FirstEnergy Corp.

I am rejecting this response because:I have a shut off notice showing that you are charging us another security deposit of $394. This notice was just received this month. Also, I called last week to make a payment and was instructed not to because the account is under review by the puc. I didn't file a complaint with the puc.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/11/17) */
06/16/2015 - A security deposit warning letter was sent to the customer advising if payments continue to be paid late and/or not in full a security deposit would be assessed.
06/26/2015 - Customer contacts the company and pays past due...

balance.
08/05/2015 - A disconnection notice was sent to the customer.
08/13/2015 - A disconnection phone attempt was made to the customer. A message was left on the answering machine.
08/14/2015 - A disconnection phone attempt was made to the customer. A message was left on the answering machine.
08/17/2015 - Customer contacts the company in regard to the disconnection notice. The customer is unable to pay the required amount. She is advised of a new termination date.
08/24/2015 - A disconnection phone attempt was made to the customer. The answering party hung up.
09/21/2015 - Deposit was billed to the account.
09/28/2015 - Customer contacts company in regard to security deposit and an installment plan is set up for it. An automatic payment enrollment form is sent to the customer per their request. Customer also advised not receiving mail. The company representative advised there ha not been any mail returned by USPS. Customer enrolled in the online bill program.
09/30/2015 - Customer is enrolled in the automatic payment program.
The security deposit stands as is and is held for a minimum of 12 months once paid in full.
The customer enrolled themselves into the automatic payment program, if they want that removed, they can do so online or contact customer service to have that removed.

I am rejecting this response because:
I did cancel service. It is not my responsibility to pay for someone else's power

Ohio
Edison received a trouble call 6/12/17.  The
company responded and the trouble man felt the voltage was slightly low,
but still within our tolerance and the age of the transformer itself.  A work
request was designed 06/13/17 to replace the transformer.  Line...

Supervisor
went out and pre-inspected the job to make sure there would be no issues with
the transformer replacement.  The job was scheduled for 06/27/17.
 
Distribution
Tech Supervisor called customer [redacted] approximately 9:00 a.m. on
06/26/17 to notify her that the replacement of the transformer was on the
schedule for 6/27/17, and that even though the voltage readings were lower than
the standard 120 volts they were still within the tolerances.  He also
informed her that we were replacing the transformer to hopefully prevent any
further voltage issues.  The customer was satisfied with the response and
appreciated the explanation.
 
Transformer
was replaced 06/27/17 job is complete.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/05/17) */
On 09/15/16, customer was removed from PIPP for failure to recertify. When removed from PIPP, if the customer wishes to re-enroll, they will also be responsible for actual consumption charges from the time removed from the program to...

re-enrollment date, minus any payments made within this timeframe.
On 12/29/15, customer re-enrolled in the PIPP program. At noted above, customer is responsible for the actual consumption charges from the 09/28/15 to 12/28/15 service/billing date, which totals $505.95. There were a total payments in the amount of $317.42 during this timeframe. The $505.95 minus $317.42, totals $188.53, which customer is responsible for. The $188.53 is correct.
On 05/13/16, customer paid $188.53. At this time, customer has $44 due 05/13/16.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2016/05/18) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
For one I was removed from pipp when they sent me notice in November of 2014. I continued to make monthly pipp amount payments with no issue till I received notice in november. I then requested an appointment to get back on pipp. The pipp office was unsure why they gave them two amounts to pay to keep power on. They informed me that there was something wrong. I had to pay 80.00 to keep power on untill the pipp appointment could be made as they were busy at that time. They just tried to shut me off still even though I continue to pay my pipp balance. Thats the only reason they were paid at the moment. They tried to shut off my service.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2016/05/19) */
The company position stands:
On 09/15/16, customer was removed from PIPP for failure to recertify. When removed from PIPP, if the customer wishes to re-enroll, they will also be responsible for actual consumption charges from the time removed from the program to re-enrollment date, minus any payments made within this timeframe.
On 12/29/15, customer re-enrolled in the PIPP program. At noted above, customer is responsible for the actual consumption charges from the 09/28/15 to 12/28/15 service/billing date, which totals $505.95. There were a total payments in the amount of $317.42 during this timeframe. The $505.95 minus $317.42, totals $188.53, which customer is responsible for. The $188.53 is correct.
A disconnect notice was issued and valid. The 01/29/16 billing detailed $232.53 ($44 + $188.53) due 02/12/16.
On 02/22/16, a payment of $44 received.
The 03/01/16 billing detailed the past due in the amount of $188.53 and the current of $44 due 03/15/16, totaling $232.53.
On 03/18/16, a payment of $44 received.
The 03/30/16 billing detailed the past due in the amount of $188.53 and the current of $44 due 04/13/16, totaling $232.53.
On 04/25/16, a payment of $44 received.
The 04/29/16 billing detailed the past due in the amount of $188.53 and the current of $44 due 05/13/16, totaling $232.53. A disconnect notice in the amount of $188.53 was also issued dated 05/13/16.
On 05/13/16, customer paid $188.53. At this time, customer has $44 due 05/13/16. Customer will go through billing again on 05/27/16.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 11, 2016/05/20) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
1 As long as your pipp balance is paid monthly its supposed to keep you from disconnect. 2. Again this is another attempt at the electric company to try to talk crap. I am sorry I have been contacting them and getting no where. Last they emailed me there was someone a supervisor looking into it and would get back to me. I was informed by the PIPP office when I redid my pipp that I should not owe that much as my monthly pipp balance's were paid. None were missed. I have always made my pipp balance payments and will continue to do so. As I am a responsible adult. Lets treat me as such. your showing a few months where you claim I owe this money but no explanation as to why this amount is owed. You gave two amounts to the pipp agancy when they tried to set up my pipp. They paid you an amount to reinstate my pip where is those funds. How is that in the equasion. If all of what you say is the case why is the current amount owed still same as it was. YOU keep saying what you think ill buy. I am not. I want facts and answers. I want the truth. I want to know why you did what y ou did. I want to know why when my pipp agreed amount was paid you threatened to shut me off. You only contacted me a day before disconnection. I want to thank you for that. I am disabled and on breathing machine. Yet you threaten to take my treatments away even though I payed my contracted monthly bill.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/11/09) */
A termination notice was issued on 8/31/2015 scheduled for any time on or after 9/14/2015. Outbound calls and messages were left on 9/4/2015 and 9/8/2015 advising of pending termination.
The Customer's service was terminated for nonpayment...

on September 17, 2015.
On 9/18/2015 the Customer contacted the Company concerning the termination of service. The Customer was provided with all required options for restoral. The Customer was advised that the amount needed to restore service is past due balance of $2826.99 plus $32 reconnect fee for an amount of $2858.99.
The customer did not pay the requested amount for restoral.
Due to the account being inactive a final bill was issued on 10/1/2015 for an amount of $2762.35 due 10/21/2015.
The Customer contacted the Company on 10/22/2015 concerning restoration of service. Due to the final bill being past due the customer is considered an applicant and an amount of $2322.33 was requested for service to be restored in their name.
The Customer has had three company payment agreements and was previously enrolled in the Pennsylvania Customer Assistance Program (PCAP) and removed on 5/28/2014 at their request. The customer has previously been provided with payment agreement terms to assist in paying their account balance.
Meters within FirstEnergy territory are scheduled to be read one month and estimated the following. The company's intentions and goals are to obtain an actual reading every other month; however, there are times when the company is not able to obtain an actual reading and the billing is estimated. The most common reasons for the company missing a scheduled read month are weather (snow/ice/unable to access) and storm trouble (when the meter readers are pulled to help work storm trouble). The company utilizes two methods of estimation to calculate usage when the meter is not read. One method is Linear Weighting estimation, which is based off of the usage from the same period the prior year and the next method is Enhanced estimation, which is based off of the usage the prior year "or" the prior month, plus a weather correcting factor. Most residential customers are calculated with Enhanced estimation. The method chosen is an automated process. If under or overestimated, the usage is caught and billed/corrected with the next actual reading. On the company read month, if the customer would receive an estimated billing instead of an actual read billing, the customer has the option of contacting the company with a customer reading and the billing will be corrected using that read. The customer also has the option of contacting the company with a customer reading on the estimated billing months. As a result, the customer would be billed one month using the company actual reading and one month using the customer's actual reading. There is a statement on each bill detailing when the next bill will be issued and whether or not that bill will be an actual or estimated billing month. If the next billing is scheduled to be an estimated billing month, then a time frame is given as to when the customer should contact the company with the customer reading. The company is willing to accept and does encourage customers to provide the company with a customer reading when the bill is estimated. This will even out the customer's billings by eliminating the estimation.
In the past 24 months the company has missed one scheduled meter reading. The company missed a scheduled meter reading on 2/10/2015. The Customer's bills are correct as rendered.
In order for service to be restored the customer should pay the requested amount of $2322.33 to restore service. Once this amount is paid and confirmed the order will be printed for service to be restored within 1 to 3 days.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/11/16) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
As I believe I stated I have a son that is home schooled there for I am at my residence daily even on weekends being that I am not employed. Over the past months I can't recall a time when I have witnessed anyone from Penelec coming to my residence and reading my meter.
Every effort I have made to restore my service with Penelec has been declined by them.
I was informed today that LIHEP did contact Penelec in regards to my service to help to get it restored they offered to pay $ 70.00 plus $ 100.00 plus the crisis amount of $ 500.00 and Penelec told them NO they would take that amount only AFTER I paid the amount of over $ 2000.00.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/11/20) */
Penelec stands by the initial position concerning the customer requirements for service to be restored and concerning the customer's dispute regarding meter readings. The Customer should pay the requested amount of $2322.33 to restore service. The company has missed one scheduled meter reading at the customer's location. The company does not ensure that the customer is aware when they are at the location to read the meter.
Penelec did speak with McKean County Energy Assistance on 11/16/2015 and advised them that the amount the customer needs to pay for service to be restored. Penelec will not accept partial pledges from assistance agencies to restore service. Additionally, the assistance agency may not grant the customer the assistance until the customer pays the difference of the requested amount for restoral and what the assistance agency is willing to pledge. At the time that Penelec spoke with the assistance office they did not pledge any funds toward the customer's account.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/03/25) */
The Customer had service at [redacted] account number [redacted] from 6/12/2015 to 11/6/2015. A final bill was issued for this account on 11/17/2015 which was for an amount of $67.13. This included $37.77...

Penelec charges and $29.36 alternate supplier charges.
The customer has service at [redacted] account number [redacted] as of 10/30/2015.
The company transferred a balance of $37.77 Penelec charges from the customer's finalized account to their active account on 12/12/2015. The company is not able to transfer final balances for alternate supplier charges to a customer's active account.
The Customer posted a payment of $12.82 and $67.13 on 11/30/2015 to account number [redacted], which was neither the customer's active or final billed account. It was determined that the payments posted to the incorrect account and these payments were credited to the customer's active account, [redacted] on 12/17/2015. This resulted in the balance due on the active account of $118.16 (this included charges from the active account of $80.39 plus $37.77 from the final billed account) being credited $79.75 and an account balance of $38.21.
The Customer contacted the Company on 1/13/2016 regarding the balance of $29.36 still remaining due on account [redacted]. The Customer was advised that these are supplier charges and the customer is still responsible for this balance. The representative transferred $29.36 that was applied to the customer's active account to the final billed account so that the balance would be satisfied. This increased the customer's balance on their active account because this money had already been applied toward charges billed on the active account. At the time it increased the account balance from $65.37 to $94.73.
A bill was issued on the customer's account which showed the adjusted balance of $29.36 and current charges of $94.47 for service from 1/9/2016 to 2/8/2016 for an amount of $123.83.
The customer contacted the Company on 2/9/2016 concerning the issue with the final balance and did not agree that they should owe the $29.36 on their active account. As a courtesy the company gave the customer a credit adjustment of $29.36 toward the active account due to the customer's confusion. This was applied to the bill issued on 3/11/2016 and applied to their current charges which totaled $74.70 plus $29.36 for an amount of $104.06 and has resulted in an amount due of $74.70.
The customer's balance of $74.70 is correct.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2016/03/31) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I was told by a supervisor named Jeff in January that the billing department would remove the amount of $29.36 from my account because it had been paid. It was Penelec ' s error of not communicating with the supplier of the necessary changes that has caused these issues. I may have applied the payment to the wrong account number, but they should never have pulled money from my bank for a closed account. If it was a closed account, then that money should have been returned to me. Instead, they took the 29.36 that I paid, and now they are requiring me to pay it again. I have been calling every month to have it removed as they promised it would be. As of March 11, 2016, it still has not been done as they promised it would be.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 10, 2016/04/05) */
As outlined in the company's initial response the Customer's final billed account was credited for $29.36 an that balance has been satisfied. This balance was transferred from a payment that had posted to the customer's active account (which increased the account balance of the active account because it had initially been applied to charges due on the active account).
Additionally the customer was given an adjustment of $29.36 by the company as a courtesy on their active account. This was applied to the bill issued 3/11/2016 as outlined in the initial response.
The company stands by the initial response and the customer's bills are correct as rendered.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/05/06) */
The customer contacted the Company 2-16-16 to place a disconnection of service order for 2-29-16. Mr. [redacted] provided a forwarding address of [redacted], [redacted]. The Company mailed the final the bill to this...

address on 3-2-16 for 69.82 with a due date of 3-22-16. The bill went unpaid and was placed with an outside agency for final bill collecting. The outside agency does not report to any credit bureaus, therefore the late payment will have no impact on Mr. [redacted]'s credit score.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. Thank u n check will be sent out tomorrow 5/30/17...

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/02/18) */
A total of $216.00 is the security deposit requirement for [redacted]. The company routinely evaluates the credit standing and financial stability of the company's customers. As a result of the analysis the company...

determined that Ms. [redacted]'s account was not adequately secured.
On 07/08/15, the company mailed a security deposit intent letter.
Billings were still not being paid in a timely manner. On 01/09/16, the security deposit requirement in the amount of $216.00 was billed.
On 02/17/16, [redacted] contacted the company regarding the required security deposit. Ms. [redacted] advised that she would not be paying next month's bill because she was assessed a security deposit. Company representative advised that was not an option and security deposit would be refunded once on-time payments were received 12 consecutive months.
The security deposit requirement are valid and remains held on the account. At this time, $216 (payments on 01/29/16 ($200) and 02/12/16 ($16) applied towards the deposit) is being held on the deposit. The deposit is refundable, with interest, after payment by the due date of twelve consecutive monthly bills.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/06/14) */
An installment was accepted on the account by the customer on 3-7-16 to pay a down payment of 224.20 by 3-8-16 and the remaining balance in installments of 65.00 plus the current bill for 6 months. The down payment was received 3-7-16 of...

224.20. The next bill issued 3-23-16 for 210.71 with a due date of 4-12-16. No payment was received in April. The next bill issued 4-21-16 for a total due of 409.24 (past due 210.71 and current bill of 198.65) due 5-11-16. A payment of 210.66 was received 5-10-16. This was not the full amount due, therefore a termination notice issued 5-31-16 for 461.20 (catch up on IP 198.53) with a termination date on or after 6-7-16. A payment of 198.53 was received 6-13-16.
The account remains past due for 184.06 that was due 6-9-16.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2016/06/15) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Yes I may owe a bill but this does not explain why they are so inconsiderate of there customers. If you call them and try to get an extension let's say for a week from whatever date because you don't get paid until then and dont have the money right now they will tell you we don't allow extensions and will come out and shut off your electric. They are not willing to help their customers other than offering an installment plan in which when you get on you still have to make a payment that day. Yes I know it is our responsibility to pay our bill on time but when you need a little help you need a little help and they just don't care if you do.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2016/06/16) */
An installment plan on an account is splitting up a past due balance over future bills, also known as an extension.
Reviewed customer's account history and in the last 24 months Company has granted the customer 4 installment plans on past due balances and 4 formal extensions to pay past due balances.
Customer may be eligible for utility assistance and should apply at local DHHR office or by calling WV211.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 11, 2016/06/17) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Yes these are installment plans not extensions. I have called before to get a couple days EXTENSION and was told no it either had to be paid or was going to be off. Not all people can just walk into the DHHR and get assistance. Some of the people that work for this company are the most unprofessional acting people I have ever spoken with. I was off work one time for a couple months due to an injury and had not received my workers comp check yet to pay any of my bills and I called in to tell them I had a hardship and was not able to pay until I got my check and I was told that they could not help me that it had to be paid or shut off. So I was told no extensions and now they say they offer extensions other than installment plans is that correct. So when I have to call in and get an extension there shouldn't be a problem. Like if my bill is due and won't have the money until my pay date there won't be an issue with that extension.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 9, 2015/07/28) */
CEI records indicate the response was issued 7/13/15.
Here is a copy of CEI's response.
CEI previously sent Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] a letter September 16, 2014 that checks remitted to CEI are electronically converted for payment and copies of...

the checks are not sent to the bank. By law, CEI is no longer required to provide customers with the option to opt out of this electronic conversion. CEI sent Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] another letter providing this information July 13, 2015.
Consumer Rebuttal to Business Response
(Revdex.com converted from original document. See file.)
Have you heard from the company? Yes
Are you satisfied with the company's efforts to resolve this matter? No
CHECK 21 ACT - UNITED STATES FEDERAL LAW
CONVERSION/CANCEL CHECKS FORWARD. BACK TO CUSTOMER BANK IMAGES REFLECTS CHECK HAS BEEN CANCELLED. SEE LAW - UNITED STATES CHECK FEDERAL LAW - (ACT 21)
FIRST I WANT TO GO ON - "RECORD" CRYSTAL-CLEAR; THAT THIS NOT THE "CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY THAT I AM DEALING WITH. I DO NOT GET SERVICE FROM THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC SERVICE AT ALL. MY SERVICES, BILLING COMES FROM FIRST ENERGY SERVICE, FIRST ENGERY SOLUTION.
I AM REQUESTING FOR THE "RECORD" COPIES OF "LETTER" THAT WAS "MAIL OUT" TO FIRST ENERGY SERVICE COMPANY; BY THE Revdex.com OF AKRON. ALSO I AM REQUESTING THE COPIE OF THE ORIGINAL LETTER HEAD THAT WAS SENT BY FIRST ENERGY COMPANY THAT WAS SENT TO YOU AS FIRST RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT.
AS YOU KNOW BY "LAW" (CHECK 21 ACT) IS A UNITED STATES FEDERAL LAW = EFFECT OCTOBER 28, 2004. THE (LAW ALLOWS) THE RECIPIENT (CONSUMER) OF THE ORIGINAL PAPER CHECK TO CREATE A DIGITAL, CONVERSION, COMPLETE - ELECTRONIC FORMAT CALLED "SUBSTITUTE CHECK IMAGES" THAT CAN BE REQUESTED TO CONSUMER, CUSTOMER AT THEIR REQUEST BY RETURN "CANCELLED" - ELECTRONIC IMAGES TO ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE CONVERSION BY COMPANIES AND CORPORATIONS
(CHECK 21 ACT) WILL ALLOW BANKS TO PROCESS MORE CORRECTLY AND PROTECTION TO RECIEVE IMAGES STATEMENT OF MY CHECKS THAT IS BEING PROCESS FOR CANCELED CHECKS THAT IS CALL "SUBSTITUTE CHECKS ENCLOSE BANK STATEMENT. BUT WHEN FIRST ENERGY/FIRST ENERGY ILLUMINATING COMPANY IS DESTROYING THE ORIGINAL CHECK IN PAYMENT THERE IS NOT PROOF SHOWING HOW PAYMENTS WAS PAID AND PROCESS THROUGH TO THIS COMPANY ONLY BILL RECEIPT BILL FROM THE FIRST ENERGY, IF THAT NOT LOST THROUGH THE MAIL. I HAVE A "TRANSPARENCY" TRADITIONAL CHECKING ACCOUNT. CHECKING ACCOUNT THAT WANTS TRACEABLE RECORDS, WHICH ARE CANCELLED CHECKS THAT QUALIFY FOR A REGULAR CHECKING ACCOUNT.
THE BIG QUESTION HERE IS? THAT DOES "ALL" THE "CUSTOMERS" OF FIRST ENERY SERVICE "COMPANY"/ ILLUMINATING AND INCLUDING COMPANIES, CORPORATION, DO THEY RECEIVE THEIR CANCELLED, SUBSTITUTE CHECKS IMAGE CHECKS BACK FROM FIRST ENERGY/FIRST ILLUMINATING COMPANY.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
[redacted]
[redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:
I stilll stand by my original response. Revdex.com please post my complaint as Ohio Edison is unethical and could not provide me any proof of notification of my electric being turned off. Clearly they only go by “hear say” and don’t provide proof of them notifying their customers of “maintenance” in the bitter winter.  Thank you.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/08/13) */
Spoke to Mrs. disputed amount further investigated and position reversed based on additional information provided. Mrs is satisfied.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 14, 2015/12/09) */
[redacted]Document Attached[redacted]
Ms [redacted] filed a BCS PAR on 9/3/2015 and I responded with the following information
Company records show Ms. [redacted] has electric service in her name at [redacted], [redacted] from 8/9/2013 up to...

3/23/2014 and was issued a final bill on 3/24/2014 for the total account balance of $991.39 due 4/14/2014, a copy of final bill has been attached.
The most current information the Company has is that the final outstanding balance at this property has been reduced to $281.68.
Background information regarding Ms. [redacted]'s final account.
12/2/2013 - Tessa C[redacted] calling in to get service in her name when the representative required a security deposit of $146.00 the applicant advised she did not want to proceed with the application and service remained in the name of [redacted].
3/13/2014, a customer service representative rebilled Ms. [redacted]'s account from 10/9/2013 to 3/11/2014 due to prior estimated bills based on an actual meter reading obtained which resulted in a balance owing of $687.22.
On 3/14/2014. a general rebill letter was issued to Ms. [redacted] advising of the rebilling of her account, copy attached.
On 3/17/2014, [redacted] called West Penn and said she lives at the property and took over service but left the account in the prior tenant's name. Representative advised Ms. K[redacted] that we would need to speak to the account holder to discuss bill.
On 3/20/2014, [redacted] called the Company regarding her daughter [redacted] account and advised she moved out in September 2013 and [redacted] has been living here since, Advised occupant was supposed to have service put in their name, but did not. The representative advised according to our records her daughter did not call to request move out therefore she would be responsible for outstanding bill at this property. Advised [redacted] can complete move out effective 3/31/2014 after we post 10 day occupancy notice for occupant of property. Customer was satisfied.
Service was removed from Ms. [redacted]'s name effective 3/31/2014 and occupancy notice posted at property.
On 8/27/2015, [redacted], grandmother of [redacted] called regarding final account [redacted]. The representative reviewed the final account information and advised there was a total of 6 payments made from 9/23/2013 to 3/4/2014 on his account totaling $191.79. Advised the account was rebilled on 3/13/2014 from 10/9/2013 to 3/11/2014 due to prior estimated bills based on an actual meter reading obtained which resulted in a balance owing of $687.22. Then the final bill was issued on 3/24/2014 resulting in a total account balance of $991.39. Customer satisfied.
8/27/2015, Later the same day, Company records reflect contact with [redacted] who called for outside collection agency telephone number to make payments which was provided. Customer was satisfied.
On 9/2/2015, [redacted], Ms. [redacted]'s grandmother called the Company and said her granddaughter had moved out of the prior property [redacted], [redacted] in December 2013 but the person that moved in never put service in their name. The representative reviewed the Company records and advised that her granddaughter never called to have service taken out of her name when she moved so unfortunately she would be responsible for the balance at the property up to 3/24/2014.
Please note - The Company records indicate [redacted] called to establish service at [redacted], [redacted] effective 2/12/2015.
It is the Company's final position that Ms. [redacted] is responsible for the balance of the account at [redacted]., [redacted] up to 3/23/2014 as she never called to request move out until her mother [redacted] had called to advise of the situation at this property. The mother told the Company she moved in September 2013 however the grandmother advised she moved December 2013. According to the Company records the current final bill at this property is currently $281.68 which indicates that Ms. [redacted] has been making payments to the collection agency, Penn Credit Corp.

Revdex.com:"Representative offered to complete a CBA"  I don't even know what this is.  Reps at Penelec are not entirely accurate or clear when explaining.  However, since it is a utility, I really have no choice, but to accept their word.  How would I even know if they are overcharging?  This company has 8 pages of complaints on the Public Utility Commission's website.  They need to be transparent and clear about their charges and billing.
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me because I have no choice.Karen [redacted]

Customer's complaint concerns an outage that occurred in Tionesta on Saturday 2017-07-29 at 12:37. The Tionesta area is serviced by Penelec’s Oil City district. There were multiple outages affecting the Oil City district on Saturday 2017-07-29; 10 outages occurred between 2017-07-29 at 08:00 and...

2017-07-30 at 00:00, including 2 calls from local 911 dispatch and multiple outages involving broken poles/equipment and trees on Penelec lines, requiring additional resources to address the outages. The outages were prioritized in accordance with normal protocal to address outages involving hazardous situations with priority over nonhazardous outages. Estimated Times of Restoration for the Strandberg outage would have been updated to account for the other outages. Prior to the outage affecting customer, on 2017/07/29 at 10:11 an outage had been reported in the Cranberry area that involved a tree on primary wires and a broken cross arm. The line operations troubleman responded and determined that a crew was needed for repairs and notified the supervisor. The Cranberry outage required tree and line crews for repair The troubleman was then dispatched to the Tionesta area to respond to an outage that was identified on 2017/07/29 at 11:08, which was reported by a 911 dispatcher concerning a tree burning on a primary wire. The troubleman performed switching, removed trees and restored at 14:41. The outage affecting Customer in Tionesta was identified on Saturday 2017-07-29 at 12:37.The troubleman was directed to investigate the outage affecting Customer since he was already in the Tionesta area.The troubleman was dispatched to investigate the outage and arrived at 15:11.The troubleman identified that a transformer had failed, that a crew and parts were needed for repair, and informed the supervisor. Also, on 2017/07/29 at 11:08 an additional outage had been reported in the Clintonville area. The troubleman left the Tionesta (Strandberg) outage site, and proceeded to respond the Clintonville outage; restored at 17:57. In addition, an outage was reported in Titusville by Crawford County 911 at 16:37. The outage involved safety forces on site, 2 broken poles and Penelec live wires down. The troubleman was dispatched from Clintonville to the Titusville outage and arrived at 19:01. The outage required crews for repair. An additional outage was reported in Oil City on 2017-07-29 at 17:50. The troubleman responded to the outage and made repairs; restored 2017-07-29 at 22:03. Another outage was reported in Sandycreek at 18:01; the troubleman was dispatched to that outage; restored at 23:16. The troubleman was then dispatched back to the outage affecting Customer on 2017/07/29 at 23:50 with additional crew and made repairs for that outage; repairs completed on 2017/07/30 at 02:25.Company position is the outages were prioritized in accordance with normal protocal to address outages involving hazardous situations with priority over nonhazardous outages. Estimated Times of Restoration for the Strandberg outage would have been updated to account for the other outages.

FirstEnergy is the parent company of Penelec.  When a customer signs up for service, we are
required to offer them their option to choose an alternate supplier, as Penelec
does not generate electricity.  The customer
can decline this option, however, in this case, the customer chose...

to choose an
alternate supplier. The supplier they are with is Green Mountain Energy In
doing so, this results in 2 company names appearing on the monthly
charges.  Penelec for Distribution and
Green Mountain Energy for Generation. If the customer did not choose an
alternate supplier, then Penelec would show for both the distribution and the
generation. Generally speaking, the generation portion of the bill is about 60%
of the total bill.
 
The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) is the governing
body of Penelec. Everything Penelec does is approved by them. In accordance
with Chapter 56.12 (2), the company may estimate usage every other month. The
company does attempt to read all meters as scheduled, however sometimes there
are circumstances beyond our control e.g. access, storm restoration, extreme
weather conditions, work stoppage, emergencies etc. The customer has options on
months when the bill is estimated.  The
customer may provide readings by calling the Company or on the internet at [redacted]. Estimates
for residential customers are calculated using the prior year or the prior
month, plus a weather correcting factor.
 
The customer has been set up on 2 payment plans to assist in
paying the past due balance.  Any
additional payment plans would need to be granted by the PUC.
 
All credit and/or debit card payments are processed by a 3rd
party and they charge a processing fee. Once the payment is made through them,
the customer can contact Penelec back with the confirmation number to proceed
with all other transactions.  The customer
also has the option of paying at  local payment
agency and they also charge a processing fee. 
The customer also has the option of mailing in a payment.  The customer can also pay using a bank
routing and account number with Penelec and there is not a processing fee for
that.
 
The customer chose to pay with a check over the phone on 03/21/2018.  The electronic check was submitted to the
bank on 03/21/2018.  On 03/28/2018 the
company was notified that the check was not able to be processed due to insufficient
funds. The customer also submitted another payment on 04/05/2018.  The electronic check was submitted to the
bank on 04/05/2018. On 04/12/2018 the company was notified that the check was
not able to be processed due to insufficient funds.  When an electronic check is made, it is
processed the same day.  It there is insufficient
funds, the company will attempt to cash again as long as the bank allows.  The time frame between these attempts
varies.  The customer would need to
contact their bank in regard to the payments being returned as insufficient
funds if he feels this reason is incorrect. The bank would also be able to
address the time frames and number of times a check can try to be cashed when
returned for insufficient funds.
 
The customer does have to make good on the account and pay the
account current to avoid termination.
 
As a matter of background, the customer also has an open case with
the PUC and they will complete their own investigation.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/08/21) */
On 07/22/2015, the customer called to apply for service again. He originally applied for service in March 2015 and never meter his requirements. During the application process, the Company discovered a large past due balance at the property he...

is signing for service at. His application was denied for a copy of his lease/deed for the address applied for service, due to large premise balance, to see if applicant has any responsibility for premise balance. Customer's income information was updated, Level 1. Denial of service letter issued. He was advised that service can be turned off on or after 08/05/2015 if he doesn't comply to the terms of the application. Customer satisfied.
On 07/24/2015 the company receive a lease that was not legible, it is blurry and dotted. The customer stated he tried to send via an internet fax and will try to email it to us. The company advised him to call us back to confirm we received it. The customer was satisfied.
On 07/28/2015 the company received another lease that was not legible. It was blurry. A message was left for the customer to call us back and a follow up letter was also sent.
On 08/04/2015 the customer called in to check on the status of the lease he sent in. The company advised him we did receive it and we would review it and contact him back.
On 08/05/2015 the lease was reviewed and the application for service was denied. The company states the occupancy has not changed. The lease provided was between the applicant and the current customer. A phone call was made to the customer to advise of this. He was not satisfied and declined the PUC information. He did request a supervisor and the company representative advised him one would contact him back.
The customer is listed on the financial information from 07/25/2014 and 03/27/2014 for the current occupant. This ties him to the premise.
The current occupant has been in contact with the company to see how to get assistance with the balance under her name.
The current occupant has also admitted that the applicant is her brother in law.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/08/26) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I do not accept the response due to the facts 1 I was a transient back and forth during the time they state that I was living there I had just met my brother during that time I didn't know him at all until he found me I hadn't even known that I had another brother, secondly I sent them the lease I don't own a fax machine or know where to fax from as I stated before I am new to the area I had to use an app for android to take a picture so that I could fax through the app I was told something completely different from what was stated which was there was no address on the lease which there clearly was and that [redacted] still lived there which she doesn't the lady that I spoke to was very unprofessional and was getting smart on the phone telling me that [redacted] still lives there and wouldn't listen to me or explain to me why they felt that way I also offered to get verifications from [redacted] as to her now residence to send to them to prove her residence elsewhere in which the meted lady began to show her attitude on the phone and deny me that too my other issue is that if after this they do afford me the right to have services at this address I will be starting service with a past due balance due to their issues not mine I sent what was needed and they refused service so I feel like if this resolves the matter then they should start me with fresh service on the date that they accept to start it in my name not starting from march or any other date I will attach a copy of the lease also
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/09/04) */
The company maintains our prior position. The occupancy at the location has not changed. The lease provided was between the applicant and the current ratepayer. The current ratepayer has a large balance and has contacted us to make arrangements on the balance and to obtain information to apply for assistance for the balance. This makes the lease unacceptable and shows that occupancy has not changed.
The applicant is also listed as an occupant in the home on the financial updates provided by the current ratepayer, who also advised that the applicant is her brother in law.
If the applicant would like service in his name and accepts responsibility for the balance at the premise, the company will sign him for service and place him on a budget installment plan. He would need to contact the company to do this.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 7, 2015/10/08) */
As a matter of background, a new party may be required to pay a deposit when starting service in their name. The new party can have the deposit waived if they obtain a guarantor, which is a co-signer. Our customers must meet certain requirements...

in order to be eligible to be a guarantor. If a new party would like to use the guarantor option, we have to review the potential guarantor's account that the new party provides to us, to be sure they are eligible, prior to us sending the necessary form that needs to be signed.
In this situation, a new party called us on 8/28/2015 to apply for service at an address in our service territory. She was required to pay a deposit, and wanted to use the guarantor option. The new party provided the customer's name as a potential guarantor. Because the customer qualified to be a guarantor, the forms that needed to be signed by both the new party and the guarantor/customer were mailed.
When the guarantor letter was created, it was inadvertently created on the customer's account, which caused her account # and address to be listed on the letter in error. This letter was mailed to the new party's mailing address. The Company apologizes for the error, however, we decline the customer's request for $1,000,000.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 9, 2015/10/09) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
a simple apology is not enough. This company violated my privacy by mailing this information out. They simply went off of the word of someone who stated I was their family member they didnt know for sure if this was true or not. some type of compensation should be awarded either a credit to my monthly bill or something for this error that their agent made. My information should have NEVER been printed on any forms, I had no way of knowing this error was made until I was advised by my family member. Also this company needs a new practice to assist someone who is required to pay a down payment, they should not allow someone to just randomly name people and they tell them yes or no if the account is in satisfactory standing or not that information should be confidential. In the end I did sign the form and agreed to the terms.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 11, 2015/10/19) */
Customer filed a PUC complaint on 10/07/2015. Company is awaiting the results of the PUC complaint.