PENNSYLVANIA-AMERICAN WATER CO

This company is outside the normal domain for Angie's List but I feel I must register a review due to the abysmal service I received. I am in the midst of a dispute with Pennsylvania American Water (PAW). I was threatened with the termination of water service at my property on November 21, 2011 unless I paid PAW the amount of $320.23. PAW had originally billed me $743.82 for water usage. This amount, approximately $700 more than my average monthly payment, was due to a leak detected by PAW. This demand was preceded by a letter explaining that I have a right to appeal to the Pennsylvania Utilities Commission and that no action would be taken by PAW before the appeal process had run its course. That was not the case. PAW charged me for late payments before the Commission had rendered a final decision, even though I made my normal monthly payment for water service (approx $35/month). As background, there was a leak detected on my property on/about August 20, 2011 by a representative from PAW. The excessive amount of water (+88,000 gallons versus a normal 2,500 gallons) was detected during a routine meter reading by PAW. It was determined that the leak was at a point somewhere between the meter (located near the street) and my home. Repairs were done (as was damage to my driveway and yard) over a two week period and water service was restored, although I continue to have excessive water leakage into my backyard and basement, possibly due to repair work exposing an underground spring whose flow cannot be stopped or from an undetected leak in the PAW-maintained line adjacent to my house. I am paying for corrections to this leak situation as I write this complaint. PAW has billed me for over $700 of water usage and has recently given me a credit adjustment for 40% of that amount. The latest bill, with threats of termination of water service, was for $320.23, which I paid November 15, 2011 due to threats of termination of service. I felt that the matter was still under debate for the following reason: I have a waterline protection insurance policy offered by PAW. This insurance, in my opinion, should cover not only repairs but any water lost by PAW during the breakage period. PAW officials and I have argued over the waterline protection policy issue as well as the capability of the customer to detect a leak. Obviously, water percolating to the surface is an indicator, as is water leaking inside the home. However, in my case, the leak was only detected while I was absent from the home and after a routine meter reading revealed a large amount of water passing through the meter. I have asked PAW if the customer can get access to the meter in order to check water usage once a week or so but that request was denied. It seems that PAW is more than willing to allow a leak to occur and charge the customer for this wasted water. Modern technology should allow a company with these resources to monitor a meter remotely and inform the customer if water usage exceeds the norm by some factor. For example, in my case, remote monitoring would have reveal as usage of more than 5,000 gallons, about double my norm. The company could have then alerted me of this apparently excessive usage and I could have then taken action earlier, either by notifying PAW that I believed a leak had occurred or that the usage was expected due to some other factor. This is not the first incident I have had with this company. In November of 2003, I received a water bill that was over twice the amount I had been paying previously. I realized that there was a leak somewhere in the system so I performed a number of in-house checks to determine if my plumbing was the issue. My billing and use history over the period showed that I paid an average of $25 per month prior to the leak and an average of $57 per month after the leak was detected. An analysis of water used showed a similar pattern. The average use in my home prior to November 2003 was about 7000 gallons for the billing period. That amount rose to a high of 22,000 gallons during the November to February 2004 billing period. That was particularly troubling to me because the house was only occupied on the weekends during that period, and the water is always turned off at the main valve in the house when unoccupied. This was verified by PAW technical support service in June 2004. I first reported this leak to PAW on February 28, 2004, when I noticed the increase in my bill. I was sent a Water Leak Detection Kit with two blue tablets which I used as directed, even though I knew there was not a leak in the house. When I received no call back by the end of April from a PAW employee asking about the results of the test, I again contacted the company and asked that more action be taken to determine if the leak was between the meter and my house. Again, no action was taken until June 25, 2004, when digging began and a leak was detected at the meter. I had PAW’s leak protection insurance contract so that repair was done under the contract. This lack of concern over water loss on the PAW’s part indicates to me that the company is not overly concerned with detecting and correcting leak issues, as long as the customer is being billed for the lost water. After the leak was fixed, I received a letter indicating that I would be given a credit of only $26.40 for water leaked during the period in question. By my calculations (using the amount billed versus the normal amount of bill prior to the leak), I was owed a total of $140, so this credit was totally unacceptable. After the leak was fixed, water use (and the corresponding bill) went back to close to the previous average. That was not the end of this sad testimonial to poor customer service. Over the next year, I constantly waged a campaign to have PAW adjust my bill to the proper amount by subtracting the overages charged to me. It was only when I started to mail my payments directly to the corporate headquarters that an adjustment was made. Prior to this action, even an appeal to the company by my local elected Adams County representative to the state legislature on my behalf yielded no response. Now in 2011 PAW has accelerated its threatening posture towards customers, as I have received another threatening letter indicating that my water service will be terminated on December 12th, 2011 due to an unpaid bill of $83.09. I never received a bill for $83.09. I received a bill for $135.06 and I paid a portion of that bill on November 27th in the amount of $113.16, subtracting late fees that had been added to the August bill for excessive water ($743.82). In summary, I have been billed for $743.82 when the leak occurred. I have been given a credit for $284.13 (much less than I deserve), which leaves a remainder of $459.69. I have made payments of $45.33, $320.23, and $113.16 for a total of $478.72. Common sense would indicate that I do not deserve another threatening letter demanding a payment of $83.09. Under what accounting system does PAW arrive at that amount? PAW has been adamant over the past few years in appealing to the PUC for rate increases. Most of those increases have been moderated by the PUC and rightly so, as PAW is a monopoly. This company is not customer focused and is very arbitrary in handling disputes. Water is not something that should be withheld from a customer in such a subjective fashion. I others to go on record as opposing any future PAW rate increase until the company changes its business practices.