Complaints

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:06/02/2025

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I have been calling Florida public utilities for about 4 months now trying to get electricity at my old residence I'm a disabled veteran and currently homeless and having to pay land taxes on my property now because I haven't been living there but I've got to a camper trailer there now and I won't electricity but they tell me a lie every time I call them I stay on hold for hours and then they say they'll get back to me or blah blah blah they never do I've called several times I've been in the system like seven different times cuz I asked my information every time the last time I called they said they'd find me nowhere in the system I need electricity they tell me it's because I haven't had electricity out there in a while I would have to fill out a new application they emailed me the application I filled out the application had to send it to a different company related to them still no response every time I call I give tell me a different line or different reason but they never have contacted me back

  Business Response

  Date: 06/13/2025

  The customer reports he has been attempting to reestablish electric service for the past four months but has not been successful in connecting with an agent when calling the office, due to long hold times
  

  Over the last few months, company representatives have called the customer several times via phone, but the customer's voicemail is full.  They also emailed the customer but had not received a response. 
  

  On June 5, a representative completed a site visit at the premise and explained to the customer that he must complete an application, since his service has been inactive since 2011. 
  

  He expressed his satisfaction and understanding of the next steps to reestablish his service. 
  

• Initial Complaint

  Date:05/20/2025

  Type:Billing Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I want to express my concerns regarding several discrepancies in my gas bill. For the past two months, I’ve been trying to resolve these issues with FPU over the phone, and I truly appreciate the representatives I’ve spoken with who have acknowledged the problems. However, it’s been frustrating as each call has unfortunately ended in disconnection.
  
  The last representative assured me that my case was being escalated to a billing supervisor and that I would receive a callback, but it’s been a week and a half, and I haven’t heard anything yet. To add to my frustration, I called again today and, after waiting for an hour, was disconnected just two minutes into our conversation. I genuinely hope we can find a resolution to this situation soon. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

  Business Response

  Date: 06/18/2025

  The customer
  disputes the billed usage on his March, April, and May 2025 invoices.  He
  also reports that Company representatives disconnected calls while he was
  stating his concerns and failed to escalate his calls to a supervisor.
  
  Upon receiving
  the inquiry, a representative reviewed the account and observed that the
  customer’s March and April 2025 invoices were estimated because the
  technician‘s access to the meter was blocked.
  
  On April 17, a technician obtained a read.
  
  On May 9, an invoice was issued that included previously
  unbilled usage.
  
  On May 13, a representative emailed the customer his invoices
  for the prior twelve months.
  
  On May 16, a representative called the customer per a callback
  request and placed the customer on hold to research the account, and the call
  was disconnected.  The representative did attempt to call the customer.
  
  On June 10, a
  representative spoke with the customer.  She apologized for the
  extended hold time he experienced as well as the disconnected call.  She
  explained the reason the March and April bills were estimated.  The
  customer stated the meter was old and hard to read.  He requested that the
  meter be replaced.
  
  On June 11, a
  technician replaced the meter. The customer expressed his satisfaction with the
  resolution of his inquiry

  Customer Answer

  Date: 06/25/2025

  
  
  Complaint: 23338116
  
  
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  Subsequent to the changing of the faulty meter, I spoke again to the company’s representative and expressed the desire to be made whole in every way including a refund of $50 for the faulty April 2023 bill, $35 for the faulty July 2023 bill, $170 for the faulty April 2024 bill, and $70 for the faulty February 2025 bill. I explained that these monetary amounts were based on our regular bills being $50 a month, which was even higher than our actual average since November 2021 when the account was opened.

  In addition to the installation of a new meter in hopes of rectifying any faulty readings in the future, the company did issue a $144 credit for the faulty April 2025 bill, however we requested an additional $40 in order to bring that bill down to $50, again, higher than our average, but something we could live with.

  The company did credit $91.38 for the extra bill they sent by mistake in April 2025 which was paid by auto pay before we noticed their error. In no way does this credit apply to making us whole for any faulty reading. It was a mere refund of an extra bill that should have never been issued.

  The representative told me that her boss thought the faulty spiked bills were from usage of our pool heater. I informed her that our pool heater was electric and did not run on gas.

  She said she would get back to me after talking to her boss, but never did.

  
  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  
  
  Wilson ******

• Initial Complaint

  Date:11/04/2024

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  ResolvedMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Account Number: 0500963-4
  Vera ***** (SEGES LLC), **** **** **** **, Lake Mary, FL 32746
  
  I am filing a complaint regarding Florida Public Utilities’ (FPU) handling of my refund. On August 6, 2024, my natural gas service was disconnected upon closure of business. Despite numerous attempts to resolve an outstanding refund of $1,180.45, I have yet to receive the amount owed. My calls and inquiries have been well-documented, but the matter remains unresolved.
  Background:
  1. Disconnection Date: August 6, 2024. On this date, my natural gas service was disconnected. As part of closing the account, a statement of $1,180.45 CR was sent with expected payment on 9/9/2024 as stated on the statement.
  2. Refund Delay:? I have made numerous attempts to customer service to inquire about the status of the refund. Each time, I have been assured that the matter is being looked into, but no payment has been received.?I have diligently followed up with customer service, and the following specific calls are noted in addition to previous ones
  * October 22, 2024: I spoke with a supervisor named Trisha, who assured me that the issue would be escalated, an overnight check would be sent and that I would receive a callback.
  * October 30, 2024: I called again and spoke with another supervisor named Mayimen, who reiterated the same promise of escalation and a return call.
  Unfortunately, despite these assurances, no follow-up action has been taken, and my refund remains outstanding.
  
  Resolution Requested:?I am formally requesting that FPU process and issue the refund of $1,180.45 as soon as possible. Additionally, I request that FPU implement better communication and follow-through procedures to ensure that customer issues are resolved promptly.

  Business Response

  Date: 11/22/2024

  On
  November 13, upon receiving the inquiry, the customer project coordinator reviewed
  the account and observed that the customer’s closing bill listed a credit
  balance.  
  
  On three
  occasions, October 1, October 23, and October 30, the customer inquired about the
  status of receiving their refund.  The company
  representatives explained to the customer that the refund request is submitted
  to a third-party payment processer and takes up to eight weeks to receive. 
  
  On November
  13, after further investigation, a customer service supervisor, discovered that
  the refund request had inadvertently not been submitted to the vendor.  In an effort to expedite the check processing handling
  time, the customer care supervisor had our internal finance department issue a
  check to the customer.     
  
  On
  November 19, the refund check was sent, via overnight delivery, to the
  customer. 
  
  On
  November 22, the customer project coordinator, spoke to the customer to verify
  the refund check was received. The customer was happy with the outcome.
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 11/30/2024

  
  
  Better Business Bureau:
  
  
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 22510068, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
  
  
  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  
  
  Ozlem ******

• Initial Complaint

  Date:06/26/2024

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I am building a new home and have requested electric service at my new address and have not been contacted back from the electric company's engineering department after submitting the application they required in over 6 weeks. I have emailed twice as there is no direct line to the FPU engineering department. I have contacted their customer service numerous times only to be told they are busy and I have to wait and they have no direct contact with engineering so I can continue to email them. We need electric service and this is our only option. I don't have any other choice but to file a complaint in hopes someone will address our problem so we can establish electrical at our home. My address for the service is *** ***** *** ****** Fernandina Beach Fl 32034.

  Business Response

  Date: 07/16/2024

  A customer states that she
  has not been contacted in over six weeks since she submitted an electric
  service application. She requests a status update.  
  
  On July 9, upon receiving the
  inquiry, the Customer Service Project Coordinator, Mr. Daniel *****, asked the
  Manager of Customer Service, Mr. Todd ******, to have his team review the
  account and contact the customer with a resolution.
  
  In reviewing the account, Mr. *****
  observed the following:
  On
  May 22, the company’s engineering department received the customer’s Electric
  Service Application, for a property that was under construction.
  
  On
  July 2, the customer emailed the Company requesting a status update. 
  
  On
  July 8, an engineering technician replied to the customer that the application
  had been received and processed. The next step would be for the customer’s
  electrician to schedule the inspection by the City of Fernandina Beach. Once
  approved, the meter could be set and the temporary pole energized. He also
  requested the customer to contact him directly with any future questions.
  
  On
  July 11, the technician contacted the City of Fernandina Beach to inquire if
  the electrical inspection had been scheduled. He was informed that the
  inspection had not been requested. The technician called the customer and
  advised her of the cause of the delay. She stated that the inspection would
  occur in the next few days and she understood this was the cause of the delay. The customer stated she was satisfied with the resolution.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:04/03/2024

  Type:Billing Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I have had gas for almost 2 years with Florida public utilities. I have disconnected service without any notification at all. The customer service is not helpful at all especially when people are in difficult situations. Once you get a disconnect they send you a bill for $430 or double the amount you owe plus a disconnect fee. I received zero notification and when inquired about this the representative said you must request to be notified, something I was not told about at all which to me seems very suspicion and manipulative for services that are required to live in a home. We have lived in other states and usually you would receive a phone call text email not just a letter to an incorrect address. In theory, if you are behind on your bill adding a doubled fee on to it is not generally affordable in this time of inflation and financial stress
  I am very disappointed on how this was handled and it disheartens me to learn this practice.
  
  For an example I am a healthcare provider, if someone is unable to pay their hospital bill… you do not receive a doubled or tripled bill as a punishment. This is inhumane

  Business Response

  Date: 04/22/2024

  On April 3, upon receiving the inquiry, the
  Customer Service Project Coordinator, requested the Manager of Customer Service
  to review the account and contact the customer with a resolution.
  
  On April 17, the
  Customer Care Manager reported the following:
  
             
  On January 30, an invoice was issued for $909.05.
  
             
  On February 12, a payment of $450.00 was received leaving a remaining balance
  of $459.05.
  
  On February 23, a late notice was issued for the outstanding
  balance of $459.05 with a disconnection date of March 5.
  
  On February 27, an invoice was issued for $737.95, which included
  the past-due balance of $459.05 and a late fee of $6.89.
  
  On March 1, a robocall was delivered for the past-due balance of
  $459.05.
  
  On March 4, a payment of $200.00 was received, leaving a remaining
  balance of $537.95, including a past-due balance of $259.05.
  
  On March 7, a technician disconnected the customer’s
  service.  The customer submitted a payment of $537.95 and the
  representative scheduled a technician to reconnect the service.  The
  representative informed the customer that a reconnection fee of $60.00, and a
  deposit fee of $430.00 would be billed on the next monthly invoice.
  
  On March 8, a technician connected the service.
  
  On March 27, an invoice was issued for $870.56, which included the
  deposit and reconnection fee.
  
  On April 3, the customer inquired about the deposit.  A
  representative explained that a deposit is charged after disconnection of
  service for non-payment.  She relayed to her that the deposit is the sum
  of two months of usage.  The representative developed an arrangement for
  the customer to pay the deposit of $430.00 in three monthly installments
  starting on May 10.  The customer informed the representative that the
  mailing address listed on the account was incorrect and updated it.  The
  representative advised the customer that she could enroll in the Company’s
  online billing platform, EZ-BILLING, to assist her with managing the billing of
  her account.
  
  On April 9, a Customer Service Supervisor left a message
  requesting a return call.
  
  On April 10, the Customer Service Supervisor explained the
  Company’s deposit policy and how to register on EZ-BILLING to receive email
  notifications and alerts. She waived the $60.00 reconnection fee as a one-time
  accommodation.  The customer expressed her satisfaction with the
  resolution of her inquiry.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  The FPUC Customer Service
  Team

• Initial Complaint

  Date:03/09/2023

  Type:Billing Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  We had a gas bill of $124 one month and the next month $119. I called the gas company and had them come out and check for a leak and they couldn’t find one so a few days later they had some one else come out and change the meter. The bill came down to $65 after the new meter was installed and that was with part of the month on the old meter. The first full month on the new meter the bill was $46. I called to ask for an adjustment because of the high bills and customer service had to email someone and they would call me. Over a month later they called and told me they wouldn’t make any adjustments because they couldn’t find any thing wrong with the old meter. The only gas we use is the stove on the weekends and hot water. The water bill was $35 those months so we didn’t use a lot of water to run up a big bill. I feel the meter was bad and that they just don’t want to make any adjustments.

  Business Response

  Date: 03/21/2023

  An authorized
  agent on a customer’s account reports that the account holder was improperly
  billed.
  
  On March 9,
  upon receiving the inquiry, a Quality analyst instructed the Customer Care
  Manager to review the account and contact the customer with a resolution.
  
  On March 21,
  the manager reported the following:
  
  On November 30, 2022, an invoice was issued for $124.50, based
  on the Meter Transmission Unit, MTU, read 3211.   
  
  On January 3, 2023, an
  invoice was issued for $119.04, based on the MTU read of 3251.
  
  On January 14, a technician inspected the meter for a
  leak.  The technician reported that there were no leaks, the meter, and
  gas appliances were functioning correctly, and he obtained a meter read of
  3262.
  
  On January 17, the customer’s agent inquired about his unusually
  high November and January bills.  A representative informed him that his
  usage had increased during the winter months.  She scheduled a technician
  to conduct a high-bill investigation per the authorized agent’s request.
  
  On January 18, a technician inspected the meter, the MTU, and
  the gas appliances.  He reported that all were functioning
  correctly.  He obtained a meter read of 3265 and replaced the MTU as a
  precaution. 
  
  On February 2, 2023, an invoice was issued for $65.08, based on the MTU read of
  3271.
  
  On February 10, the customer’s agent requested a credit for the
  November and January invoices.  A representative informed the customer of
  the inspection results and explained that the technician-obtained reads
  confirmed that the billed usage was correct.  As a result, an adjustment
  was not warranted.
  
  On March 8, the customer’s agent reiterated his request for a
  credit.  A representative explained that the technician had tested the MTU
  and reported it was functioning properly.  He only replaced the MTU as a
  precaution.  The representative explained that an adjustment was not
  warranted.
  
  On March 9, an invoice was issued for $46.11, based on the MTU read of 3284.
  
  On March 21, a representative reviewed the billing history with
  the customer’s agent and explained how colder winter temperatures can increase
  consumption.  The agent stated he understood and would monitor his usage
  in colder weather.  He thanked the representative for her assistance.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 03/24/2023

  
  
  Complaint: 19559316
  
  
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  
  
  
  Sincerely, I really don’t think that cold weather would make a higher gas bill when the water heater is inside the house. If that is was the true then we would have had a higher bill in cold weather all the years that we lived here. But that is not the case 
  
  
  
  Todd Miller 

  Business Response

  Date: 04/19/2023

  An authorized agent on a customer’s account reports that the account holder was improperly billed.

   

  On March 9, upon receiving the inquiry, a Quality analyst instructed the Customer Care Manager to review the account and contact the customer with a resolution.

   

  On March 21, the manager reported the following:

   

  The customer has a Meter Transmission Unit attached to the meter.  The MTU reports daily meter reads to the Company’s read capture program.

   

  On November 30, 2022, an invoice was issued for $124.50, for the usage of 46.89 therms based on a read reported by the MTU.   

   

                 On January 3, 2023, an invoice was issued for $119.04, for the usage of 41.61 therms based on a read reported by the MTU.   

   

  On January 14, a technician inspected the meter for a leak.  The technician reported that there were no leaks, the meter, and gas appliances were functioning correctly.

   

  On January 17, the customer’s agent inquired about his unusually high November and January bills.  A representative informed him that his usage had increased during the winter months.  She scheduled a technician to conduct a high-bill investigation per the authorized agent’s request.

   

  On January 18, a technician inspected the meter, the MTU, and the gas appliances.  He reported that all were functioning correctly.  He obtained a meter read which confirmed the accuracy of the customer’s billed consumption.  He replaced the MTU as a precaution. 

   

              On February 2, 2023, an invoice was issued for $65.08, for the usage of 20.88 therms based on a read reported by the MTU.   

   

  On February 10, the customer’s agent requested a credit for the November and January invoices.  A representative informed the customer of the inspection results and explained that the technician-obtained reads confirmed that the billed usage was correct.  As a result, an adjustment was not warranted.

   

  On March 8, the customer’s agent reiterated his request for a credit.  A representative explained that the technician had tested the MTU and reported it was functioning properly.  He only replaced the MTU as a precaution.  The representative explained that an adjustment was not warranted.

   

              On March 1, an invoice was issued for $46.11, for the usage of 13.56 therms based on a read reported by the MTU.

   

  On March 21, a representative reviewed the billing history with the customer’s agent and explained how colder winter temperatures can increase consumption.  The agent stated he understood and would monitor his usage in colder weather. 

   

  On March 24, upon receiving the rebuttal inquiry, a Quality analyst instructed the Customer Care Manager to review the account and contact the customer with a resolution.

   

  On April 7, the manager reported the following:

   

  On March 27, a representative left a message requesting that the customer or her agent return her call. 

   

  On March 31, an invoice was issued for $55.37, for the usage of 16.63 therms based on a read reported by the MTU.   

   

  On April 5, the customer’s agent inquired about the weather and its effect on consumption.  A representative explained how the weather temperature could affect consumption.  She reviewed degree days and the monthly usage history over the past five years.

             

  On April 7, a representative asked the agent if he would like a conservation analyst to conduct an energy audit of his appliances for a detailed review of his usage.  The customer’s agent declined, stating that he saw usage had decreased on his March invoices, and he was satisfied with the explanation provided.