|
Filed By: |
|
|
Synopsis: |
DOCKET NO. E-2 SUB 1338 IN THE MATTER OF MARLEEN D. ASBURY, 3117 BRUSHY MOUNTAIN STREE, CARY, NC. 27519 COMPLAINTANT VERSES DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC. RESPONDENT
I am filing a proposed order on the matter concerning Marleen D. Asbury verses Duke Energy Progress, LLC. My court date was April 16, 2024, and as such there has been no judgement or answer for this matter yet. I feel that you should weigh in my favor with all the evidence that was given during the hearing in the court case.
The following are several examples of key points to be considered while you are contemplating a future judgement call. The following points should be considered before your Honor makes a judgement (all of which is covered by your documentation):
1) The meter room for the Crowne at Cary facility is restricted to management only and even the personnel at Duke Energy cannot gain access to it unless they have their permission. Mr. Bob Donaldson (Electrical Engineer for Duke Energy) lied in court about this when he said that I have access to this meter room. I do not.
2) The monthly bills that have come to me have had two account numbers which are highlighted at the top of each bill. This would be a telltale sign of foul play when it comes to the monthly bills, the amount, and who is be billed. No matter what happens, the account number should never change.
3) There have been five times that the meters have been changed since 2018, one of which the builders’ swapped meters with a neighbor and me. The manager says that the builders hooked up the wrong meter to my apartment. I had his and he had mine. I was not the only tenant who has done this way. Of course, Duke Energy has lost these records.
4) The records are deleted before 2018 at Duke Energy, which is against the law since they must be kept to a minimum of seven years. Why is Duke Energy breaking the rules of accountability?
5) The next point to emphasize would be that Duke Energy makes a habit of producing monthly power bills by “pro-rating” the amount of money to charge the customer. Well, the term pro-rate is different from reading a meter during the first day of the first week of the month and then reading the meter for the last day of the month and charge by how the meter numbers change by the kilowatt hour. Pro-rate means to divide something in a proportional way, based on time. Which means that the $2112 that Duke Energy were originally going to charge us for the “based on time” method would have been just an educated guess, and not based on meter numbers used daily adding them up to 30 days and charge what the meter says to be charged.
6) The first bill to be “Pro-rated” and to be discussed is the $2112 bill. Once I got a Lawyer, was reduced several times down to $745. Does this not look a bit suspicious? I believe they are being dishonest about their math work.
7) Speaking of lawyers, I feel I should be reimbursed for my $175 lawyer fee since I would not have gotten one if it were not for this mess that occurred. Therefore, I would ask you to get back the total of $920.
8) I am also exceptionally good at paying my bills on time or early. However, my power bill should not be over $200 at best and that is reflected in the bill process as well.
9) The history of Duke Energy and their track record does not reflect that of honest people. There is at least one documented case of a suspected foul play in Ohio, when a gentleman was charged with a $4000 bill, and since he had auto pay, he had bounced checks and went to battle with Duke Energy. He finally we to the local news on television and exposed them for their dishonesty. After this happened, the $4000 got reimbursed back to the gentleman. How is that for justice?
10) I also know of a friend from church who has had her electric bill raised to $400 and she usually has her at about $100. I think it to be no coincidence she is 83 years old, and so do they single out the elderly who pay their bills to make up for the unpaid bills of others?
11) It is not news to see them have profits after employees paid wages of $40 billion last year. This shows that they are a monopoly.
12) There are pictures of the meter room that your honor has in your documentation. You will notice that there is no plate that marks apartment 3117, although marked with a “Sharpy” by the maintenance man of Crowne at Cary. This was done so that there would be no more mistakes made to identify which meter was for which apartment. This plate was taken off back on 5 September 2023 by a Duke Energy Technician because nobody else has access to the meter room with the manager discretion.
In short, I feel I have been over charged on my bills and unjustly treated and I feel I should get this money back.
That sums up what I have to say currently. I appreciate you reading this, and I look forward to your response.
God bless and take care.
Sincerely,
Marleen D. Asbury
NOTICE OF DUE DATE FOR PROPOSED ORDERS AND OR BRIEFS
|
|
|
