I am responding to your letter dated April 16, regarding the complaint of *** ***.In researching the complaint, Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania’s (“Columbia” or “the Company”) records indicate that Mr*** spoke to the Columbia’s customer service department on April 16, regarding the
$service fee for one day of serviceThe Company spoke to the property owner who agreed to move their connect date to April 1, so that Mr***’ final bill date was April thus eliminating the one day final billA credit adjustment of $was issued on April 16, 2015, leaving a balance of $On April 17, 2015, $was posted to the account and there is now a $balanceMr*** does not have new service and his final balance is $0.00.We consider this complaint to be resolvedShould you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact *** *** at *** ***.Very truly yours,*** ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does satisfy my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint #***I understand that by choosing to accept the business response that
my complaint will be closed as resolved; provided John Hancock sends the invoice within business days and properly credits the premium paid for the policies held by me and my husband. I haven't received an invoice for my husband's policy
Thank you for your help.Regards,
*** ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does satisfy my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint #*** FOR NOW. My mother, *** ***, has received one check to date in the amount of $300. I hope John Hancock continues to reimburse her on a timely basis going forward, that is, twice per month of payments of $per week. If company chooses to strongarm us again and conveniently lose invoices I will reopen case. Closing this case will be conditional upon a favorable outcome. I have a full time job and don't have time to keep after a company that should be more professional better. This whole process was disgraceful. Dealing with the loss of my father was enough to handle, we didn't need additional stress. I told everyone I know and everyone's parents never to take out long term care with John Hancock
Regards,
*** ***
I am writing to you on behalf of Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc. (“Columbia” or “the Company”) in response to the referenced consumer complaint.After completing a thorough investigation of its billing, meter reading and service line records for the past several years, Columbia has concluded that...
no meter existed at Ms. [redacted]’s address, located at [redacted], since November 2000 when Columbia removed the gas meter.Ms. [redacted]’s meter is part of a three meter manifold set that also serves dwellings located at [redacted]. Meters for these two associated addresses remained active since the time Columbia removed the meter serving [redacted], in November of 2000. Columbia’s records also indicate that the gas service for [redacted] where Ms. [redacted] resided, remained inactive from November 2000 until November 2014.On November 17, 2014, the customer who resides at [redacted] contacted the company to report a possible carbon monoxide (CO) condition. While performing the required safety checks, Columbia’s service technician discovered that an additional meter was now set on the three meter manifold that serves [redacted]. Company records indicated that no meter should have been present, since the service was inactive.Due to the possibility of unauthorized gas usage, Columbia immediately took steps to make the condition safe and removed the meter serving [redacted] (Ms. [redacted]’s residence).On November 18, 2014, Columbia personnel contacted both Ms. [redacted] and the property owner of record, [redacted], regarding the unauthorized usage. During discussions with both parties, each indicated that the other was responsible for payment of the gas service at [redacted].On November 21, 2014, the Company advised Ms. [redacted] that it was still investigating the unauthorized usage situation, however, it was willing to accept her application for gas service. While connecting service to this residence, Columbia discovered leakage on the customer owned service line. Repairs were made later that day and the service was established Due to the age of Company records and data that needed to be unarchived and reviewed in its investigation of this situation, Columbia was not able to immediately confirm the exact amount of the re-billed gas usage. On February 25, 2015, the Company completed its investigation and backbilled Ms. [redacted]’s account $3,299.09 for usage from February 2015 back to March of 2013 (2 year period). Columbia chose to backbill Ms. [redacted] only for two years due to the fact that the Company installed Automated Meter Reading (AMR) technology on all its active meters in 2012, which enables the Company to obtain actual meter readings without physically accessing its meters. Prior to the installation of AMR devices, the Company took bi-monthly manual meter readings that required physical access to meters. During the pre-AMR era, a report of a meter reading at a non-active account would have triggered an investigation to explain the presence of a meter. Since there was no report of a meter reading during that time, it is reasonable to conclude that the meter that was discovered at the premises on November 17, 2014 was installed after Columbia had ceased bi-monthly physical meter readings. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that when Columbia discovered the additional meter at the premises on November 17, 2014, there was no AMR technology installed on that meter. This indicates that the meter was likely installed between November of 2012 and November of 2014.On March 23, 2015, Columbia personnel met with Ms. [redacted] and provided her an itemized statement of the rebilling and a thorough explanation of the situation.As I mentioned earlier, Columbia’s billing, meter reading and service line records demonstrate that no meter was present at the premises for several years. This information has been documented by various individuals within the company, whose responsibility it is to perform mandated regulatory tasks.Since Ms. [redacted] has received the benefit of the gas service for the past several years, Columbia believes she is the responsible party to be billed for the unauthorized gas usage. Further, Columbia is not responsible for any lease arrangements between Ms. [redacted] and her landlord, Mr. [redacted], and their relative rights and responsibilities under such arrangements is a matter to be resolved between them.Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact [redacted], Manager of Regulatory Compliance at [redacted].Sincerely,[redacted]Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not...
satisfy the fact that the company is rude and initially delayed paying the claim however, my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint #[redacted] has been paid and that's all the family was concerned with so I guess they get away with treating another family terribly. I understand that by choosing to accept the business response that my complaint will be closed as resolved.
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted]. Please add your rejection comments below. My...
mother [redacted] satisfied her 90-day elimination period on February 5, 2015. ([redacted] confirmed this in an email to me on February 11th). At this point we are awaiting payment for the weeks of Februrary 9 and February 16. She is due to receive $100 daily ($300 weekly) for the days she employs an aide through Right @ Home in [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] informed me that my mother should start receiving weekly payments 15 days after the invoices were submitted (that would mean the first week in March). The invoice for the week ending Feb. 13th has already been submitted to John Hancock this past Tuesday.I will keep you posted as to when first payment is direct deposited into her checking account at her bank in [redacted].
Regards,
[redacted]
I am responding to your letter with Complaint ID number [redacted] regarding the complaint of [redacted].As you know, Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc., (“Columbia” or “the Company”) is a natural gas distribution utility that is regulated by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“Commission”...
or “PUC”). Columbia's business practices are governed by its “Rates and Rules for Furnishing Gas Service” (the “Tariff”), as approved by the Commission. Moreover, the Company must follow all Commission rules and regulations, as well as statutes that the Commission administers.In researching complaint [redacted], Columbia’s records indicate that this customer has been enrolled in the Zipcheck (Direct E-Bill) process since September 24, 2012.On May 15, 2017, Mr. [redacted] called the Columbia Gas Customer Care Center and spoke with a customer service representative regarding a perceived error in the due date on his online bill statement from Direct E-Bill. During that conversation, his concern was that his email statement shows that the stated due date is approximately two weeks following the withdrawal date on his bill statement.It should be noted that the PUC has already considered and rejected the issues raised by Mr. [redacted] in the context of a Formal Complaint proceeding at the Commission. In Cavanaugh v. Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc. (Docket No. C-00982033), the Commission concluded that that Columbia did not violate either its tariff or the Commission’s regulations by collecting Zipcheck payments approximately ten (10) days after the bills were mailed instead of the twenty (20)-day period set forth in its tariff. Furthermore, in dismissing the Cavanaugh complaint, the Commission stated “we hasten to add that the Zipcheck program is voluntary and is offered as a convenience to the customer. The Complainant has the option at any time to discontinue participation in the Zipcheck program.”While the PUC dismissed the Cavanaugh complaint, the Commission did direct Columbia to amend its Zipcheck promotional and enrollment materials in collaboration with the PUC’s Bureau of Consumer Services. I am enclosing a sample of the revised brochure that was the result of that collaborative effort. As you will see, enrollees in Zipcheck/Direct e-Bill are adequately advised about the timing of billing and payment, and they specifically acknowledge that “payments will be deducted from my account approximately 10 days after the bill is mailed, which is earlier than the 20-day ‘due date’ used for payments that are mailed to the company or delivered to an authorized payment agent” when they enroll.If Mr. [redacted] would like to cancel his Zipcheck/Direct e-Bill enrollment, he can contact the Company at ###-###-#### and request to be removed or visit our website’s Direct Link at https://www.columbiagaspa.com/billing-payment-options/paperless-billing and initiate the removal.Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact Sarah B[redacted] at ###-###-####.Very truly yours,Sarah B[redacted]
K&R was called out by the [redacted] to do a service call on 6-23-15 in the afternoon, for a no cool, their son was the only one home when we got there. The technician took about a 1/2 hr (86.50 charge) to diagnose that the blower motor was bad and about that time was when the couple...
arrived. The tech told the [redacted] what was wrong, found out the motor was under warranty, located the motor, wrote up the invoice and estimate to install, and removed the blower assembly to take with him in the next 30 minutes. The estimate for the install was for labor only, since the motor was under a manufactuer's part warranty only, labor not included. The only OEM manufactuer replacement we could find was in Buckeye, or we would have to order it and that could take 3 to 5 days to get it in. On a 106 degree day we knew we had to go get the only part in town, we received payment for the service call and a signed agreement from the [redacted] for the $450 installation (under parts warranty only)The technician drove to Buckeye, in rush hour traffic, taking him 3 hours there and back. By the time he got back on this side of town it was to late to install the motor, we had told the [redacted] that it might be the next morning before we could get out. The tech took the motor assembly home with him and proceeded to disassemble the motor in order to replace w/ new one which took him another 1.5 hours, he did this so he would be able to get the [redacted] up and running faster and he would not have to do this out in the field in the heat. We now have a total of 5 hours invested in the job to get the [redacted] cooling. The next morning [redacted] replaced the motor within 20 to 30 minutes, rechecked the unit to spec, wrote up the 2nd invoice to the amount we agreed on, received payment and was on his way.7 days later we get a call from Mr. [redacted] complaining that his bill was to much. I explained to him the breakdown of pricing: $86.50 service charge $ 315.00 flat rate for warranty motor replacement $ 135.00 travel time to get OEM partNever did he state he should only have to pay the $86.50, charge.Meanwhile we receive notice from my bank that 2 checks came back NSF, it took me a good 1/2 hour to find out that it was the [redacted] checks. I called the [redacted] to let them know, they said no problem they would send out another to cover the amount. They had another opportunity to ask about a reduction in their bill, but never said anything. I did, however, mention that I would waive the bank fees K&R would incur. We received the full amount for the 2 checks. A few weeks later we now have received this complaint from Revdex.com. I talked to both [redacted] and [redacted] on 7-22-2015 offered them the 135.00 travel expense minus the 40.00 bank fees back to them, they declined, Their comment was "we would like to see how much Revdex.com can get back for them."[redacted]K&R Refrigeration
I am responding to your letter dated July 27, 2015 regarding the complaint of [redacted].As you know, Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc., (“Columbia” or “the Company”) is a natural gas distribution utility that is regulated by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“Commission” or “PUC”)....
Columbia's business practices are governed by the Commission and the Company must follow all Commission rules and regulations, including those that are related to the processing of energy grants and customer payments.On February 4, 2014, Columbia posted a $100 Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (“LIHEAP”) cash grant payment to the account of [redacted] at the address of [redacted], based on an erroneous electronic file submitted by the Department of Human Services (DHS), formerly the Department of Public Welfare (DPW) with [redacted]’s account number.On February 11, 2014, Columbia issued [redacted] a bill in the amount of $98.90, which included the usage of 87 therms. A line item titled “Energy Assistance Grant - $100” appeared on the bill, which thus reflected a credit account balance in the amount of $1.10 and no payment due. Subsequently, in June of 2015, Columbia discovered that the account number provided by DHS for the LIHEAP cash grant that was applied on February 4, 2014 was incorrect. As a consequence, the $100 LIHEAP grant was inadvertently credited to [redacted]’s account even though he was not eligible to receive that grant.To correct that error, on June 8, 2015, Columbia debited [redacted]’s account in the amount of $100, and his next bill on June 12, 2015, included a line item titled “Energy Assistance Grant +$100.”Columbia is legally prohibited from providing LIHEAP grants to those who are not income-eligible to receive such assistance. Therefore, Columbia cannot lawfully permit the erroneous $100 credit to remain on [redacted]’s account. Moreover, by law, Columbia must charge rates that have been approved by the PUC. The Company cannot charge preferential rates that are not authorized by the Commission. Therefore, it would be unlawful for the Company to forego collection of the $100 that has now been charged to [redacted] to correct the prior error. What Ms. [redacted] may be viewing as the Company’s intransigence or unreasonableness is really Columbia’s adherence to legal standards with which it must comply.Columbia does recognize that the error was not the fault of the customer and that this customer is an excellent-paying customer. [redacted]’s account was delayed for twobilling cycles, allowing the customer time to contact the office and make amicable arrangements to pay the $100 debited on the account. Columbia offered arrangements to the customer to pay the balance of the billing over several months, which would include the current bill charges plus an additional $20 payment each month until the outstanding balance has been paid.Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact Russell B[redacted].
January 16, 2018 [redacted] The Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Ste. 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220 Re: Revdex.com ID No. [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted]: I am responding to your letter dated December 21, 2017...
regarding Revdex.com Complaint ID No. [redacted]. Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc., (“Columbia” or “the Company”) is a natural gas distribution utility that is regulated by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“Commission” or “PUC”). Columbia's business practices are governed by the Commission and the Company must follow all Commission rules and regulations. Pivotal Home Solutions is a company that sells warranty service plans for in-house gas lines, water lines, and sewage lines. The ESP Service Plan, mentioned in the consumer’s complaint, is one of those plans. Columbia is not affiliated with Pivotal Home Solutions. Columbia’s only involvement in this matter is that it provides billing services for Pivotal Home Solutions as a convenience to Columbia customers who purchase warranty service plans from Pivotal Home Solutions. Columbia has no specific knowledge of warranty plans or the individual services provided by Pivotal Home Solutions. On November 19, 2015, the customer contacted Columbia questioning the Optional Service Charge of $9.90. Columbia’s customer service representative advised her that the Optional Service Charge is the warranty service plan the customer purchased from the third-party company, Pivotal Home Solutions. The customer service representative further advised that Columbia is not affiliated with Pivotal Home Solutions and that Columbia simply provides billing services for the third-party as a convenience to Columbia customers who purchase the warranty plans. The customer requested more specific information on her service plan and asked if she could be billed separately. Columbia referred the customer to Pivotal Home Solutions for an explanation of the charge and to discuss separate billing. Upon receipt of the Revdex.com Complaint ID No.[redacted], Columbia contacted Pivotal Home Solutions. Pivotal Home Solutions informed Columbia that on December 21, 2017, the warranty service plan was canceled by the customer. The customer’s bill will no longer reflect an Optional Service Charge of $9.90. Because Columbia is not affiliated with Pivotal Home Solutions, Columbia requests that this complaint be closed. Should the customer have additional questions or concerns regarding warranty programs or Pivotal Home Solutions, the customer service number for Pivotal Home Solutions is [redacted] and the hours of service are 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact Sarah B[redacted] at [redacted]. Very truly yours, Sarah ** B[redacted] Director of Communications Columbia Gas of PA
I am responding to your letter with ID number [redacted] regarding the complaint of [redacted].As you know, Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc., (“Columbia” or “the Company”) is a natural gas distribution utility that is regulated by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“Commission”). Columbia's...
business practices are governed by the Commission and the Company must follow all Commission rules and regulations. Moreover, the Company must abide by Title 66 of Pennsylvania’s Consolidated Statutes, commonly referred to as the “Public Utility Code.”Section 1510 of the Public Utility Code, which was enacted in 1984, provides that maintenance of a service line shall be the responsibility of the owner of the service line. Section 1510 further prohibits a utility from acquiring ownership of service lines if the utility’s tariff provided for customers to own those lines as of the effective date of Section 1510. Since before 1984, under Columbia’s Commission-approved tariff, customers in Western Pennsylvania own the customer service line from the meter to the point of delivery (curb valve). Consequently, under Section 1510, those customers are responsible for the maintenance and repair of their service lines, and it would be unlawful for Columbia to provide the relief that the Complainant seeks. Furthermore, in recognition that natural gas can result in damage to life and property if not used correctly, the tariff provides gas companies with the right to shut off gas for repairs. These rules are explained in our tariff, which may be found on our website at www.columbiagaspa.com/about-us/tariff-information.Columbia follows strict State and Federal safety regulations in its role as a regulated natural gas distribution company. Consistent with those mandated regulations, Columbia, or one of its contractors, conducts leak surveys on customer-owned service lines. These surveys are required once every three years. Columbia’s records indicate that on August 12, 2015, Columbia’s leak inspector conducted a leakage survey on Mr. [redacted]’s property at 20690 Pennsylvania Avenue West in Warren, Pennsylvania. While conducting this inspection, Columbia discovered leakage on Mr. [redacted]’s customer owned service line and immediately shut off gas service until repairs could be made by a qualified plumber.In instances where leaks of this severity are found, natural gas utilities are required to stop the flow of gas immediately to keep the customer and the community safe. A door hanger was left at Mr. [redacted]’s residence informing him of the situation and the next steps he needed to take in order to restore his gas service.On August 26, 2015, Columbia completed a visit to Mr. [redacted]’s property to see if repairs had been made. The service line had not been repaired and Columbia issued a final bill for $16.75, representing a flat charge that is not based on usage. On September 16, a payment of $16.75 was posted to the account, which now has a zero balance.It should be noted that Mr. [redacted] filed an informal complaint about this matter with the Commission on September 23, 2015, which has been closed. The Commission instructed Mr. [redacted] that he is responsible for the maintenance of his service line and that he would need a qualified plumber to make repairs before gas service can be restored. The Commission also instructed Mr. [redacted] that the $16.75 customer service charge was approved by the Commission in the Company’s tariff.Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact Russell B[redacted] at ###-###-####.Very
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted]. Please add your rejection comments below.
I am not...
necessarily disputing the response. This is the first I've heard of JDT being authorized. I would like some sort of confirmation that when the claims are submitted that they are processed expediently. As well as in the proper date order so my mother gets proper reimbursement and the 100 days are applied in proper date order. I am very concerned with the processing time and the incompetence I have experienced with all of my interactions with John Hancock for the last 10 months. My mother has been at sunrise assisted living for six weeks. I'm very concerned about the monthly billing of this and timely payment moving forward l. As a result of John Hancock's mismanagement of this claim we have had to outlay, so far two months upfront to sunrise out of our own pockets. We have filled out the automatic deposit form which will be put in the mail to John Hancock.
Please confirm that this will become a priority for John Hancock and that these claims will be processed in the proper date order so we receive proper reimbursement for eight months of services we have paid for out-of-pocket Regards,
[redacted]
I am responding to your letter dated May 5, 2015 regarding the complaint of [redacted].As you know, Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc., (“Columbia” or “the Company”) is a natural gasdistribution utility that is regulated by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“Commission”)....
Columbia'sbusiness practices are governed by the Commission and the Company must follow all Commission rules andregulations, including those that are related to the matter in which Medical Certificates are processed.According to these regulations, covered under 52 Pa. Code, Sections 56.111 through 56.118,termination of utility service can be delayed if a valid Medical Certificates is provided. However, paymentobligations are not suspended by virtue of a Medical Certificate (Section 56.116), and the maximum number ofMedical Certificates per household is limited to three (Section 56.114). Mr. [redacted]’s household hasreached the permitted maximum number of Medical Certificates. Additionally, Mr. [redacted] has not met hisobligation to make payment on all current undisputed bills.Columbia disputes Mr. [redacted]’s allegation that the Company told him that a Medical Certificatewas going through. Rather, when Mr. [redacted] contacted Columbia on May 4, 2015 regarding a MedicalCertificate, the Company informed him that his account would be reviewed by the Columbia department thathandles medical certifications. Upon the completion of that review on May 4, the Company contacted Mr.[redacted] to inform him that a Medical Certificate could not be accepted, since his household had reachedthe maximum allowable number of Certificates.It should be noted that Mr. [redacted] filed an informal complaint about this matter with theCommission on May 5, 2015. Columbia will abide by the Commission’s final determination regarding hiscomplaint.Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact [redacted] at [redacted]Very truly yours,[redacted]
I am responding to your letter dated April 16, regarding the complaint of *** ***.In researching the complaint, Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania’s (“Columbia” or “the Company”) records indicate that Mr*** spoke to the Columbia’s customer service department on April 16, regarding the
$service fee for one day of serviceThe Company spoke to the property owner who agreed to move their connect date to April 1, so that Mr***’ final bill date was April thus eliminating the one day final billA credit adjustment of $was issued on April 16, 2015, leaving a balance of $On April 17, 2015, $was posted to the account and there is now a $balanceMr*** does not have new service and his final balance is $0.00.We consider this complaint to be resolvedShould you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact *** *** at *** ***.Very truly yours,*** ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does satisfy my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint #***I understand that by choosing to accept the business response that
my complaint will be closed as resolved; provided John Hancock sends the invoice within business days and properly credits the premium paid for the policies held by me and my husband. I haven't received an invoice for my husband's policy
Thank you for your help.Regards,
*** ***
Tell us why here...Attached please find our repsonse to Complaint # ***Thank you
They need to make up there mind because of telling me in one message they would accept it and now its a no go!
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does satisfy my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint #*** FOR NOW. My mother, *** ***, has received one check to date in the amount of $300. I hope John Hancock continues to reimburse her on a timely basis going forward, that is, twice per month of payments of $per week. If company chooses to strongarm us again and conveniently lose invoices I will reopen case. Closing this case will be conditional upon a favorable outcome. I have a full time job and don't have time to keep after a company that should be more professional better. This whole process was disgraceful. Dealing with the loss of my father was enough to handle, we didn't need additional stress. I told everyone I know and everyone's parents never to take out long term care with John Hancock
Regards,
*** ***
Response to rejection is attached. Thank you
The Company is currently working with the complainant to resolve the matter.
Sincerely,
Customer Relations
I am writing to you on behalf of Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc. (“Columbia” or “the Company”) in response to the referenced consumer complaint.After completing a thorough investigation of its billing, meter reading and service line records for the past several years, Columbia has concluded that...
no meter existed at Ms. [redacted]’s address, located at [redacted], since November 2000 when Columbia removed the gas meter.Ms. [redacted]’s meter is part of a three meter manifold set that also serves dwellings located at [redacted]. Meters for these two associated addresses remained active since the time Columbia removed the meter serving [redacted], in November of 2000. Columbia’s records also indicate that the gas service for [redacted] where Ms. [redacted] resided, remained inactive from November 2000 until November 2014.On November 17, 2014, the customer who resides at [redacted] contacted the company to report a possible carbon monoxide (CO) condition. While performing the required safety checks, Columbia’s service technician discovered that an additional meter was now set on the three meter manifold that serves [redacted]. Company records indicated that no meter should have been present, since the service was inactive.Due to the possibility of unauthorized gas usage, Columbia immediately took steps to make the condition safe and removed the meter serving [redacted] (Ms. [redacted]’s residence).On November 18, 2014, Columbia personnel contacted both Ms. [redacted] and the property owner of record, [redacted], regarding the unauthorized usage. During discussions with both parties, each indicated that the other was responsible for payment of the gas service at [redacted].On November 21, 2014, the Company advised Ms. [redacted] that it was still investigating the unauthorized usage situation, however, it was willing to accept her application for gas service. While connecting service to this residence, Columbia discovered leakage on the customer owned service line. Repairs were made later that day and the service was established Due to the age of Company records and data that needed to be unarchived and reviewed in its investigation of this situation, Columbia was not able to immediately confirm the exact amount of the re-billed gas usage. On February 25, 2015, the Company completed its investigation and backbilled Ms. [redacted]’s account $3,299.09 for usage from February 2015 back to March of 2013 (2 year period). Columbia chose to backbill Ms. [redacted] only for two years due to the fact that the Company installed Automated Meter Reading (AMR) technology on all its active meters in 2012, which enables the Company to obtain actual meter readings without physically accessing its meters. Prior to the installation of AMR devices, the Company took bi-monthly manual meter readings that required physical access to meters. During the pre-AMR era, a report of a meter reading at a non-active account would have triggered an investigation to explain the presence of a meter. Since there was no report of a meter reading during that time, it is reasonable to conclude that the meter that was discovered at the premises on November 17, 2014 was installed after Columbia had ceased bi-monthly physical meter readings. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that when Columbia discovered the additional meter at the premises on November 17, 2014, there was no AMR technology installed on that meter. This indicates that the meter was likely installed between November of 2012 and November of 2014.On March 23, 2015, Columbia personnel met with Ms. [redacted] and provided her an itemized statement of the rebilling and a thorough explanation of the situation.As I mentioned earlier, Columbia’s billing, meter reading and service line records demonstrate that no meter was present at the premises for several years. This information has been documented by various individuals within the company, whose responsibility it is to perform mandated regulatory tasks.Since Ms. [redacted] has received the benefit of the gas service for the past several years, Columbia believes she is the responsible party to be billed for the unauthorized gas usage. Further, Columbia is not responsible for any lease arrangements between Ms. [redacted] and her landlord, Mr. [redacted], and their relative rights and responsibilities under such arrangements is a matter to be resolved between them.Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact [redacted], Manager of Regulatory Compliance at [redacted].Sincerely,[redacted]Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not...
satisfy the fact that the company is rude and initially delayed paying the claim however, my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint #[redacted] has been paid and that's all the family was concerned with so I guess they get away with treating another family terribly. I understand that by choosing to accept the business response that my complaint will be closed as resolved.
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted]. Please add your rejection comments below. My...
mother [redacted] satisfied her 90-day elimination period on February 5, 2015. ([redacted] confirmed this in an email to me on February 11th). At this point we are awaiting payment for the weeks of Februrary 9 and February 16. She is due to receive $100 daily ($300 weekly) for the days she employs an aide through Right @ Home in [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] informed me that my mother should start receiving weekly payments 15 days after the invoices were submitted (that would mean the first week in March). The invoice for the week ending Feb. 13th has already been submitted to John Hancock this past Tuesday.I will keep you posted as to when first payment is direct deposited into her checking account at her bank in [redacted].
Regards,
[redacted]
I am responding to your letter with Complaint ID number [redacted] regarding the complaint of [redacted].As you know, Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc., (“Columbia” or “the Company”) is a natural gas distribution utility that is regulated by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“Commission”...
or “PUC”). Columbia's business practices are governed by its “Rates and Rules for Furnishing Gas Service” (the “Tariff”), as approved by the Commission. Moreover, the Company must follow all Commission rules and regulations, as well as statutes that the Commission administers.In researching complaint [redacted], Columbia’s records indicate that this customer has been enrolled in the Zipcheck (Direct E-Bill) process since September 24, 2012.On May 15, 2017, Mr. [redacted] called the Columbia Gas Customer Care Center and spoke with a customer service representative regarding a perceived error in the due date on his online bill statement from Direct E-Bill. During that conversation, his concern was that his email statement shows that the stated due date is approximately two weeks following the withdrawal date on his bill statement.It should be noted that the PUC has already considered and rejected the issues raised by Mr. [redacted] in the context of a Formal Complaint proceeding at the Commission. In Cavanaugh v. Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc. (Docket No. C-00982033), the Commission concluded that that Columbia did not violate either its tariff or the Commission’s regulations by collecting Zipcheck payments approximately ten (10) days after the bills were mailed instead of the twenty (20)-day period set forth in its tariff. Furthermore, in dismissing the Cavanaugh complaint, the Commission stated “we hasten to add that the Zipcheck program is voluntary and is offered as a convenience to the customer. The Complainant has the option at any time to discontinue participation in the Zipcheck program.”While the PUC dismissed the Cavanaugh complaint, the Commission did direct Columbia to amend its Zipcheck promotional and enrollment materials in collaboration with the PUC’s Bureau of Consumer Services. I am enclosing a sample of the revised brochure that was the result of that collaborative effort. As you will see, enrollees in Zipcheck/Direct e-Bill are adequately advised about the timing of billing and payment, and they specifically acknowledge that “payments will be deducted from my account approximately 10 days after the bill is mailed, which is earlier than the 20-day ‘due date’ used for payments that are mailed to the company or delivered to an authorized payment agent” when they enroll.If Mr. [redacted] would like to cancel his Zipcheck/Direct e-Bill enrollment, he can contact the Company at ###-###-#### and request to be removed or visit our website’s Direct Link at https://www.columbiagaspa.com/billing-payment-options/paperless-billing and initiate the removal.Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact Sarah B[redacted] at ###-###-####.Very truly yours,Sarah B[redacted]
K&R was called out by the [redacted] to do a service call on 6-23-15 in the afternoon, for a no cool, their son was the only one home when we got there. The technician took about a 1/2 hr (86.50 charge) to diagnose that the blower motor was bad and about that time was when the couple...
arrived. The tech told the [redacted] what was wrong, found out the motor was under warranty, located the motor, wrote up the invoice and estimate to install, and removed the blower assembly to take with him in the next 30 minutes. The estimate for the install was for labor only, since the motor was under a manufactuer's part warranty only, labor not included. The only OEM manufactuer replacement we could find was in Buckeye, or we would have to order it and that could take 3 to 5 days to get it in. On a 106 degree day we knew we had to go get the only part in town, we received payment for the service call and a signed agreement from the [redacted] for the $450 installation (under parts warranty only)The technician drove to Buckeye, in rush hour traffic, taking him 3 hours there and back. By the time he got back on this side of town it was to late to install the motor, we had told the [redacted] that it might be the next morning before we could get out. The tech took the motor assembly home with him and proceeded to disassemble the motor in order to replace w/ new one which took him another 1.5 hours, he did this so he would be able to get the [redacted] up and running faster and he would not have to do this out in the field in the heat. We now have a total of 5 hours invested in the job to get the [redacted] cooling. The next morning [redacted] replaced the motor within 20 to 30 minutes, rechecked the unit to spec, wrote up the 2nd invoice to the amount we agreed on, received payment and was on his way.7 days later we get a call from Mr. [redacted] complaining that his bill was to much. I explained to him the breakdown of pricing: $86.50 service charge $ 315.00 flat rate for warranty motor replacement $ 135.00 travel time to get OEM partNever did he state he should only have to pay the $86.50, charge.Meanwhile we receive notice from my bank that 2 checks came back NSF, it took me a good 1/2 hour to find out that it was the [redacted] checks. I called the [redacted] to let them know, they said no problem they would send out another to cover the amount. They had another opportunity to ask about a reduction in their bill, but never said anything. I did, however, mention that I would waive the bank fees K&R would incur. We received the full amount for the 2 checks. A few weeks later we now have received this complaint from Revdex.com. I talked to both [redacted] and [redacted] on 7-22-2015 offered them the 135.00 travel expense minus the 40.00 bank fees back to them, they declined, Their comment was "we would like to see how much Revdex.com can get back for them."[redacted]K&R Refrigeration
Hello,Attached please find our response to your file #[redacted].Thank you.
I am responding to your letter dated July 27, 2015 regarding the complaint of [redacted].As you know, Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc., (“Columbia” or “the Company”) is a natural gas distribution utility that is regulated by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“Commission” or “PUC”)....
Columbia's business practices are governed by the Commission and the Company must follow all Commission rules and regulations, including those that are related to the processing of energy grants and customer payments.On February 4, 2014, Columbia posted a $100 Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (“LIHEAP”) cash grant payment to the account of [redacted] at the address of [redacted], based on an erroneous electronic file submitted by the Department of Human Services (DHS), formerly the Department of Public Welfare (DPW) with [redacted]’s account number.On February 11, 2014, Columbia issued [redacted] a bill in the amount of $98.90, which included the usage of 87 therms. A line item titled “Energy Assistance Grant - $100” appeared on the bill, which thus reflected a credit account balance in the amount of $1.10 and no payment due. Subsequently, in June of 2015, Columbia discovered that the account number provided by DHS for the LIHEAP cash grant that was applied on February 4, 2014 was incorrect. As a consequence, the $100 LIHEAP grant was inadvertently credited to [redacted]’s account even though he was not eligible to receive that grant.To correct that error, on June 8, 2015, Columbia debited [redacted]’s account in the amount of $100, and his next bill on June 12, 2015, included a line item titled “Energy Assistance Grant +$100.”Columbia is legally prohibited from providing LIHEAP grants to those who are not income-eligible to receive such assistance. Therefore, Columbia cannot lawfully permit the erroneous $100 credit to remain on [redacted]’s account. Moreover, by law, Columbia must charge rates that have been approved by the PUC. The Company cannot charge preferential rates that are not authorized by the Commission. Therefore, it would be unlawful for the Company to forego collection of the $100 that has now been charged to [redacted] to correct the prior error. What Ms. [redacted] may be viewing as the Company’s intransigence or unreasonableness is really Columbia’s adherence to legal standards with which it must comply.Columbia does recognize that the error was not the fault of the customer and that this customer is an excellent-paying customer. [redacted]’s account was delayed for twobilling cycles, allowing the customer time to contact the office and make amicable arrangements to pay the $100 debited on the account. Columbia offered arrangements to the customer to pay the balance of the billing over several months, which would include the current bill charges plus an additional $20 payment each month until the outstanding balance has been paid.Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact Russell B[redacted].
January 16, 2018 [redacted] The Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Ste. 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220 Re: Revdex.com ID No. [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted]: I am responding to your letter dated December 21, 2017...
regarding Revdex.com Complaint ID No. [redacted]. Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc., (“Columbia” or “the Company”) is a natural gas distribution utility that is regulated by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“Commission” or “PUC”). Columbia's business practices are governed by the Commission and the Company must follow all Commission rules and regulations. Pivotal Home Solutions is a company that sells warranty service plans for in-house gas lines, water lines, and sewage lines. The ESP Service Plan, mentioned in the consumer’s complaint, is one of those plans. Columbia is not affiliated with Pivotal Home Solutions. Columbia’s only involvement in this matter is that it provides billing services for Pivotal Home Solutions as a convenience to Columbia customers who purchase warranty service plans from Pivotal Home Solutions. Columbia has no specific knowledge of warranty plans or the individual services provided by Pivotal Home Solutions. On November 19, 2015, the customer contacted Columbia questioning the Optional Service Charge of $9.90. Columbia’s customer service representative advised her that the Optional Service Charge is the warranty service plan the customer purchased from the third-party company, Pivotal Home Solutions. The customer service representative further advised that Columbia is not affiliated with Pivotal Home Solutions and that Columbia simply provides billing services for the third-party as a convenience to Columbia customers who purchase the warranty plans. The customer requested more specific information on her service plan and asked if she could be billed separately. Columbia referred the customer to Pivotal Home Solutions for an explanation of the charge and to discuss separate billing. Upon receipt of the Revdex.com Complaint ID No.[redacted], Columbia contacted Pivotal Home Solutions. Pivotal Home Solutions informed Columbia that on December 21, 2017, the warranty service plan was canceled by the customer. The customer’s bill will no longer reflect an Optional Service Charge of $9.90. Because Columbia is not affiliated with Pivotal Home Solutions, Columbia requests that this complaint be closed. Should the customer have additional questions or concerns regarding warranty programs or Pivotal Home Solutions, the customer service number for Pivotal Home Solutions is [redacted] and the hours of service are 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact Sarah B[redacted] at [redacted]. Very truly yours, Sarah ** B[redacted] Director of Communications Columbia Gas of PA
I am responding to your letter with ID number [redacted] regarding the complaint of [redacted].As you know, Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc., (“Columbia” or “the Company”) is a natural gas distribution utility that is regulated by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“Commission”). Columbia's...
business practices are governed by the Commission and the Company must follow all Commission rules and regulations. Moreover, the Company must abide by Title 66 of Pennsylvania’s Consolidated Statutes, commonly referred to as the “Public Utility Code.”Section 1510 of the Public Utility Code, which was enacted in 1984, provides that maintenance of a service line shall be the responsibility of the owner of the service line. Section 1510 further prohibits a utility from acquiring ownership of service lines if the utility’s tariff provided for customers to own those lines as of the effective date of Section 1510. Since before 1984, under Columbia’s Commission-approved tariff, customers in Western Pennsylvania own the customer service line from the meter to the point of delivery (curb valve). Consequently, under Section 1510, those customers are responsible for the maintenance and repair of their service lines, and it would be unlawful for Columbia to provide the relief that the Complainant seeks. Furthermore, in recognition that natural gas can result in damage to life and property if not used correctly, the tariff provides gas companies with the right to shut off gas for repairs. These rules are explained in our tariff, which may be found on our website at www.columbiagaspa.com/about-us/tariff-information.Columbia follows strict State and Federal safety regulations in its role as a regulated natural gas distribution company. Consistent with those mandated regulations, Columbia, or one of its contractors, conducts leak surveys on customer-owned service lines. These surveys are required once every three years. Columbia’s records indicate that on August 12, 2015, Columbia’s leak inspector conducted a leakage survey on Mr. [redacted]’s property at 20690 Pennsylvania Avenue West in Warren, Pennsylvania. While conducting this inspection, Columbia discovered leakage on Mr. [redacted]’s customer owned service line and immediately shut off gas service until repairs could be made by a qualified plumber.In instances where leaks of this severity are found, natural gas utilities are required to stop the flow of gas immediately to keep the customer and the community safe. A door hanger was left at Mr. [redacted]’s residence informing him of the situation and the next steps he needed to take in order to restore his gas service.On August 26, 2015, Columbia completed a visit to Mr. [redacted]’s property to see if repairs had been made. The service line had not been repaired and Columbia issued a final bill for $16.75, representing a flat charge that is not based on usage. On September 16, a payment of $16.75 was posted to the account, which now has a zero balance.It should be noted that Mr. [redacted] filed an informal complaint about this matter with the Commission on September 23, 2015, which has been closed. The Commission instructed Mr. [redacted] that he is responsible for the maintenance of his service line and that he would need a qualified plumber to make repairs before gas service can be restored. The Commission also instructed Mr. [redacted] that the $16.75 customer service charge was approved by the Commission in the Company’s tariff.Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact Russell B[redacted] at ###-###-####.Very
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted]. Please add your rejection comments below.
I am not...
necessarily disputing the response. This is the first I've heard of JDT being authorized. I would like some sort of confirmation that when the claims are submitted that they are processed expediently. As well as in the proper date order so my mother gets proper reimbursement and the 100 days are applied in proper date order. I am very concerned with the processing time and the incompetence I have experienced with all of my interactions with John Hancock for the last 10 months. My mother has been at sunrise assisted living for six weeks. I'm very concerned about the monthly billing of this and timely payment moving forward l. As a result of John Hancock's mismanagement of this claim we have had to outlay, so far two months upfront to sunrise out of our own pockets. We have filled out the automatic deposit form which will be put in the mail to John Hancock.
Please confirm that this will become a priority for John Hancock and that these claims will be processed in the proper date order so we receive proper reimbursement for eight months of services we have paid for out-of-pocket Regards,
[redacted]
Please see attachment
I am responding to your letter dated May 5, 2015 regarding the complaint of [redacted].As you know, Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc., (“Columbia” or “the Company”) is a natural gasdistribution utility that is regulated by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“Commission”)....
Columbia'sbusiness practices are governed by the Commission and the Company must follow all Commission rules andregulations, including those that are related to the matter in which Medical Certificates are processed.According to these regulations, covered under 52 Pa. Code, Sections 56.111 through 56.118,termination of utility service can be delayed if a valid Medical Certificates is provided. However, paymentobligations are not suspended by virtue of a Medical Certificate (Section 56.116), and the maximum number ofMedical Certificates per household is limited to three (Section 56.114). Mr. [redacted]’s household hasreached the permitted maximum number of Medical Certificates. Additionally, Mr. [redacted] has not met hisobligation to make payment on all current undisputed bills.Columbia disputes Mr. [redacted]’s allegation that the Company told him that a Medical Certificatewas going through. Rather, when Mr. [redacted] contacted Columbia on May 4, 2015 regarding a MedicalCertificate, the Company informed him that his account would be reviewed by the Columbia department thathandles medical certifications. Upon the completion of that review on May 4, the Company contacted Mr.[redacted] to inform him that a Medical Certificate could not be accepted, since his household had reachedthe maximum allowable number of Certificates.It should be noted that Mr. [redacted] filed an informal complaint about this matter with theCommission on May 5, 2015. Columbia will abide by the Commission’s final determination regarding hiscomplaint.Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact [redacted] at [redacted]Very truly yours,[redacted]
Response is attached. Thank you.