Jump to content



Photo

Woman Billed 25 Years For Street Lights

connecticut $10 k plus

  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Hum

Hum

    totally wAcKed

  • 63,498 posts
  • Joined: 05-October 03
  • Location: Odder Space
  • OS: Windows XP, 7

Posted 15 August 2012 - 22:35

Of all the secrets buried beneath the earth on Sir Walter Drive in Cheshire, the last thing Grace Edwards expected to find was an explanation for her unusually high electricity bills.

It wasn't a computer, an extra refrigerator or television, as Connecticut Light & Power had suggested years ago, or a central air-conditioning system or even a whirlpool.

For 25 years, Edwards has been paying for the underground electricity that powers two street lights illuminating a subdivision of maybe half a dozen houses at the end of her street.

Edwards finally received a check for $10,491, and an apology, last Friday from CL&P, a triumph for a woman who says she was told initially by both the utility company and, remarkably, the state agency that regulates utility rates and services that the overbilling was her problem, not theirs.

"CL&P said it was always on the bill and up to me to inform them of the mistake," Edwards says. "I said, 'How could I inform you of something I didn't know about?'"

She later found out she had been paying about $20 a month extra. Until the end, Edwards couldn't break the code of her monthly utility bill that included listings for "9500 Lumen HP Sodium" and "6300 Lumen HP Sodium."

"It has no more relevance to me than any other line items on the bill," she says.

Edwards only became suspicious after a prospective buyer of her home recently requested a history of utility costs. When CL&P emailed her the past statements, she noticed the monthly charges were less than her actual costs. That's when she called CL&P, which told her the difference was the power for the two street lights.

The two street lights?

The builder of the subdivision, who lived in the Sir Walter Drive home before selling it to Edwards and her now-deceased husband, apparently had agreed to pay for the street lights' power. Yet somehow those charges remained after the house was sold and the builder moved to another house on the street.

"I told [CL&P] it was their mistake for putting the charges on the wrong account," says Edwards, "and that I should have been told about them when I called to arrange for service for the house 25 years ago. It was CL&P's mistake not to transfer the fee to the builder's new billing when he moved to another address."

CL&P agreed to remove the lights from Edwards' bill but refused to reimburse her, suggesting she negotiate with the town of Cheshire. Edwards then contacted the state Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, or PURA, hoping for a sympathetic ear and a resolution.

"They were very rude," Edwards says. "I get this customer-service representative who says, 'It's up to you to figure it out.' I said, 'How would I be able to figure it out? It's just embedded in the bill.'"

"It is standard practice for staff of the PURA Consumer Services Unit to advise callers that it is best if they first attempt to resolve any disputes directly with the utility company before PURA staff gets involved," says spokesman Dennis Schain. "We understand the frustration Ms. Edwards must have been feeling and regret if she found that dismissive in any way."

full story


#2 Buttus

Buttus

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,364 posts
  • Joined: 07-September 05

Posted 15 August 2012 - 22:45

that must have been some funky wiring! to run from the transformer to her meter, then to the streetlights? that guy needs to get his license taken away

unless she was just being billed a flat rate per light? that makes more sense now that i think about it...

#3 Growled

Growled

    Neowinian Senior

  • 41,508 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 08
  • Location: USA

Posted 16 August 2012 - 00:15

And it only took 25 years to get things straightened out. Amazing.

#4 Simon-

Simon-

    Neowinian Senior

  • 10,724 posts
  • Joined: 04-November 02

Posted 16 August 2012 - 00:35

What is truly disgusting is that the utility company knew about this, it was on the actual bill and accountable. It was not funky wiring. They could have bothered to explain the items on the bill when this first started and this wouodn't have happened. I'm glad she got the charges back with interest, but I don't think that's enough. They should also be compensating her for the undue financial burdon, time spend investigating the bill at consultant rates, mental anguish having to deal with their ineptness, etc. and get another $10,000.

That woukd set a precedent for organisations to hire staff with critical thinking skills who can look at a customer enquiry with a mundset to find if there is really a problem rather than accept everything they see as automatically correct. A major problem in society. I had a someone from the council treat me like that yesterday.

#5 linsook

linsook

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,652 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 01

Posted 16 August 2012 - 00:46

that must have been some funky wiring! to run from the transformer to her meter, then to the streetlights? that guy needs to get his license taken away

unless she was just being billed a flat rate per light? that makes more sense now that i think about it...


it wasn't directly wired to her house. it was just added onto her bill, thats why their was discrepancy when she saw her actual cost of usage compared to her bill which was usage + lights .

#6 Detection

Detection

    Detecting stuff...

  • 8,369 posts
  • Joined: 30-October 10
  • Location: UK
  • OS: 7 SP1 x64

Posted 16 August 2012 - 00:52

And it only took 25 years to get things straightened out. Amazing.


25 years to work out what "9500 Lumen HP Sodium" and "6300 Lumen HP Sodium." meant? (And before this news article was posted online I'm sure Google would have explained a lot)

I'm sure in 25 years she would have told someone who had at least the IQ of a peanut...