"Tom2Tec" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> MadRedHatter <***@mee.com> wrote in message
> | Only after his account went delinquent.
> So what, they still can't try to work it out. After all, he did try to
> the situation by calling them. Of course, he tried to be responsible, but,
> they don't need to try. Sure.
Yeah .. AFTER he was forced into being responsible for his delinquent
account. Why should Enmax bend over backwards for someone who doesn't pay
> | > 2) They cut people off without trying to phone or contact them at the
> | time.
> | Bullcrap .. I have friends who are always late with their bills and
> | constantly get notices in the mail.
> They have your phone number, they can't call it? But hey, they can send
> to make sure the get thier $65. Yup, such care, such concern, such
> professionalism. We should be really proud of how our City treats people
> they're down.
Why are people so surprised when their utilites get cut off? The guy knew he
didn't pay .. so why wait until it got cut off to complain? The letters
usually give you a week or more before the cutoff to contact them.
> | > 3) They charge people who are already in fiscal trouble
> | Is it Enmax's job to determine who is in fiscal trouble and who isn't?
> | call up Shaw and tell them to stop charging me because I am in "fiscal
> | trouble"? Of course not .. Enmax provided a service and they expect to
> | paid.
> Sheesh, no one suggested not paying at all. Would it hurt to defer some
> the bill for some time? Or set up a budget? Or not charge such high fees?
> least, try to be less avaricious, demanding and inflexible?
Is Enmax in the financial planning business? Why should it be their
responsibility to set up a budget for someone? Did this guy do things like
trying to reduce his electricity consumption?
> | > 4) They charge people too much in general, ie. millions in profits
> | Welcome to capitalism 101. Businesses are in existance to make money.
> | the OP do anything to reduce his power consumption? Was he living
> | his means?
> Capitalism, ROTFLMAO ... corruption is more like it. Oh my, are you naive.
Explain how it's corruption. I have never seen evidence of this.
> | > 5) They demand a deposit BEFORE reconnection
> | Can you blame them? They are taking the risk of reconnecting someone
> | history of not paying.
> Yes, yes I can. What risk? People will be back, everyone needs power.
> there's collection agencies and other avenues. Besides, why is the deposit
> needlessly high. It's just another penalty, in my opinion
What risk?? The guy didn't pay his bill .. he might not again.
> | > 6) They don't accept credit card payments
> | I can't comment on this as I pay all my bills online. But if I recall
> | you pay your bills at the most banks? This guy was unemployed .. spend
> | and take a bus to Enmax.
> No, they want you to pay cash and they want you to do it a city hall
> office hours.
Since he was unemployed he could have hopped a bus and went to pay.
> | > 7) They charge people to reconnect
> | Yeah .... so?
> Yup, that helps the situation. Thiers anyways.
Yeah ... don't let your account go delinquent and this won't happen.
> > 8) They charge fees (penalties) in addition to disconnect, reconnect
> | deposit
> | > costs
> | Don't default on payments and you'll never see these fees.
> Duh, yup must be nice to be always affluent. How is perfection?
As I said before I went through a time of unemployment and called Enmax
before my account went delinquent. They were more then happy to work
> | > 9) They seem to deliberately try to disconnect people in order to
> | extra
> | > revenue
> | I have never heard of a customer who pays their bills on time ever
> | disconnected and charged for reconnection. Funny how it works that way.
> See above. Boy, for a perfect person, you're not very compassionate,
> concerned, humane, kind, or understanding, are you?
Seeing above doesn't answer my question. Why shouldn't a company discontinue
a service to someone who doesn't pay them?
And yes I am a compassionate person .. but not to people who don't take
> | > 10) They are the least accommodating of the four public utilities
> | You know how many times I have had to contact Enmax in the last 3 years?
> | Twice ... once to get power turned on in my old place and another time
> | I moved. Both times the CSR were very friendly and my power was hooked
> | when promised.
> Yup, that makes it all ok alright. Now if only everyone was perfect.
Just citing an example to counter your claim.
> | > 11) They only accept payments with faxed proof, even if you don't have
> | fax or
> | > even a phone
> | Can you blame them? How else would you suggest they get proof? As far as
> | having to fax ... Mailboxes Etc.
> Yes, remember, the issue here is what happens when people are broke. Oh,
> thought you were perfect, did you overlook something? Awww ..
So you what are you trying to say here? That a business should continue
providing a service to someone who doesn't pay?
> | > 12) They refuse to connect you with a supervisor
> | Never tried to so I can't comment.
> So you say nothing?
What do you want me to say? I never tried so I make no comment. I could lie
and say I did but why bother?
> | > 13) They refuse to negotiate in any way at that point
> | Bull! As I stated before I had to call them when I was unemployed and
> | negotiated a payment plan so my power didn't get cut off. But I did this
> | BEFORE the payment was late.
> On this I agree, he should have called earlier. However, many poor people
> simply not as on the ball as you. Enmax needs to deal with all people.
> cannot expect not to have some people who aren't as competent as others.
> their responsibility to deal with us. Not our responsibility to be
Wow ... we agree. :) Cool stuff.
I have a hard time accepting the excuse of not being on the ball. Everyone
should know that you pay your bills every month. Do people really expect the
bills to just go away? It isn't really rocket science.
> | > 14) You cannot pay the guy when he comes to disconnect you
> | Aren't those guys sub-contractors? Or am I thinking Shaw?
> So, he's still there. Oh, and subcontracting. Oh, and hiring subs, that's
> very responsible.
So .. Enmax uses subcontractors? If they do why is it not responsible?
> | > 15) They will not accept partial payments
> | Bull .. see 13.
> Whatever, they could be more flexible and you know it. You're just
> avoiding the issue
I am avoiding nothing. When I couldn't pay my full Enmax bill when I was
unemployed I paid part of it. Enmax was happy.
> | > 16) The "Enmax Customer Advocates" don't return your calls
> | Mine were returned
> Not mine.
We have reached an impass. :)
> | > 17) The bills have been getting higher and higher for years now
> | So is the cost of mustard. It's known as inflation.
> LOL, Enmax's bills, fees and penalties have risen far faster than
> have their salaries. That is the problem.
Fees and penalties can be avoided.
> | > 18) They are no longer responsive or accountable to your alderman's
> | inquiries
> | Can't comment on this.
> Of course, nothing to say eh. Fiqures.
Again .. what do you want me to do? Lie? I have never talked to my alderman
regarding this. I have never heard of Enmax ignoring aldermen.
> | > 19) They come across as arrogant, demanding, uncaring and
> | To delinquent accounts they probably are. To responsible people they are
> | quite friendly and accomidating.
> Boy, and I bet that helps. Oh, and it's justified. Everbody knows how
> is to beat a dying dead or dying horse.
What more can I say? Put yourself in their position .. would you be all
happy and friendly to someone who doesn't pay their bills?
> | > 20) The top guy doubled his salary to 600K over the last three years
> | And ...? What's your point?
> Enmax 'efforts' well paid byDon Braid For The Calgary Herald Friday,
> "Enmax CEO Bob Nicolay earned $698,468 in 2002, well over twice his total
> compensation only two years earlier, when he was paid $340,015. In 2001,
> and other senior Enmax officials also received large extra payments for
> efforts" in preparing the taxpayer-owned utility for private sale,
> was never sold. Nicolay got $148,606 in 2001 under the heading "all other
> compensation," which includes both the sale efforts and pension
> paid for him by the company. Nicolay's total pay in 2002 certainly vaults
> the top of the list for Calgary bosses of publicly-owned enterprises. Jack
> made $520,000 heading the Calgary Health Region. Dale Stanway, the city's
> earned about $233,000. Nonetheless, Enmax doesn't seem to think facts
> executive pay are news. I do believe they're news, partly because Enmax
> get rid of 200 jobs, and is applying to charge customers 11 per cent more
> electricity. This seems to be the wonderful world of deregulation as it
> to a city-owned utility; higher rates for consumers, higher pay for top
> executives and fewer jobs for employees further down the ladder. Nicolay's
> and that of other senior officials, is studied annually by a committee and
> approved by the board, which includes two aldermen (currently, Dale Hodges
> Bob Hawkesworth.) The salaries were disclosed through a regulatory filing
> July, but Enmax sure didn't fire off any press releases. One thing is
> the taxpayers, as indirect owners, have every right to know all the
> to ask what we're getting for such whopping salaries at the top. The
> making more money -- profits went from $44 million in 1999 to $249 million
> years later. As much as $50 million of that comes back into city coffers
> dividend that can be used for roads, services or to help keep down taxes.
> it's fascinating to compare Enmax with Edmonton's Epcor, also
> which holds $4.7 billion in assets compared to $1.2 billion for Enmax, and
> more than twice the profits. Don Lowry, Epcor's CEO, made $706,000 in
> $8,000 more than Nicolay. You can hardly blame Nicolay for taking the
> question is, does Enmax's position as a rather small utility justify such
> compensation? Enmax certainly thinks so. "Compensation is no different at
> than at most companies," says spokesman Tony McCallum. "It's based on the
> midpoint of what most companies are paying for similar positions. It's
> based on individual performance and the company's success at meeting its
> targets." The Calgary customer/owner, facing another rate hike, might have
> another view of success, and what these people should be paid. In 2002,
> Nicolay's earnings of $698,468 were comprised of $390,260 in salary,
> bonus, $11,400 as "other annual compensation" and $66,808 under the
> other compensation." In 2000, his total pay of $340,015 was made up of
> in salary, a bonus of $80,000, and $35,015 under the two headings of
> compensation." Sean Durfy, vice-president of unregulated business, made a
> of $356,175 in 2002, up from $229,715 in 2000. Executive vice-president
> Henderson, who joined Enmax in 2001, earned $333,662 in 2002. Karen Anne
> Prentice, vice-president of legal affairs, made $311,997 in 2002, compared
> $205,995 in 2000. Customer service vice-president Lori Rae Topp, who has
> left Enmax, was paid $294,545 in 2002. She had joined the company in 2001.
> executives saw substantial jumps in their extra pay during 2001, for
> compensation for special efforts rendered during the proposed sale of
> the regulatory sense, this was all properly disclosed. But there was no
> whatever, either from city hall or the company, to make the public aware
> facts. For a taxpayer-owned enterprise, that won't do."
> | > 21) They could limit your power consumption instead of cutting you off
> | > completely
> | How can they limit your power? No power between certain hours? I am sure
> | people would be pissed to have their freezer full of food spoiling. Cut
> | power by 50%? Wouldn't this play havoc on any electrical device you
> They have and can use a device that limits wattage. No, no it only means
> only run one thing at a time. It's an inconvenience, but it allows your
> to maintain heat, and your fridge to keep all your food from spoiling. By
> they must use it in the winter. Of course, without the law, I'd bet they
> wouldn't bother. Face it, they're uncaring and self serving. They don't
> sh*t if people freeze or starve,
Hmm .. ok, I didn't know such a device existed. But I see that as relieving
people of personal responsibility. If you know you are struggling then put
on a sweater don't turn up the heat. Do you have too many lights on? There
are ways a person can reduce their consumption. Why is it Enmax's
responsibility to limit power intake?
> | > 22) A court has already said that the penalties they used to charge
> | illegal
> | > yet the new fees that replaced them are even higher, of course,
> | not
> | > called the same
> | I hadn't heard this. Got any citations?
> Yup, why can't you do your own research?
> Hobsbawn v. Enmax Corporation and The City of Calgary
You made the claim so I asked for a citation. A perfectly reasonable
I found only one link to this. It is quite long so I will read it and
> | > I've spoken with every level of management at Enmax recently and I can
> | speak
> | > from personal experience. I believe that the upper management at Enmax
> | > simply in self serving denial. They believe that all of their policies
> | > justified and they don't see any need to change anything. They also
> | feel
> | > that the public has the right to question what they consider is
> | business
> | > policy. They also think that cutting of customers in such a manner is
> | effective
> | > and conscientious customer service. I know this because I've
> | these
> | > policies and procedures directly with the person who is in charge of
> | > implementing them. He is absolutely convinced he's fully justified in
> | treating
> | > people in the way he sees fit without needing to consider any
> | alternatives.
> | Might I ask what circumstances forced you to speak with every level of
> | management? Except for the two times (as I mentioned above) I have never
> | to contact anyone at Enmax.
> Sure you can ask. What difference would it make? We weren't discussing my
What I am getting at is why should you expect shiny happy people at Enmax
when you (not you in particular) are delinquent on your account?
> | Why should Enmax be responsible for people who can't manage money? Do
> | think Visa would be all "Aww shucks mister .. you spent all your money
> | beer and smokes and can't pay us? That's all right, you can catch us
> | time."
> Duh, Enmax isn't Visa, it's monopolistic public utility which provides a
> necessity, that's why they are responsible. Why do I bother explaining
> you. Obviously you can't get it. IMHO, it appears that you're just not
> deep enough or you're too biased. Sad really.
So because I don't agree with you .. I don't get it??
I am a very caring person. I just have no time for people who are
irresponsible and want companies to baby them.
> | Can you imagine how many people are late with their bills or don't pay
> | all? Enmax has bills of their own to pay as well. If you ran a business
> | provided a service would you take the excuse of not being able to
> | your checkbook from your customers?
> I have and do run a business. I did and do better, and I didn't and don't
> excessive compensation. Nor did I have my customers over a barrel.
So now take what you do and multiply it by 100,000 .. you then have Enmax.
Why shouldn't there be a bit of a penalty for people who don't take
responsibility with their bills?
> | Enmax's responsibility? As I see it they need to provide me with
> | 24/7. And I have always received that from them. (of course with the
> | exception of interruptions out of their control .. ie: weather). They
> | not there to cut the little guy some slack. They are there to make
> | They area business.
> No, they don't. Never had a power outage? Ever been compensated? By the
> they aren't a business, they're a utility, and a public one. Get over it.
> facts. Stop twisting words.
If the power outage is a result of weather why should I be compensated?
So now Enmax isn't a business? What is the difference between a business and
> | What basis do you have to make the comment "our bills should be getting
> | expensive "? Should a company stop making money after a certain point?
> See above. It's the same lame and false argument.
Well since I am not sure how you differentiate a business and utility I
> | "We're penalized when we don't conform to their policies"?? Well duh!
> | good would policies be if there were no penalties for breaking them?
> | Bottom line is if you are responsible with your bills, live within your
> | means and take measures before your account becomes delinquent you won't
> | have any problems.
> Ahh, Mr. The World Is Perfect, so therefore others must be losers
> That's just a shallow justification for the mistreatment of others in my
This seems to be the crux of our disagreement. I am more for personal
> 2tec ~ thinks bullies are bad.
> On December 11th Enmax filed its Regulatory Rate Option with Lethbridge
> Council. Included in the rates is a $10.00 per month charge for invoice
> processing. This appears to be the cost of an envelope and postage. The
> is excessive and negates half of the monthly rebate provided by the
> government, guaranteeing that regulated rate option customers in
> pay more in 2001 than in 2000. Enmax would not appear to be a company that
> the customers interests at heart. Customers who choose Enmax may be
> inadvertently subsidizing the city of Calgary.