BBB Logo

Better Business Bureau ®
Start With Trust®

BBB Business Review

What is a BBB Business Review?

Consumer Complaints

BBB Accredited Business since 07/01/1930

FirstEnergy (Headquarters)

Phone: (800) 646-0400Fax: (330) 436-4377

BBB Business Reviews may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.

Customer Complaints Summary

583 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 194 closed in last 12 months
Complaint TypeTotal Closed Complaints
Advertising / Sales Issues33
Billing / Collection Issues242
Delivery Issues3
Guarantee / Warranty Issues2
Problems with Product / Service303
Total Closed Complaints583

Complaint Breakdown by ResolutionAbout Complaint Details

Complaint Resolution Log (583)BBB Closure Definitions
06/20/2014Billing / Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint Category: Improper collection practices

Complaint: Company completing disconnections after normal business hours. Services disconnected on Friday after 5pm cannot be restored until Monday.
Residential services disconnected on Friday at 7:30 pm. Attempted to contact customer service after being informed by a relative of the outage while out of town on a business assignment. Representative informed me that there was no way to resolve the matter until Monday morning during normal business hours. As a result, all of my frozen food will thaw and spoil in my home costing me a significant amount to replace it. Other states, New York for example, have policies against these practices barring a utility from disconnecting services during non-working hours. It is unethical and a poor business policy to disconnect a customer's services and not afford them the opportunity to resolve the matter for over two days. There should be an immediate change in policy.

Initial Business Response
Company records indicate Mr. ***** electric service was disconnected for non-payment on 5/30/14 at 11:54 AM.

On 5/31/14 (Saturday) at 1:25 PM, Mr. ***** called the Company for service restoration and was advised he would need to call the Company's credit department at 1-800-686-9901 during regular business hours.

Company records indicate the customer paid $555.62 via the Company's website on 6/2/14 at 10:16 AM.

6/2/14 - reconnection order was created and service was restored at the customer's property on 6/2/14 at 8:48 PM.

The Company followed all regulations regarding disconnection and restoration of service at the customer's property.

Complaint Resolution: Company addressed the complaint issues. The consumer failed to acknowledge acceptance to BBB.

06/17/2014Billing / Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint Category: Failure to correct billing errors

Complaint: Huge bill rec'vd!
Last month I received a bill from First energy for $1,120.00. Obviously I was blown away. I called them and they stated that since the winter was so bad they couldn't get out to read the meter. They stated that when they did read the meter my bill should have been about $600-$700 a month. That is outrageous! I tried talking to several different people and they all told me it was under estimated and they couldn't do anything about it. This month I get a bill that is "estimated" for $560. I read my meter and they over estimated my reading by about 3000 kw. My bill was only supposed to be $160!! I am now wondering how many of these outrageous bills I have paid that weren't correct.

Initial Business Response
Meters are read bi monthly, absent unforeseen circumstances, which prevents us from reading a meter on the scheduled month. If this occurs the billing would be issued on an estimated usage calculation, as approved in rules and regulation and when the meter is read any un billed usage not billed with the estimated bill is billed and/or any over estimated usage would be credited. Customer's have the option of supplying a meter reading on the estimated months to avoid being estimated. The next read date and reading instructions are included on the bill each month.

In reviewing the customer's consumption history for the past 4 months (December 2013 - April 2014), I have determined there has been one scheduled meter readings that we were unable to obtain: February 2014 due to weather. This location is coded total electric. From 12/2013 to 04/2014 used 18, 833 kWh in 122 days or 154 kWh per day average. Previous customer from November 2012 to March 2013 used 19,055 kWh in 120 days or 159 kWh per day average.

There are several conditions that can impact customer usage. For example, January, February and March are traditionally higher electric usage months due to customers heating their homes. Similarly June, July and August are high electricity months due to the added use of air conditioning and fans to cool the home. Customer may want to perform a breaker tester or contact a local electrician to have an energy audit completed on their home to assist in determining what appliances or areas of the home is contributing to the most usage.

Bills are correct as rendered.

Complaint Resolution: Company addressed the complaint issues. The consumer failed to acknowledge acceptance to BBB.

06/16/2014Problems with Product / Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint Category: Improper or inferior service

Complaint: Electric shutoff with no shut-off notice. CSR not helpful and refused to put me in contact with the ************ office or a supervisor.
On 5/27/14 my wife got to our house and realized the electric had been shut-off. This was a surprise to us as we thought our account was current. I haven't received any mail, bills or even a shutoff notice from *******. My wife called to ask why our power was off. The customer service rep stated our payment was late, so my wife paid in full. He alleged that they have sent two shut-off notices, which if true, we did not receive them. He then advised her that they would turn the power back on within 24-72 hours. I then called back to try and resolve this issue. The rep I spoke with (*****************) was extremely unhelpful. She refused to put me in touch with my local office or her supervisor. She said that they sent us a bill and this is not her problem.

We have a nine month old and a refrigerator full of food that is now going to waste. This is not an issue of not paying, but poor communication on the part of *******. If I am not getting bills they send, that is an issue that I will take up with the USPS, but I expect as a customer of ******* to be treated better than this. Furthermore I thought that it was law that they had to physically post a shut-off notice on your door. Even if they did mail it, as they said they did, we still should have received one on our front door in advance of any shut-off. We did not.

To recap, all we really wanted was to be able to speak to a supervisor or someone in our hometown office to get our service restored in a TIMELY manner. The call center reps I spoke with (*****************) was rude and did not make attempt to help me resolve this issue. If we had an option for electricity we would definitely be seeking a new service provider.

Initial Business Response
Contact Name and Title: Compliance
Good Afternoon,
Below is the company response regarding dispute #******** filed by **************.

As a matter of background:
A termination notice was mailed on 04/22/14 dated for 05/06/14 in the amount of $107.60. The company has no record of the mail being returned undeliverable. A 72-hour contact was attempted by phone at 10:36am on 04/29/14 (left message) and at 5:01pm on 04/30/14 (left message).

Customer had a total past due in the amount of $216.17 and a current of $110.15 due 06/02/14, totaling $326.32.

On 05/27/14, service was terminated for non-payment.

On 05/27/14, Mrs. ******** contacted the company regarding the restoration of service. The customer advised they had not received a bill in some time. The customer is enrolled in the company's Ebill program where the customer receives their billings online. However, termination notices are still mailed. The termination notice was mailed on 04/22/14. The company has no record of returned mail. The representative verified the address is correct. The customer paid the restoration amount of $139.60 ($107.60 termination amount + $32 reconnect fee) and the order to restore the service was processed. Customer was advised that service would be restored on or before 05/30/14. Mrs. ******** satisfied.

On 05/27/14, Mr. ******** contacted the company back and requested to know the exact time that service would be restored. The representative advised that the company makes every effort to restore as soon as possible; however, the service restoration time frame is on or before 05/30/14. Mr. ******** requested to speak to the local office who performs the reconnection. The company representative advised could not transfer to that local office. All calls are taken through the contact call center. Verbal rights (PUC rights) provided to customer.

Service was restored on 05/28/14 at 9:58am.



The termination of service on 05/27/14 was valid.

The customer is enrolled in the company Ebill program. Through this program, the customer elected to receive their billings online. The billings have been issued online. However, the termination notices are still mailed. A termination notice was mailed on 04/22/14 dated for 05/06/14 in the amount of $107.60. The company has no record of the mail being returned undeliverable. A 72-hour contact was attempted by phone at 10:36am on 04/29/14 (left message) and at 5:01pm on 04/30/14 (left message).

Under PA Regulation 56.191, the company has 3 calendar days to restore a customer's service once the restoration amount has been paid and the order printed. The company makes every effort to restore as soon as possible; however, does have the 3 calendar day time frame. The customer paid the restoration and the order to restore the service was processed on 05/27/14. The customer's service was restored on 05/28/14.

The representative followed procedure on 05/27/14 when advising the customer that she could not connect the customer's call to that local office. All telephone calls are taken and handled by the company contact call center, which is where the customer called and spoke to the representative. The customer's concern regarding the representative being rude will be forwarded to a company Supervisor so that the call can be reviewed/listened to and action handled as appropriate.

Complaint Resolution: Company addressed the complaint issues. The consumer failed to acknowledge acceptance to BBB.

05/27/2014Billing / Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint Category: None of the Above - Credit, Billing or Collection Complaint Issue

Complaint: Unfair RTO Expense Charge of $15.
Currently I'm in a fixed energy contract price with First Energy Solutions and Met-Ed (local power suppliers), both First Energy Companies. On 4/15/14 I received a notice that because of January 2014 being a cold month First Energy Solutions was going to bill me $15 in a RTO Expense Surcharge. Since November 2013 this charge has been disallowed by the PA PUC and shouldn't be allowed in contracts implemented before that date. This fee is unjust and unwarranted and shouldn't be allowed, along with any other hidden fees/expenses that First Energy tries to pass along to unsuspecting consumers on their grid.

Initial Business Response
The notice regarding the RTO Expense Charge was sent from First Energy Solutions not Met-Ed.

Documentation does not indicate customer called Met-Ed regarding the RTO Expense Charge of $15.00. At this point, records do not indicate the $15.00 charge was applied on customer's account.

Met-Ed has no control over the amount a supplier charges for their rates. Third Party Suppliers and the Electric Distribution Utility are completely independent from each other. Customer's dispute is regarding alternate supplier.

Final Business Response
May 8, 2014



Dear Ms. *****,


This letter is FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.'s (FES) response to your inquiry regarding the above-referenced Case ID Number. This residential customer's complaint concerned receiving a "Pass-Through Event" notification from FES.

Recently, FirstEnergy Solutions announced that it will waive the "Pass-Through Event" surcharge for all residential customers. Therefore, the subject complaint is no longer an issue and should be dismissed.


Thank you,


Complaint Resolution: Company addressed the complaint issues. The consumer failed to acknowledge acceptance to BBB.

05/23/2014Problems with Product / Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I've been using Penelec First Energy Corp since I started my lease at a two bedroom apartment in late September 2013. I work a lot and am rarely there so I don't use a lot of electricity. The only appliance that runs constantly is my refirgiorator. I didn't run any air conditioners in the summer and had one small electric heater I only ran over night in the winter. I never leave lights or appliances on and am very conscious with wasting electricity. My electric bills for the first six months were all right around 60-80 dollars which I never thought to be an issue. However the months of February and March my bills tripled in energy consumption and went to over 300 and 400 dollars in each month. I didn't make any changes in what was running in my house. I called both penelec and first energy. Penelec was not helpful at all and referred me to first energy. At least the gentlemen I spoke to at first energy was helpful. He explained that it was penelec, not their company that was at fault and I needed to talk with them. He also pointed out he couldn't believe how big of an increase my kilowatt usage was and unless I started doing something drastically different he had no idea how they could have the correct reading.

Initial Business Response
The customer established service at this location effective 09/05/13.
The customer enrolled with an alternate supplier, First Energy Solutions, effective 09/26/13. Their rate has been $0.07485849.
In accordance with Chapter 56.12(2)(3). The company may estimate usage every other month. The company has read the meter as scheduled at this location. The customer has the option of providing a customer meter reading every other month to keep the bills more consistent.
The company utilizes two methods of estimation to calculate usage when the meter is not read. One method is Linear Weighting estimation, which is based off of the usage from the same period the prior year and the next method is Enhanced estimation, which is based off of the usage the prior year "or" the prior month, plus a weather correcting factor. Most residential customers are calculated with Enhanced estimation. The method chosen is an automated process. If under or overestimated, the usage is caught and billed/corrected with the next actual reading.
The 11/22/13 billing was estimated as scheduled to $33.22 (210 kWh). The meter was read as scheduled on 12/24/13, this reading picked up any difference from estimate. This bill was 626 kWh for $82.60. The total consumption used from 10/24/13 reading to 12/24/13 reading was 836 kWh for 61 days for an average of 13.7 kWh per day.
The 01/23/14 billing was estimated as scheduled to $57.14 (419 kWh). The meter was read as scheduled on 02/24/14, this reading picked up any difference from the previous estimate. This was 3416 kWh $393.20. The total consumption from 12/24/13 reading to 02/24/14 reading was a total of 3835 kWh for 62 days an average of 61.8 kWh per day.
The 03/24/14 billing was estimate as scheduled to $207.93 (1765 kWh). The meter was read as scheduled 04/23/14, the bill was $104.94 (848 kWh). From 02/24/14 reading to 04/23/14 reading the total consumption was 2613 kWh for 58 days an average of 45 kWh per day.
This location is listed as non-electric heating but the customer has indicated a space heater was being used during the nights in the winter. The consumption is going to increase due to the electric space heaters being used. The company read the meter bi-monthly as scheduled and the new readings confirms the meter has continued to advance and the consumption is being used. The bills are correct as rendered.

Complaint Resolution: Company addressed the complaint issues. The consumer failed to acknowledge acceptance to BBB.

Page 1 of 87
06/19/2014Billing / Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint Category: None of the Above - Credit, Billing or Collection Complaint Issue

Complaint: They have charged me $506.00 for a security deposit because I was late on paying my electric bill several times. Very hard to pay on exact date.
I have always paid, if I get a termination notice, I always pay. Its not fair to put this added charge on. They definity over charge for they services. They definity know we all need electric. And we don't need any added charges when it is hard enough to pay the original bill.

Initial Business Response
Contact Name and Title: Compliance
Good Morning,

A total of $506 is the security deposit requirement for this address. The company routinely evaluates the credit standing and financial stability of the company's customers. As a result of the analysis the company determined that the customer's account was not adequately secured. The customer has consistently not paid in a timely manner and has had termination notices issued. Therefore, in compliance with the commission's rules and regulations and the company's tariffs, the company mailed the security deposit intent letter to the customer and then billed the security deposit.

As a matter of background:
On 07/18/12, a security deposit intent letter was issued to the customer advising that if the customer continued to pay after the due date a security deposit would be assessed.

As well as late payments, a termination notice was issued on 07/31/12, 08/30/12, 10/01/12, 11/12/12, 12/28/12, 01/31/13, 03/01/13, and 04/02/13.

On the 04/29/13 billing, the security deposit was billed.

On 05/30/13, the company agreed to waive the security deposit on a one time basis with the understanding that future late payments would result in the security deposit being reassessed.

The customer continued to pay late. On 12/18/13, a security deposit intent letter was issued to the customer advising that if the customer continued to pay after the due date a security deposit would be assessed.

The customer continued to pay late and had a termination notice issued on 04/30/14.

On the 05/21/14 billing, the security deposit in the amount of $506 was assessed.

On 05/23/14, the customer contacted the company and requested to have the security deposit waived. The representative advised that the security deposit would not be waived a second time.

The security deposit requirement is valid and stands due. The company is willing to split the $506 deposit in three installments of $253, $126.50 and $126.50. The customer would need to contact the company regarding security deposit installments. The deposit is refundable, with interest, after payment by the due date of twelve consecutive monthly bills or at the end of the two-year retention period, whichever first occurs.


Initial Consumer Rebuttal

Complaint Resolution: BBB determined that despite the company's reasonable effort to address complaint issues, the consumer remained dissatisfied.

05/30/2014Problems with Product / Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint Category: None of the Above - Repair Complaint Issue

Complaint: Penelec aka first energy surged all customers on my block and destroyed some of our electronic equipment. Filed a claim but they said no way.
Neighbors and I received a surge from them doing upgrades to our lines on April 1 st 2014. They destroyed some of my electronics due to the surge and even cause a small fire at one newborns house. We filed a complaint but they said it wasn't their fault and they can't guarantee our service at anytime. So pretty much they are allowed to damage our equipment without being liable.? Really?

Initial Business Response
The customer contacted Penelec 4/1/14 to report voltage problem at the property. Trouble ticket ********* was created and sent to the field. Customer satisfied.

4/15/14 - **** ***** contacted our office to report damages. Customer states power surge on 4/8/14 and found some items damaged. An internal communication was issued to the Claims department. Customer will be notified. Customer satisfied.

Our investigating regional personnel report that the incident the customer experienced on April 1, 2014, resulted during the upgrading of facilities. Penelec raised the secondary line to a new height and a spark occurred when the secondary neutral was reattached. According to the supervisor and crew, at no time was the secondary neutral separated and the neutral is bonded at all locations to the pole grounds that feed this 3 span of secondary. All work was conducted according to standard operating procedures.

As a result of the investigation conducted in this matter, there is no evidence of any improper conduct on the part of Penelec or its employees. Damage claim denied. 4/17/14 a letter was mailed to the customer. We have attached a copy/section of Penelec tariff approved by the PUC

Initial Consumer Rebuttal
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Penelec,

Than you for your four years of great service. SO far any issues I have had have been quickly resolved.

Thank you for rapid response. This is nothing new. It is the same exact response you gave me before. I attached a photo of one of the surge protectors that were damaged during the surge.

All of my surge protectors received the same fate that day, a smokey death. The particular one in the photo was smoking and sparked when moved, and could have potentially caused a fire. Had I not come home early for lunch that day my house could have caught fire because I would not have been able to unplug everything as it was starting to spark and smoke.

Although it is in your policy that you are allowed to damage customers personal property because everything went as planned and nothing is your fault, I am still left with the bill of replacing:
6 surge protectors $120
1 APC Battery Backup UPS $200
1 Garage door opener $250
1 culligan water tank power supply $50
1 Carbon Monoxide Detector $25

That must have been a huge spark! I am just Happy I had all those surge protectors because otherwise it would have been thousands in damage.

The best part about it is When I talked to the nice lady on the phone about my claim, she said something funny: when this kinda thing happens the garage door opener always goes. Indicating that it does happen and you do damage personal property.

I have learned from this experience that I need to better protect my stuff from companies that provide a service like this and have no responsibility (or compassion) to the customer.

Please tell you service technicians that did come out that day that I did appreciate their kindness and fast response, there were very courteous and very informative.

Complaint Resolution: BBB determined that despite the company's reasonable effort to address complaint issues, the consumer remained dissatisfied.

05/20/2014Billing / Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint Category: Improper collection practices

Complaint: Improper and inhuman policies regarding non-payment of due bill
I arrived home on the 29th of April with a see thru plastic bag hanging on my door with an ill copied statement to the effect that my electric was cut off because I did not pay my bill.
I tried to pay it online but my online account was cut off too. They said they left 2 messages (only 2!)in my answering machine though I do not recall getting them. In their feeble mind, that was enough for them to go ahead and cut my power off regardless of the inconvenience and the food that spoiled in the fridge. This mindset is no different than *******, a woman in New Zealand who died after her power was cut off because she was UNABLE to pay her electric bill.The technician told them he was "doing his job, he's here to cut the power off."
it makes you wonder how the technician feel right now for following blindly orders that are affront to the very lives of people the electric companies claim to care so much about. Penelec has my home and work number, it has my email address, and considering the grave consequences of cutting power off that we depend so much upon,you would think that calling me directly at work and speaking to me in person would be warranted. But how can they if their unquestioned M.O. is cutting people off becomes the norm? This is a dehumanizing act that belongs in the middle ages. In has no regard for human beings and their circumstances. If Penelec cared so much as they show in their advertising, if they really wanted to make a difference, they should find the real reasons why people are not paying their bills. They treated me as if I was REFUSING to pay as if by defiance. Their notice on my door was punitive, dehumanizing, and a complete lack of respect for human dignity. If the notice on my door had said instead that I had the next day to pay my bill, rest assured I would have paid it without delay and thanked them for reminding me.
Considering the seriousness of this issue, calling and leaving generic messages is not enough. It's a poor way to get my attention and I would not be surprised many people share my sentiment.If I was sick like ******* and I told the technician that I would die if he cut off my power, he would care less. He is like being in the Milgram experiment, blindly following the authority of Penelec no matter what the human cost.


















Initial Business Response
As a matter of background:

On 4/14/14, A residential termination notice was issued with disconnection date of 4/29/14.

On 4/22/14 11:51am, The Company attempted to reach customer by phone. Left message.

On 4/23/14 5:01pm, The Company attempted to reach customer by phone. Left message.

On 4/29/14, Service was disconnected due to nonpayment of bill.

On 4/29/14, Customer called regarding disconnection of service. Customer paid $246.07 electronically and a reconnection order was created.

Later that day, Customer advised he had not been receiving Company's emails. The representative verified email address and advised customer to check his spam.

As shown above, The termination notice was issued and company attempted two 3 day phone attempts. No record of any returned mail.

Immediately preceding termination of service, the Company representative who is designated to perform the termination shall attempt to make personal contact with the customer at the service location. When the service is shut off, a Post Termination Notice must be conspicuously posted at the property.


Initial Consumer Rebuttal
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
"Immediately preceding termination of service, the Company representative who is designated to perform the termination shall attempt to make PERSONAL CONTACT with the customer at the service location"

PERSONAL CONTACT, PERSONAL CONTACT, PERSONAL CONTACT, DID I SAY PERSONAL CONTACT? There was no personal contact BEFORE turning off my electricity! And why didn't PennElec call me at work? I spend most of my life there!! And you had my number!!

PennElec's response is hopelessly generic, overly concerned with rigid rules and procedure hence impersonal. The meaning of "empathy" does not make it's presences felt in their response to my complaint and therefore I see no reason to continue with this charade. They go on the defensive making their claims and fail miserably in LISTENING to my concerns regarding the WAY in which they deal with people who have trouble paying their bill. They NEVER ask WHY. They NEVER show genuine CONCERN but instead follow ridged orders without question.



Complaint Resolution: BBB determined that despite the company's reasonable effort to address complaint issues, the consumer remained dissatisfied.

05/18/2014Guarantee / Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint Category: Failure to honor service under the terms of warranties

Complaint: First Energy used deceitful and fraudulent tactics in selling me their coverage plan and is refusing to honor their promises.
I was sold the "Line Protection Program" by First Energy. Specifically, I purchased the "Interior Electrical Line Protection Plan." When determining whether to purchase the plan, I raised concerns that I have an older home that does not have electrical wiring up to local codes. The representative at First Energy assured me that my house would be covered with respect to all electrical wiring problems. This included any work necessary to bring the electrical wiring up to local codes. In reliance on his representations, I agreed to purchase to the plan.

I recently put in a work order to have First Energy correct such a problem. When the technicians came out, they refused to correct the problem. Moreover, they stated that in order to fix the problem and bring the wiring up to local code, they were going to charge me $1,750. I tried to resolve this amicably with the company but with no success.

When I spoke to the representative to resolve the issue, I dealt with a disrespectful and unprofessional individual. What's more, the representative could not point to anywhere in the policy stating that my work order would not be covered. In fact, after review of the policy, the protection plan explicitly requires First Energy to bring my issue up to local housing code.

I respectfully request that you assist me in this dispute. This large unethical company is using its unequal bargaining power to make a profit at the expense of small consumers like myself. Without your assistance, I would have no remedy against the deceitful and fraudulent practices of First Energy.

Initial Business Response

April 22, 2014


Re: BBB Case Number *********************

Dear Ms. *****,

This letter is FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.'s (FES) response to your inquiry regarding the above-referenced Case Number. The complaint alleges failure of FES to live up to a line protection agreement.

Please be advised that FES does not sell line protection services. In some cases, the customer's electric distribution utility will sell these products; this may be such a case.

That being the case, FES can offer no remedy for this issue.

Please let me know if there is anything else that we can provide.

Thank you,

*******************
FirstEnergy Solutions Customer care



Initial Consumer Rebuttal
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Arguing that FES does not sell line protection services is a blatant lie. If it was not directly this office, it was one of their remote locations.

Final Business Response


April 30, 2014





Re: BBB Case Number *********************

Dear Ms. *****,

This is a follow-up to the Sayegh rebuttal.

Mr. Sayegh bill attachment supports the FES position.

The HomeServe USA Plan charge is clearly listed under the "Charges From the Illuminating Company" section of his bill.

Under the "Charges from NOPEC- FirstEnergy Solutions" section the only line item is the Basic Charge for 150 kWh.

Please feel free to contact me should you have any further questions.

Thank you,

*******************
FirstEnergy Solutions Customer care




Complaint Resolution: BBB determined the company provided proper verification that indicated there was no obligation to resolve the issues of the complaint.

04/29/2014Billing / Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint Category: None of the Above - Credit, Billing or Collection Complaint Issue

Complaint: First Energy charging 100.00 cancellation fee because I want someone cheaper. I did not know there was a cancellation fee.
I do not ever want First energy contacting me for services if they charge a termination fee. I want out of the contract and do not want to be bothered

Initial Business Response
April 9, 2014

***********
**********************
Better Business Bureau of Akron
222 West Market St
Akron, OH 44303

Re: BBB Case Number ********; *** ******

Dear Ms. *****

This letter is FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.'s (FES) response to your inquiry regarding the above-referenced Case Number. The customer's complaint concerned the assessment of a $100.00 early termination fee (ETF) against her FES account.

Please be advised that Ms. ****** has been an FES customer since March 2011, and updated her FES programs several times.

Most recently, on March 17, 2013, Ms. ****** enrolled into a fixed price offer of 5.36 cents per kWh through September 2015. The offer carried a $100.00 ETF, which is clearly stated in the terms and conditions statement that was mailed to the customer.

On March 19, 2014 Ms. ******' utility, Duke Energy, notified FES that she had changed suppliers. Under the terms of her FES agreement she became liable for the ETF.

Should Ms. ****** reinstate her account, FES will waive the ETF.

Attached are documents pertaining to this issue.

Let me know if there is anything else we can provide.

Thank you,


*******************
FirstEnergy Solutions Customer Care

Phone: 1-************ Fax: 1-************ Email: ***************.com


Initial Consumer Rebuttal
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I don't want to reinstate my account because it is higher and at a varied rate. I don't think I should be penalize for wanting a better deal.

Final Business Response

April 28, 2014



***********
**********************
Better Business Bureau of Akron
222 West Market St
Akron, OH 44303

Re: BBB Case Number ********; *** ******

Dear Ms. *****,

Regarding Ms. ******' rebuttal that she does not feel that she should be penalized for wanting a better deal.

FES agreed in good faith to supply generation service to Ms. ****** through September 2015, and took a position to secure electric power for her through that period.

By the terms of the agreement the ETF is justified.

Let me know if there is anything else we can provide.

Thank you,


*******************
FirstEnergy Solutions Customer Care

Phone: 1-************ Fax: 1-************ Email: ***************.com

Complaint Resolution: BBB determined the company provided proper verification that indicated there was no obligation to resolve the issues of the complaint.

Page 1 of 29
08/12/2013Billing / Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint Category: Improper collection practices

Complaint: Ohio Edison placed a court mandated hold on all the funds in my checking account in an attempt to collect a debt for $3000, owed by someone else.

Ohio Edison placed a court mandated hold on all the funds in my joint checking account on 8/5/13, in an attempt to collect a debt of approzimately $3000 from my soon to be father in law. I am getting married next weekend and supposed to go on my honeymoon at the end of the month. At this point my checking account is negative $650 because of Ohio Edison failing to ensure they had the correct person who owed these debts. My fiance' and father in law have the same first and last name but different middle names, different addresses, and different social security number(obviously). How is it 1.)they can garnish the entire sum of money in a persons account, 2.) they can garnish money from the wrong person 3.) that they can take the money from the account just because my fiance' is on it but almost all the funds in the account belong to me, their current customer, who currently doesn't owe anything because I pay my bills. This is wrong. We are left without a dime to our name for a matter completely unrelated to us. My fiance' contacted the county, Ohio Edison, and the attorney working on behalf of Ohio Edison. We have yet to be told how long it will take to resolve this matter or when the hold on the funds in our account will be made available to us. For them to take everything a person has, any person, even if it was who owed the money is absolutely awful. Let alone, someone who has a good standing relaionship with them. Ohio Edison is the only electric company that provides service to me but you can bet if I had any other option, another company would be providing my electric service.

Business' Initial Response
A supervisor spoke to Ms. ***** as well as an attorney. Both were advised to file a third party claim with the court. In a follow-up call to Ms. *****, she indicated they are filing the third party claim with the court.

Consumer's Final Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I have not accepted the response but accept the request to file claim because we did that several days ago. Court date has been set for 8/19/13. I do not however, accept the fact that it had to come to that. This should have never occured in the first place. To tell us we will not have funds released until earliest 8/19 or any length of time is absurd. My fiance' and I are not the owners of the delinquent account and are being at least seriously inconvenienced by this. It is completely unacceptable to pull the entire balance and then some from a persons account without any notice whatsoever. No call, no mailings, nothing. Generally businesses garnish wages in small increments for this type of situation. At least then we would have had funds to live off of while this matter was being sorted out. We're getting married tomorrow. Not only did Ohio Edison leave us with nothing but it's not OUR debt. We have provided and fully cooperated with all requests made by Ohio Edisons attorneys to prove we are not related to this matter and to expedite the process to no avail. We hoped it would be resolved before the court proceedings as most know that court matters take quite a bit of time. Not only that but it's alarming that the funds in our account are gone! No history of where the money went, no transaction, nothing showing where the funds went. One day we have a certain balance and the next day the money has just disappeared with no record of it. I am a good customer of Ohio Edison and to do this to not only a good customer but any human being is just flat out wrong! This company has displayed an unethical business practice. My fiance' and I have contacted Ohio Edison and their attorneys on several occasions. Although, they have gotten back with us and communicated where we are in thsi matter again we are being left without funds for a long period of time and basically no one will own up to the error and fix it. All parties just want it to go to court and pardon my language but basically we're being told we're screwed until the court says otherwise. Again, it is just beyong me that a company can be allowed to withdraw from a consumers account whenever they so choose without informing the individual or allowing them to rectify it. The debt is not ours but we were given no chance to work this out before the damage was already done. Flat out unacceptable.

Complaint Resolution: The parties could not provide sufficient information to support their positions nor were they agreeable to make reasonable efforts toward resolving the issues of the dispute.

08/23/2013Billing / Collection Issues
07/01/2013Problems with Product / Service
05/09/2013Advertising / Sales Issues
05/08/2013Problems with Product / Service
Page 1 of 2

Industry Comparison| Chart

Electric Companies

X

What is a BBB Business Review?

We offer free reviews on businesses that include background, licensing, consumer experience and other information such as governmental actions that is known to BBB. These reviews are provided for businesses that are BBB accredited and also for businesses that are not BBB accredited.

X

BBB Reporting Policy

As a matter of policy, BBB does not endorse any product, service or business.

BBB Business Reviews are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. Information in this BBB Business Review is believed reliable but not guaranteed as to accuracy.

BBB Business Reviews generally cover a three-year reporting period. BBB Business Reviews are subject to change at any time.