The most trusted and popular consumer complaints website
Explore your opportunities! Create an account or Sign In

Universal Gas & Electric / Door to door sales scam to pay 26% more for natural gas

1 30555 Southfield Road, Suite 440Southfield, MI, United States Review updated:
Contact information:
Phone: 877-863-2444

I interviewed for a job with the Canada based company, Universal Gas & Electric (UGE) in May of 2008, at their behest. I was assured that this was a one on one interview, but was actually a cattle call presentation (Lie #1). Due to deregulation in Michigan, they are able to charge you for residential & commercial natural gas that you receive either through Detroit Edison or Consumers Energy if you agree and sign a long term contract with them. The UGE charge appears on your normal Detroit Edison or Consumers bill, only replacing the “Gas Cost Recovery Charge” line item on your statement; the “Distribution Charge” will remain on your statement (currently .2047¢ from Consumers Energy).

UGE only "sells" a five year locked in plan that is substantially higher than what is currently billed through the aforementioned utilities. At the time of my interview, my “Gas Cost Recovery Charge” billed through Consumers Energy was .92152¢/ccf – UGE was at $1.14/ccf

During the course of their presentation I asked a question regarding the fact that for 40 minutes the presenter (Rob Watson, Regional Manager) only spoke about billing for natural gas - what about electrical billing? Mr. Watson stated that the MPSC only issues a 2 year license for electrical billing, which was contrary to UGE’s 5 year locked in plan, so UGE “opted out” of electrical service billing in Michigan.

So, how do you “sell” a product, door to door, that is 26% higher than what the customer is currently paying? UGE conveniently leaves that up to their 1099’d (http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0, , id=99921, 00.html) sales staff.

According to UGE, if you use their "Proven Sales Techniques" you can earn "Six figures within the first three weeks". Mr. Watson further explained that the whole sales process should take about 5, but certainly no longer than 10 minutes or “you’re wasting your time.” UGE does not provide protected sales territories, but instead recruits "Sales Managers" to flood the market - an unlimited number of UGE 1099'ers could converge on your home or business in one day. Amongst other things, their “sales techniques” includes throwing in the volatility of OPEC, i.e. $4/gal gasoline, into the sales pitch to the potential customer.

The fact is, the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) has already rescinded their license to invoice electrical service (see paragraph 4 above), and are in the process of revoking their natural gas license for possible ethics violations related to the sales techniques of their 1099'd door to door sales staff. This is public information at the MPSC website – Case #’s U-15577 & U-15509 (http://www.michigan.gov/mpsc).

The full complaint that the MPSC filed against Universal Gas & Electric can be found at: http://www.dleg.state.mi.us/mpsc/orders/gas/2008/u-15509etal_05-20-2008.pdf.
You can file a complaint with the MPSC at: http://www.dleg.state.mi.us/mpsc/gas/gascomplaint.htm
Or by calling [protected] (from within Michigan) or [protected] (from outside of Michigan).

A simple internet search will turn up thousands of consumer complaints from Canada to the USA. My grandfather used to call company’s such as these “Boiler Room Operations!

Sort by: UpDate | Rating

Comments

  • Re
      15th of Jul, 2008
    0 Votes

    Energy Billing Fraud Charges vs Multiut owned by Nachshon Draiman! 2
    Multiut Admitted to holding money belonging to customers.
    It is holding over $1.5 million in Collected City of Chicago Tax on Natural gas and refuses to pay the City of Chicago or refund the customers plus interest.
    Chicago Metro Area Consumers are taken for a ride by Multiut – Nachshon Draiman – Energy Billing fraud. Plus Adding charges to a bill without a customer’s approval. This practice is illegal and penalties are enforced.

    In a Class Action proceeding initiated in November 2001 - The case after numerous delays by Multiut, is now proceeding.
    Gore vs Multiut - IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS Case No. 01 CH 19688
    Posted on September 29st, 2007:
    IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
    COUNTY DEPARTMENT - CHANCERY DIVISION
    FILED
    JACK GORE on behalf of himself and all ) NOV 28, 2002
    other persons or entitles similarly situated, |

    vs. No. 01 CH 19688
    DOROTHY 8ROWN CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT
    MULTIUT CORP, an Illinois corporation, } Judge Stephen A, Schiller
    Defendant ) Courtroom 2402
    RESPONSE TO §2-619.1 MOTION TO DISMISS J/
    Plaintiff JACK GORE (“Gore”). by his attorneys LARRY D DRURY LTD., hereby responds to the Motion to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-615 and 619, brought as a combined 2-619.1 motion by defendant MULTIUT CORP. (“Multiut”).
    Introduction
    Multiut is trying to time-bar this case by transforming express a written agency-service contract drafted by Multiut into a contract for sale of goods, and by disputing Gore's allegations as to concealment and discovery of the wrong – but without submitting any Rule 191 affidavit or documentation. This is a class action arising out
    of a written contract drafted by Multiut, attached here and to the 2nd Amended Complaint as Exhibit A and B collectively referred to herein as the "contract" or "agreement “ unless otherwise indicated by context): (1)
    (A) A service contract to act as Gore's "purchasing representatives" in obtaining natural gas from “off system" suppliers. This contract, entered into on or about December 1990, was titled “Agreement, " Exh. A 1, 3-6, 10. And,
    {B} A series of supplemental agency contracts to act as Gore’s agent, in so doing with respect to various Properties. These were entered into contemporaneously with the service contract and thereafter, and titled "Natural Gas Purchasing and Agency Agreement.” Exh.-B. (2)
    (1) Similarly Multiut refers to them collectively as “the agreement” in its brief (Mem. p. 2, fn. 1). Although the documents are on separately filed pages, they are mutually inclusive and one could not be entered into without the other; e.g. the service contract refers to and incorporates the agency contracts, wherein Multiut refers to itself as Gore's 'exclusive natural gas purchasing agent'. See Exh. A, third introductory paragraph and 16-17; Exh. B 1,
    (2) Exh. 8 one of the series, is dated 1998, Exh. C is Gore’s §2-806 affidavit as to the others. Gore has stated he does not have a copy of each, they are inaccessible to him i.e. no longer in his possession, whether missplaced or otherwise, and cannot be located or returned. 2nd Amd.. Compl. {4; Exh, C, in the 1st Amd. Complaint, Count 4 for breach of oral contract was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after Gore's deposition of May 8, - 2002, when the service contract and the 1998 agency contract were produced by Multiut and adequately established, Exhs, A-B are the same Exhs. 1-2 attached to the Gore transcript, excerpts of which are attached herein as Exh. D, Similarly the missing agency agreements are likely in Multiut’s possession and will be produced in discovery.
    The contract was drafted by Multiut, it unequivocally defines Multiut's role in the transactions, and shows that this case is not governed by the UCC. What is at issue here is not the "good" that Multiut obtained for Gore, but the service Multiut provided as his purchasing agent. Gore is suing upon the service and agency contract – not the natural gas - and has alleged that Multiut breached its duties in two respects;
    {1} By falsely and intentionally charging and retaining for its own use funds that were to be applied to a City of Chicago 8% gross receipts tax (“Tax”), which it had promised would be placed in escrow and forwarded to the City. Between December 1990 and January 1995 (after the City of Chicago changed the Tax), Multiut collected approximately $14, 000 from Gore and at least $1 million to $1.5 million from the Class, for this Tax that was not actually imposed upon Multiut. 2nd Amd. Compl. 7-9, '3! Multiut not only failed to inform Plaintiff and
    the Class that the money collected was not so applied or escrowed, but also failed to escrow, account for, and refund the funds with interest.
    (2) By overcharging for the service of providing natural gas. Multiut was to charge for natural gas actually supplied to Gore and the Class on a set per therm cost basis, plus an amount equal to 1/2 of their respective per therm cost savings per month, instead, Multiut overcharged and billed Gore at least $100.000 and the class millions of dollars and refuses to provide an accounting and refund with interest. Id. 10-11.
    Gore has further alleged that Multiut prevented him from discovering the wrongs by intentionally concealing them until at least December 2000, when he discovered the truth and could not reasonably have done so earlier. (Gore testified at his deposition on May 8, 2002 that he first discovered the discrepancies in his bills, the overcharges, the taxes, and failure to escrow the taxes, in December 2000. See Exh, D, pp. 25-28, ) Thereafter he was unable to obtain any refund and based thereon, terminated Multiut’s services on or about June 2001, However, the wrongful acts are continuing to date, in that Multiut continues to 'refuse to provide an accounting and refund with interest to Gore and the Class, all to their detriment and damage. They seek imposition of constructive trust (id. 22), an accounting and damages in not less than the foregoing amounts plus interest (id, 9-13, 23).
    Gore filed the original Class Action Complaint on Nov. 20, 2001, and in lieu of responding to a motion to dismiss, filed the 1st Amended Class Action Complaint Feb. 14, 2002, setting forth 4 counts for (1) breach of
    3-: The City did not and will not collect the 8% Tax, presumably because of U.S. constitutional restrictions as to the interstate commerce clause and exceptions for interstate pipelines and out-of-state suppliers. As a result in 1994 the City changed the tax from an 8% gross receipts tax to a flat rate tax of 1.4 to 1.5 cents per therm. 2nd Amd. Comp. P 8. in Multiut’s response to First Request to Admit {attached hereto as Exh. F), it has admitted the following statements about this Tax; (8) that Multiut collected approximately $14, 000 in Tax from Gore between 1991-1994; and (9) that Multiut spent its customers Tax payments on business expenses.. Yehuda Draiman testified to the same effect in his deposition 1-10-02 See transcript excerpts attached hereto as Exh. E, at pp, 36-37, 40, 68, and Exh, 6 thereto.
    Activity Date: 8/15/2007 Participant: GORE JACK
    CASE SET ON STATUS CALL
    Court Date: 8/29/2007
    Court Time: 0930
    Court Room: 2402
    Judge: BRONSTEIN, PHILIP L.
    As of March 2008 a third judge has taken over the case. The previous 2 Judges Schiller and Bronstein resigned from the bench under suspicious circumstances.


    August 30th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
    RE: MULTIUT CORP. FORMER CUSTOMERS!
    Multiut owner is Nachshon Draiman of Cook County, Illinois
    PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT YOU ARE PROBABLY DUE A REFUND PLUS INTEREST FOR SALES TAX ON NATURAL GAS WHICH WAS COLLECTED FROM YOU AND WITHHELD BY MULTIUT CORP. TEL # 847-982-0030 at 7514 N. Skokie Bl. Skokie, Illinois.
    MULTIUT IS HOLDING APPROXIMATELY OVER ONE MILLION DOLLARS THAT MAY BELONG TO CUSTOMERS.
    MULTIUT HAS OVERBILLED CUSTOMERS ON SHARED SAVINGS FOR THE PAST 14 YEARS.
    THERE IS CURRENTLY A CLASS ACTION SUIT AGAINST MULTIUT.
    I STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT YOU HAVE ALL YOUR BILLS THAT WERE ISSUED BY MULTIUT CORP. AUDITED THOROUGHLY THERE MAY BE STORAGE CREDITS DUE YOU AND ERRORS IN BILLING WHICH CREDITS MAY BE DUE YOU.
    Multiut has admitted in Court that they are holding the money.
    Gore vs Multiut 01 CH 19688 Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
    A concerned citizen
    For honesty in billing

    Fraud, Insolvency and numerous contempt of court orders
    anti defamation usa - Home - Justice
    Detailing fraud by Nachshon Draiman his alter ego companies such as Multiut, Future associates and more, and justice for all.
    www.antidefamationusa.com/

    Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al
    On August 16th, 2007: Numerous Federal contempt of court orders against Nachshon Draiman and Multiut
    Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al 1:02-cv-07446.
    Multiut Corp and Nachshon Draiman dba Future Associate of Skokie, IL. are withholding evidence of fraudulent activities in the Energy industry and inflated Medicaid billing to the government for Nursing Home patients. Also Bank fraud against their bank by presenting fraudulent and inflated receivable reports in order to get and keep a credit line, Nachshon Draiman was a large stock holder of the bank. Draiman Nachshon • SC 13G • Success Bancshares Inc • On 2/17/98
    Filed On 2/17/98 • SEC File 5-53545 • Accession Number 950137-98-586
    Court: United States District Court Northern District of Illinois -
    Case Title: Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman Future Associates et al
    Case Number: 1:02-cv-07446
    Judge: Hon. John A. Nordberg
    Filed On: 10/16/2002
    SUMMARY
    Case Number: 1:02-cv-07446
    Referred To: Honorable Michael T. Mason
    Jury Demand: Defendant
    Demand: $9999000
    Nature of Suit: Contract: Other (190)
    Jurisdiction: Diversity
    Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
    Case Updated: 01/20/2005
    NAMES
    Party Name: Multiut Corporation an Illinois Corporation,
    Party Type: Defendant
    Attorney(s): Paul Thaddeus Fox
    (312) 456-8400
    Firm Name: Greenberg Traurig, LLP.
    Firm Address: 77 West Wacker Drive
    Suite 2500
    Chicago, IL 60601
    Alan Jay Mandel
    847-329-8450
    Firm Name: Alan J Mandel Ltd
    Firm Address: 7520 North Skokie Blvd
    Skokie, IL 60077
    03/30/2007 225
    NOTICE of Motion by Ira P. Gould for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney224 before Honorable John A. Nordberg on 4/19/2007 at 02:30 PM. (Gould, Ira) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
    04/18/2007 226
    MINUTE entry before Judge John A. Nordberg: Motion of Ira Gould to withdraw his appearance on behalf of Multiut Corporation 224 is granted. The motion will not be heard on 4/19/07 as noticed. Mailed (vmj, ) (Entered: 04/19/2007).
    For More Information See: www.antidefamationusa.com or www.antidefamation.us or www.nachshondraiman.net

    THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO BE BETTER INFORMED AND EDUCATED ABOUT THE OPTION AVAILABLE, GUARD AGAINST FRAUD - FREE ECONOMIC VENTURES FROM REGULATIONS ARE GOOD - BUT THEY NEED ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARDS.

Post your comment