Critter Barn

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below Since receiving the answer from SDGE, I checked my online billing account The online account still shows that we are being charged for meter number [redacted] instead of [redacted] Also, we have yet to receive the new bill that was purportedly issued on May 19th So until I receive the corrected bill for energy used by meter [redacted] and the online account information has been updated to reflect the correct meter number, I must reject SDGE's response to my complaintSince I first notified SDGE of the meter number discrepancy, I spoke to several customer services representatives that assured me that the problem was resolved and a new bill would be issued in days Those new bills were never reissued and the problem continued to persist So until I have actual proof that the problem has been resolved, I cannot accept SDGE's response to my complaint I hope they understand my position Regards, [redacted] ***

The company has been unable to reach the customer to discuss the concernThe customer may contact the company at 800-411-

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below Regards, [redacted] I have advised SDGE of my situation during that time and [redacted] has advised me to get a court order not showing "redacted"they do not need it to show proof of address??? she stated, where I resided to prove that I did not reside at the same address as my motherI am working on thatThey have many rules supporting why they feel the need to place her bill on mePrior to speaking on her account I researched and signed documentation to protect me, this is offered by SDGE online, SDGE is fitting their rules to justify billing my mom's bill to meHaving the 3rd authorization form is a protection for me and that is the reason it was doneNot only was that signed I verbally received confirmation that her debt would not be my responsibilityWhat is more concerning Cathy stated that they have documentation that I resided there but stated that I need a subpoena to receive how they transferred my moms debt to meAs a consumer I a requesting proof of debtI have also contacted the consumer protection bureau because SDGE transferred my mother debt unknown to meSDGE has advised their employees to transfer debt from one customer to another without consentFor SDGE to state that they have the "right" to transfer debt to another person without consent is illegalConsumer protection bureau is asking me for more information regarding this issueI was never a party to the contract and that was confirmed with SDGE in particular ***This is classic example of extortion in causing severe financial hardshipThanks

The full text of California Public Utility Commission approved Tariff Rule may be located at: http://regarchive.sdge.com/tm2/pdf/ELEC_ELEC-RULES_ERULE3.pdf Rule 3.D provides for Joint and Several Liability for Service/Beneficial Use The rule reads in part (emphasis added): Where two or more applicants join in one application or contract for Utility service, they shall be jointly and severally liable under the terms of the application/contract and shall be billed by means of a single periodic bill mailed to the customer designated to receive the billWhether or not the Utility obtained a joint application or contract for residential service, where there is evidence that an adult(s) other than the applicant resided at the premises and benefited from Utility service, the other adult(s) and the applicant shall be jointly and severally liable for service rendered while such other adults resided at the premises In compliance with Rule 3, the company is asking that the customer provide documentation to substantiate her residence during the time frame the outstanding charges were accruedThe company will not hold her responsible for the charges if she did not reside in the homeHowever, based on the evidence available to the company, the customer was a resident and as a resident, is responsible for the billThe SDG&E Credit department can place the mom and the daughter together at several addresses either as residents or ownersThis is about where [redacted] was living during the time the charges accrued, not about a Third Party Authorization

[redacted] Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below me and my spouse moved out of our apartment back in september 2016, my husband closed our SDG&E account on he paid the remaining balance of $and was advised the account is now closed with no other fees or chargesmy husband got phone call from their credit department asking for a payment of $for the month of septemberwe didn't reside there the whole month and the account was paid and closednow SDG&E is trying to intimidate us with a fictious bill, we refuse to be bullied as SDG&E has strongly demonstrated they threatened economic hardshipthey call my husband from 858-696-and speak with him as he has committed a crime when he calls customer service they can't even help the account is closed, SDG&E needs to answer as to why their employees try to intimidate and blackamail previous clientswe are beyond upset and are getting ready to hire legal help to take SDG&E to court for intimidation, blackmail and racketeering which all are illegal under state and federal laws Regards, [redacted]

The company has denied the claim as the customer has not validated her monetary request for compensation

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below None of my concerns were addressed, and characterizing my position as mere “dissatisfaction” is disingenuousGiven that SDG&E’s dialogue amounts to hand-waving serious legal and ethical breaches, I will keep my rejection of their response short SDG&E illegally crammed and coerced my account balance into someone else’s SDG&E accountThe “recipient” victim has zero legal responsibility, and SDG&E did not discuss the matter with me or the victim in advance and only did so when confronted, and after being discoveredSDG&E violated their own stated policies and legal responsibilities by undertaking the actions above.SDG&E insultingly claims to be compliant with CPUC regulations, absurdly pointing to documentation that indicates the exact opposite.Whether these activities were the result of systemic malicious and abusive practices, simply bad training, or aberrations, SDG&E has not apologized to me for disclosing my private information without legal standing or authorization, nor have they apologized to my roommate for billing her for services she did not benefit from and to which she has no obligation to pay It’s nice that SDG&E thanks me for making payments despite preventing me from doing so in the first place without noticeHowever, it’s distressing that “San Diego Gas and Electric's position has not changed”, given that said position is one of deliberate abuse and disregard of its own rules and common decency Since SDG&E has not refunded the illegal charges on my roommate’s account, and since SDG&E has not made any effort to correct its illegal and unethical actions, and since SDG&E has responded by making deceptive and statements thus escalating the level of abuse, I have to say that SDG&E has done the opposite of resolving my complaint Regards, [redacted]

The company’s position remains unchanged.The claim has been denied as the customer has not validated her monetary request for compensation

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below I have copy of 3rd party notification form that is on SDGE websiteThis was signed by both myself and my mom and it does state that I can speak in regards to her but would not be financially responsible for the billsThe was sent to SDGE address and faxedNow Ms [redacted] confirmed received last year but will not honor itI was never a co applicant and this was also confirmed with Mrs [redacted] I am requesting that my moms bill is not assigned to my account nor my creditThis is affecting my current service as well as my well beingMy mom is ill and elderly that is why I was assisting her on her bill, never did I accept responsibilityI can supply this to Revdex.comIt should be illegal for anyone to assign any debt to anyone else with their only excuse is SDGE assumed that I used air conditioning and their heat Regards, [redacted] ***

The company contacted the customerThe concern has been resolved

I have corresponded with customer via email to address her concern from January 19th to January 24th Based on her responses, I was under the impression the matter had been resolved Comments sent today, February 2nd indicate it has not been resolved to her satisfaction If that is true, the customer can contact me to discuss further

Customer contacted and concern addressed

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below Regards, [redacted] They can put up all the regulations and whatever legal jargon they wantWhen a person is in the process of selling a house and has requested the power to be turned off and then you get squatters living in there how in the world can SDG&E even possibly consider that legal and that they fall into qualifying for serviceThis is not right and you sweep your mistake under the carpet of so called rules and regulationsSo what I get is that if someone breaks into your home you are selling, squats there illegally they can still have the nerve to call the electric company and say "hey I live here turn on the power in my name" without even so much as proving that it is even their home!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is truly disgustingAnd then to get it out of their name we had to have it put back in our nameHOWEVER we were told that if they do not receive a bill all they have to do is pick up the phone and say "hey put it back in my name" and that is exactly what the darn electric company will doNo matter they are homeless people in there with no way of paying the bill but hey, we can't deny anyone serviceI have a hunch had this happened to someone within the company they would have jumped through their rules and regulations leaving them far to the side to turn off and deny them serviceSDG&E, you are truly disgusting

Customer was contacted on 12/13/ A second attempt was made on 1/16/18, but no response yet A follow up email was sent today

The billing issue has been rectified but there is no way to know if it is correctI will suspend my complaint against SDGE and consider the matter resolved

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below SDG&E did not address the complaint at all and instead confused the issue by citing SDG&E Electric Tariff rule part d, which actually has no language specifying a balance transfers from one contract to another contractIn this instance there were only two contracts: one with a single applicant/resident, and second contract with two residents, in which only one is an applicant.SDG&E wants to misrepresent and abuse the imprecise boilerplate clause of joint and several liabilityThe joint and several liability clause for the contract agreed to under the first address applies only to the contract for services to the first addressBecause there was only one applicant/resident bound to the first contract only that resident is expected to perform under that contractLet's illustrate that with the concrete scenario in the appendix*.What SDG&E has attempted to do is the opposite and charge one person for services delivered to another person at a different address under a completely different contractIn certain industries this is called Cramming and is a form of fraudWhile "joint and several" liability clauses in contracts are problematic for various ethical reasons, "joint and several" does not apply here as each contract forms a separate performance obligation, even if that performance obligation is individually "joint and several".SDG&E really likes the "joint and several" clause because when they literally burn half of San Diego due to negligence [1][2], they can claim that San Diego residents are responsible for the deaths and damage that SDG&E causedSDG&E also really likes the "joint and several" clause because they can harass individuals and communities sharing and exchanging other sources of power such as solar [3][4].I did not request that my account be closed as SDG&E claims in the response, but I asked that service be discontinued since I was moving outSDG&E claims in the response that they are in compliance with CPUC tariffs and rules (which they are not), but that is irrelevant and does not address my complaintThey have also cited SDG&E Electric Tariff rule and used it incorrectly to charge my roommate for a balance from an account to which she has no legal obligations to since she didn't sign it nor was she a resident thereIn fact, what's more disturbing is that rule specifically contradicts SDG&E's response since it specifies that performance is for service rendered at the premises for that specific contract.As I noted before, I want to pay my billRight nowSDG&E won't let me and has transferred the balance to someone else's accountI spoke to three SDG&E representatives in different departments in two different languages over the phone, and none was able to justify the balance transfer, becoming increasingly rude as they provided empty statements referencing rule as justificationSDG&E has not reversed the unauthorized balance transfer, nor apologized for doing so without consent or transparencyThey have also not apologized to my roommate for burdening her with charges or to me for violating my privacy.It's also entirely that I "spoke with a company representative who explained SDG&E policies and offered payment arrangements"While the representatives tried unsuccessfully to explain company policies but seemed confident that they were, they did not offer *any [redacted] payment arrangementsThey said, "maybe talk to your roommate" and implied I asked for her account information or send money to herAnd most confusing of all, I'm not experiencing a financial hardship, nor do I have an legal active account with SDG&E that I am entitled to or in practice make payments toAccording to my last online statement with SDG&E, under the only account I ever opened with them, my account balance is I am able to present supporting documentation.Given that SDG&E's response is littered with inaccuracies and falsehoods, I doubt their sincerity in asking that this matter be "respectfully" closedPlease forward my rejection of their response at your leisure and convey my strong disappointment and disapproval at SDG&E's fatuous and non-sequitur response.---AppendixIf [redacted] lives alone and signs SDG&E's contract alone, and then SDG&E services [redacted] with one dollar worth of electricity, [redacted] has made a promise to SDG&E to pay that dollarWhen [redacted] moves out, [redacted] and [redacted] alone is bound to the obligation created under that contract.If [redacted] finds a roommate named ***, and they move in to a new location where [redacted] alone has signed a new but completely separate contract with SDG&E for electricity, then [redacted] is an applicant and [redacted] is a resident under the second and separate contractAccording to rule part d, they are together and separately responsible for all SDG&E services to the address listed in the new contractEven though [redacted] didn't sign a new contract, [redacted] is a resident of the second address and SDG&E alleges that [redacted] benefits from SDG&E's second contractThis means that SDG&E can bill [redacted] only, or [redacted] only, or both; but only for the second contract and only for the second address; this is the case even [redacted] uses only 1% of all electricity transmitted, due to the language in rule part dAs unethical as this may be, SDG&E can make ***'s life miserable if [redacted] chooses not to pay SDG&E for the contract he alone signedAlthough it would seem unfair to most reasonable people, she is obligated to pay SDG&E for ***'s use of electricity according to SDG&E's second contract.So that sums up [redacted] and ***s' obligations under the second contractUnder the first contract things are very different; [redacted] was neither a resident nor an applicant at the first address and furthermore had no knowledge of or contract with SDG&E for that address, so he assumes no responsibility for any services to the first address.---[1] http:// [redacted] [2] http:// [redacted] / ("because all customers benefit from utility service, all customers also should share the burden when [we burn the city and kill people]..." - SDG&E) Aug 5th 2015, San Diego Tribune[3] http:/ [redacted] Findings of fact, 4.3: ("The utilities’ tariffs would not impose joint and several liabilities on the affiliates of ESPs and the utilities do not make a distinction between CCAs and ESPs that would justify treating the two types of organizations differently for purposes the allocation of liability.")[4] http:/ [redacted] ("the suspension's 'practical effect is that SDG&E is unable to move forward with their marketing and lobbying efforts against community choice programs until they receive written approval from the energy division of the commission.'") Regards, [redacted]

Unfortunately, San Diego Gas and Electric has made a decision that is not in the customer’s favorThe company will not be reimbursing costs for which the company is not responsible

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below SDG&E did not address the complaint at all and instead confused the issue by citing SDG&E Electric Tariff rule part d, which actually has no language specifying a balance transfers from one contract to another contractIn this instance there were only two contracts: one with a single applicant/resident, and second contract with two residents, in which only one is an applicant.SDG&E wants to misrepresent and abuse the imprecise boilerplate clause of joint and several liabilityThe joint and several liability clause for the contract agreed to under the first address applies only to the contract for services to the first addressBecause there was only one applicant/resident bound to the first contract only that resident is expected to perform under that contractLet's illustrate that with the concrete scenario in the appendix*.What SDG&E has attempted to do is the opposite and charge one person for services delivered to another person at a different address under a completely different contractIn certain industries this is called Cramming and is a form of fraudWhile "joint and several" liability clauses in contracts are problematic for various ethical reasons, "joint and several" does not apply here as each contract forms a separate performance obligation, even if that performance obligation is individually "joint and several".SDG&E really likes the "joint and several" clause because when they literally burn half of San Diego due to negligence [1][2], they can claim that San Diego residents are responsible for the deaths and damage that SDG&E causedSDG&E also really likes the "joint and several" clause because they can harass individuals and communities sharing and exchanging other sources of power such as solar [3][4].I did not request that my account be closed as SDG&E claims in the response, but I asked that service be discontinued since I was moving outSDG&E claims in the response that they are in compliance with CPUC tariffs and rules (which they are not), but that is irrelevant and does not address my complaintThey have also cited SDG&E Electric Tariff rule and used it incorrectly to charge my roommate for a balance from an account to which she has no legal obligations to since she didn't sign it nor was she a resident thereIn fact, what's more disturbing is that rule specifically contradicts SDG&E's response since it specifies that performance is for service rendered at the premises for that specific contract.As I noted before, I want to pay my billRight nowSDG&E won't let me and has transferred the balance to someone else's accountI spoke to three SDG&E representatives in different departments in two different languages over the phone, and none was able to justify the balance transfer, becoming increasingly rude as they provided empty statements referencing rule as justificationSDG&E has not reversed the unauthorized balance transfer, nor apologized for doing so without consent or transparencyThey have also not apologized to my roommate for burdening her with charges or to me for violating my privacy.It's also entirely that I "spoke with a company representative who explained SDG&E policies and offered payment arrangements"While the representatives tried unsuccessfully to explain company policies but seemed confident that they were, they did not offer *any [redacted] payment arrangementsThey said, "maybe talk to your roommate" and implied I asked for her account information or send money to herAnd most confusing of all, I'm not experiencing a financial hardship, nor do I have an legal active account with SDG&E that I am entitled to or in practice make payments toAccording to my last online statement with SDG&E, under the only account I ever opened with them, my account balance is I am able to present supporting documentation.Given that SDG&E's response is littered with inaccuracies and falsehoods, I doubt their sincerity in asking that this matter be "respectfully" closedPlease forward my rejection of their response at your leisure and convey my strong disappointment and disapproval at SDG&E's fatuous and non-sequitur response.---AppendixIf [redacted] lives alone and signs SDG&E's contract alone, and then SDG&E services [redacted] with one dollar worth of electricity, [redacted] has made a promise to SDG&E to pay that dollarWhen [redacted] moves out, [redacted] and [redacted] alone is bound to the obligation created under that contract.If [redacted] finds a roommate named ***, and they move in to a new location where [redacted] alone has signed a new but completely separate contract with SDG&E for electricity, then [redacted] is an applicant and [redacted] is a resident under the second and separate contractAccording to rule part d, they are together and separately responsible for all SDG&E services to the address listed in the new contractEven though [redacted] didn't sign a new contract, [redacted] is a resident of the second address and SDG&E alleges that [redacted] benefits from SDG&E's second contractThis means that SDG&E can bill [redacted] only, or [redacted] only, or both; but only for the second contract and only for the second address; this is the case even [redacted] uses only 1% of all electricity transmitted, due to the language in rule part dAs unethical as this may be, SDG&E can make ***'s life miserable if [redacted] chooses not to pay SDG&E for the contract he alone signedAlthough it would seem unfair to most reasonable people, she is obligated to pay SDG&E for ***'s use of electricity according to SDG&E's second contract.So that sums up [redacted] and ***s' obligations under the second contractUnder the first contract things are very different; [redacted] was neither a resident nor an applicant at the first address and furthermore had no knowledge of or contract with SDG&E for that address, so he assumes no responsibility for any services to the first address.---[1] http:// [redacted] [2] http:// [redacted] / ("because all customers benefit from utility service, all customers also should share the burden when [we burn the city and kill people]..." - SDG&E) Aug 5th 2015, San Diego Tribune[3] http:/ [redacted] Findings of fact, 4.3: ("The utilities’ tariffs would not impose joint and several liabilities on the affiliates of ESPs and the utilities do not make a distinction between CCAs and ESPs that would justify treating the two types of organizations differently for purposes the allocation of liability.")[4] http:/ [redacted] ("the suspension's 'practical effect is that SDG&E is unable to move forward with their marketing and lobbying efforts against community choice programs until they receive written approval from the energy division of the commission.'") Regards, [redacted]

Mr***’s account was closed at his requestA final statement was issued
When full payment is not received by the due date on a closed account, the outstanding charges may be transferred to the active account at the new residence per California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Rule
which states that “where there is evidence that an adult(s) other than the applicant resided at the premises and benefited from Utility service, the other adult(s) and the applicant shall be jointly and severally liable for service rendered while such other adults resided at the premises.” http://regarchive.sdge.com/tm2/pdf/ELEC_ELEC-RULES_ERULE3.pdf
SDG&E accepts payments via mail, in person, online and by telephoneCustomers with active accounts who are experiencing a temporary financial hardship may request payment arrangementsMr*** spoke with a company representative who explained the company policies and offered payment arrangements to him
SDG&E is in compliance with all tariffs and rules which are filed and approved by the CPUCFor this reason, SDG&E respectfully requests that this matter be closed

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response 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
[Your offer is rejectedThat figure is my total number of points prior to being cut off from the program, however you have NOT ONCE replied to my statements about how your point calculation was faulty, erroneous, and unevenly distributed - as confirmed in the documentation I provided both with the SDG&E powerpoint presentation document and via direct emails from your employee that confirms that the points were not calculated correctly The "glitch" in the reward system was never corrected as promised by your employee Why? Because it wasn't a contest It was a Behavior Modification Program and should have been called that from the moment it was presented to participantsI have provided the Revdex.com and you with indisputable proof that what you presented as a contest was NOT a contest by definition and THAT is why I am seeking a settlement And THAT is why I will persevere until a fair settlement is reached You stated that the program ended at the end of the year - so if that was true - why did you block my participation a month from the program and, and why did your employee tell me that my geographic location was no longer a part of the program? The lies are getting deeperLets just settle this and move on
Regards,
*** ***