City of Lodi - Utility Department

I am rejecting this response because:I will send landlord verification even thiough I was told at The City of Lodi customer service window that a note from the property manager would be sufficient; if I had been told this at the beginning of this process, I would have had this discount long ago; the only option I was offered was an income report from my daughter a housewife who lives with her husband and has never lived here, only having rented this apartment for me before I moved here so I have been left to guessThis response is arrogantUpon jumping through this last hoop I would only think it reasonable that they post date my application; the length of time it took them to respond only further illustrates how unreasonable their request isWhat is wrong; there is growing discontent with this utility company and if this is how they treat low income, disabled seniors, I understand and wonder how they get away with this level of unprofessionalism

The customer was initially denied the discount due to insufficient documentation providedShe has since provided the proper documents on 8/25/and the discounted rate now appliesThe customer's services were interrupted
on 7/2/due to non-paymentBased on the City ordinance, upon interruption of service, a deposit is required to be paid along with the balance on the account before services are restored

I am rejecting this response because:
These are complete and udder liesPlease leave my complaint on file in hopes it will deter people from moving to Lodi because of their ridiculous utility department

I am rejecting this response because:These are complete and udder lies. Please leave my complaint on file in hopes it will deter people from moving to Lodi because of their ridiculous utility department.

I am rejecting this response because:I will send landlord verification even...

thiough I was told at The City of Lodi customer service window that a note from the property manager would be sufficient; if I had been told this at the beginning of this process, I would have had this discount long ago; the only option I was offered was an income report from my daughter a housewife who lives with her husband and has never lived here, only having rented this apartment for me before I moved here so I have been left to guess. This response is arrogant. Upon jumping through this last hoop I would only think it reasonable that they post date my application; the length of time it took them to respond only further illustrates how unreasonable their request is. What is wrong; there is growing discontent with this utility company and if this is how they treat low income, disabled seniors, I understand and wonder how they get away with this level of unprofessionalism.

I am rejecting this response because: Upon completing an application, I was informed because my daughter is on my rental agreement that I had to submit her income; she rented the apartment for me before I moved here; my daughter has never lived here so I produced a piece of mail with her address on it; I took it to the customer service window and was told I needed a note from the property manager which I produced; the application was mailed back to me saying I needed a letter from my landlord; the letter was dated 2/9/2016; because I did as the customer service person asked, I deserve my discount pro rated to the day it was received. They had no policy todeal with such a situation and I had to guess as I went along if there policy was clear I would have had the discount when I turned it in originally in June.

Customer [redacted] was issued a yellow notice(10-day) on 7/2/15 and a pink notice (48-hr) on 7/9/15.  Due dates for both is 7/12/15.  No payment has been received on 7/12/15 hence the services were shut off on 7/15/15.  Last payment received from customer was on 5/20/15. ...

There were no payments in June or July before it was turned off.  A deposit is required and a reconnect fee is assessed once services are turned off, as required per City Ordinance.The customer also contends that City staff has cancelled his autopay but records show that the customer has performed the cancellation not the City.  The customer also scheduled a payment past the date due on 7/18/15.  The deposit and the Reconnect fee were duly assessed.  Thank you.

Review: I applied for the City of Lodi Share program for a discount on my utilities some time ago and was notified that an income report was required for my daughter who is on my rental agreement; she rented my apartment for me before I moved here; she has never lived here. My daughter about to have a baby and busy with a young family finally gave me a cover page to her health insurance bill with her address which I took to their office where I was told that I needed to have my apt. manager sign a statement that said my daughter did not live here which I did and filled out a new application dated 1/25/16 as I was instructed and mailed it back. On 2/12/14 I received my application and was instructed that I needed a letter from my landlord stating I was the only tenant and that the account must be at a zero balance; I had just been billed and will not be able to pay my bill until 3/1/2016. I called their office and although upset, was courteous; I spoke to someone named [redacted]; realizing that there was little she could do for me, I asked to speak to her supervisor and was put on hold; she returned and said he would call me on Monday; Monday was a holiday but as of Friday P.M. he has not called. Their policy is vague and I have been treated inconsistently.Desired Settlement: I would rather not but I will obtain a letter from my landlord; I would like my discount retroactively until 1/25/2016, if I had known that a letter from my landlord was required they would already have it.

Business

Response:

It appears that a Landlord verification has not been received as of this date. The application is pending until all the requirements are met. If application is approved, discount is effective upon approval date.

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because:I will send landlord verification even thiough I was told at The City of Lodi customer service window that a note from the property manager would be sufficient; if I had been told this at the beginning of this process, I would have had this discount long ago; the only option I was offered was an income report from my daughter a housewife who lives with her husband and has never lived here, only having rented this apartment for me before I moved here so I have been left to guess. This response is arrogant. Upon jumping through this last hoop I would only think it reasonable that they post date my application; the length of time it took them to respond only further illustrates how unreasonable their request is. What is wrong; there is growing discontent with this utility company and if this is how they treat low income, disabled seniors, I understand and wonder how they get away with this level of unprofessionalism.

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because: Upon completing an application, I was informed because my daughter is on my rental agreement that I had to submit her income; she rented the apartment for me before I moved here; my daughter has never lived here so I produced a piece of mail with her address on it; I took it to the customer service window and was told I needed a note from the property manager which I produced; the application was mailed back to me saying I needed a letter from my landlord; the letter was dated 2/9/2016; because I did as the customer service person asked, I deserve my discount pro rated to the day it was received. They had no policy todeal with such a situation and I had to guess as I went along if there policy was clear I would have had the discount when I turned it in originally in June.

Business

Response:

I believe this has resolved, the customer is now on a discounted rate. As stated before, the discount is effective the date that all requirements are met.

Review: this company has refused to give me a low income discount because my ex husband is on the lease. My ex husband has never lived at this house, we intended on moving in together but he did not ever move in because we separated right before the move. My landlord will not take him off the lease due to legal reasons. I've submitted numerous applications for the discount program that they refuse to approve it because his name is still on the lease.I contact this company numerous times and it still will not help me my bill is absolutely outrageous.they do not offer payment plans until your services are about to be shut off and even the entertainment plans are ridiculous. Last July my service was shut off because I talked to one of the employees on the phone and she said I could post my payment on their website which I did. But what she failed to tell me is that the payment will not post until 3 days later which is on a Monday(the next business day). They charge me a deposit fee even though I paid my bill on time and shut off my service.I've been on financial assistance and I'm considered low income but they still will not help me. they shut off my power during a blackout time which is illegal. this company also regulate their own source of power so they're able to charge people whatever they want and they are charging me for 2 bedroom apartment and outrageous amount of money every single month. I absolutely believe this is fraud in the first degree.Desired Settlement: I would like for the company to revise their policy on the low income application and also for the company to look at their internet payment policies and when the payment should post before they shut off your service and make you pay an additional deposit payment. I would also like for someone to look at how they charge people for their power they are getting away with charging people an absolutely outrageous amount of money.

Business

Response:

The customer was initially denied the discount due to insufficient documentation provided. She has since provided the proper documents on 8/25/14 and the discounted rate now applies. The customer's services were interrupted on 7/2/2013 due to non-payment. Based on the City ordinance, upon interruption of service, a deposit is required to be paid along with the balance on the account before services are restored.

Review: My electricity is handled by the city of Lodi, who I am making this complaint about. I went into their online billing system and setup paperless statements and autobill. This was because I had a surgery 6-22 and wouldn't be able to get to my mailbox. Today on 7-15 my power got turned off so I called to find out why. The woman admitted that their system deleted my payment that was setup, and put my on autobill to be paid 7-18. The system didn't tell me any of this or report an issue, it said everything was fine. Since that last payment was deleted, the bill went to overdue status which caused my power to be shut off. My complaint, or than the hassle of a non functional payment system, is they are charging me $75 to turn my power on. They will not waive this fee even though the issue was their system. If they don't resolve this complaint, I'd like it to stay on file so the entire public can see that's it's a bad idea to move to Lodi, only because of their utility system.Desired Settlement: I'd like the $75 credited to my account asap

Business

Response:

Customer [redacted] was issued a yellow notice(10-day) on 7/2/15 and a pink notice (48-hr) on 7/9/15. Due dates for both is 7/12/15. No payment has been received on 7/12/15 hence the services were shut off on 7/15/15. Last payment received from customer was on 5/20/15. There were no payments in June or July before it was turned off. A deposit is required and a reconnect fee is assessed once services are turned off, as required per City Ordinance.The customer also contends that City staff has cancelled his autopay but records show that the customer has performed the cancellation not the City. The customer also scheduled a payment past the date due on 7/18/15. The deposit and the Reconnect fee were duly assessed. Thank you.

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because: