|
Arlene Rescigno of Rye wasn't in her best mood after July's scorching heat left her without power for five days and caused $575 worth of food in her freezer and refrigerator to go bad.
But at least, she thought, Consolidated Edison Inc. would reimburse her for $299.15, the value of the food for which she had grocery store receipts.
The company turned down Rescigno's request, telling her in a form letter that under the company's agreement with the state she was not eligible for reimbursement. That agreement requires the company to provide reimbursements to customers who lose food due to outages caused by malfunctions in its equipment, but not for losses caused by storms or other events beyond the company's control.
Rescigno said that though a Con Edison representative later told her over the phone she was denied by mistake and that the company would take another look at her request, she has lost her trust in the giant utility company.
Her sentiments are typical of those of many other Con Edison customers who sought reimbursement for the meat, milk, vegetables and frozen foods they lost in this year's power outages. These customers thought the check was in the mail but instead got a letter from the company's law department telling them they would not get paid.
"I don't think they ever intended to honor it," said Rescigno, an office manager who prides herself on her never-back-down attitude. "I think they thought they'd lump us (customers who lost power due a a storm and those who lost power due to malfunctions) all together and save some money. No, I don't think it was an honest mistake."
Claims under review
Figures from Con Edison show 4,345 people submitted food spoilage claims since the summer heat wave and storms. The company has approved 490 of those, said Chris Olert, a spokesman for the Manhattan-based company.
Olert acknowledged there could have been some customers denied by mistake.
"That's what we're reviewing. We're reviewing that. I can't say for certain," he said. "They could have had a legitimate problem with our equipment."
Olert noted that storms in the region hit during the heat wave, making it difficult in some instances to determine whether the outage was caused by an equipment failure or a storm.
"Our equipment failures overlapped with some weather events (storms)," he said. "If there was some confusion we apologize for that confusion."
More than 200 of those who have been denied complained to County Executive Andrew Spano or the county's Consumer Protection Department, said John Gaccione, a consumer protection spokesman. Many others wrote to their state or county legislator or their local government.
But comments by customers at public meetings and in interviews and e-mails show the giant, iconic utility company has some work to do in repairing trust with customers who felt burned when they were denied reimbursement for food that went bad.
Some customers, like Rescigno, appear to have been turned down by mistake. Rescigno said the Con Edison representative told her that many people who lost power due to the heat were mistakenly identified as having lost power due to a storm.
Others were rightfully denied, because their outages were caused by storms, not equipment failures brought on by the summer heat.
But the basic assumption of many customers who were denied is that the company purposely misled them into thinking they would be reimbursed.
"Everybody thinks they were misled," said Martin Kramer, a retiree from New Rochelle who lost $350 in food and says his power went out because of the heat on July 18."It had nothing to do with the storm. It was just hot and we lost our power here in the north end of New Rochelle and then everybody got this letter saying they were denied. They just try to wear you down."
He said he suspects that many of his neighbors threw their denial letters in the trash and gave up but he is still pursuing reimbursement.
Sense of powerlessness
Kramer said he understood that only those affected by heat-related outages would get reimbursed and he believes that's fair.
"I can't blame Con Ed if my tree falls on their line," he said.
But he said there's a sense of powerlessness.
"It's just a hardship for people," he said. "Us poor little schnooks are running up against these big guys."
In fact, there is great disincentive for Con Edison to intentionally mislead customers. The company is heavily regulated and can face monetary penalties for providing poor service.
And the chances of getting away with anything nefarious would seem slim, especially given the intense scrutiny the company has been under starting in July when a heat wave and storms knocked customers out of service for days.
But that is a hard sell with customers.
Rescigno said she called the company after getting her denial letter and spoke to someone in the executive offices and then with a member of the public relations staff. She is convinced that only her persistence convinced the company to take a second look at her claim.
She said she told the company she would stop paying her bill and encourage her friends and neighbors to do the same.
Marjorie Gross of Scarsdale said she submitted two requests, one for $150 for food she lost during a heat-caused outage Aug. 2 and 3, and one for $350 for food that spoiled during a three-day outage in July caused by a storm.
She said she spoke with Con Ed on the phone before submitting the claims and the representatives never mentioned that storm outages did not qualify, she said.
"They were crystal clear about the fact that if you had perishables in the refrigerator and if you were out for a certain amount of time, you would get reimbursed," she said.
'They made promises'
Asked whether she thought she was denied because of an honest mix-up or because the company tried to take advantage of her, she said: "I feel like they're trying to put one over on us. I think they made promises at the time to pacify the uproar over Con Ed."
Some customers and political leaders have complained about the form the company provides for customers to fill out if they want to get reimbursed for food, saying it does not adequately explain that only those who lost money due to outages caused by equipment failures will get reimbursed.
The form, which is available on the company's Web site or through the mail, says an outage "must have resulted from a failure in Con Edison's local distribution system."
"I figured if it said 'Local distribution system' that 'It's your power and I didn't get any,' " Rescigno said. "There's no need for them to put a lot of jargon in there."
David Flanagan, a spokesman for the PSC, said last week that Con Edison was drafting new language for the form to make it clear that the company does not provide reimbursements for all outages. The PSC will review that language, he said.
Kevin Burke, Con Edison's chairman, chief executive and president, said Sept. 28 during a meeting with the editorial board of The Journal News that he would personally exam On the Web
For sample letters sent seeking reimbursement for food spoilage to Con Ed as well as the company's response:
www.lohud.com/business.
- The company's reimbursement policies: www.coned.com/customercentral/lawclaims.asp
- The company's agreement with the state relating to reimbursement:
www.coned.com/customercentral/brochures/062A-064.pdf
ine the form to make sure it was clear. As of Friday, there had been no change in the language on the form, according to the version on the company Web site.
Olert said that review is still taking place.
|
