October 22,2012. Gloria Maiden North Randolph Avenue, Apt. 1 Elkins, WV 26541

Transcription

1 Phone: (304) FJX: (304) October 22,2012 Gloria Maiden North Randolph Avenue, Apt. 1 Elkins, WV Allan Teter, Owner Bill s Auto Repair, Inc. PO Box 533 Elkins, WV RE: Case No MC-FC Gloria Maiden V. Bill s Auto Repair, Inc. Dear Ms. Maiden and Mr. Teter: Pursuant to Rule 2 of the Commission s Rules of Practice and Procedure, we are enclosing a copy of the Staff memorandum in this matter. If you wish to respond to the enclosed Staff memorandum, you may do so in writing, within ten days, unless directed otherwise, of this date. Your failure to respond in writing to the utility s answer, Staffs recommendations, or other documents may result in a decision in your case based on your original filing and the other documents in the case file, without hrther hearing or notice. If you have provided an address you will automatically receive notifications as documents are filed in this proceeding. The notifications allow recipients to view a document within an hour from the time the filing is processed. If you have not provided your address, please send an to caseinfo@psc.state.wv.us and state the case number in the subject field. SSljn Enclosure: Memo., Executive Secretary Division

2 FURTHER FINAL JOINT STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: SANDRA SQUIRE Executive Secretary LUCAS R. HEAD Staff Attorney CASE NO MC-FC GLORIA MAIDEN V. BILL S AUTO REPAIR, INC. DATE: OCTOBER 22,2012 On June 21, 2012, Gloria Maiden (Complainant) filed a verified Formal Complaint with the West Virginia Public Service Commission (Commission) against Bill s Auto Repair, Inc. (Bill s), The Complainant stated that she was overcharged for a third-party tow, and should have only been charged $70.00 per hour. She also stated that the fire department fee and coordination fee should not have been charged. As relief the Complainant requested reimbursement of the amount over charged. On September 19, 2012, the Staff Attorney filed a Final Joint Staff Memorandum which incorporated the findings and recommendations of Steven M. Kaz, Utilities Analyst Supervism with the Commission s Utilities Division (Technical Staff). The Staff Attorney noted that as of September 19,2012, neither party had responded to Staffs Data Requests which were sent on July 25, The Memorandum noted that the tow in question was a legal third party tow as authorized by the West Virginia State Police. Technical Staff recalculated the invoice amount for the tow in question and Bill s current tariff on file with the Commission. Technical Staff determined that the Complainant was overcharged by $ and recommended Bill s refund this amount to the Complainant. The Staff Attorney adopted Technical Staffs position and stated that if the Defendant could provide Staff with an invoice for the $ Fire Department Fee, Staffs recommended refund would be $ On September 28, 2012, Bill s submitted a response to Staffs Final Memorandum. Bill s response basically answered some of the questions contained in Staffs Data Request dated July 25, Bill s provided an explanation as to why helpers and an accident coordinator were needed. Bill s stated that they had people doing traffic control. Bill s stated that all the people on the scene were authorized to be there by the State Police. Bill s attached a copy of the bill from the Fire Department which showed the fee to be $ instead of the $ which Bill s charged the complainant. On October 4, 2012, the Complainant submitted a letter and a copy of the vehicle registration for the vehicle involved in the tow. The Complainant stated that she paid the tow bill for her son because he didn t have any money. The Complainant stated that the

3 Case No MC-FC October 22,2012 Page 2 vehicle in question is owned by her son but is registered in his wife s name. The vehicle s registration card shows the vehicle is registered to Gregory and Tina Wyrner. On October 4, 2012, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) assigned to this matter entered a Procedural Order requiring Staff to file a Further Final Joint Staff Memorandum and take into account the recent information filed in this case. Attached is a Memorandum prepared by W.D. Rupel, Utilities Analyst I1 with the Commission s Utilities Division (Technical Staff). Technical Staff notes the recent filings by Bill s and the complainant. Technical Staff noted that the Fire Department invoice submitted by Bill s is signed and dated August 9, 2012 while the tow in question occurred on May 16, The invoice also states that the Fire Department provided traffic control. Technical Staff stated that confusion over who provided traffic control, as well as the discrepancy between dates on the Fire Department invoice and when the tow in question occurred further confuses the matter. Based on the inconsistent information provided by Bill s, Technical Staff stands by its original recommended refund of $ The Staff Attorney notes that in its September 28, 2012 response, Bill s stated that the Complainant is not in any way the owner of the vehicle in question, and that is why she had not sent in any proof of ownership or registration. The Staff Attorney notes that the Complainant admitted the vehicle in question belonged to her son, and she paid the bill for the tow in question for her son. The Commission has jurisdiction to regulate the rates and charges used by towing companies in their normal course of business, and review the application of such charges, Under W. Va. Code 5 24A-7-1, Any person, firm, association of persons, corporation, municipality, or county, complaining of anything done or omitted to be done by any motor carrier may file a complaint with the Commission against a regulated motor carrier in the state of West Virginia. Bill s is a regulated motor carrier in the state of West Virginia. Furthermore, Bill s agrees with the Complainant that she is not the owner of the vehicle, but did pay $1, to Bill s for the tow in question. The Complainant disputes the amount of money Bill s charged for the tow in question. Therefore, the Complainant may properly file a complaint against Bill s, and the Commission is permitted to review the application ofthe charges Bi!! s used on the invoice in question The Staff Attorney has reviewed the material submitted and agrees with Technical Staff, The invoice from the Fire Department submitted by Bill s is signed and dated nearly three (3) months after the tow in question occurred, and contains no information which identifies the incident for which the invoice was submitted. Furthermore, the invoice stated that the Fire Department provided traffic control for the tow in question

4 Case No MC-FC October 22,2012 Page 3 which is different than what Bill s previously stated. Given this inconsistent information, the Staff Attorney recommends that Bill s be ordered to refund the Complainant the original recommended refund amount of $447,5 0. LRH/s Attachments cws ($5 H:\LHead\Cases\l MC-FC, Maiden v. Bill s Auto\Further Final Memo.doc

5 PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA UTILITIES DIVISION, FURTHER FINAL RECOMMENDATION W. D. Rupel, Utilities Analyst I1 Carrier and Consumer Operations Utilities Division DATE: SUBJECT: October 15,2012 CASE NO MC-FC GLORIA MAIDEN V. BILL'S AUTO SERVICE, INC. On September 19,2012, Staff filed a Final Recommendation in this case. Therein the September 19,20 12 Memorandum Staff recommended a refund check be issued in the amount of $ Also, therein the Final Recommendation Staff noted the following: 1. Recommended refund in the amount of $ given the absence of an invoice fiom the Defendant for the $200 Fire Department fee, and provide the Commission with a copy of said check. 2. However, if the Defendant can submit a proper invoice for the $200 Fire Department fee, Staff will then recommend a reduced refund of $ Ora September 28,2012, the Defendant filed a response to Staffs September 319, 2012 Final Recommendation. Therein the response the Defendant states the following: 1. The extra helper besides Service Truck bver was needed because we had to have traffic control while cleaning up the oil fiom the roadside, We had two people doing traffic control, and two people cleaning the oil, which means there were four people on scene. 2. One tow truck driver, service truck driver, and two helpers, which one of whom was the coordinator. One tow truck and operator had to leave to take the vehicle to the State Police office to be searched.

6 CASE NO MC-FC GLORIA MAIDEN V. BILL S AUTO SERVICE, INC. October 15,2012 Page Two 3. There was a coordinator left on scene to help oversee that everythng was cleaned up properly. All the people on scene were authorized by the State Police Office on scene, who was Trooper Josh Wentz. 4. A copy of the bill from the Fire Department is included which was actually $250.00, and I put on the bill $ They charged more for all the pads and booms that we used off of their trucks. Staff notes that the Fire Department invoice is signed and dated August 9,2012, while the accident occurred on May 16,2012. The invoice also states the Fire Department provided traffic control. 5. The lady that created this petition is not in any way the owner of this vehicle. She just loaned the owner the money to pick it u, and that is why she has not sent proof of ownership, or registration. On October 1, 2012, the Complainant s representative Sherri Stahl telephoned Staff to convey that Ms. Maiden has located the towed vehicle s registration card, and vehicle title, and wil file same with the Commission in the near hture. On October 4,2012, the Commission received the following from Ms. Maiden: 1. Handwritten statement I, Gloria Maiden, paid my son s tow bill on 5/16/012. The truck is in my son s (GMC 1996), and is titled in his wife s name. I paid the bill for them because he did not have the money. It was paid out of my personal checking account. 2. Also, attached to the handwritten note: A. Copy - WVDW registration card on a 1996 GMC in the name of Wymer, Gregory and Tina, Coalton, WV, B. Copy - WVDMV vehicle title on the 1996 GMC. Same in the name of ivymer, Gregory and Tina. On October 4,2012, the case Administrative Law Judge issued an Order directing Staff to file a further substantive recommendation in this case based upon the information filed by the Defendant on September 28, 2012, on or before October 22, 2012.

7 CASE NO MC-FC GLORIA MAIDEN V. BILL S AUTO SERVICE, INC. October 15, 2012 Page Three Staff has completed a further review in this matter, and notes the following 1. The issue of who provided traffic control, as well as when the Service was provided, is further confused by the Fire Departrrnent invoice. 2. Based on the inconsistent information provided by the Defendant, Staff stands by its original recommended refund of $ Further, in Staffs non-legal opinion, the Complainant does have standing to pursue this case since she was fmancially harrned in paying the $1, tow bill.