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.
sdge suggested repairs I completed those repairs and has since found issues that should have been caught on earlier inspections and has refused to work with me due to the poor inspections that were Completed a d have resulted in me listing out on over 350 dollars in repairs. Be prepared in the case of a repair that is requested by edge that the inspections are thorough and completed correctly or you will be out more money than you think. Also wouldn't be a bad idea to pay for a legitimate inspector that work for YOU. Beware this company will not work with you and will discredit your story no matter how much evidence or proof you have. 
Regards,
[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.
SDG&E did not address the complaint at all and instead confused the issue by citing SDG&E Electric Tariff rule 3 part d, which actually has no language specifying a balance transfers from one contract to another contract. In 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 liability. The joint and several liability clause for the contract agreed to under the first address applies only to the contract for services to the first address. Because there was only one applicant/resident bound to the first contract only that resident is expected to perform under that contract. Let'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 contract. In certain industries this is called Cramming and is a form of fraud. While "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 caused. SDG&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 out. SDG&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 complaint. They have also cited SDG&E Electric Tariff rule 3 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 there. In fact, what's more disturbing is that rule 3 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 bill. Right now. SDG&E won't let me and has transferred the balance to someone else's account. I 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 3 as justification. SDG&E has not reversed the unauthorized balance transfer, nor apologized for doing so without consent or transparency. They have also not apologized to my roommate for burdening her with false charges or to me for violating my privacy.It's also entirely false 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* payment arrangements. They said, "maybe talk to your roommate" and implied I asked for her account information or send money to her. And 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 to. According to my last online statement with SDG&E, under the only account I ever opened with them, my account balance is 0. 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" closed. Please 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 dollar. When [redacted] moves out, [redacted] and [redacted] alone is bound to the obligation created under that contract.If [redacted] finds a roommate named [redacted], 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 contract. According to rule 3 part d, they are together and separately responsible for all SDG&E services to the address listed in the new contract. Even 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 contract. This 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 3 part d. As unethical as this may be, SDG&E can make [redacted]'s life miserable if [redacted] chooses not to pay SDG&E for the contract he alone signed. Although it would seem unfair to most reasonable people, she is obligated to pay SDG&E for [redacted]'s use of electricity according to SDG&E's second contract.So that sums up [redacted] and [redacted]s' obligations under the second contract. Under 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]

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 disagree with SDGE's claim about sending the notice of power termination before payment was received.  Please see the attached confirmation of payment delivery on 2-10-17, several days after I had scheduled it from my bank to electronically pay them to expedite prompt payment once a correct bill was calculated for my power use.  I am amazed that SDGE can take several days to process an electronic payment and move forward with terminating my power prior to my house receiving an actual bill based on usage versus an estimated bill from the month before.  SDGE abuses the program of over-charging non-smart meter customers by grossly over-estimating the first month's power as previously mentioned and follows this poor business practice up with slow billing and payment processing.  If SDGE is so interested in over-charging their customers for the first month's power use I would think they could promptly process these over-ages to my account in a timely manner.  I do not accept their excuse about the letter being sent 4 days after an electronic payment was confirmed.  The dates do not correlate with their timeline, poor customer service is just that and cannot be explained by poor billing practices.
Regards,
[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.
[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution. Please respond in this space ONLY]
Regards,
[redacted]

The company contacted the customer. The concern has been 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 states "The claim has been denied as the customer has not validated her monetary request for compensation."    How would I validate my claim to your satisfaction??  In my last response  I PROVED that the contest that I signed up for was in fact NOT a contest, but rather a Behavior Experiment in disguise and I PROVED that the points/awards that were SUPPOSED to be awarded to be in this fake contest were not calculated correctly, NOR awarded correctly - both proven by quotes from your own employees.  I PROVED that in fact, you misrepresented the entire program - calling it a contest, which by definition - treats people equally.  I was not treated the same as the other mislead entrants as I have PROVEN that I was eliminated simply because you decided to change the geographic boundaries of the program!   I have YET to be compensated for what I really did for the last 2.5 years - I was the unknowing and uncompensated subject of a behavioral experiment that uses gamification tactics to encourage and track my behaviors.  I was blatantly lied to about what I was really participating in and I want compensation for that as well.  In fact, I HAVE validated my request for compensation.  You misled and deceived me, all the while benefiting from my participation in your program while not compensating me.  I have pages upon pages of correspondence with both SDG&E employees as well as Simple Energy employees about this very topic.  It is crystal clear that SDG&E  misled me for 2.5 years.  For that I should be compensated.  I have given you a multitude of chances to offer a settlement out of court for this issue, yet you continue to simply respond with a non-answer.  You have never denied that your program was not as presented and I find it very telling that the program was suddenly shut down when I started to really raise questions a few months ago.  Why is that?  Why aren't you defending your program rather than denying my request with a basic "no"?  Because you CAN"T defend your program!  Because you KNOW  I'm right and because I HAVE validated my monetary request for compensation.   As promised, I am not backing down. ]
Regards,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], 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,
[redacted]

Customer has been contacted and issue resolved.

Customer contacted and concern addressed.

San Diego Gas and Electric has been in contact with Ms. [redacted] regarding her concern. The company is operating in compliance with California Public Utilities Rule 3, Application for Service.
 
http://regarchive.sdge.com/tm2/pdf/ELEC_ELEC-RULES_ERULE3.pdf

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]
If I could have had my questions answered online I would not have made a telephone call to SDGE.  I needed to speak to a human and I find the company's response both dismissive and disappointing.  My main suggestion is that SDGE implement a call back system for consumers when wait times are particularly long.  Many companies offer this service in their customer service departments.

please note, SDG&E engages former clients with intimidation and financial victimization. SDG&E refuses to engage in a civil/professional discussion in order to resolve issue,matters,bills, past due bills. I should not have to this length explaining the unprofessional,criminal tactics of SDG&E they prey on former clients and prey on them as if they are federal IRS agents, even then I will not allow them to install fear in my family's hopes of resolving the problem SDG&E has created for us, I refuse to pay anything to SDG&E and I am asking for a full refund of paid services from august of 2013 to september of 2016.

The customer has been contacted and the concern has been 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.
At this point the complaints will just continue until SDG&E performs good will and actually take proper action, we have been intimidated and wrongfully billed by SDG&E to which we may retain legal counsel for litigation and classaction lawsuit, we have options as to how to proceed when SDG&E is being very unreasonable and incapable of providing proof and taking proper action regarding their own internal error(s) that they are desperately trying to push on us and make us suffer financially and economically, we may also complain to the City of San Diego business oversight office for proper action as well. we will not be intimidated or bullies.
Regards,
[redacted]

Customer was contacted on 12/13/17.  A second attempt was made on 1/16/18, but no response yet.  A follow up email was sent today.

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.

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 want. When 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 service. This is not right and you sweep your mistake under the carpet of so called rules and regulations. So 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 disgusting. And then to get it out of their name we had to have it put back in our name. HOWEVER 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 do. No matter they are homeless people in there with no way of paying the bill but hey, we can't deny anyone service. I 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 service. SDG&E, you are truly disgusting

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.The response from the business states I was contacted. I have not received any contact from this business in regards to my complaint. This has not been addressed or resolved in any manner.
Regards,
[redacted]

The company has contacted the customer regarding the complaint.  San Diego Gas & Electric will pursue collection action in compliance with Rule 11, Discontinuance of Service filed with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).

San Diego Gas and Electric is operating in compliance with the rules established by the California Public Utilities Commission.