H-2Appellants Evidence (redacted)
6 passages
2. NSP 's "actuals" have a glaring provenance problem When asked for the records necessary to explain the additional charge, NSP said: "We don't keep notes during a job unfortunately." "We do not do this." "We do not have these details." T...
AI summary NSP faced scrutiny over the lack of detailed records explaining a cost overrun. When asked for documentation such as field reports and logs, NSP claimed they did not keep such records. After being referred to the DRO, NSP provided a spreadsheet labeled 'actuals' to explain the situation.
4. The backhoe figure is extraordinary NSP says the quoted backhoe cost was $4,752.75. It says the actual was $13,771.42. The alleged variance is $9,018.67. The backhoe was, to Redmayne's knowledge, on site for no more than approximately 2...
AI summary NSP claims a discrepancy between the quoted and actual backhoe costs, citing $4,752.75 versus $13,771.42. The backhoe was on-site for no more than 20 hours. Town & Country provided the machine and offered 2026 rates of $145/hour on-site. Using that rate, the actual cost implies significantly more on-site time than reported.
9. The account determination The Appellant has prepared a simple reconciliation of the amount that could properly remain as an additional customer contribution, using NSP's own revised position as the starting point. This is not an alterna...
AI summary The Appellant has prepared a reconciliation based on NSP's revised position, applying a later labour correction, removing an unexplained backhoe variance, and accounting for traffic-control underspend.
NSP revised additional contribution $6,418.15 NSP's revised position after removing $426.69 apprentice labor and $17.00 "other" and including a traffic control underspend credit of $2,599.42. Less: backhoe variance ($9,018.67) Remove the d...
AI summary NSP revised its additional contribution to $6,418.15 by removing certain labor costs and including a traffic control underspend credit. The calculation is described as conservative in NSP's favor and results in a negative net calculated position, indicating a credit is due to the customer.
$9,018.67 backhoe variance that has not been substantiated and recognises the $2,599.42 traffic-control underspend. On that basis, the arithmetic does not produce a smaller additional bill. It eliminates the additional contribution altoget...
AI summary The text discusses an unsubstantiated backhoe variance and traffic-control underspend, resulting in a surplus before HST. It requests NSP to clarify any disputes and provide supporting records if an additional amount is still considered payable.
Your Dispute in summary is: that Joanna Hammersley is the Account holder related to this dispute (Account that Charlton Kurtz has been give consent by the N.S.Power Account holder to allow DRO access to her Account information; that you di...
AI summary The dispute involves Joanna Hammersley, the account holder, who disputes an 'Additional Customer Contribution Invoice' issued by NSP for a line extension on 2nd Peninsula Rd. NSP claims the invoice is due to increased backhoe costs, but Hammersley argues that NSP did not provide a reconciliation of the original quote and the additional invoice. The work was completed in 2025, and the invoice was issued in 2026.