Dear Claudienne

In September 2010 my common-law wife through ICD credit union took out a family indemnity plan insurance with CUNA Mutual. Six family members including my mother were insured under this plan. In February 2011 my mother took sick and she died on April 1, 2011. A claim was made to CUNA Mutual through the credit union but up to now it has not been settled as they have asked for my mother’s birth certificate, school records or some form of ID. However, we can locate none of

these documents.

When we applied for the policy we were not informed that these documents would

be required.

We need your help.

DA

Dear DA

According to CUNA Mutual your wife’s enrolment for the family indemnity plan was not approved as she did not meet the enrolment requirements. The CUNA manager told Tell Claudienne that the credit union was informed that the enrolment was not approved.

CUNA Mutual explained that if parents and in-laws are being enrolled under the plan, verification of birth and relationships is needed. Parents must also be enrolled under the plan before their 76th birthday.

The ICD Credit Union manager said that several times your wife was told that the enrolment for the family indemnity plan was not approved. However, when we spoke to your wife she insisted that the credit union did not tell her that the application was not approved. She said that after she filled out the form at the credit union she was never told that she did not meet the requirements.

We gave CUNA Mutual your wife’s cell number and note that they contacted her on Wednesday. We also note that she had a meeting with

a CUNA Mutual manager on Friday.

Good luck.

Dear Claudienne

On May 18, 2011, an actual reading was done on my NWC meter for 92,000 litres of water. This was quite unusual since no more than three persons occupied my newly constructed house in Portland. I brought the matter to the attention of the contact centre and they indicated that an investigation would be launched. The investigation was completed within two days and the investigator said that there was a water lock-off at the time of the visit to our premises.

We were later asked to settle the bill in full based on the result of the NWC investigation. We were not provided with a formal response as to the outcome of the investigation but the NWC concluded that we consumed that vast amount of water.

Subsequently, we have started to refill our water tanks and turn off the NWC water main and so far this has proven to be extremely efficient. This has also caused us to question the integrity of the NWC.

The following is our water consumption for the period December 16, 2010 – July 19, 2011:

16 Dec – 19 Jan, 2011 (27,000 litres); 19 Jan – 17 Feb, 2011 (52,000 litres); 17 Feb – 18 Mar, 2011 (32,000 litres; 18 Mar – 1 9 April, 2011 (25,000 litres); 19 April – 18 May, 2011 (92,000 litres); 18 May – 17 June, 2011 (29,000 litres); 17 June – 19 July, 2011 (13,000) litres.

I am seeking your kind assistance in getting some answers from the NWC.

LD

Dear LD

The NWC has advised Tell Claudienne that they did investigations at your property on May 18, June 13 and June 15. On each of these three occasions no leaks were found and the meter was functional. However, on June 13 a telephone call advised the NWC that the meter reading was 296,000 litres. The meter was also read on June 17 within the billing cycle. Because the meter was working properly on all occasions and no leaks were found, the NWC said that it was decided that the bill was due and payable.

The NWC said that there have been cases where a tank was found to be filling up and emptying itself and then refilling in perpetuity. Could this have been a possible explanation for your meter reading on June 13 being 296,000 litres?

Good luck.

Have a problem with a store, utility, a company? Telephone 936-9436 or write to: Tell Claudienne c/o Sunday Finance, Jamaica Observer, 40-42 1/2 Beechwood Avenue, Kingston 5; or e-mail: edwardsc@jamaicaobserver.com. Please include a contact phone number.