THE EDITOR, Sir:
The recent public argument between The Paint Shop and the Jamaica Public Service Company (JPS) over the disconnection of electricity supply provides a timely opportunity for us to examine the process of investigating disputes between utility companies and consumers, and whether compensation due to consumers under the Office of Utilities Regulation's (OUR) Guaranteed Service Standards adequately serves the interest of the public.
I make no pronouncement on The Paint Shop's case; however, in my view, the process of investigating disputes between consumers and utility companies is flawed and vulnerable to bias because the utility company is being asked to investigate itself, and then generate an opinion/final letter regarding the dispute, which serves as a decision on the matter.
A more reasonable process would be a robust investigation, to include field visits, where necessary, conducted by an independent authority or expert which enjoys the confidence of both parties.
Compensation due to consumers under the OUR's Guaranteed Service Standards is also, in my view, flawed and possibly less
realigning compensation
I am aware of a case where a commercial customer, via its attorney, received monetary compensation for wrongful disconnection of service that was nearly 100 times the amount that is now 'automatically due' to consumers under the Guaranteed Service Standards for JPS. In that case, JPS's collection agent at the time compensated the customer after an error on its part which resulted in the service being disconnected.
The OUR may, therefore, want to consider advising consumers that they are not bound and limited by the Guaranteed Service Standards, as it is not an agreement between utility companies and their customers, and that, in some cases, consumers
I am, etc.,
YANEEK PAGE
Yaneek.page@futureservicesja.com