Department of Public Utilities

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the offer and/or 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.Before I made the complaint through the Revdex.com I received a full understanding as to the details of why this current bill exploded far beyond other monthsThe "details" / resolve the Dept of Utilities (DOU) just provided where just pictures as to what I already knowNo place on the bill does it state that the "E" for estimated reading: should be a concern to the customer after a month or twoA piece on their machine broke, which was never communicated with meIt took them half a year to fix it, then they want to bill me in access for a reading I never received nor knew was an issue I believe the DOU should credit my account back at least half of the overage of CCF's charged, (11) for not communicating with me as the customer and for not conducting timely maintenance and therefore poor business practicesI have paid all expenses, as I will certainly not pay late charges for all this drama which the DOU would certainly imposeI would not be satisfied with a CCF credit to my next account, but at least if would show some sort of acceptance of negligence on the DOU part Regards, [redacted]

The city of Richmond Department of Public Utilities has received your written complaint on behalf of our customer [redacted] who believes she was charged in error for the consumption of her waterA review or our records indicates that [redacted] was billed estimated consumption from September 30, 2015- April 26, 2016, instead of the actual usage that was consumed at the property.The series of estimated bills was due to a damaged ERT (Encoder Receiver Transmitter) which is used, along with the meter, to record the readings that determine a customer’s consumptionA Department of Public Utilities vehicle is in close proximity to the propertyIf the signal is not successfully transmitted, this can cause an estimate readingThe meter at the property however, continues to calculate usage during this time making it possible for our office to calculate the consumption used at the propertyThe last actual reading taken was on September 30, Once the ERT was replaced April 26, 2016, a reading of was taken from the meter totaling CCFs of usage during the time period in which [redacted] was receiving estimated billsDuring the time [redacted] had received these estimated bill, she was charged 20CCFs of consumption for water which her account shows has been paid in fillThe City of Richmond billed [redacted] the remaining CCFs on May 6, A review of the account indicates the balance due was satisfied may 31, bringing her account to a zero balance.The city of Richmond Department of Public Utilities hopes [redacted] find this information to be helpful and would like to advise that she please review the attached documents for a better understanding of event that took placeIf there are further questions concerning this account, please contact our Customer Care Center between the hours of 7:a.m.- 5:p.mat [redacted] , or visit City Hall at [redacted]

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the offer and/or 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.Before I made the complaint through the Revdex.com I received a full understanding as to the details of why this current bill exploded far beyond other monthsThe "details" / resolve the Dept of Utilities (DOU) just provided where just pictures as to what I already knowNo place on the bill does it state that the "E" for estimated reading: should be a concern to the customer after a month or twoA piece on their machine broke, which was never communicated with meIt took them half a year to fix it, then they want to bill me in access for a reading I never received nor knew was an issueI believe the DOU should credit my account back at least half of the overage of CCF's charged, (11) for not communicating with me as the customer and for not conducting timely maintenance and therefore poor business practicesI have paid all expenses, as I will certainly not pay late charges for all this drama which the DOU would certainly imposeI would not be satisfied with a CCF credit to my next account, but at least if would show some sort of acceptance of negligence on the DOU part Regards, [redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the offer and/or 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.Before I made the complaint through the Revdex.com I received a full understanding as to the details of why this current bill exploded far beyond other months. The "details" / resolve the Dept of Utilities (DOU) just provided where just pictures as to what I already know. No place on the bill does it state that the "E" for estimated reading: should be a concern to the customer after a month or two. A piece on their machine broke, which was never communicated with me. It took them half a year to fix it, then they want to bill me in access for a reading I never received nor knew was an issue. I believe the DOU should credit my account back at least half of the overage of CCF's charged, (11)  for not communicating with me as the customer and for not conducting timely maintenance and therefore poor business practices. I have paid all expenses, as I will certainly not pay late charges for all this drama which the DOU would certainly impose. I would not be satisfied with a 11 CCF credit to my next account, but at least if would show some sort of acceptance of negligence on the DOU part.
Regards,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the offer and/or 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.Before I made the complaint through the Revdex.com I received a full understanding as to the details of why this current bill exploded far beyond other months. The "details" / resolve the Dept of Utilities (DOU) just provided where just pictures as to what I already know. No place on the bill does it state that the "E" for estimated reading: should be a concern to the customer after a month or two. A piece on their machine broke, which was never communicated with me. It took them half a year to fix it, then they want to bill me in access for a reading I never received nor knew was an issue. 
I believe the DOU should credit my account back at least half of the overage of CCF's charged, (11)  for not communicating with me as the customer and for not conducting timely maintenance and therefore poor business practices. I have paid all expenses, as I will certainly not pay late charges for all this drama which the DOU would certainly impose. I would not be satisfied with a 11 CCF credit to my next account, but at least if would show some sort of acceptance of negligence on the DOU part.
Regards,
[redacted]

The city of Richmond Department of Public Utilities has
received your written complaint on behalf of our customer [redacted] who believes
she was charged in error for the consumption of her water. A review or our
records indicates that [redacted] was billed estimated consumption from
September...

30, 2015- April 26, 2016, instead of the actual usage that was
consumed at the property.The series of estimated bills was due to a damaged ERT
(Encoder Receiver Transmitter) which is used, along with the meter, to record
the readings that determine a customer’s consumption. A Department of Public Utilities
vehicle is in close proximity to the property. If the signal is not successfully
transmitted, this can cause an estimate reading. The meter at the property however,
continues to calculate usage during this time making it possible for our office
to calculate the consumption used at the property. The last actual reading
taken was 0306 on September 30, 2015. Once the ERT was replaced April 26, 2016,
a reading of 0348 was taken from the meter totaling 42 CCFs of usage during the
time period in which [redacted] was receiving estimated bills. During the time
[redacted] had received these estimated bill, she was charged 20CCFs of
consumption for water which her account shows has been paid in fill. The City
of Richmond billed [redacted] the remaining 22 CCFs on May 6, 2016. A review of
the account indicates the balance due was satisfied may 31, 2016 bringing her
account to a zero balance.The city of Richmond Department of Public Utilities hopes **
[redacted] find this information to be helpful and would like to advise that she please
review the attached documents for a better understanding of event that took
place. If there are further questions concerning this account, please contact
our Customer Care Center between the hours of 7:30 a.m.- 5:30 p.m. at
[redacted], or visit City Hall at [redacted].

Review: I have been in the same apartment since 2012 using the DPU utilities and water services. I received a bill for Mar 31-April 29th, which states that my usage of CCF's is 700 times higher then any other month. I called the customer service line to find out the issue and learned: for the past 7 months my meter has been "un-readable" for whatever reason.The representative said it could be as simple as a car was blocking the meter or a number of other issues; a work order went in on October 2015 and was just now serviced April 26, 2016. Over the last 6 months they have charged me an "estimated" 3-4 CCF's each month. They did not receive an accurate reading until April 26, 2016. This is indicated by an "E" on the bill, however, each month had a different meter reading and I paid each bill on time. This month they are charging me for 22 CCF's of usage which they say is the difference between the last read in October, 2015 to what I have paid to date. There is no actual monthly data to let me know the exact CCF usage each month and it was not clear to me that after 2 months of receiving an "E" instead of an "A" on my statement, that I should be concerned. This is not the way business should be run. I feel this is an unfair and unjust bill.Desired Settlement: I would like DPU Richmond Va, to liquidate this back charge for CCF usage. This policy was not communicated to the customer, nor was it something I had control over. I paid every bill on-time based on the reading that DPU provided. I do not have any actual data providing me with readings over the 6 months their services were E instead of A.

Business

Response:

The city of Richmond Department of Public Utilities has

received your written complaint on behalf of our customer [redacted] who believes

she was charged in error for the consumption of her water. A review or our

records indicates that [redacted] was billed estimated consumption from

September 30, 2015- April 26, 2016, instead of the actual usage that was

consumed at the property.The series of estimated bills was due to a damaged ERT

(Encoder Receiver Transmitter) which is used, along with the meter, to record

the readings that determine a customer’s consumption. A Department of Public Utilities

vehicle is in close proximity to the property. If the signal is not successfully

transmitted, this can cause an estimate reading. The meter at the property however,

continues to calculate usage during this time making it possible for our office

to calculate the consumption used at the property. The last actual reading

taken was 0306 on September 30, 2015. Once the ERT was replaced April 26, 2016,

a reading of 0348 was taken from the meter totaling 42 CCFs of usage during the

time period in which [redacted] was receiving estimated bills. During the time

[redacted] had received these estimated bill, she was charged 20CCFs of

consumption for water which her account shows has been paid in fill. The City

of Richmond billed [redacted] the remaining 22 CCFs on May 6, 2016. A review of

the account indicates the balance due was satisfied may 31, 2016 bringing her

account to a zero balance.The city of Richmond Department of Public Utilities hopes **

[redacted] find this information to be helpful and would like to advise that she please

review the attached documents for a better understanding of event that took

place. If there are further questions concerning this account, please contact

our Customer Care Center between the hours of 7:30 a.m.- 5:30 p.m. at

[redacted], or visit City Hall at [redacted].

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the offer and/or 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.Before I made the complaint through the Revdex.com I received a full understanding as to the details of why this current bill exploded far beyond other months. The "details" / resolve the Dept of Utilities (DOU) just provided where just pictures as to what I already know. No place on the bill does it state that the "E" for estimated reading: should be a concern to the customer after a month or two. A piece on their machine broke, which was never communicated with me. It took them half a year to fix it, then they want to bill me in access for a reading I never received nor knew was an issue.