I paid my West Penn Power bill on Sept. 3 and the payment cleared the bank on Sept. 5. But I received another bill from West Penn several days later advising me that I had to send them an additional payment.
I called West Penn's customer service department and was informed that the most recent amount was for power generated by IDT Energy of New Jersey. I previously authorized the use of IDT Energy with the stipulation that all billing would be done through West Penn Power.
Imagine my surprise when I was informed by a West Penn customer service employee that an error had occurred between West Penn and IDT and that I needed to use another stamp, use my time and submit another payment by Sept. 30.
My concern may be seen as petty, as the cost is minimal. But if every consumer received this same billing because of an error between two electric companies, imagine all of the postage and all of the time consumers use to correct a mistake that was not their own. Add to that the activities and costs related to the U.S. Postal Service, banks, customer service representatives, etc.
When errors are made by large companies, there needs to be accountability. There needs to be transparency between the companies and their customers. And for people — especially those on fixed incomes — there need to be honesty and fairness.
The very least West Penn should have done was enclose a postage-paid envelope for payment and a detailed description as to why the customer was being billed again. It also should've included an apology for their and IDT's errors.
Paul Bizich Jr.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.