ALJ/VDR/eap DRAFT CA-4

7/12/2001

Decision DRAFT DECISION OF ALJ RYERSON (Mailed 6/1/2001)

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Dr. C.W. Lee, Complainant, vs. Pacific Bell, Defendant.

Case 00-11-024 (Filed November 9, 2000)

O P I N I O N

Complainant C.W. Lee (Lee) filed this complaint on November 9, 2000, alleging that defendant Pacific Bell (Pac Bell) twice disconnected his telephone service for failure to pay a bill for service at an address about which he has no knowledge. He contends that Pac Bell's actions present both "micro (my case)" and "macro (public policy)" issues to be considered by the Commission.

In addition to asking for a refund, Lee's complaint seeks information from Pac Bell to ascertain that his telephone service will not be disconnected again for nonpayment of the bill at the unknown address; an order from the Commission directing Pac Bell not to disconnect his service unless the Commission finds that service at that address is actually his responsibility; and a "letter of apology" from Pac Bell -- actually, a letter exonerating him from any alleged nonpayment history to present to credit or collection agencies in the event that the matter is not resolved internally by Pac Bell and is referred to collection. Lee has placed the disputed amount, $206.93, on deposit with the Commission.

The following facts are not in controversy. On June 12, 2000, Lee received a form letter from Pac Bell seeking payment of $206.93 for unpaid bills at 13445 Rancho Camino in an unspecified town or city. On the day he received this letter Lee responded to Pac Bell, disclaiming any knowledge of that address. On or about July 3, 2000, service at his own residence was disconnected. Lee immediately contacted the Commission and, through the efforts of our Consumer Services representative, his service was restored two days later. On August 28, his service was again disconnected, and Lee contacted the Commission immediately. After a series of telephone calls his service was restored the same day.

Pac Bell investigated the disputed bill as required by its tariffs¹ and found that service at the other address had in fact been established by using his name and Social Security number. However, Pac Bell theorizes that Lee was the victim of identity theft by a person using these items to order the telephone service fraudulently.² Accordingly, Pac Bell admits that Lee is not responsible for the charges.

Pac Bell has adjusted Lee's bill by removing a $19.20 service restoration charge and crediting his account in the amounts of $2.73 and $1.08 for phone service he lost during the two periods of disconnection. Pac Bell accordingly contends that Lee's complaint is moot, because Lee has received all of the relief to which he is entitled under its tariffs, and that there is no longer a justiciable controversy before this Commission.

The "micro" issues that Lee has identified are those relating to the determination that he is not responsible for the bills in question, a directive that he is entitled to a refund, and an order that Pac Bell furnish the letter of exoneration. Pac Bell has already conceded the responsibility issue and refunded all disputed charges and sums he has paid for service that he did not receive. These issues are moot. When the funds he has deposited with the Commission are returned pursuant to our order, Lee will have been made whole for any economic loss that may be rectified under Pac Bell's tariffs.

Although no statute, rule, regulation, or tariff requires Pac Bell to furnish a letter of the nature sought by Lee in this proceeding, Pac Bell states in the Joint Case Management Statement filed after the prehearing conference that it voluntarily provided Lee with "a letter explaining that [Pac Bell] recognizes his nonresponsibility for [the account number in question], and has also ordered its billing department to reduce the outstanding balance for [that] account ... to zero," thus eliminating the possibility that any effort will be made to collect the account.³ Pac Bell's measures clearly address Lee's concerns about the possibility that his account history will affect his credit rating or reappear by way of collection efforts. Lee has obtained complete relief from the spurious charges and their consequences through this proceeding.

Lee has correctly characterized his "macro" issues as ones of policy, and for that very reason we cannot address them in this complaint proceeding. Lee seeks a general Commission determination whether a utility should be allowed to discontinue a customer's service at one location for nonpayment of a bill for service at another location, without establishing that a customer has a relationship to the latter. He further asks us to determine whether the utility must demonstrate to the Commission that the relationship exists, before the utility may disconnect service at the first location, if the customer disavows having a relationship to the second location. In effect we have already answered these questions by approving the tariff upon which Pac Bell relied in discontinuing Lee's service for nonpayment of the charges relating to the other address. Although the terms of the governing tariff do not appear to contemplate identity theft or similar fraudulent third-party conduct, this case is not the proper forum in which to consider that problem. A change in the tariff rule would require an investigation, rulemaking, or other Commission proceeding of broad application, to ensure that all affected interests are taken into account. However, Lee's complaint has alerted this Commission and its staff of the existence of an infirmity in the applicable tariff, and we will certainly consider more sweeping action if our future experience suggests that identity theft is a widespread problem affecting the establishment of telephone service.⁴

Lee's complaint has been completely and effectively addressed by Pac Bell, both within and beyond the parameters of its Commission-approved tariffs. Pac Bell complied with its tariffs in disconnecting Lee's service on the two occasions in question, and cannot be penalized for doing so. Although the disconnections ultimately proved to be erroneous, the record does not show Pac Bell was responsible for that error or was slow to correct it. Nothing remains to be done to give Lee complete relief in relation to the particular allegations in his complaint. This proceeding is not the proper forum in which to reexamine the underlying tariffs, and we will therefore grant Pac Bell's motion and dismiss the complaint.

Comments on Draft Decision

The draft decision of ALJ Ryerson in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311(g)(1) of the Public Utilities Code and Rule 77.7 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on ______________, and reply comments were filed on _________________.

Findings of Fact

1. Lee's telephone service was twice disconnected by Pac Bell in the manner and for the reasons he alleges in the complaint.

2. Pac Bell has admitted that Lee was not responsible for the unpaid bills that were the basis for disconnecting his service, and has refunded to him all sums which he paid for his own service during the periods of disconnection, and for restoring his own service.

3. Pac Bell has furnished a letter to Lee exonerating him from any responsibility for the underlying account, and has removed any balance from that account to prevent possible collection efforts for the charges originally claimed to be due from Lee.

4. No factual issue remains to be resolved in this proceeding.

5. The allegations in Lee's complaint have been completely and effectively resolved by Pac Bell.

Conclusions of Law

1. Pac Bell did not violate any statute, or any rule, regulation or Commission order, or the terms of any Commission-approved tariff, in disconnecting Lee's telephone service on the two occasions alleged in the complaint.

2. Pac Bell has refunded all sums wrongfully or mistakenly paid by Lee by reason of the facts alleged in the complaint, consistent with Pac Bell's Commission-approved tariffs.

3. The $206.93 on deposit with the Commission should be returned to Lee at this time.

4. Lee is not entitled to any further relief with respect to Complaint 00-11-024 filed with the Commission.

5. This case should be dismissed, effective immediately.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Complaint 00-11-024 is dismissed.

2. The Commission's Fiscal Office shall immediately refund the $206.93 currently on deposit to complainant C.W. Lee.

3. This proceeding is closed.

This order is effective today.

Dated , at San Francisco, California.