Dominion Products and Services, Inc.

Review: Company billed me twice for $30.00 which was double the amount for the serviceDesired Settlement: refund 30.00

Business

Response:

Dear [redacted]:

On behalf of Dominion Products and Service, Inc. (“DPS”), I

am responding to the above referenced complaint.

Upon investigation, it appears Complainant double-paid for

coverage under DPS’s In-Home Electric Line Repair Program. The resulting

over-payment was $30.00. DPS is refunding that amount to complainant.

I am providing a copy of this response to Complainant by

U.S. Mail.

If you have any questions please contact me.

Sincerely,

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID[redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint in full. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

Why was I billed twice for the same product service? Will this double billing happen again?

Regards,

Review: Have been paying the additional $ 4.99 monthly charge to Dominion Product and Services for Water Line Replacement Program since 2012. This additional charge is applied directly to my monthly Dominion bill. Never received any instructions on how to use the program or copy of terms and conditions. Now, after a water line breakage and payment directly to the plumber - [redacted]. in July 2013 for $3900.00, Dominion is refusing to reimburse for the said charges. When I called Dominion for re-imbursement, they told me they didn't pay for Third-Party contractor work. I informed them the plumber is a certified contractor for Dominion. I feel they are trying to bait and switch simply because I didn’t call the power company for a water problem. Again, no instructions were provided during the onset of this new program. Also, customer service refused to provide a direct number or address for the Corporate Office. I was only provided a PO Box and FAX line number .. Dominion Products and Services - [redacted]Desired Settlement: I would like to re-imbursed for the 3900.00.

Business

Response:

Dear [redacted],

On behalf of Dominion Products and Services,Inc, ("DPS"), I am responding to the above-referenced complaint concerning DPS's Water Line Repair and Replacement Program ("Program").

Complainant alleges wrongdoing on the part of DPS for refusing to refund him the $3,900 he spent for private exterior water line repair work done at his residence nearly a year ago, in July 2013. His allegations include the completely outrageous assertion that by its actions the company is "trying to bait and switch". DPS strongly denies Complainant's allegation of wrongdoing.

In his June 3,2074 Revdex.com complaint, Complainant claims that he "[n]ever received instructions on how to use the program or copy of terns and conditions ". Complainant is simply mistaken. In fact, in September 2010, in response to a Program solicitation sent to his residence in August 2010 that included the Program terms and conditions (which have also been readily available on the company's website for a number of years), Complainant mailed back to DPS a Program enrollment card bearing his signature.3 That card included a printed statement by which the enrolling customer declares he has read and agrees to the Program terms. Complainant's Program enrollment (at $4.99/month) became effective September 2,2010. A copy of the signed enrollment card has been mailed to Complainant along with a copy of this letter for his reference.

The Program terms could not be more clear that DPS, without prior authorization, will not reimburse for private work done either by the customer himself or a third party on behalf of the customer. The reason for this is clear: as the Program offeror, DPS must be able to determine for itself the nature of the water line claim as well as-again, for itself-decide the appropriate remedy for the situation. Further, it is immaterial that the contractor Complainant used for the private work in July 2013 turns out to be a DPS Program contractor.

In conclusion, DPS denies wrongdoing in this matter and once again stands by its position that is not responsible for reimbursing Complainant.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Assistant General Counsel

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the offer 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.]

I never signed an agreement of the terms and conditions. My wife does not handle these matters in our house-hold. If I did sign an agreement, where's is the copy ?

Also, I've spoken to one of the 3rd party contractors, and was advised this type of situation happens all the time,, for example, the water line breaks and the husband is out of town,,, well sorry Ms. customer, you called the wrong number, too bad. I recently asked a neighbor to contact DPS to ask for the program details ... he did recieve a brouchure and convienently, the new program includes a nice refrigarator magnet with the proper number to call.. Well, I guess the unfortunate customers who signed up early for this program, were not entitled to same clear instructions. I stand by comments, that this is a BAIT and SWITCH..

I will be bringing matter to my lawyers, as well.

Regards,

Business

Response:

Dear [redacted]:

DPS is in receipt of Complainant's June 24, 2014 rebuttal to DPS's June 17, 2014 response letter in the above- referenced matter. Please note DPS is providing this additional response to your office by U.S. Mail because the enclosure contains certain personally identifiable information of Complainant, namely a copy of the signed business reply enrollment card submitted by Complainant to DPS in September 2010.

As noted on the card, a copy of which was already provided to Complainant on June 17, 2014, upon signing the card Complainant assented to the terms and conditions of the Program. This includes the provision stating that DPS will not reimburse for third party work.

Complainant offers no new information in his June 24, 2014 rebuttal. Accordingly, no further response from DPS is necessary and the company stands by its previously stated position in this matter.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Assistant General Counsel

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the offer 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 continue to seek advice from my lawyers in this matter. Also, the copy of the signed agreement card is addressed to my wife [redacted] and signed by myself.

It also appears the document has been altered. The font used in the terms conditions is unreadable and leads to confusion on the part of the consumer]

Regards,

Review: I called Dominion Warranty company about my sink clogged. I have used the company before and my mother also she died in our house in March. Well I am suffering from the loss still and I am a Veteran with no job I am to be hired in August. I dont have much money so I called Dominion (26 of June) A plumber came out the 27 from [redacted] he came in the hose and did nothing he said I have an access problem , the little pipe cumming out o the wall he said needs cut , well isn't that his job to cut the 5 dollar pipe? well I called dominion and they said he should have ma bey giving a price to cut the pipe to run the snake in. The customer support said they would have there supervisor call , well I called again today he finally called and said you have an access problem! I say again ist that the job of the plumber to cut the pipe? I mean I don't call a electrician or mechanic to cut the pipe! I am still suffering from the loss of my mother and they treat me like this knowing about my loss. I had no problem before with Dominion why when I need them the most they do this to me? THEY TOOK MY $25.00 UPFRONT WITH A CREDIT CARD AND DID NOTHINGDesired Settlement: I want to have my sink unclogged and dont want [redacted] company I just lost my mother how cold can this company be putting me through this! I WANT ANOTHER COMPANY TO COME OUT AND UNCLOG MY PIPES,I NEED HELP PLEASE I AM STILL WAITING TO BE HIRED IN THE VA I AM A VETERAN !! GOD BLESS !!!

Business

Response:

Dear Ms. [redacted]: On behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc. ("DPS" or "Company"), I am responding to the above-referenced complaint concerning the Company's In-Home Plumbing Repair Program ("Program"). Complainant filed a Program claim on June 26, 2015 for a clogged sink. DPS's contractor visited the residence the next day but the technician determined that a repair could not be made because the fixture could not be physically accessed. Complainant followed up by filing the instant complaint. The Company denies any allegation of wrongdoing. As requested by Complainant in his complaint, DPS agreed to send a different contractor to Complainant's residence for a second opinion. The second contractor called Complainant on July 8, 2015 to arrange for an appointment. However, at that time Complainant informed the contractor that Complainant and a friend had made the necessary repair themselves. Complainant advised the contractor that no further Program service was requested or needed. Accordingly, this matter should now be considered closed. I am providing a copy of this response to Complainant by U.S. Mail. 1 Complainant's mother, who reportedly passed away in March 2015, is the customer of record. 2 Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Assistant General Counsel

Consumer

Response:

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's offer. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]

I have reviewed the offer 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. If the company does not perform as promised I can get back to you at: [redacted].

Regards,

Review: We have paid for the Water Heater Repair and Replacement Program through Dominion Products and Services for well over 10 years. Our water heater has been given a "Band-Aid" by them twice within a year. On Wednesday, August 28, 2013, at 5:30 p.m. it finally went bad and was leaking water all over our garage. My husband called the number at 5:35 p.m., to place a claim and was told "this is not an emergency service" and "we have 48 hours to respond". It was not even 6 o'clock in the evening! They determined it would be Friday, August 30, 2013 between 12 and 4 p.m. before someone would get out to check on us. Thanks a lot! My husband asked for a supervisor to call him and they took his information but he never received a call. The plumber finally called on Friday, August 30, 2013 at 3:40 p.m. to say they would be there at 4 p.m. They determined we needed a new water heater. They replaced it, though I had to pay $35 for a new cut off valve to be installed. They didn't even haul the old water heater away! They carried it out to the street and placed it halfway in our driveway and halfway in the gutter. My husband had to move it out of the way of our driveway so our car didn't hit it when we backed out! When their website states they “remove the old water heater and install a new one,” that should mean REMOVE the old one from the premises! I'm sure Dominion Products and Services will mince words on that little detail also. I contacted Dominion Products and Services September 3, 2013 at 12:03. I told them we are not happy with the service we had received. They transferred me to customer service and I explained what had happened. I asked for a supervisor to contact me and they said [redacted] would be contacting me. By 4:45 p.m. I had still not heard from [redacted], the supervisor. I called them back and this time they stated [redacted] has 24 hours to respond to my request. On September 4, 2013, 4:50 p.m. I called customer service again because [redacted] had not called within the 24 hour period. This time the representative told me the supervisor has between 24 to 48 hours to respond to a customer. What happened to “the supervisor has 24 hours to respond” that they told me yesterday?? We are sick of the run-around we have received from this company. They care nothing about their customers and it shows!!!

The Dominion Products and Services, Inc. website regarding their Water Heater Repair and Replacement Program amounts to nothing more than FALSE ADVERTISING. It states: “You make one simple, toll-free phone call, day or night, and a professional plumber will be dispatched to your home within 24 hours to quickly repair or replace your water heater.” This information alone proves that a professional plumber should have been at our house NO LATER THAN Thursday, August 29, 2013, by 5:35 p.m. This is what we have been paying them for monthly for well over 10 years! The website also states, “What if I have a water heater emergency in the middle of the night? No problem! We're available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week - including holidays and weekends. Your call will be answered by a trained representative, not an answering machine. A Dominion Products and Services approved plumber will promptly be dispatched and can contact you within one hour of your initial call and repairs can begin within 24 hours.”

This company continually changes the 'rules' depending on which representative you talk to and what you are asking for. I do not trust this company to give me a straight answer about anything.Desired Settlement: We want 1) Dominion Products and Services, Inc. to pick up the old water heater and dispose of it; 2) we want the common business practice of a prompt return phone call from the supervisor to explain why we were made to wait a full 48 hours for a new hot water heater when their website clearly states 24 hours; 3) the web site needs to be updated to reflect the truth about how they treat their customers and not the false advertising they are pushing to attract new, unsuspecting customers; 4) we want the Revdex.com to correct the accreditation of this business to a more appropriate letter grade. It is certainly not deserving of the A+ it is currently enjoying; and 5) we will be canceling our service with this company as soon as possible. Without their service, we would have had a new hot water heater installed that very evening and not had to endure the unnecessary upset to our family for two full days -- which is why we had the service in the first place!

Business

Response:

Attn: [redacted]

Attached is the response of Dominion Products and Services, Inc. to the above-referenced complaint. The original is being mailed to you today. Additionally, a copy is being mailed to Complainant.

Assistant General Counsel

Dominion Resources Services, Inc.

Dear [redacted]:

On behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc. ("DPS" or "Company"), I am responding to the above- referenced complaint concerning DPS's Water Heater Repair & Replacement Program ("Program")

Despite having received a brand new water heater under the Program, Complainant is not satisfied with the time it took for the installation. Her various allegations of wrongdoing on the part of DPS are denied.

Complainant voluntarily enrolled in the Program on April 18,2007. The current fee is $[redacted]/month. In all, Complainant has filed three claims under the Program. On September 9,2012, DPS's contractor replaced a thermocouple device on Complainants water heater. About two months later, on November 5,2012. the contractor replaced a gas valve on the unit. Finally, in response to Complainant's August 28,2013 claim, the Company on August 30,2013 installed a brand new [redacted] 40 gallon water heater with a 6 year warranty. On September 5,2013, the Complainant cancelled participation in the Program.

When Complainant's husband called DPS on August 28 to place the claim, he was told that the standard 48 hour time window for the work would apply. And in fact DPS met that standard. Moreover, at no time did DPS commit to hauling away Complainant's old water heater. In fact, Complainant was presented with a pre-installation worksheet that specifically states removal of the old unit is not provided under the Program.

In conclusion, the Company is puzzled by the stridency of Complainant's displeasure considering that, thanks to the Program, she now has a new water heater. In any event, DPS in all respects honored its contract with Complainant- who, as noted, has canceled participation in the Program- and owes her nothing more.

I am sending a copy of this letter directly to Complainant.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Very truly yours,

[redacted]. [redacted]

Assistant General Counsel

Review: I have had a service contract with Dominion Products and Services for the past several years for Premium In-Home Plumbing Repair. I selected the premium service because I was told it would cover all the in-home repairs. I contacted the service department on Oct 1, 2015 for a bathroom drain leak. On Oct 3, 2015 the service person came to the house and looked at the sink drain and told me it is not covered because it is the metal part of the drain pipe and not the plastic drain part. I told him the drain pipe is a drain pipe and the pipe leaks. What type of Plumbing Repair service makes the drain different because it is the metal part and not the plastic part?Desired Settlement: If this is what I can expect from the service contract then I want all my payments returned to me so that I can get a real plumber to fix the problem.

Business

Response:

Dear [redacted]:On behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc. (“DPS” or “Company”),

I am responding to the above-referenced complaint concerning DPS’s In-Home

Plumbing Repair Program (“Program”).This complaint concerns the Company’s recent denial of

Complainant’s claim for Program coverage. The Program provides coverage for

leaking in home pipelines and the unclogging of in-home drain lines.DPS denies any allegations of wrongdoing by Complainant.The Complainant’s account history is as follows. Complainant

enrolled in the Program online on December 31, 2011 and on June 21, 2013

enrolled in the additional premium option. Complainant placed a Program claim

regarding his bathroom sink on October 1, 2015. The Company’s contractor visited

Complainant’s home on October 3. Upon investigation, the contractor’s

technician found that the problem was with a “pop up” fixture on the sink,

which is used to close and unclose the sink drain. Fixtures are excluded from

coverage under the Program, which, as already noted is specifically limited to

coverage for leaking in-home pipelines and the unclogging of in-home drain

lines. The technician informed the Complainant that day this his claim was

being denied.DPS stands by its determination that Complainant’s claim was

not eligible for coverage. However, as a customer service gesture, DPS has

agreed that Complainant will be reimbursed that $175.00 he paid a private

plumber to make the subject repair. This has been communicated to Complainant.

Accordingly, this complaint has been satisfied and no further action is needed.I am provided a copy of this response to Complainant by U.S.

Mail.Please contact me if you have any questions.Very Truly Yours,[redacted]

Consumer

Response:

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's offer. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]

I have reviewed the offer 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. If the company does not perform as promised I can get back to you at: [redacted]

Regards,

Review: I have had Dominion's sewer line protection for years. I am selling my house and had a dye test. They found a leak in the sewer pipe.

The Dominion FAQ says - The Sewer Line Repair Program provides protection for the sewer line that runs from the main system or septic tank to your home. If a sinkhole, tree root, over usage or normal wear and tear causes your sewer line to leak, clog, or rupture, Dominion will make all necessary covered repairs.

Seems simple, right?

But their terms say - The following are excluded from coverage under the Program: (1) pre-existing sewer line or septic line problems; (2) repairs required due to dye and/or smoke test failure or third party inspections of any kind;

I'm not sure how a leak can be detected other than through inspecting the pipe.Desired Settlement: My first choice is that they fix the sewer line. I doubt this is what will happen. But I'd at least prefer that they fix their FAQ to say that they only unclog pipes. Because that is what the phone people from Dominion told me.

Business

Response:

On behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc.

("DPS" or "Company"), I am responding to the

above-referenced complaint concerning the Company's Sewer Line Repair Program

("Program"). Complainant takes issue with the provision in the

Program terms and conditions that makes clear repairs required due to a

"dye test" or other third party inspection are excluded from

coverage. The dye test exclusion has been part of the Program's contract provisions

since the Program was first introduced in Pennsylvania in 2001. 1 Complainant

seems to accuse DPS of somehow misleading customers or not being upfront about

the dye test exclusion.2 DPS strongly denies any allegation of wrongdoing by

Complainant. One might conclude in reading the subject complaint that

Complainant is a new Program customer and unfamiliar with how it works.

However, a review of Complainant's account history reveals quite a different

story. In fact, Complainant has been a Program customer for some 13-plus years,

having voluntarily enrolled in December 2001. He pays $57/yr (paid quarterly)

for participation. Over this period of time Complainant called the DPS call

center on six separate occasions to file Program claims, none of which arose

from a dye test inspections, but all of which were fully covered by DPS. These

included five sewer line clog claims and, in July 2003, the replacement of a

section of Complainant's sewer line at a cost to DPS of $2,175. In all, the

Company has paid a total of $3,050 to its contractors in repair costs in the

course of honoring Complainant's multiple claims, as follows: The point in

recounting this extensive account history is to show that Complainant cannot

reasonably claim to be ignorant of or surprised by the dye test exclusion or

for that matter any other aspect of the Program. In conclusion, DPS has done

nothing wrong vis-a-vis this Complainant and in all respects has fully complied

with its contractual obligations to Complainant. Complainant, who is receiving

a copy of this response to Complainant by U.S. Mail, is reminded that he is

free to cancel participation in the Program at any time. If you have any

questions please contact me.

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.

[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]

Regards,

Thank you. I expected as much.However, since I did not have a dye test in the many years I had Dominion service, this does come as a surprise to me.I agree, their terms say dye tests are not covered. But I believe this FAQ is misleading. It should specifically mention dye tests or say that they will only help you if you experience a clog.

Review: I signed up for two (2) of Dominion Virginia Powers offers, the first was their HVAC System Repair Service and second their Water Heater repair/replacement Service in February 2014. I started to have problems with my HVAC System in January 2015 and after two (2) service calls within 3 months they refused to try and repair my System because of some small print in the agreement and never came back to check the system as they had agreed to do before canceling that part of the services.

Now, I just got a letter from them stating in so many words that on August 1, 2015 they are changing the conditions of the Water Heater agreement and not grandfathering the original agreement for existing customers. They are increasing the Monthly contract amount and adding a $25 service charge per visit when there had not been a service charge previously. This new change should only apply to new customers that sign up for their services and not added to existing customers agreement as a blind sided action.Desired Settlement: First to refund the Thirteen (13) months of HVAC repair agreement payments for breach of agreement ($9.95/mo).

Second to grandfather the existing Water Heater repair/replacement agreement so as to not apply the $25.00 service fee per occurrence for at least one (1) year (to at least until August 1, 2016).

I think that this would be a fair compromise and partial Grandfathering for existing customers.

Business

Response:

Dear [redacted] O behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc. (“DPS” or “the

Company”), I am responding to the above-referenced complaint concerning the

Company’s Heating and Cooling Repair Program (“HVAC Program”) and Water Heating

Repair & Replacement Program (“WHTR Program”).Complainant accuses DPS of wrongful actions as to both

Programs. Concerning the HVAC Program,

he alleges that DPS “…refused to try and repair my System because of

some small print in the agreement and never came back to check the system as

they had agreed to do before canceling that part of the service”. He requested

a refund of his HVAC Program fees. As for the WHTR Program, Complainant takes

issue with the Company’s recently announced revision to the Program that

reflects new federally-imposed water heater mandates. Complainant alleges this

is a “blindsided action” and that pre-existing contracts should receive “grandfather’

treatment.Complainant voluntarily enrolled in both Programs by

telephone on February 28, 2014. The HVAC Program costs $9.95/month while the

WHTR Program is $5.95/month. Participation in these programs is always voluntary,

which means a customer-whose Program payment prepay coverage for the applicable

period- is absolutely free to cancel participation at any time without penalty.Complainant placed his first HVAC Program claim with the DPS

call center on October 11, 2014, but prior to the contractor’s arrival at his

home Complainant canceled the claim. Two days later, on October 13, 2014,

Complainant again placed a HVAC program claim and once again canceled the claim

before the contractor’s arrival. On November 21, 2014, Complainant filed another

claim. This time the contractor actually visited Complainant’s residence and

inspected the air conditioner unit. The contractor determined that Complainant’s

air conditioner which is in excess of 15 years old, was low on Freon refrigerant.

The contractor recharged the unit with Freon at a cost to DPS of $203.44.Complainant filed another HVAC Program claim on April 9,

2015. Once again the contractor found the air conditioner to be low on Freon

and recharged it. Suspecting a Freon leak, the contractor also placed a dye

pack to help detect the location of the leak.On April 17, 2015, the contractor returned to Complainant’s

residence to check on any additional leakage. The dye revealed a leak in the

unit’s coil. However, as Complainant was so informed that day by the contractor,

the coil repair was not eligible for coverage under the HVAC Program terms and

conditions given the unit’s age. Complainant called DPS that day to questions

this determination but was told that indeed the repair would not be covered. He

called again on the April 27, 2015 and this time cancelled his participation in

the HVAC Program. In all, DPS paid its contractor $209.49 in connection with

the work done at Complainant’s residence on April 9 and 17.As the foregoing HVAC Program account history demonstrates,

Complainant is clearly wrong in alleging that DPS “refused to try” to help him

or otherwise evaded its contractual commitment to him. To the contract, the

Company- which spent nearly $500 in contractor costs- honored each of Complainant’s

claims and only denied the coil repair once it was evident that that work was

not eligible for coverage. Complainant is not entitled to any HVAC Program fee

refund and none will be forthcoming from DPS.Turning now to the WHTR Program portion of this complaint,

it should be noted that Complaint has never filed a claim under that program.

His issues is with the Company’s prospective changes to the program terms and

conditions which DPS is making in the wake of recent new federal mandates

concerning water heaters. The new WHRT Program terms and conditions go into

effect as of August 1, 2015. Far from being “blind sided”, Complainant, as an existing

customer, received written notice of the prospective changes from DPS.

Moreover, DPS is applying the charges uniformly and across all customers. The

Company cannot and will not grandfather Complainant’s account or any other. To

the extent he is unhappy with the new WHTR Program terms and Conditions, Complainant

is free to cancel participation at any time without penalty.In conclusion, this complaint merits immediate dismissal.

DPS has done nothing wrong vis-à-vis this complainant and in all respects the

Company has fully complied with its contractual obligations to Complainant.

Consumer

Response:

Review: On December 31, 2013 I contacted Dominion and asked to switch my natural gas purchasing contract to [redacted]. As of today, [redacted] tells me that Dominion is the only entity that can enter this change and they have not done so. Dominion tells me that they sent the cancellation notice to [redacted] on 12/31/13, but they cannot provide any documentary evidence to this effect. The gas rates that Dominion charges are significantly higher that those of [redacted]. This has caused me to pay inflated prices for four months with no relief in sight.Desired Settlement: I want my gas supply agreement to be switched back to [redacted] immediately, as I had requested back on 12/31/13. Understanding that this process should take no more than two billing cycles, I also expect a refund for the difference between the [redacted] rate and the Dominion one for the period after the two billing cycles ended and the date that Dominion and [redacted] actually implement my request. This change should have been fully implemented by the end of February 2014.

Business

Response:

Dear Richmond Revdex.com:

On behalf of Dominion Retail, lnc. d/b/a Dominion Energy Solutions ("DES"), I am responding to the above-referenced complaint.

Beginning in 2011, Complainant was a natural gas commodity customer of DES on the [redacted] ("[redacted]") gas utility system in New Jersey.' On December 31, 2013, Complainant contacted the DES call center to request cancellation of his service. The cancellation older was electronically inputted by DES but

was rejected by the [redacted] automated system because of a data transfer issue. When DES became aware of this on April 12,2014, it submitted another cancellation

request, which was acknowledged by [redacted]. That cancellation will become effective on June 30,2014.2

DES explained this situation to the Complainant on April 16,2014 and informed him that he will be issued a refund once his service is finally ended.

In conclusion, the Company regrets any inconvenience Complainant experienced in this matter and has already committed to provide a refund. DES denies any allegation by Complainant of wrongdoing.

I am providing Complainant a copy of this letter by U.S. Mail.

Please contact me should you have any questions.

Respectfully submitted,

Assistant General Counsel

Review: Complaint taken over phone by Revdex.com Staff - lj

Consumer is a senior. Pays $5.95 monthly on her gas bill with Dominion Gas Co. Water heater warranty. She has had this coverage several years. Last week with the heavy rain the sewer backed up. Consumer had two feet of water in the basement. The water heater will not stay lit. She contacted the company and they sent a plumber. The plumber called Dominion Gas Co. They would not cover or replace the damage because of water back up. The plumber did no repair work. Consumer feels the company is not honoring the warranty that she pays $5.95 a month for. Another plumber lit the hot water tank light. Every time they have water in the basement the light goes out on the water heater.Desired Settlement: Honor the warranty. Repair the water heater. Replace it if it cannot be repaired. Send a written copy of the terms and conditions.

Business

Response:

Dear Ms. [redacted]: On behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc. ("DPS" or "Company"), I am responding to the above-referenced complaint concerning the Company's Water Heater Repair & Replacement Program ("Program"). Complainant alleges that the Company, in denying her claim for Program coverage, has failed to live up to its obligation to her under its service contract. DPS denies any allegation of wrongdoing in this matter. Complainant voluntarily enrolled in the Program on May 18, 2011 and pays $5.95/month for coverage. She filed her first claim on September 21, 2012, but proceeded to have her water heater privately replaced before DPS's contractor could perform the job. She filed another claim on October 31, 2012. That claim, like that which is the subject of this complaint, was denied by DPS because Complainant' s water heater unit was damaged by water caused by basement flooding. The Program terms and conditions clearly set forth that DPS will not cover water heater problems caused by natural disasters, "Acts of God" or other insurable-type causes. As was explained to Complainant in 2012, basement flooding is such a cause. Complainant filed her next claim on April 17, 2015. DPS's contractor responded to her home and replaced the water heater thermocouple at an approximate cost of $125. On June 15, 2015, Complainant filed another Program claim. DPS's contractor was dispatched and discovered that the basement had again flooded. The water heater unit components, which were submerged, had been damaged by the flood water. It is unfortunate that the basement flooding occurred, but under the circumstances DPS was fully justified in denying Complainant's claim for Program coverage. In conclusion, DPS submits that it has done nothing wrong in this matter and stands by its denial of the June 15, 2015 claim. I am providing a copy of this response to Complainant by U.S . Mail. Complainant is reminded that she is free to cancel her participation in the Program at any time. If you have any questions please contact me. Sincerely, [redacted] Assistant General Counsel

Review: Dominion stated in contract that if there is electrical problem that they would fix the issue. My electric line was bad as per the contract which started to happen because of water issues and poor installation by a contractor a few years ago. They did not correct the issue.Desired Settlement: Full refund of $12.00 for what I paid for the service.

Business

Response:

Dear [redacted]

On behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc. (HOPS"), I am responding to the above referenced complaint concerning the DPS In-Home Electric Line Repair Program ("Program").

DPS denies any allegation of wrongdoing in this matter, specifically with regard to the denial of Complainant's July 24, 2014 claim for repair service under the Program. The facts in this matter are as follows. Complainant enrolled in the Program via the internet on April 29, 2014. The Program fee is $3.99/month, The Program terms and conditions make very clear that neither preexisting conditions nor damage caused by a third party is covered under the Program. The Program also specifically excludes fixtures from coverage under the Program. DPS denied Complainant's claim for each of these stated reasons.

Complainant himself acknowledges both a preexisting condition and a third party-caused issue right in the very body of his complaint: "My electric line was bad as per the contract "which started to happen because of water issues and poor installation by a contractor a few years ago". Indeed, DPS's contractor-to which DPS paid $75.00 for the service call to Complainant's home-determined that Complainant's home wiring was installed incorrectly and was not code compliant. Additionally, his problem concerned a flood light, which, as a household lighting fixture, is specifically not covered.

Accordingly, DPS was well justified in denying the claim here and stands by that decision. Nonetheless, while under no obligation to do so, as a customer service gesture DPS will agree to refund Complainant the approximately $12.00 in Program fees he paid while a Program customer. l A check in that amount will be sent to

Complainant's attention once processed. I am providing a copy of this response to Complainant by U.S. Mail. If you have any questions please contact me.

Review: 1. On October 21, 2013 I signed up for waterline service repair insurance from Dominion Products and Services.

2. I have had 2 bills since then and this last one actually mentions the product and service and says "Welcome to Dominion Products and Services. If you are in need of service as a participant of one of our programs, simply call our emergency number at [redacted] day or night, to speak with a program representative. Thank you."

3. My Electric bill was Due December 15 and I paid it on December 14 (Saturday).

4. I noticed hearing what I thought was running water even when nothing was on in the house so I looked around and listened and then turned off the water main and the sound continued. So Saturday morning I called the emergency number because of what I assumed was a water line break. I thought I was enrolled as per the statement on my bill.

5. I am told to have the water company come out and verify there is a problem and so I call them and they see that water is still running into my home (under my home really) where ever this leak is and that I clearly do have a problem.

6. I call back Dominion's emergency line and let them know and file the claim.

7. A few hours later I get a call from Dominion saying that they have not received any payments from me yet and my coverage is only active 30 days after enrolling and when they receive the first payment. What I have now is not covered and is considered an pre-existing condition and I have to pay to repair it and show proof that it was repaired.

8. I call around and get a few offers that are all between 7-10 thousand dollars to water line replacement. I call Dominion back to make sure about payment and they say because the payment is not in their system, I am not covered.

9. I call this morning to speak to a supervisor and am told the same thing.

10. I have since then been told by their executive support that there is nothing that can be done.

11. I contacted the Insurance Fraud department in Virginia to be told that this is not true insurance but a maintenance agreement with a company and not regulated.

12. I went back and forth with their executive department until I was contacted by their lawyer office stating that they have a 60 window to review all new agreements and inspect the property for pre-conditions and this incident falls within the pre-condition time frame and would have been refused anyway.

I still go back to the bill statement that I received prior to this event which clearly says "welcome to the program" and "call if you have any problems." To me that is a clear acceptance and approval that I am enrolled and covered. That language makes the consumer think that all time period and cancellation time frames have passed and coverage has begun. If did not say "you coverage begins on..." but "welcome and if you have problems call".Desired Settlement: I would like for them to honor the words from the bill that clearly state I am covered at the time of the incident. If I were not covered, then that statement was false and misleading and they should still be forced to pay the cost incurred to repair the pipe.

Business

Response:

Dear [redacted]:

On behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc. (“DPS”). I

am responding to the above referenced complaint concerning the DPS Water Line

Repair and Replacement Program (“Program”).

This complaint concerns a denial by DPs of Complainant’s

December 14, 2013 claim of service under the Program. In January 2014,

Complainant sent a letter to the Dominion Board of Directors requesting

reconsideration of the denial. DPS’s response to Complainant, dated February

18, 2014, noted the reasons for the claim denial. A copy of this letter with

personally identifiable information redacted is [redacted] for reference.

Nothing has changed in the nearly eight months since then.

Accordingly, DPS stands by its earlier denial of Complainant’s

claim and further denies any allegations of wrong doing by Complainant.

I am providing a copy of this response to Complainant by U.S

Mail.

If you have any questions please contact me.

Sincerely,

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the offer 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.]

Regards,

Thank you for taking my call, I apologize for missing the deadline I was trying to find my electronic copy of my bill from Dominion.

Review: I signed up for this warranty service about a year ago because every other year the drain would clog. After about 6 months of having the service it clogged. I called dominion and they told me that the billing never went through my gas bill and the service was canceled do to non payment. I had to pay for a plumber myself. After that I signed up again with a credit card to make sure payment would always go through. Several months after that the pipe clogged. Dominion sent someone right out to fix it. It was fixed for 2 weeks. Called them back to fix it again and the guy came out and said it was a pre existing condition and now Dominion refuses to fix it. My belief is that they somehow broke my pipe or collapsed it and now it isn't just a simple snake job and they refuse to do anything about it. I've owed this home for 8 years. Never had a problem. Why did I pay for coverage the when I need it they don't cover it.Desired Settlement: I need my pipe to work properly. Why was I dropped for a pre existing condition?

Business

Response:

Dear [redacted]On behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc. (“DPS” or “Company”)

I am responding to the above-referenced complaint concerning DPS’s Sewer Line

Repair Program (“Program”).This complaint concerns the Company’s June 2, 2015 denial of

Complainant’s claim form Program coverage. DPS denies any allegation of

wrongdoing by Complainant, particularly his completely baseless claim that DPS “somehow

broke my pipe or collapsed it and it isn’t just a simple snake job and they

refuse to do anything about it”.As this response will demonstrate, given the clear evidence

that Complainant had a pre-existing condition, DPS’s conduct in this matter was

more than reasonable.The complainant’s account history is as follows. Complaint

called the DPS call center on August 12, 2014 to enroll in the Program. Complainant’s

Program payments were to be included on his monthly electric bill under an

arrangement between DPS and Complainant’s electric utility, [redacted]

[redacted]. The reality, however, is that DPS never received payment from

Complainant via [redacted]. Thus, when he called barely two months later on

October 15, 2014 to place a Program claim, he was not in good standing under

the Program. He was informed of this fact of this fact by the DPS agent in the

course of the recorded claims call. Moreover, as admitted by Complainant

himself during that call, the subject sewer line was at that time “bubbling”,

which means it was backing up. The call center agent informed Complainant that

this constituted a pre-existing condition when the Company would not cover and

which made him ineligible to reenroll. After stating he was having trouble with

his phone line, Complainant indicated he would call back and terminated the

call. Following the call, the DPS call center agent placed a pre-existing

condition “alert” on Complainant’s account for the purpose of notifying a call

center personal about the issue with Complainant’s sewer line should be in the

future again attempt enrollment.As it happened, Complainant did not call back but instead,

on April 3, 2015 he signed up online and used a credit card to pay for the Program,

thus avoiding the need for interaction with the call center staff. Next, on

April 24, 2015, Complainant called in to the call center to check whether his

enrollment was in effect. In speaking with Complainant that day, the DPS call center

agent did not notice the alert on the account and, for his part, Complainant

made no mention of a pre-existing condition on having been denied enrollment in

October 2014.On May 6, 2015, Complainant called DPS to place a claim for

a sewer clog. DPS’s contractor was dispatched to the home and snaked and

flushed the line reestablishing flow. The company paid $175 for this work. Approximately

one month later, on June 2, 2015, Complainant called in another claim. The same

contractor was dispatched to Complainant’s residence. This time the contractor

hit a clog that would not clear which would indicate either a rupture in the line

or a large root ball. When informed if this situation by the contractor,

Complainant admitted to the contractor that he knew the line was broken and

demanded to know when DPS was going to dig it up and fix it. In addition to

Complainant’s own admission, the contractor also learned that the municipality had

received a number of previous complaints concerning Complainant’s sewer line in

recent years. In light of this clear evidence of a pre-existing condition DPS

declined to proceed any further and denied Complainant’s claim, although not

without having to pay another $175 to its contractors for his service that day.The evidence in this matter points to the unmistakable conclusion

that Complainant had a known pre-existing condition. As for complainant’s claim

that DPS itself “broke” his sewer line or in some other way has wrong him, suffice

it to say he has provided zero evidence to back up his assertions.

Review: First this is what there website advertises Put away the [redacted] and stop worrying about finding an affordable plumber you can trust. With just one call, our approved plumbers take care of your indoor water and drain line repairs. It’s that simple.

(Save hundreds of dollars each year and avoid plumbing headaches by signing up today for Dominion Products and Services' In-Home Plumbing Repair Program.

For only $5.99/month the Program provides

Peace of mind – You avoid the hassle of finding a qualified contractor and paying for costly repairs. Dominion provides both of these services for you, saving you time and money.

Reliable service – Our toll-free hotline is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. A qualified, Dominion-approved contractor will contact you within 24 hours of your call.

No long term contract – Stay protected as long as you like. If you are not 100% satisfied, you can cancel at any time, at no additional cost.)

No where in here even under terms does it say you might have to wait days before getting help, or that this isn't an emergency service. That being said, I tried calling yesterday with the number on my bill and got a recording not an answer, saying someone will call me back, never did last night -1-13-2014, so I called this morning and told them what happened, I have water leaking from my attic down to the 1st floor, I know where its coming from, but anyway the company did call me and told me they couldn't help me until Thursday the 1-16-2014. I cannot let water running down my walls for 3 days, I called customer service and yes I was upset, I said the F word one time, and he hung up on me, so I had to call back still trying to get to speak to a supervisor, for them to tell me it will be 24 hours. I told [redacted] (thats what the rep said hes name was) that he shouldn't have hung up on me, he said I was cussing at him, I told him I was upset and that I only used the F word once, time, which I have military co-workers that can verify that, IDesired Settlement: I would like them to reinburse me for cost to get someone to stop the leak, before I end up in over 1500 in drywall damage

Business

Response:

Dear [redacted]:

On behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc ("DPS" or "Company"), I am responding to the above- reference complaint concerning DPS's In Home Plumbing Repair Program ("Program"). Respectfully, DPS denies Complainant's allegations of wrongdoing.

Complainant twice called the DPS call center during the morning of January 14, 2014 to place a Program claim for an in-home water line leak. DPS's contractor called her back that same morning and told her he would be at the home on January 16, 2014. The schedule delay was caused because the contractor was experiencing a backlog of service calls at that time because of the sever cold weather. Complainant was not satisfied and demanded to speak to a supervisor. She also filed this complaint that same day.

The next morning, January 15,2014, a DPS supervisor called Complainant and told her he would do his best have the contractor respond to the property as soon as possible. Shortly thereafter, the contractor called Complainant and offered to come out and look at the problem immediately. Complainant, however, declined, saying that she could not be at the residence nor could she arrange for someone else to be there to let the contractor in.

Nonetheless, the next day, January 16, 2014, DPS's contractor did visit the residence, only to find that the leak had been privately repaired- apparently by the tenant. The repair itself had been done on a water line used for the heating/hot water system, which would not in any event have been a covered repair under the Program.

To conclude, DPS has done nothing wrong in this matter and in fact extended Complainant every courtesy in an effort to respond to her claim as quickly as possible. In the end, it was determined her claim condition was not eligible for coverage. Further, DPS is not responsible for reimbursement to her for private work she or a tenant may have done.

I am sending Complainant a copy of this letter by mail.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Assistant General Counsel

Consumer

Response:

They did not bother to mention that I told them that water was coming throught my ceiling downstairs, the plumber said we are not an emergency company, they wanted me to wait 4 days before coming out, I had no choice but to get it repaired and this was a covered item, the piping was leaking, when they did show up, the plumber said he would have done the same thing that we did to repair it, so if he said that why are you saying now it wasn't covered, any plumbing leaks are covered. I have had the same thing but on other pipes in the ceiling that leaked last year that were repaired. This company needs to make a priority for people that have water spraying out and going through the ceiling.

I have reviewed the offer 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.]

Regards,

Review: The complaint is specifically against Dominion Energy Solutions, a subsidiary of Dominion East Ohio.On August 20, 2013, about noon, I received a call from Dominion Energy Solutions. The caller's name was [redacted] or [redacted] and he left a message on my answering machine. [redacted] stated I had cancelled a gas supply contract early and I may be liable for an early termination fee. He requested I return his call, which I did. It didn't take me long to figure out [redacted] was a telemarketer trying to sign me up for a Dominion Energy Solutions gas supply contract. (I did have a contract with them, which has expired, and I signed up for a two year contract with Integrys in July). [redacted] admitted, after I questioned him, that I did not cancel the DES contract early and I was not liable for a cancellation fee. I consider the statements he left on my answering machine deceptive, [redacted] hid the true nature of his call in his message, and I request the the Revdex.com investigate this.His caller ID [redacted]His callback number [redacted]Desired Settlement: Ask Dominion Energy Solutions not to make deceptive statements about the nature of their telemarketing calls.

Business

Response:

On behalf Of Dominio Retail, Inc, I am responding to the above-referenced complaint.

Complainant, was was a natural gas customer of DES on the Dominion East Ohio gas system in Ohio until his contract expired in August 2013, complains that the Company's telephone marketing agent left him a message after receiving rod of the cancellation in which the agent stated that complainant may be responsible for paying an early cancellation fee to DES.

Complainant returned the agent's call and upon discussing the matter with Complainant the agent noted that he had mistakenly informed Complainant that a cancellation fee might be appicable. No such fee was applicable. having thus corrected his error, the agent closed the call by inviting Complainant to call him back should Complainant decide to enroll once more with DES. Complainant responded at that time he was not interested in switching back to DES and ended the call.

DES regrets the error.

Review: We had a water line repair performed on June 2 under Dominion's water line repair program, and the repair involved extensive digging up of our front and side lawns, and our parkway as well (which involved a 6-7 foot deep hole dug under the sidewalk). We also paid for the preferred restoration program, which is supposed to cover the extensive damage to our landscaping, but now, nearly 4 weeks later, neither Dominion nor the contractor they claim to have contracted to do the work have been able to even schedule a date for the work to be done, let alone actually do it.

When we first called during the day of the job to ask how to proceed with getting the restoration done, the telephone representative referred us to Dominion's web page, which she assured us would provide details on how to do so along with the terms and conditions. That webpage (https://www.dominionenergy.com/en/home-protection/home-protection-frequently-as...⇄ did not work, nor has it worked in the intervening weeks. When we called back to explain the situation, the representative told us the process could take 4-5 weeks, but that a contractor would contact us shortly to schedule an appointment that would take place in that time frame. We expressed concern that the extensive excavation under our sidewalk, along with the incomplete replacement of the dirt (the piles of dirt along our parkway were about 3 feet high and about 10 feet long, which suggests to me that not very much was replaced) was both a safety issue, and was causing our HOA to contact us and ask us to remedy the situation as soon as possible. I have tried to contact both [redacted] and [redacted] since then to no avail.

On Wednesday June 4th, supervisor [redacted] contacted me to assure me that [redacted] would be contacting us shortly to schedule the repair, which he said would take place in 3-4 weeks. I have repeatedly tried to contact [redacted] to schedule the appointment, and they have never responded to my messages nor have they contacted me to schedule the appointment. I tried to contact [redacted] yesterday (June 24) to wonder about the status of our restoration, and he left me a message today repeating his prior claims that [redacted] would be in contact, and added that the repair could take 6-8 weeks.

My complaint is that Dominion is not delivering the products we paid for - its contractor is either unwilling or unable to contact us and do the work we were promised, and that we paid for, and Dominion seems unwilling or uninterested in resolving our problem. In addition, the lengthening time frame for the service and Dominion's lack of transparency about the process does not give me any confidence that the company will deliver the services it has promised. Our lawn and parkway look like a warzone, and Dominion seems to think it reasonable to delay repairing it for up to two months? This is unacceptable.Desired Settlement: We want our lawn repaired - Dominion promises, and we paid for, up to $1,000 of professional landscape restoration services when it sells the plan (and just sent us junk mail trying to sell us on the service, so we're re-familiarized with the sales pitch) but has yet to deliver, and our lawn is full of rocks and dirt that make it impossible to maintain on our own until the work is completed.

Business

Response:

Dear [redacted],

On behalf of Dominion Products and services, Inc. ("DPS" or "Company"), I am responding to the above referenced complaint concerning the Company's Water Line Replacement Program and Preferred Water Line'Restoration Program ("Programs").

DPS denies any allegation of wrongdoing in this matter.

Complainant enrolled in the two Programs on March 14,2011 and pays a combined $6'49/mo for coverage. On May 13, 2014, Complainant called in an external water line claim. DPS's contractor replaced Complaint's water line on June 3, 2014 at a cost to DPS of $3,200.00. This was a major job requiring extensive excavation. As one would expect, Complainant's yard was significantly impacted by the work.

Preferred restoration work is not performed immediately after such a major excavation. Rather, in order to permit the disturbed earth time to settle and depending on weather conditions, preferred restoration may take up to eight weeks to be completed.

In Compliant's case, the preferred restoration work order for Complainant's job was placed with DPS's contractor on June 4, 2014, the day after the water line replacement job was completed. The contractor went to Complainant's home and preformed the restoration work approximately a month later, on July 8, 2014. Complainant, though, was not happy with the work and reported as much to DPS when the Company's supervisor called him the next day. Accordingly, arrangements were made for the contractor to return to Complainant's residence on July 12, 2014. The DPS supervisor again called Complainant on July 14th to check on the status of the project, but as of this writing Complainant has not called back.

The Company will take all reasonable measures to see to it that the job is completed to Complainant's reasonable satisfaction. At a minimum, DPS estimates it will be billed at least $500.00 for the restoration work-which includes sod installation-at Complainant's residence, bringing the total expended for the water line replacement to settle $3,700.00.

In conclusion, DPS submits that it has in all respects acted reasonably in this case and has lived up to its contractual obligations to Complainant, including providing him a bland new water line and preferred restoration work.

I'm providing a copy of this response to Complainant by U.S. Mail.

If you have any questions please contact me.

Sincerely,

Assistant General Counsel

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the offer 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. If the company does not perform as promised I can get back to you at: [redacted].

Regards,

Review: I have a 50 gal. 40000 BTU gas fired water heater that is covered under your Warranty Program. I filed a claim and was told that I could only replace it with a 38000 BTU water heater (or pay the difference in upgrading to another model). Why am I being driven to downgrade and replace my water heater with the cheapest, least efficient water heater on the market? There is a $1000 cap under this warranty program BUT under the terms and conditions, the warranty only covers "Standard Units". Why is a 40000 BTU unit not considered standard? Again, you are driving customers to have the most inefficent units installed with this program (unless they pay the difference to upgrade). What kind of program is this? You should be encouraging your customers in offering discounts to install the MOST efficient units not the LEAST efficient. In my case I wanted to upgrade to a 12 year waranty unit (6 year is your "Standard Unit"). Beause the cost of a 38000 BTU unit is $50 less than a 40000 BTU unit (my existing water heater) the cost now jumps to $190. A very poor warranty program in my opinion. Most customers will never reach the $1000 cap and as a matter of fact depending on how many years they pay in to your warranty pogram could end up losing money when filing a claim! Again a very poor program to promote and energy efficiency butd one that will provide additional profits to Doiminion at the customers expense.Desired Settlement: Reimbursement of $50.29 which is the difference between a 38000 BTU unit (your "Standard Unit") and my current water heater which is a 40000 BTU unit. I actaully upgraded to a 12 year Performance Plus (High Efficiency) unit which which totaled $190 in cost out of my pocket including the $50.29 difference between the 38000 BTU unit and my existing unit of 40000 BTU. This is being based on that the 38000 BTU unit is the "Standard" not 40000 BTU whci I feel is terribly wrong.

Business

Response:

Dear Ms. [redacted]: October 20, 2015 On behalf of Dominion

Products and Services, Inc. ("DPS" or "Company"), I am

responding to the above-referenced complaint concerning DPS's Water Heater

Repair & Replacement Program ("Program"). Complainant, who

recently filed a Program claim and received a replacement water heater, is

unhappy that the "standard" replacement water heater under the

Program carries a 6-year warranty and is rated at 38,000 British Thermal Units

("BTU") rather than the 12-year, 40,000 BTU unit he prefers and opted

to pay extra to receive. Complainant even seems to be alleging nefarious intent

on DPS's part, stating in the last sentence of the Customer's Statement of the

Problem section of the complaint: "Again a very poor program to promote

and energy efficiency but one that will provide additional profits to Dominion

at the customers expense [sic]". DPS strongly denies this and any other

allegation of wrongdoing by Complainant. Complainant voluntarily enrolled

online in the Program on April 9, 2009 and pays $6.95/month for coverage. The

terms and conditions of the Program- to which Complainant affirmatively

assented at the time of enrollment- provided, just as is the case today, that

the Program only covers the repair or replacement of standard water heaters.

When replacement of a failed unit is needed, the replacement unit will be of a

standard type, and by industry measures a 6-year 38,000 BTU unit is standard.

Thus, when Complainant placed his claim for a leaking water heater on October

14, 2015, DPS was prepared to do exactly what was called for under the Program,

which was replace Complainant's unit with a new standard unit. Complainant,

however, wanted the 12-year warranty unit rated at 40,000 BTU. When informed by

DPS that he would have to cover the extra cost (approximately $190.00 in total)

for such an upgrade, he agreed, but then followed up with this complaint and

seeks a refund of $50.29 of that total amount representing what he says is the

additional cost attributable to the 2,000 extra BTUs. For its part, DPS has

already paid $655.00 to replace Complainant's water heater. The Company owes

him nothing more. To the extent Complainant is not pleased with the Program, he

remains free to cancel at any time without penalty. In conclusion, DPS has done

nothing wrong and stands by its position in this matter. I am providing a copy

of this response to Complainant by U.S. Mail. Please contact me if you have any

questions.

Review: Invoiced generation services charges are incorrectly set at $[redacted] per kwh instead of contracted $[redacted] per kwh.Desired Settlement: Refund of amount charged in excess of contracted $[redacted] per kwh rate + complimentary service to demonstrate intent to correct deceitful marketing and defective billing practices.

Business

Response:

[redacted] account has been enrolled with Dominion since 3/11/13. The usage from 4/23/13 to 5/22/13 was charged at a blended rate of $[redacted] and $[redacted]. The bill for this usage was dated 6/25/13. Dominion charged an incorrect rate for the May portion of this bill cycle. The $[redacted] was an incorrect price. Due to human error, the renewal rate of $[redacted] was sent to UI one month early, this resulted in the customer receiving an incorrect rate. [redacted] used a total of [redacted] kwh for the billing cycle in question. Dominion has determined that usage for May 1-22 was charged at the incorrect rate. Dominion issued a refund check in the amount of $[redacted] on 8/2/13. This refund was calculated by multiplying the usage for May by the difference between the rate charged and the rate that should have been charged.

Review: DOMINION HAS BEEN RECEIVING MONTHLY PREMIUMS THROUGH DIRECT DEBIT OF OUR CREDIT CARD BUT CONTINUES TO REFUSE OUR CLAIM. WE HAVE REQUESTED TO SPEAK WITH A SUPERVISOR BUT WE HAVE YET TO SPEAK WITH ONE. DOMINION CONTINUES LIE TO US AND BREECH THE CONTRACT WE HAVE WITH THEM.Desired Settlement: WE WANT DOMINION TO HONOR THEIR CONTRACT BY REPAIRING OUR WATER LINE.

Business

Response:

Dear Ms. [redacted]: On behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc. ("DPS" or "Company"), I am responding to the above-referenced complaint concerning the Company's Water Line Repair Program ("Program"). Complainant takes issue with DPS 's denial of his Program claim on the grounds that his water line was ineligible for coverage. He demands that the Company pay his claim and alleges wrongdoing on the part of DPS. The Company strongly denies Complainant's allegations of wrongdoing, particularly Complainant's completely baseless accusation that "Dominion continues to lie to us and breech [sic] the contract we have with them". As this response will show, the Company was justified in denying Complainant's July 6, 2015 claim and cancelling him from paiticipation in the Program. Complainant emolled online in the Program on June 3, 2015 at a fee of$4.95/mo. 1 He made two payments of $4.95 each prior to filing a claim a mere 33 days later, on July 6, 2015. DPS dispatched its contractor that same day. Upon investigation, the contractor quickly discovered that Complainant's water line service had, for whatever reason, been shut off by the water company on August 11, 2014. The Program covers operational water lines that fail due to normal wear and tear. However, in Complainant's case, the subject line had not been functional for nearly a year, and thus he was not eligible to enroll in the Program in the first place. For this reason, Complainant was advised that his claim was denied and that his participation in the Program was being cancelled immediately. 1 Complainant also enrolled on line that same day in the Preferred Water Line Restoration Program, which provides enhanced landscaping coverage for a monthly fee of $1.75. Additionally, Complainant had enrolled on line on June 3, 2015 in DPS's Sewer Line Repair Program and Preferred Sewer Line Restoration Program. However, in November 2015 he was cancelled from both Programs for non-payment. 2 On July 14, 2015, Complainant called the DPS call center to question the denial and cancellation. The basis for the Company's actions was explained to him again. DPS did not hear fm1her from Complainant for another four and a half months. On December 1, 2015, he once again contacted the DPS call center and, as before, was advised of the reason for the denial and cancellation. In conclusion, DPS was well within its rights to deny Complainant's claim and cancel him from participation in the Program. The Company stands by that decision. I am providing a copy of this response to Complainant by U.S. Mail. Sincerely, Assistant General Counsel

Review: On JUNE 8, 2013 (repeat JUNE 8, 2013), contracted with Dominion Energy Solutions / Levco for energy generation services at a contracted rate of $0.0689 per kWh. Since JUNE 8, 2013, Dominion has charged a rate of $0.0789 per kWh instead of the contracted $0.0689 per kWh. Please correct and recredit for incorrect billing between JUNE 8, 2013 and OCTOBER 31, 2013.Desired Settlement: Please correct and recredit for incorrect billing between JUNE 8, 2013 and OCTOBER 31, 2013.

Business

Response:

[redacted] account has been enrolled with Dominion since 3/11/13. The usage from 4/23/13 to 5/22/13 was charged at a blended rate of $.0698 and $.0790. The bill for this usage was dated 6/25/13. Dominion charged an incorrect rate for the May portion of this bill cycle. The $.0790 was an incorrect price. Due to human error, the renewal rate of $.0790 was sent to UI one month early, this resulted in the customer receiving an incorrect rate. [redacted] used a total of 801 kwh for the billing cycle in question. Dominion has determined that usage for May 1-22 was charged at the incorrect rate. Dominion issued a refund check in the amount of [redacted]. This refund was calculated by multiplying the usage for May by the difference between the rate charged and the rate that should have been charged.

181 kwh X [redacted] = $ [redacted]

Please contact me if further information is needed.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the offer 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.

Dominion is referring to an earlier billing error from them (March-May) and not the more recent one (June-October). BOTH needs to be resolved not just the first one. Attached is the June service agreement that confirm a $0.0689 per kWh rate (instead of the billed $0.0789) and clearly indicates that it applies regardless of earlier contracts.

Regards,

Business

Response:

Spoke with [redacted] from the business they will be given [redacted] 1 more adjustment as a customer service gesture in an amount of $4.55.

Review: I reported a water backup on the lower level of my home. September - October 2013.? Dominion Products & Services sent their contractor [redacted]. They snaked the sewer line from my home. The [redacted] rep said it was sludge and that he had cleared it. One month later, November 1 a huge backup occurred resulting in water damage to my rec room. Again Dominion Products & Services sent [redacted] along with a camera. [redacted] used an electric snake. The [redacted] rep said there remained a 10 feet jam of debree at the end of my line just before it meets the main sewer line. He said it required hydro jetting to completely clear the line. Dominion Products & Services immediate supervisor ([redacted] no sur names given) said inasmuch as the line was clear? (toilets, showers operating) the case was closed. The cost to me to replace the water damaged carpeting is $2,000.00. Had Dominion's contractor ([redacted]) cleared the line on their first visit, the huge water damage just one month later would have been averted. Dominion refuses to authorize the hydro-jetting and I cannot contract $2000 worth of carpeting without assurance that the line is full y cleared of both the sludge and debree the camera has identified. It is Dominion Products and Services who are responsible for the contractors they employ. We pay them monthly for their service for the protection they sell to their customers. I am a senior citizen. My husband died one month ago. My income has been reduced accordingly. I relied on the integrity of Dominion Products and Services to comply with their contractual obligations, to cause no harm and to accept responsibility for failure that results in damages to their customers..Desired Settlement: That Dominion Products and Services fully clearr the clogged line running from my home (approximately 60 feet) to the main sewer line and replace the carpeting which was damaged as a result of their failure to do so.

Business

Response:

Dear [redacted]

On behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc. (“DPS” or

“Company”), I am responding to the above-referenced complaint concerning DPS’s

Sewer Line Repair Program (“Program”). Under the terms of the Program, DPS will

pay up to $5,000 for the repairs for a single clogged residential sewer line.

DPS denies any allegations of wrongdoing in this matter. The

following are the facts in this case:

1. November 20,2006: Complaints voluntarily enrolled in the

Program by telephone. The current fee s $5.99/month.

2. August 9, 2013: Complainant placed first Program claim.

DPS’s contractors went to the residence but discovered no sewer line backup.

DPS paid its contractor $50 for the service call.

3. October 4, 2013: Complainant filed another claim for a sewer line clog. DPS

dispatched its contractor to Complainant’s home, the contractor snaked the like

and reestablished flow. DPS was billed $200 for this work.

4. October 27, 2013: Complainant filed another claim for the sewer backup. This

claim was filed after Complainant, On October 25, placed a claim under a

different company program-the In Home Plumbing Program. When the contractor

arrived on the 25th in response to this claim it was noted that

Complainant’s issue was actually a problem with her exterior sewer line. A

different contractor was dispatched to check on the sewer issue. The contractor

requested authorization to perform a camera inspection of the line to determine

the cause of the backup.

5. October 28, 2013: DPS gave authorization to the contractor

to camera the line. DPS expected to be invoiced a total of $350 to the

contractor for the work performed on October 27& 28. The line was flowing

when the contractor departed on the 28th.

6. November 5, 2013: Complainant called DPS again. DPS left

Complainant a message advising her that the contractor had indicated the

Complainant’s line was open and flowing.

7. November 6, 2013: Complainant called again, dissatisfied. DPS opted to get a

second opinion from another contractor.

8. November 7, 2013: the second contractor visited

Complainant’s home and later called DPS for authorization to perform high

pressure “jet: water clearing of the Complainant’s line. Authorization was

given and the line was cleared. DPS paid $880 for this work.

9. November 19, 2013: Complainant placed another sewer line

claim. DPS’s contractor responded to Complainant’s home and initially

determined that a major excavation was needed at a total cost of $12,350. Since

the Program only covers up to $5,000, this would have left Complainant

responsible for the balance. Complainant was informed of this that day and

disputed the company’s explanation. DPS estimates it will be charged $350 for

the contractor’s work that day.

10. November 22, 2013: A second contractor was dispatched to

the home and a camera video of Complainant’s line was performed. The video

indicated corrosion near the end of the line near the city tap. The contractor

requested authority to perform a more aggressive type of snaking to attempt to

clear the corrosion. DPS granted authority and the snaking was successful, thus

eliminating the need for an excavation. DPS paid $350 for this work.

Complainant apparently remains unsatisfied and is

specifically seeking $2,000.00 from DPS for damages to her carpet she claims

was caused on November 1, 2013 when her sewer line backed up into her basement

recreation room. She explains that she is a senior citizen, a recent, widow,

and on a limited income. She says she relied “on the integrity of Dominion

Products and Services to comply with their contractual obligations to cause no

harm and to accept responsibility for failure that results in damages to their

customers”.

DPS sympathizes with Complainant’s situation, but with all

due respect to her the company could not have been more responsive to

Complainant in this situation. In total, DPS has spent some $2,180 for repeated

contractor visits to her home in response to multiple sewer line claims. This

upshot in that Complainant’s sewer line was successfully restored to service

without the need for an excavation that would have left Complainant personally

responsible for upwards of $ 7,000 in costs. With regards to the carpet,

respectfully, DPS did not cause the backup- when DPS’s contractor departed

Complainant’s residence on October 28, 2013 the line was open and flowing- and

therefore bears no responsibility for the damage.

In conclusion, DPS has fully satisfied its obligation to

Complainant and is under no further obligation to her.

I am sending a copy of this letter directly to Complainant.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Very Truly Yours,

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the offer 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.]

Regards,

I herewith reject the response to you (copy to me) dated December 10, 2013 from [redacted] for Dominion Resources Services, Inc. representing Dominion Products & Services.