Sign in

SRP

Sharing is caring! Have something to share about SRP? Use RevDex to write a review
Reviews SRP

SRP Reviews (92)

I just moved to Arizona in March of 2013 from Illinois.

Never ever had my electric service disconnected. I signed

up for SRP and had to pay a 275.00 deposit. Since receiving my bills I have paid them on time. I don't know what happen this month but I didn't receive my bill. Anyway my fault I should have looked or called for one. To my surprise I opened my mail today to an SRP disconnection notice for 133.96. I called to find out why and spoke to [redacted], I told her I was very offended because why would you disconnect me when you are sitting on my 275.00 deposit. I was told they only hold it for 18 months in case I move out and don't pay... I am so sorry I didn't sign up for the prepay bacause that was the worst excuse I have heard not to mention offensive. You take my 275.00 for apparently no reason only to hold it for 18 months.

Review: SRP replaced my meter on 9/10/2015.

They did not inform me of this exchange and there was equipment damaged due to this exchange resulting in over $2500 worth of damage.

SRP initially denied that an exchange had ever taken place and also denied there was ever a loss of power at my home on that day.

After I questioned them further about the exchange they sent me a letter stating that meter exchanges did indeed cause power surges that could damage equipment.

I was also sent litigation paperwork showing what was recommended surge protectors. all my protectors meet SRP's recommendations.

SRP's litigation department has offered me a $200 credit toward my bill... the damage to my computer alone is over $2500.

Although I have talked with a litigation agent on several occasions, they have refused to replace my equipment.

Business

Response:

SRP Cons Affrs received and is in the process of thoroughly reviewing Ms. [redacted] complaint. An SRP Ombudsman has reached out to Ms. [redacted] and has opened an investigation. In the meantime more information/documentation has been requested from Ms. [redacted]. This customer and the Revdex.com will be notified once a decision has been made on this matter. Thank you- SRP Consumer Affairs

Consumer

Response:

SRP did contact me and asked to review the information that was initially sent to them. They did not ask me for more information but rather copies of the same information I had previously sent. Upon the Umbudsmans review of the information she determined that although my personal equipment was damaged, there was no negligence on their part when the meter was switched. She did however explain that SRP was negligent in how the situation was communicated to me. No notice was given as to a switch taking place.SRP denied any power outage at the home the day of the exchange, SRP further denied the meter had been switched at all, then recanted and admitted that yes, the meter had been switched and proceeded in stating that even though damage can occur to household electronics during any type of outage, that the problem was in my surge protectors that have been working fine until this incident. SRP offered to pay me 750 for a 2000 computer. Then in order to get a check from them they sent me a w9 form. I was not a contracted worker for them yet this form will ensure I pay taxes as if I was contracted to work for them and they paid me $750 toward my yearly income. I hope you are astonished at the lengths a wealthy company will go to in order to not take responsibility for damages, write a check for reimbursements then make the party whose goods were damaged pay taxes on that reimbursement. I certainly am.

Business

Response:

SRP Consumer Ombudsman conducted a thorough investigation on this matter. Engineers confirm no surges occur as a result of changing out meters. The power goes off for a brief period and it goes back on again. There are no additional or unique surges associated with the upgrade to more advanced meters. Depending on the home wiring system and loads contained within the dwelling, internal fluctuations of voltage may occur.

It is the customers responsibility to take preventive measures as a first line of defense, which would include investing in surge protection for valuable computer equipment. The age of this customer's surge protector (12yrs +) likely contributed to the problem here, and this was discussed with the customer.

There was some poor communication by SRP's Customer Services Group when the customer first reported the inciden, and although none of this had a direct impact on the damage, SRP Ombudsman took this into account and settled with this customer for $750.

It is an [redacted] requirement for SRP to have a W-9 form on file for every entity they pay. In this case SRP will not withhold and this customer will not receive a 1099 because it is a reimbursement for property.

The check has been mailed and serves as full and final payment on this matter. Consumer Affairs Ombudsman has closed this case.

Review: I moved out of an apartment on 6/30/2013 and SRP is charging me $50 for the day of 7/1 stating that the other occupant did not transfer the service to their name until 7/2. This is an apartment complex. The date my lease ended I had no access to the apartment. They are charging me for service I never received. They should charge the apartment complex for the electricity they used on 7/1/2013. In addition to that, I was using M-Power Box, which my daily power usage was around $6.00/day. Somehow eventhough I was not there instead of a $6 daily usage the amount they are charging is $50. They are charging an exorbitant amount of money. For one day of service.Desired Settlement: Adjust the billing to show end of service of 6/30 instead of 7/2 and bill the apartment complex for the electricity they used.

Business

Response:

Thank you for allowing SRP to respond to this complaint. The $49.16 balance now remaining on [redacted]'s electric account was the result of an unreturned User Display Terminal, rather than power usage from 7/1/13, as the customer first believed. I contacted [redacted] today and this matter has been resolved.

Thank you,

Sr. Consumer Ombudsman

Review: I have noticed a disturbing trend with our power consumption and the way its reported throught the SRP Smart meter. I requested that SRP perform a maintenance of their own equipment a smart meter just to check to ensure that it is functioning propertly. Although I'm disabled and on a very fixed income there insist on leveying a fee to $55 to inspect their own equipment. I cannot afford to pay extra on top of what I already pay to them so they do not want to do anything to help rectify the issue.Desired Settlement: Complimentary service to inspect and rule out non-performance of thier Smart Meter.

Business

Response:

The electric meter at [redacted]. was replaced on January 14, 2014. The previous meter was not displaying accurately, however, usage was recorded and Mr. [redacted]' account has been accurately billed. The new upgraded meter displays accurately and allows for more detailed record keeping such as hourly usage which can be viewed by Mr. [redacted] on SRP's website. There is no fee associated with an exchange or upgrade of an SRP meter.An audit of Mr. [redacted] energy consumption was conducted on January 17, 2014, per request. Normally there is a cost of $55, plus tax, for this one hour appointment analyzing electric usage in the home, however, the $55 fee was waived as a courtesy. The audit did not reveal any abnormalities or malfunctioning equipment, but it was noted that there is rust on an approximatley 10 year old water heater.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.While this is partially true not fully. MY SRP installed Smart meter was failing, they refused to come inspect the meter without charging a $55 fee. If the meter was truly broken they would waive the fee. SRP did eventually come out and end up replacing the meeter - consequently no fee was levied. It was not out of the goodness of SRP's heart. The SRP manager then contacted me and wanted to send out a home audit specialist because of all of the issue we have had at not cost. The audit specialst did come out and check all of our equipment. The rust on the water heater was never anything pertinent to the Smart Meeter failure so I'm not sure how it fits into this equation. So once again they continue to fabricate the situation making themselves look like they saved the day. The fact remains that SRP continually tries to pass on the cost to a disabled customer when in fact they should absorb the cost until the actual issue is determined - they did not.Regards,[redacted]

Business

Response:

SRP regrets any miscoummication and/or invconvenience caused Mr. [redacted] concerng the ultimate replacement of the electric meter at his home. No fees were charged to Mr. [redacted] electric service account and a complimentary energy audit (normally a cost of $55) was performed.

Review: Summary:

1) SRP used to deliver sufficient water to me, now they don't.

2) The user water delivery system is in good repair and improved over the condition that it was in when SRP turned its maintenance over to the users about 60 years ago.

3) Complaints to SRP often result in repair orders. System maintenance is continuous, so SRP is always able to find something to write a repair order about. Executing the repair orders has rarely made any improvement to water delivery and some repair orders include items that may be shown to reduce the efficiency of the user system and damage property.

4) My attempt examine a recent flawed repair order elicited extremely bad behavior by SRP officials. I was treated rudely and verbally abused in public. SRP blocked me from presenting any of my information. My rude treatment by SRP was the trigger for this complaint.

Detail:

About 60 years ago SRP abandoned the maintenance of local urban irrigation distribution systems to the subdivision users. Since then neighbors worked together to repair and improve our local system and it is now in better condition than it ever was.

I have been irrigating my property for more than 40 years. During For the first 30+ years SRP delivered enough water to our subdivision to compensate for local system losses so that the furthest properties from the delivery point received their [redacted] authorized allotment of water.

In the last few years SRP paradoxically cut back the water delivery to distant parts of the neighborhood while usually continuing to boost the amount of water delivered during the earlier portion of our irrigation cycle. Specifically, SRP initially delivers 70-75 AZ miner's inches of water to the subdivision and then cuts the delivery rate to 50-60 inches for the distant properties. 50-60 inches inches of water equates to the amount of water that the [redacted] allocated for each water user and so is sufficient for the first few users. However, every user beyond the first few suffers the system losses and cannot possibly receive the board authorized allotment at that delivery rate. I am the 2nd from

last user in the system.

SRP refuses to discuss historic water delivery nor the anomalies in the current water delivery to the subdivision usually saying something like "I don't know about that." They repeat that they are delivering more than they are required to deliver and will not acknowledge that unavoidable system losses will prevent our users from ever receiving their allotment of water at current diminished water delivery levels.

SRP often responds to complaints with repair orders that do not make any improvement in the user system and sometimes have the potential to cause damage. These directed changes do not increase the amount of water delivered to our properties since digging ditches does not create water.

The stonewalling and misinformation from SRP has stymied my attempts at resolving this matter so that we may once again receive our water allotments. More specifically, and the tipping point for filing this complaint, was SRP's interaction relating to a recent repair order which included scientifically incorrect information. I created a referenced response to the repair order and SRP asked me for a public meeting for me to present it. A time and place was negotiated and six SRP representatives attended. However, when I attempted to present my findings, the SRP team refused to allow me to proceed with the information by interrupting and shouting over me every time I tried to speak. This was the most unprofessional behavior I have ever witnessed during a technical presentation and went far beyond rude.

I made a follow-up call to the SRP Omsbudsman, who was present at the meeting, to verify the names and titles of the other SRP representatives who attended. She informed me that SRP would not cooperate nor provide any of the solicited information. Essentially SRP requested the meeting, subsequently derailed the meeting without hearing any of my presentation, and now won't even admit which employees attended.

Attachments:

nowater.pdf: A copy of my SRP blocked presentation of the analysis of the effects of damaging ditch modifications requested in the SRP repair order. This document also contains additional supporting information for this complaint. repair.jpg: A copy of the SRP work order. srplist.pdf: An unverified list of SRP employees who behaved badly at the August 1 meeting.Desired Settlement: While I am filing this personal complaint as a result of being specifically wronged, it is not possible to clearly distinguish my complaint from a neighborhood complaint. So, I have stated the item below as an outcome for the neighborhood. Compliance will also satisfy me and my complaint.

Outcome: Restoration of the water delivery to my neighborhood to the historical level that provides the water allocation to our properties as defined by the SRP [redacted] without requiring improvements in the neighborhood distribution system beyond the condition that it was in when its maintenance was turned over to the neighborhood by SRP.

Business

Response:

Dear Revdex.com,

SRP has tried to work with Mr. [redacted], but he did not agree with comments and /or suggestions made by SRP employees to assist him with resolving his irrigation concerns. Therefore after consulting with SRP [redacted], the following email was sent to Mr. [redacted] on August 14, 2014 at 4:15pm:

Dear Mr. [redacted]:

SRP has reviewed all of your correspondence to date, including your prepared analysis, and listened to your remarks in person. In addition, we have met internally to discuss this situation.

First and foremost, SRP emphatically supports and applauds the performance of all its employees throughout this matter and even more emphatically rejects your characterizations of them.

Second, we simply do not share your version of either the facts, or the process used to establish such facts, regarding the appropriate means to deliver water in your neighborhood private system.

Moreover, as we have repeatedly advised you, SRP’s obligation is to deliver water to a point established by SRP governing documents in sufficient quantity to meet shareholder entitlements. That SRP has performed this obligation does not appear to subject to challenge. All additional efforts SRP has made in this matter have been as a courtesy happily extended to its shareholders, but in this case to no avail unfortunately due to your and others’ attacks on the “messengers,” in lieu of any cooperative effort. Consequently, our efforts, beyond meeting SRP’s above referenced obligation, will cease.

Sincerely,

Sr. [redacted]

SRP Consumer Affairs

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

SRP did not propose any action to resolve my complaint.

It appears that they did not even read my complaint since they made the statement:

"SRP’s obligation is to deliver water to a point established by SRP governing documents in sufficient quantity to meet shareholder entitlements. That SRP has performed this obligation does not appear to subject to challenge."

Yet, SRP's reduced water delivery of water to my neighborhood to well below shareholder's entitlements is exactly what I have challenged.

Please help me to get SRP to abandon their personal attacks and to actually address their reduced water delivery and the other issues that I have already presented both in my Revdex.com complaint and my "WE USED TO GET WATER; NOW WE DON’T" (nowater.pdf) document.

Regards,

Business

Response:

Dear Revdex.com,

According to shareholder entitlements, SRP is delivering the correct amount of irrigation to Mr. [redacted] subdivision at the delivery point established by SRP governing documents.

In this case, the problems arise from the private system and must be rectified by the owners of that private system. Unfortunately, Mr. [redacted] previously refused SRP’s offer to walk the private system so that SRP employees could point out areas that are in need of maintenance and repair. If proper maintenance and repairs were made, then Mr. [redacted] and his neighbors would receive their irrigation allocation without any issues. Proper maintenance includes weeds and debris removal, ditch reshaping to deliver the amount of irrigation allocated within the gravity fed private system. Repairs need to be made to grates, slides and valves, it is SRP’s experience that as long as shareholders manage their irrigation (adhering to scheduled times) and the private system is maintained in good repair (functioning properly), then irrigation water deliveries can be made without any issues regarding the quantity of water. Again, the water amount delivered is based on water rights entitlements. These entitlement amounts have been in place and have been legally recognized as appropriate for decades.

SRP recognizes that Mr. [redacted] is a shareholder and has extended assistance to him, but without his acknowledgement that work must be done within the private system, which is up to shareholders to operate and maintain, there is nothing further that SRP can do to resolve this situation. As expressed in my previous response to the Revdex.com, “All additional efforts SRP has made in this matter have been as a courtesy happily extended to its shareholders, but in this case to no avail.”

Sincerely,

Sr. [redacted]

SRP Consumer Affairs

###-###-####

Review: Upon initial activation of residential electrical services, I was informed that a deposit is required. Unfortunately, at that time I was unable to deposit funds. I was informed that I could be billed in two separate bills for the deposit. At no time during this transaction was there mention of [redacted]. I did not know of [redacted] until the day an SRP employee showed up to install a box for [redacted]. I was informed that it was basically a prepaid plan. On 28 August, after a storm in my area, my power was out. I called SRP to inquire if there was any power outages. I was then informed that my prepaid credit had possibly run out. I asked how I could get off of [redacted] and onto a regular billing cycle. I was told that I needed a deposit of $185 or a minimum of $135 and the rest would be billed. I called this SRP afternoon, 1 Sep 2015, to make the deposit and have my billing changed. My first call I was put on hold and then disconnected. My second attempt I was informed that I had to put nearly $400 down for a deposit. As it was explained to me, my balance for [redacted] had to be zeroed out and another deposit of $270 had to be placed. Why do I have to put two deposits for electrical service to one residence?Desired Settlement: I would like to be placed on a regular billing cycle with the initial split deposit of $135 and the remaining balance on my first regular bill. Also, to train their employees with the proper knowledge and procedures so they can give correct information and avoid embarrassing situations.

Review: We began work to put in a pool in the backyard 6 weeks ago. this neighborhood has aerial power lines so SRP sent their construction team out to inspect the property and equipment and determine how to bury the power lines so the pool can be built. Based on their recommendation, the construction crew dug the trench and buried the conduit. The SRP construction team them cam back out and said the power can't be connected in the ground the way it was set up (which was SRP's recommendation) and that it will now require that I install a completely new electric (which I already have a brand new electric panel installed). The cost to me to make that change is $2500!! Over the past month we have negotiating with SRP on this issue with no resolution. Their Construction manager, Bruce C[redacted] said to my contractor, "Yes, we gave you bad information but that is now your problem." SRP failed to due to proper due diligence when inspecting the property and equipment and gave improper recommendations and therefore did not provide us with a solution. Now to fix their mistake they are expecting me to pay an additional $2500 for a new electric panel. I did everything by the book and by their recommendation therefore their error should not be costing me out of my pocket. This issue has also delayed the construction project by over 3 weeks!Desired Settlement: I would like SRP to come out and honor their recommendation, pay the additional cost to make their recommendation work, and do it ASAP so my project can move forward.

Business

Response:

SRP is in communications with the customer to resolve this matter, however, ongoing at this time. SRP will provide an update upon resolution of the matter.

Review: (1) I am a Social Security recipient and have been paying for the electric bill most of the time on a monthly basis yet find the charges to be excessive with respect to my income plus is not working with respect to their SRP Basic Price Plan and/or any other arrangement they claim to have in place for persons struggling with thier current low incomes.

(2) Since I am making the majority of the payments I need to have my name instead of my brother's on the account in order to receive payment credit for the electric services given, though he looked into this and found that we need to cancell and re-open an account in order to substitute my name for his?

I hope that these issues will be solved ASAP and appreciate your servcies in all their help as an ongoing problem matter, thank you.Desired Settlement: (1) To lower the charges/billings with respect to my Social Security income and/or their working low-income payment plans and grant a refund/credit to the account for any excessive chasrges that have hurt my Social Security based income.

(2) Change his name to my name on the account for proper billing payment credit.

Business

Response:

SRP Consumer Affairs has contacted [redacted] regarding her complaint and offered options relative to changing the account to her name and the deposit requirment. SRP Consumer Affairs also provided additional information about the Economy Price Plan Discount and the Basic Price Plan.

Business

Response:

SRP has offered options to [redacted] in an effort to accomodate her request to have electric service in her name. Also, SRP has attempted to contact [redacted] again, via phone and email, to further discuss this matter, but no response has been received.

Review: This company lies and says they have been trying for two days to complete an order and they barely tried for one day and they keep trying to sneak into my backyard without me being there they can use the front door since we do not have a door to our gate to our backyard never had a problem beforeDesired Settlement: To stop lieing about the situation

Business

Response:

SRP records indicate 2 attempts to exchange meter on 4/17 were turned down by SRP due to the access gate being boarded up and debris piled behind it. On 4/18, [redacted] called SRP and reported that debris removed and gate unlocked. On 4/21, SRP field technician returned to exchange meter, but no answer at door and no access through side gate. SRP Ombudsman office spoke with [redacted] twice on 4/22 & agreed to send field out one last time to attempt meter exchange at [redacted]'s request. Meter exchanged on 4/23 at 12:00PM.

Review: on the day of june the 9th I come home from a family emergency to no power and srp stating I owed 69 dollars before they would allow me to put electric on my empower card so then I found a way to pay that now today they come up and say again I owe 69 dollars before they would allow me to put electric on my empower boxDesired Settlement: I want them to stop thinking just because they are the power company they think they can bully people around it is the hot season in ARIZONA and they think they supply your electric they can bully you around I want these bogus charges to quit popping up and stop not letting me put electric on and the supposed charges I want put on my box

Business

Response:

Consumer Affairs has researched this complaint. Customer's power was disconnected due several payments returned for insufficient funds. SRP deferred payment on some of the fees and customer is back in power. Consumer Affairs contacted customer and gave a full breakdown of fees/charges/payments on his account. Consumer Affairs also advised the customer to contact our office first should he find himself in this situation again, and possibly we can help find a solution before his power is disconnected.

Review: On 8/30, I submitted a request electric service to my new apartment. After completing a credit check, SRP notified me that they were unable to waive the deposit of $275.00. When I asked SRP why I was being charged the deposit, I was told by [redacted] that they use a credit check through [redacted] and to contact them with any concerns. So spoke with [redacted] at [redacted] who said they don't make determinations as to whether or not the deposits are waived, they just send SRP my credit history, contradicting what [redacted] told me, saying they get a "pass" or "fail" score. Prior to that, I pulled my [redacted] report and was rated as low risk and have no derogatories on my report, which doesn't support the depsit requirement. I contacted [redacted] again and told him what I had found and felt I was being charged unfairly and with no explanation and told him even the apartment complex I'm moving to waived my depsosit based on my credit report. At that time, I asked [redacted] how I could escalate this issue to dispute. He reponded with a form email and did not provide me with a means of escalating the issue within SRP. I have the full string of emails that were sent back an forth.Desired Settlement: I want deposit waived. If it can't be waived, I want a detailed explanation why.

Business

Response:

The criteria is a complex system developed by the Utility Industry and unfortunately, SRP representatives do not have a breakdown of the matrix used. However, Mr. [redacted] can contact me to discuss this further, if he desires. I can be reached at [redacted]. The deposit has been waived as a courtesy and exception to SRP policy. Sincerely, [redacted], SRP Consumer Affairs

Consumer

Response:

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait until for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.

Regards,

Review: SRP has a contractor working here at [redacted]

that stores their equipment and supplies in the park RV lot. Today, August

14, 2013 park residents were not able to get into the RV lot because the contractor

apparently used his own locks on the lot gate thus preventing residents from

using the lot. The park manager called SRP and complained and so did I

but nothing was done to correct the problem. This is totally uncalled for.

SRP needs to hire competent contractors. I'm not a happy camper.Desired Settlement: I want an apology from SRP that this will never happen

again or I will be forced to take legal action.

Check fields!

Write a review of SRP

Satisfaction rating
 
 
 
 
 
Upload here Increase visibility and credibility of your review by
adding a photo
Submit your review

SRP Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Description: Electric Companies

Address: PO Box 52025, Phoenix, Arizona, United States, 85072-2025

Phone:

Show more...

Web:

This website was reported to be associated with SRP.



Add contact information for SRP

Add new contacts
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | New | Updated