GPL needs a mature person to handle complaints
Consumer Concerns
By Eileen Cox
Stabroek News
April 17, 2004
With the announcement that Guyana Power & Light (GPL) had lost its appeal against the decision of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) with regard to an action brought by three companies, many consumers believed that automatically they would be entitled to a refund of payments made as Miscellaneous Charges. This is not so. The complaints made by the companies were in relation to the multiplier used by GPL to arrive at the charges for electricity consumed by these companies over a period of time.
In its decision the Court of Appeal states:
"...the multiplier used to determine the charges for electricity consumed is a method or formula which should have been disclosed to the companies. However, over the years the Respondents have accepted and paid bills based on a multiplier of 240 which seems never to have been questioned. It was explained at the hearings of the PUC by Mr McElroy, an official of the Appellant company that the recordings on the meters are controlled by current transformers and this seems to have been the accepted position. The problem arose when the Appellants (the GPL) sought to increase the multiplier to 480 from 240 based on their alleged computer error."
It is easy to appreciate the reason for the dismissal of the appeal by the Court of Appeal. Companies cannot retroactively claim that errors were made in their billing and call on customers to pay a difference. If this were allowed then no purchase would be completed after payment. A consumer makes a purchase at a store and at any time later he could be billed for an additional amount because the store made an error in calculating the price of the commodity. Consumers would never be at ease.
As this appeal had to do with an error in billing, it is not on all fours with the charge, erroneously referred to by GPL as a 'Miscellaneous Charge.' Therefore consumers cannot use this decision to claim a refund of the sums paid by them as 'Miscellaneous Charge.'
The Guyana Consumers Association has discussed Miscellaneous Charges with the management of GPL, pointing out that it is a misnomer and faulty. This charge was used by GPL where it was ascertained that a meter was malfunctioning. An agreement has been reached that GPL will discontinue billing for Miscellaneous Charge but will monitor the electricity consumption when a new meter is installed and will then determine whether the customer is due for a refund or additional charges.
There is a problem here. Some consumers with new meters have reported that the meters are spinning very quickly. Customers have to be satisfied that the meters are calibrated and functioning correctly.
There is the other case of unauthorised tampering or interference with a meter. The Standard Terms and Conditions of the supplier's licence "makes provision for unauthorised tampering or interference with a meter, and gives the supplier the right to estimate the unrecorded consumption for a retrospective period of twenty-four months."
We understand from GPL that the charges they impose when unauthorised tampering is discovered date back to one year. Yet it is impossible to understand how these amounts are calculated. Consumers need to understand the process and be satisfied with it. Let us look at a few complaints:
A consumer complains that her normal bill varies between $8,000 and $9,000 per month. She is now accused of tampering. Her appliances are few yet she is accused of tampering and required to pay the sum of $169,000. In fact she seems to be over-billed.
Another consumer has a small grocery with two freezers. She uses electric lighting only in the day. Her bill is $18,000 to $20,000 per month. This consumer also is accused of unauthorised tampering and asked to pay the sum of $229,000. It seems that she has been over-charged. How could she be accused of tampering? Would anyone tamper in favour of the supplier?
It serves no purpose to appeal to the officers at GPL whose duty it is to receive complaints. Parrot-like they say, "You have to pay." Some time ago there was a senior official who did pay serious attention to complaints. He is no longer in place and no one has been appointed as a replacement. It is our contention that the officers handling complaints are young and inexperienced and automatically repeat the phrase "You have to pay."
An example can be given. A student complained that he rented an apartment and had few appliances. The previous tenant consumed approximately 200 units per month. This student was receiving estimated bills based on the previous consumption.
His appeals to three or more officers at GPL met with the usual retort. The matter was taken to the General Manager of GPL who immediately understood that this was a genuine error.
Do we have to take all complaints to the General Manager or will a mature and experienced person be appointed to handle complaints?