Reconsideracion Palmer
Cargado por
QUIROZ ABOGADOSTemas abordados
- derecho a la verificación,
- consumo eléctrico,
- pruebas nuevas,
- análisis de facturación,
- plazos administrativos,
- derecho a la protección del co…,
- medidores electrónicos,
- facturación eléctrica,
- servicios públicos,
- reconsideración
Reconsideracion Palmer
Cargado por
QUIROZ ABOGADOSTemas abordados
- derecho a la verificación,
- consumo eléctrico,
- pruebas nuevas,
- análisis de facturación,
- plazos administrativos,
- derecho a la protección del co…,
- medidores electrónicos,
- facturación eléctrica,
- servicios públicos,
- reconsideración
Common questions
Con tecnología de IAKey pieces of evidence submitted include a summary of an internal inspection act by SEDALIB, photographs of the claimant's property, and a water bill from April 2021. These documents are intended to demonstrate rational usage comparable to historical data and substantiate claims against excessive billing during the disputed periods .
The legal rationale to nullify the resolution issued by HIDRANDINA S.A. is based on the claim of procedural and substantive inconsistencies. Procedurally, the request asserts the initial resolution ignored new substantive evidence that reflects billing irrationality. Substantively, it claims the energy provider's practices failed to align with legal and constitutional standards, particularly regarding verifying metering equipment reliability and freedom of contract .
The constitutional argument centers on the infringement of freedom of contract by mandating contracting with specific providers for meter verification services, limiting consumer choice and potentially inflating costs uncompetitively. This coercion disregards constitutional guarantees for economic freedom—by not allowing consumers to freely choose contractual partners and terms—and argues for legal precedence over regulatory directives by citing the Tribunal's interpretations of contractual autonomy .
The document claims that the right to free contracting is violated because the limitation to select only certain authorized contrast companies for meter evaluation restricts the claimant's ability to choose service providers freely, which contravenes the constitutional rights to economic freedom and autonomy of the will, as outlined by the Constitutional Tribunal .
The document argues that the electricity bill reflects excessive charges due to a potentially malfunctioning electrical meter, which might have exceeded its lifespan, as indicated by OSINERGMIN. It contests the inadequate resolution of complaints by only visually inspecting the meter without verifying its functionality, leading to a 335% increase in billing without an increase in usage or remote work at the claimant's household .
The document highlights Article 218, numeral 218.2 of the TUO of Law 27444 - Supreme Decree 004-2019-JUS, which stipulates that the term for submitting administrative reconsideration requests is fifteen (15) days, and these must be resolved within thirty (30) days .
The document argues that the electricity provider's inspection practices are inadequate because they merely involve visually reading the meter without substantively checking the hardware or its calibration. This practice fails to ensure the meter's proper functionality and lifespan, which is crucial given the pronounced billing discrepancies reported. This oversight has been described as dismissive of legitimate concerns over meter accuracy and lifespan compliance .
The document emphasizes the submission of new evidence to warrant administrative reconsideration, as stipulated by Article 219 of the TUO of Law 27444, which requires reconsideration requests to be based on new evidence. The new evidence submitted includes inspection reports, photographs of the property, and utility receipts, aimed at substantiating claims of irrational billing .
The document cites OSINERGMIN's role in providing guidance and regulatory oversight, as it has clarified via their portal that electronic meters have a lifespan of 15 years due to their sensitivity. It suggests the necessity for service providers, like HIDRANDINA, to ensure meters are periodically assessed for compliance with this standard to prevent inaccurate charges stemming from hardware issues .
The document justifies the claim of irrational billing increments by stating that prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, bills were stable and reflected actual consumption levels. However, from March 2020, a sudden and unjustified quadrupling of bills occurred without any change in household activity or occupancy, indicating a potential meter fault or miscalculation by the service provider, exacerbated by the firm's failure to suitably investigate .
