Holy cow, just uncovered a massive billing error with Windstream that's been going on for almost three years. Client is a manufacturing company with facilities across Oklahoma and they've been getting charged for "dedicated internet circuits" at locations that were closed in 2015. We're talking about $1,850 per month per location across 9 sites - that's over $50,000 per year in charges for internet service to empty buildings. Windstream claims they never received disconnection orders, but I've got the certified mail receipts. This is going to be a fun fight.
Huge Windstream billing error - $50K in bogus charges
Ed, that's insane but not surprising with Windstream. They're notorious for "forgetting" to process disconnection orders. The key is those certified mail receipts - that's going to be your smoking gun. I'd calculate the total with interest and file a formal complaint immediately. In California, we've seen the PSC award triple damages when utilities ignore proper disconnection notices. You're looking at potentially $150K+ in refunds and penalties.
Rodney's right about filing immediately. Here in Nebraska, we have a statute of limitations on utility billing disputes - usually 3 years. If these charges started in 2015, you might be running up against the deadline for recovering the earliest overcharges. Also document whether they were actually providing any service to those closed locations. If the buildings were empty and they were still billing for internet service, that could constitute fraud.
Ed, make sure you get a site survey done on those closed locations. If Windstream was billing for dedicated circuits but the actual equipment was removed years ago, that's going to strengthen your case significantly. We had a similar situation in Washington where the telecom company was billing for services to a building that had been demolished. The PSC was not amused and ordered immediate refunds plus investigation penalties.
Thanks everyone. I've already started documenting the site conditions - 6 of the 9 locations are completely vacant and have been since 2015, the other 3 were sold to different companies. Nancy's suggestion about the site survey is brilliant - I'm going to have the client take photos showing no Windstream equipment at any of the locations. This should be pretty cut and dried, but knowing Windstream they'll probably claim the circuits were "maintained for future use" or some other nonsense.
Ed, don't let them pull that "maintained for future use" garbage. In New Mexico, the PSC has ruled that utilities can't bill for services to locations where no service is being provided, regardless of whether the infrastructure remains in place. If there's no active service connection and no usage, there should be no billing. With $50K per year in bogus charges, this is definitely worth hiring an attorney if they don't cooperate.
This reminds me of a case we had with Duke Energy's telecom division here in North Carolina. They kept billing for phone service to a manufacturing plant that had been closed for two years. Their argument was that they maintained the ability to provide service so the charges were valid. The state utilities commission laughed them out of the hearing room. You can't charge for potential service, only actual service delivered.
Karen's case is exactly on point. Ed, you might want to research if there are any precedent cases in Oklahoma involving billing for undelivered telecom services. Most state PSCs have ruled consistently that billing must be based on actual service provision, not theoretical availability. With certified mail proof of disconnection requests, this should be a slam dunk. Just make sure you calculate interest correctly - that could be another $15-20K on top of the base refund.
Ed, one more thing to check - see if Windstream was also billing these locations for 911/E911 fees and regulatory surcharges. If they were billing the full service package including taxes and fees for disconnected locations, that could add another 15-20% to your total recovery. Here in Kansas, we've found that telecom companies often forget to remove the ancillary charges when they (claim to) disconnect main services.
Floyd, you're absolutely right - they were billing the full package including all taxes and fees. Just finished calculating the total: $167,250 in base charges plus $28,430 in taxes/fees, plus 18% annual interest comes to about $235,000 total. Filed the formal complaint with the Oklahoma Corporation Commission today. Windstream has 30 days to respond. This is going to be interesting.
Holy crap Ed, $235K! That's one of the biggest telecom recoveries I've heard of. Make sure you're asking for attorney fees and costs too if Oklahoma law allows it. Windstream needs to feel some pain for this kind of negligent billing practice. Keep us posted on how the commission responds - this could set some good precedent for the rest of us dealing with telecom billing fraud.
Ed, this is exactly why I always recommend annual telecom audits for multi-location clients. These billing errors can compound for years before anyone notices, especially at closed or sold locations where nobody's paying attention to the bills. $235K is a hell of a recovery - your client should be thrilled. Hopefully this will encourage them to implement better ongoing bill review procedures.
Vera, Ed can probably give you the full details, but I believe Windstream settled for the full amount plus penalties rather than go to hearing. These cases where they're billing for service to non-existent or demolished locations are usually pretty straightforward - the telecom companies know they can't defend billing for services they're not actually providing. The key is having solid documentation of the disconnection requests and site conditions.
Just wanted to follow up on this thread since I'm new to telecom auditing. Did Windstream end up settling or did it go to a full hearing? I've got a potential client with a similar situation involving CenturyLink billing for service to demolished buildings. Would love to know how this turned out for precedent purposes.