Derek from Oklahoma City. Not trying to name anyone but I took over an account from a client whose previous auditor had settled a rate class claim for $8,000. When I pulled the documentation the actual recoverable amount should have been closer to $28,000. The previous auditor accepted the first offer without knowing the full retroactive period allowed under that state's PUC rules. Client has no recourse now because they signed off on the settlement. Really bothers me. How do you make sure you are not leaving money on the table when you settle?
I disagree with how another auditor handled a rate class case
Derek from Charlotte. This happens more than it should. The solution is to always calculate the maximum defensible claim before you enter any settlement conversation. You can always settle for less but you cannot go back for more once you sign.
Meredith from Raleigh. I require clients to explicitly acknowledge in writing that a settlement offer is below the maximum recoverable amount when that is the case. They can still choose to accept it but they do so informed.
That written acknowledgment is a great idea. The client in my situation had no idea they were settling for less than the full amount. They thought the utility's offer was the number.
Lucille from Pine Bluff. Some auditors settle fast because they get paid faster. A settlement at 30 percent of the real claim is better than waiting 18 months for the full amount, from a cash flow standpoint. That is understandable but the client deserves to make that choice not the auditor.
Phil from Tampa. There is also the issue of auditor competence. Not everyone knows how to research the full PUC recovery rules. It is not always negligence — sometimes it is just not knowing what you do not know.
That is fair Phil. I am not accusing anyone of bad faith. But it does remind me to stay current on the regulatory rules in every state where I work and to never assume the tariff language is the whole story.
Sandra from Baltimore. Cases like this are also why I think AAUBA training on state regulatory frameworks is so valuable. The differences between states on recovery periods and dispute processes are significant and they directly affect how much clients get back.