20020605Response to Idaho Power's Answer.pdf

Page 1 of 1
Jean Jewell
From:RALPH STUART [[e-mail]]
Sent:Wednesday,June 05,2002 9:19 AM
To:[e-mail]
Cc:Jean Jewell
Subject:Response to Idaho Answer on complaint by Ralph
There are several items that I would like to address in sequential order:
Item #1 "Factual Background"-You stated that the repair technician did not replace the meter Inspected themeteronMarch1,2002,but did not replace the meter because it had advanced from the previous reading.IftheIdahoPowersuspectedthatthemeterwasmalfunctioning,why was it not replaced immediately?Why wasnotuintilaftermyinquiryon3/10 that the meter ws finallyreplaced on 3/30/02.By your actions,you haveassumedfullresponsibilityforthemalfunctioningmeter,and therefore have no right to rebill for January andFebruary.
Item #1 -page 3 -You stated in the first paragraph that I had been sent a notice advising me that the bills I hadreceivedforJanuaryandFebruaryhadbeencancelledandrebilled.I have no record of such a letter.If such aletterwassent,why was it not attached as an exhibit?
Item#1 -page 3 -para 2 -You stated that on or about March 11 (March 10 to be exact),that I had been advisedthatthemeterhadmalfunctionedandthatIwasadvisedofbeingrebilledforJanuaryandFebruary.I do notrecallanydiscussionaboutbeingrebilledforFebruary,and that the service representative only responded to a
question about my January billing.I had not yet received a February billing.Do you have notes of theconversationtoverify?I made notes that the representativesaid "something about the meter quitting",but she
was unable and unwillingto offer further explanation.She said that meter had been replaced,which it had not.
Item II -Response to allegations -Para 2 -Why did Mr.Lulloff conduct the investigation with my wife since I
am th customer of record and the person who filed the complaint.What verification do you have that the personwhowasinterviewedwasevenmywife?Would you have interviewed my 9 year old daughter simply because
she is aresident of the house?
Item II -Response -para 4 -Rule 313 states by your own document that the customer "Shall be given theOpportunity".I want to emphasize the portion "shall be given".It does not say "only if hey ask".It says "shallbegiven".
All of the discussion after my first paragraph should be moot.Once your service tech chose to not replace themeter,knowing full well that it may be malfunctioningbased upon below normal usage amounts,you therebywaiveanyrightstorebillforpreviousmonths.You,as a company,said everything is okay.You can notinvokeyourownrulesarbitrarily.
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup
6/5/2002