This week, I present to you the documents of an emphasis made by Firat Electric Distribution Co. with the electricity bill generated by fraudulent transactions.
Our consumer bought a residence, because of the problems of the contractor to move to the residence without obtaining the residence license, the subscription contract because he could not get the subscription contract while the subscriber's record of paying the subscriber's debt as a site subscriber, the unit prices of the day and the construction site tariff consumed electricity cost to the distribution company operated by the public paid; After obtaining the residence license (building permit), he applied to the distribution company on 28.08.2008 to make the retail electricity contract of the facility he used, paid all debts for the period he used without a subscriber, and at the same time received a certificate of no debt from his company and with a refund of 129.69 TL in the amount of assurance fee (deposit) cut off.
Aksa electricity, which has won the right to transfer the operation as a result of privatization of the electricity distribution company two years ago, sent a notice to the consumer on 20.05.2013, claiming 358.01 TL from 21.06.2006. Due to the debt, he sent an executive notice.
I don't want my readers to think about how much small debt is a matter because there's five years of interest accrual in five minutes, and there are about 4,000 consumers in this situation, and the smallest debt is these others. (I can send the entire list to those who want it in my hand.)
On 28.08.2013, can anyone understand to say that you owe money from 20.05.2006 to the consumer who cut off the relationship by taking the guarantee fee with the certificate that he has no debt.? Or was this debt manufactured entirely on a date after 2011, dated 2006.?
If this invoice was produced as dated 2006 at a date after 2011, then would it not be a tax crime because the declaration period has passed.?
Now, dear readers, i'd like to ask, did the person who edited the "no debt" document as a public company forgery.? If he did, did he get three years and four months for a hundred-and-a-quarter-month sentence for mischief in the bidding, bribery and bribery?
On 31.07.2013, the file on the subject submitted to the Office of the President has been transferred to the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, which has held some documents since January 6, 2013 but has not taken any action. I hope that this time the officials of the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources will show the necessary sensitivity.
On 13.09.2013, three CDs, necessary invoices and petitions with ptt cargo with accepted number KP01445953388 and three CDs, necessary invoices and petitions were sent to the Prime Minister's Information Access Center and there was no sign of improvement to this day.
However, if the documents are forged from the authorities examining the files, or if the transactions are in accordance with the laws and regulations, the claimers on the grounds that the statements are false, if the findings of correct and illegal enforcement of no documents and statements are fixed, there should be no sanctions against the relevant company.
I wonder why the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources and epdk insist on not dealing with the issue and do not even respond to thousands of petitions, despite such serious and documented allegations and objections.
So whether this company is stronger than the Government, or if these documents you're examining are forged, then i wonder what this protectionism is for?!!!!