted the Company to discuss the basic
fee and were advised that a basic fee is billed on each billing statement.
 
On 07-14-2017 you contacted the Company to discuss the basic
fee and were advised that a basic fee is billed on each billing statement.
 
No refund will be issued as billing this fee in full is a
regulatory requirement and the account has already received a 20.00 customer
care credit.
 
Please let me know if you have any additional questions,
thank you.

[redacted]
Thank you for forwarding Mr. [redacted]’s complaint. In reviewing the account, this is Mr. [redacted]’s first heating season at [redacted]. His electric usage is in line with previous years heating consumption. We have obtained regular meter reads for each...

billing statement that Mr. [redacted] has received.
Since the usage history is in line with previous heating seasons and we obtained all regular meter reads, we have concluded that Mr. [redacted]’s account balance is correct and there are no overcharges on his account.
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.
Thank you,
[redacted]

Revdex.com,I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.The business responded with the steps they took in this matter.  However, they did not answer for the lack of on sight investigation and the reason they are liable for the claim.  That reason is: Their contractor's worker came over to direct me by their truck.  Not due to oncoming traffic but due to the fact there was so little room and I had stopped because I did not think my truck could make it through.  Turns out I was right and it didn't have enough room as evidenced by the scratches on the side of my truck that it received while trying to pass through at that time.  There worker did not come over to direct traffic which was made very clear by the fact he was directing my truck so as not to hit their truck.  This is just Avista trying to shirk responsibility.Regards,[redacted]

Good afternoon Ms. [redacted],
 
I have provided an overview of the situation as well as a
few options below:
 
A Company Meter Reader visits your home each month however was
unable to physically read the meter in December 2016, January 2017 and February
2017 due to a...

frozen gate. This resulted in estimated reads for each of those
three months. When a regular read was finally retrieved in March 2017 the
Company was able to compare the overall usage to each monthly estimate. Although
the overall usage (9,681 kwhs over four months) is accurate the Company did
under-estimate your December, January and February reads. This caused the March
read to reflect more usage than was actually used during the month of March. Due
to the tiered rate schedule, re-billing the account to adjust monthly usage
into the appropriate tiers would result in a credit of $0.83.
 
The Company Representative did ask for the best time to call
back however had to leave the office early on 04-05-2017 so she called and left
a voicemail prior to leaving the office (at approximately 3:50pm). Her
voicemail explained that she was calling early because she would not be in the
office after 5:00pm that day, that the Billing department had determined that
the read/usage amount was correct and that you could now choose to pursue a
High Bill Investigation or to set up payment arrangements.
 
The Representative called and left another voicemail two
days later (04-07-2017 at approximately 6:40pm) to see if you had decided how
you’d like to move forward. The Company did not hear back from you until the
Revdex.com complaint was received.
 
The Company is more than happy to offer the following:
Process a re-bill which would reduce the balance
by $0.83Offer payment arrangements to extend the balance
up to four monthsTest the electric meter
 
Please advise as to how you would like to proceed, thank
you.
 
Dalila

Good morning,The Company has honored Mr. [redacted]'s request and provided his email message to Mr. S[redacted] supervisor. Thank you, Dalila