nothing's more suspicious than frog's breath..

[darren_stranger]

(Re-posted with lj-cut for brevity)

Last month, almost all of our regular bills decided to lob in within a couple of weeks of each other, as they do, with a result that we had to prioritise and plan which would be paid out of which fortnight's pay, which would be paid late etc. To avoid confusion, we kept the paid bills handy to avoid double-paying something on the reminder notices, since most were late by some degree by the time we got to them.

Last night we got a bill for the water, which i was sure we'd just sent the cheque off for the night before. So i check the paid bills and, sure enough, there's one for the water. Only thing is, it's for a different amount. The one we'd paid was just over $100, the new one was about $30. Trying to work out what the deal is, i go over both bills, check the dates that they relate to etc, then finally spot the difference - a little asterisk and some fine print referring to the fact that the earlier bill was based on 'estimated' usage.

Now, we've seen this 'estimate' business before, back when we had to read our own meter and mail in a card with the reading written in. If we forgot to get around to it, we'd get an 'estimated' bill, which was always higher than what it should be (part of the incentive to take the reading, no doubt, though they always lied that the higher figure was based on 'current trends' or somesuch). But since they'd installed new meters that could be read without accessing the property, we hadn't expected to see that again.

The next thing i noticed was that the 'estimated' figure, as shown on a graph of the past three quarters (which we'd neglected to look closely at in amongst juggling all the other bills) was 3-4 times what we'd used in the other quarters. What the fuck? It's one thing that they'd sent us the bill without checking the actual reading, but what in hell calculations or trends did they use to 'estimate' that we'd more than tripled our usual usage in the one quarter they didn't check? Especially when the actual figure on the new bill showed something very similar to the previous quarters. Something had a distinctly putrescent bouquet, emanating from the vicinity of the Danish state, with a unique odour that was part fish and part rat.

Today i rang the water company to enquire as to what precisely was the fuck, and the ever so polite customer service operator explained that they had engaged new meter-reading contractors and, as the last contractors hadn't passed on the details of where to find the meters etc, for many houses they were unable to find the meter and get a reading. They said they'd instructed the contractors to overestimate those readings so the customers would query the bill and get in touch, allowing them to update their records. Obviously, they'd made a return visit, found the meter and logged the correct figure by the time the reminder bill was sent. What will happen, she said, was that the extra payment we'd sent would go onto our account as credit against future bills. Is that okay?

Actually, at the risk of being negative, i think not!

We'd like a refund, thankyouverymuch. Why should they keep that $70, which we could really use just about now, for the best part of a year in which it would take us to clock up all that phantom water they'd billed us for? No, we'd like them to send us a cheque for the difference, asap. Sure, no problem, says she, we'll arrange that as soon as the payment is confirmed as received.

Okaaaaay.. so, as seemingly adequate as that outcome is, and as barely plausible the explanation of incompetence and arse-about quick-fixing sounds, some nagging questions remain:

- What the hell sort of strategy is it to notify customers that they couldn't find the meter by overcharging them and hoping they'll notice? They can't leave a card, for fuckssake?

- What if we hadn't paid our bill late and received the updated reminder? Would they even have notified us? Or would they have happily kept our money for the next 9-12 months, earning interest (or otherwise invested) for them instead of us?

- How many others would have not double-checked their bill and just paid up? How many of those that did notice would have been satisfied with the "we'll just put it as credit on your account" line? How many maybe even paid the $30 as well as the $100? Perhaps $70 isn't a lot of money (though we sure could use it this week) but how many people's $70 did they get?

This is bollocks.

Not worth making too much of a stink just yet, i say to myself.

Better to wait until we get that cheque back in our hands and banked before contacting the ombusdman, ACCC and anyone else that ought to know.

Comments

[greylock.livejournal.com]

I'm sure I've said this before in my own journal, but I believe the essence of capitalism is:
Screw 'em for as much as they owe, then screw'em some more and hope that they don't make a fuss.

*sigh*

My own dispute with WaterCorp is bogged down in some inept lacky's in tray somewhere at the moment. The problem is, with as much as as we are having to fork out at the moment, it's damn hard to keep track of it all. *sigh*

[http://users.livejournal.com/raven_/]

*sigh*

Fuckers.

[andricongirl.livejournal.com]

thats a really fucked up way to do things indeed :\
Im glad in our apartment that water is covered by the body corporate or whatever and we dont have to deal with it now.