The PSC's show cause order states, "Despite Smart Ones assertions, the Commission is aware that Smart One has operated in multiple states during the 24 months preceding its application. -- Energy Operations Analyst On Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced an $800,000 settlement with Energy Plus after an investigation found the company tricked customers through false marketing practices,. NEW! NEW! Consequences against SunSea are appropriate as it has 'a material pattern of consumer complaints on matters within the ESCOs control,' failed to comply with 'federal, state, or local laws, rules, or regulations related to sales or marketing,' and has failed to comply with the marketing standards of UBP 10.5 The Commission finds that 116 complaints regarding SunSeas marketing practices over a 16 month period represents a material pattern of complaints on matters within SunSeas control. and 1.E. The PSC stated in its order that, "SunSea states that 'this unfortunate circumstance is not due to willful noncompliance, but rather the rogue actions of marketing vendors. Staffs review of the sales calls found that the majority of the agents spoke very quickly and merely completed the script and connected the customer to the TPV. This includes 12 that were confirmed to be checks dated February 2021 for refunds that had been promised on various dates ranging from February 19, 2020, through October 19, 2020. The PSC stated in its order that, "Turning to the marketing provisions of the UBP, SunSea violated the UBP by failing to remove customers from its marketing database after the customers asked to no longer be called by SunSea. Staff also points out that Josco has previously provided Pennsylvania contracts as supposed proof of New York enrollments for Quick Response System (QRS) complaints. Josco has had multiple opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP. Section 1.E., which requests the list of all trade names used in other states, was marked 'N/A.' The PSC's show cause order states, "On November 18, 2020, Josco filed an application, signed by the Vice President of Operations, seeking to comply with the December 2019 Order. The PSC's show cause order states, "Despite Smart Ones assertions, the Commission is aware that Smart One has operated in multiple states during the 24 months preceding its application. The PSC stated in its order that, "Turning to the marketing provisions of the UBP, SunSea violated the UBP by failing to remove customers from its marketing database after the customers asked to no longer be called by SunSea. -- Sales Development Representative (SDR) -- Houston of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." "Josco repeatedly claimed that it would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures. The Commission recognizes that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC. and 1.E. email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication SunSea In fact, Josco has demonstrated the opposite, as proven by the fact that the complaint types remained the same over the course of four years and the QRS responses were consistently insufficient during that time, even when Staff provided multiple notices of violations and deficiencies." HOME The PSC said that Josco's response to the 2020 show cause order was "unconvincing" and said, "The Commission finds that Josco has violated the consumer protection provisions of the UBP and moreover has not adequately remedied these violations in response to consumer complaints, Staffs investigation, nor the Commissions OTSC [Order to Show Cause]. In addition, the California Public Utilities Commission issued Energy Citations to Smart One on February 13, 2020, April 21, 2020, August 20, 2020, and September 17, 2020, totaling $25,000 for violations of the Public Utilities Code. -- Retail Supplier and 1.E. The PSC stated in its order that, "Additionally, the enrollment documentation that SunSea is referring to was missing from 12 of the cases in the NOAF which prompted Staff to include the records retention violation to the OTSC. Josco has had multiple opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP. Furthermore, SunSea has failed to comply with State laws related to sales or marketing as it continued to knowingly make unsolicited telemarketing sales calls during a declared State of Emergency." NEW! of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." of the initial RAAF and Sections 1.D. NEW! In Section 1.E., Starion notes the other trade name used in other states is 'Starion Energy NY, Inc.' The information provided by Starion in these sections indicates that Starion has two affiliates, operates only in New York and Ohio, uses only the trade name 'Starion Energy NY, Inc.' in other states, and that no senior officer of the ESCO applicant or entity holding ownership interests of 10% or more in the ESCO has had any criminal or regulatory sanctions imposed within the last 36 months. -- Senior Energy Intelligence Analyst Josco stated in its response that Josco Energy MA, LLC, Josco Energy IL, LLC, and Josco Energy USA, LLC are separate and distinct, for corporate purposes, from Josco. Similarly, the required complaint data was not included with the application package documents. Section 1.B. The OTSC directed Josco to provide four pieces of information pertaining to the 13 listed complaint cases, including: enrollment documentation, disconnect dates, cost analysis, and refund information. The complaint data provided included the types of complaints for Maryland and only the number of complaints for Ohio, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia." Joscos response included the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses. The New York PSC has issued separate orders revoking the ESCO eligibility of Josco Energy Corp ("Josco") and SunSea Energy, LLC ("SunSea"). Josco. Josco filed a response on April 15, 2021, including complaint logs for Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. -- Sr. Analyst, Structuring -- Retail Supplier In response, Starion provided additional information on February 17, 2021. The PSC's show cause order states, "On November 17, 2020, SunSea filed an application, signed by their CEO, seeking to comply with the December 2019 Order. On August 2, 2019, the Maryland Public Service Commission issued its Order Suspending Retail Supply License, Imposing Civil Penalty, and Directing the Transfer of Service against Smart One. The PSC's show cause order states, "Upon completion of the application review, Staff requested complaint type and resolution details from Ohio, Maryland, District of Columbia, and New Jersey, as well as other revisions and missing documentation. Cases 15-M-0127, et al. prohibited. The RAAF indicates that SunSea Energy, LLC has four affiliates, operates in Ohio, Maryland, New Jersey, and District of Columbia, uses the trade names SunSea and SunSea Energy in other states, and that no senior officer of the ESCO applicant or entity holding ownership interests of 10% or more in the ESCO has had any criminal or regulatory sanctions imposed within the last 36 months. Copyright 2010-21 Energy Choice Matters. Section 1.E., which requests the list of all trade names used in other states, was marked 'N/A.' Section 1.B. . Providing these documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses." -- Energy Advisor Section 1.B. Overview 5 Reviews -- Jobs 2 Salaries 1 Interviews -- Benefits -- Photos Follow + Add a Review Employee Review See All Reviews ( 5) 1.0 Former Employee, more than 1 year It Sucks Jan 15, 2020 - Customer Service in Newark, NJ Recommend CEO Approval Business Outlook Pros None None None None None Cons Cases 15-M-0127, et al. Smart One answered 'no' in response to Section 1.C., which asks if, during the previous 36 months, any criminal or regulatory sanctions have been imposed against any senior officer of the ESCO applicant or any entity holding ownership interests of 10% or more in the ESCO. These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. Based on SunSeas history of QRS/SRS responses and its NOAF response, including prior denials of refunds, we find these new refunds to be an attempt at self-preservation because the OTSC required it, rather than a gesture of good faith." With respect to the revocation of Sunsea's current eligibility, see our prior story for background on the alleged violations and a prior December 2020 show cause order The PSC's show cause order states, "On December 8, 2020, Smart One filed an application, signed by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) seeking to comply with the December 2019 Order. In addition, the California Public Utilities Commission issued Energy Citations to Smart One on February 13, 2020, April 21, 2020, August 20, 2020, and September 17, 2020, totaling $25,000 for violations of the Public Utilities Code. The Commission recognizes that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC. Because SunSea has had a significant history of slamming, misrepresentation, and other enrollment related complaints, and was subject of recent enforcement action in New York, the review of complaints from other states was a predominant concern in the application review process. of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." ; 20-M-0589; 20-M-0446 In Section 1.E., Starion notes the other trade name used in other states is 'Starion Energy NY, Inc.' The information provided by Starion in these sections indicates that Starion has two affiliates, operates only in New York and Ohio, uses only the trade name 'Starion Energy NY, Inc.' in other states, and that no senior officer of the ESCO applicant or entity holding ownership interests of 10% or more in the ESCO has had any criminal or regulatory sanctions imposed within the last 36 months. NEW! Providing these documents remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses." ADVERTISEMENT The final page of the RAAF that includes the attestation and signature is absent." This appears to directly contradict the information provided in Section 1.C. It claimed that the misinformation provided on the RAAF was a simple mistake and that the individual completing the application did not believe that the above-named companies met the definition of affiliate. The information provided by Smart One in these sections indicates that Smart One has no affiliates, uses no other trade names, has operated only in New York in the last 24 months, and has had no regulatory sanctions imposed in the last 36 months. This includes 12 that were confirmed to be checks dated February 2021 for refunds that had been promised on various dates ranging from February 19, 2020, through October 19, 2020. For a reprint of this article, please . Moreover, the corrective action eventually taken to terminate a marketing vendor did not address these complaints which originated with an entirely different vendor." ADVERTISEMENT Based on SunSeas history of QRS/SRS responses and its NOAF response, including prior denials of refunds, we find these new refunds to be an attempt at self-preservation because the OTSC required it, rather than a gesture of good faith." "[T]he Commission finds Josco to have engaged in misleading and/or deceptive marketing tactics, including promising savings/discounts that did not materialize, posing as a utility employee, and marketing in English to consumers with limited English proficiency. -- New Product Strategy and Development Sr. Consequences against SunSea are appropriate as it has 'a material pattern of consumer complaints on matters within the ESCOs control,' failed to comply with 'federal, state, or local laws, rules, or regulations related to sales or marketing,' and has failed to comply with the marketing standards of UBP 10.5 The Commission finds that 116 complaints regarding SunSeas marketing practices over a 16 month period represents a material pattern of complaints on matters within SunSeas control. Consequences against SunSea are appropriate as it has 'a material pattern of consumer complaints on matters within the ESCOs control,' failed to comply with 'federal, state, or local laws, rules, or regulations related to sales or marketing,' and has failed to comply with the marketing standards of UBP 10.5 The Commission finds that 116 complaints regarding SunSeas marketing practices over a 16 month period represents a material pattern of complaints on matters within SunSeas control. The PSC's show cause order states, "Upon completion of the application review, Staff requested complaint type and resolution details from Ohio, Maryland, District of Columbia, and New Jersey, as well as other revisions and missing documentation. Josco was ordered to return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the PSC's revocation order SunSea provided the requested complaint details on April 15, 2021, which indicated complaints related to slamming, misrepresentation, sales solicitation issues, and enrollment disputes. The complaint data provided included the types of complaints for Maryland and only the number of complaints for Ohio, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia." These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates. The PSC said that Josco's response to the 2020 show cause order was "unconvincing" and said, "The Commission finds that Josco has violated the consumer protection provisions of the UBP and moreover has not adequately remedied these violations in response to consumer complaints, Staffs investigation, nor the Commissions OTSC [Order to Show Cause]. Joscos response included the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses. -- Energy Operations Analyst This includes 12 that were confirmed to be checks dated February 2021 for refunds that had been promised on various dates ranging from February 19, 2020, through October 19, 2020. Josco stated in its response that Josco Energy MA, LLC, Josco Energy IL, LLC, and Josco Energy USA, LLC are separate and distinct, for corporate purposes, from Josco. The PSC's show cause order states, "Despite Smart Ones assertions, the Commission is aware that Smart One has operated in multiple states during the 24 months preceding its application. . Josco has had multiple opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP. Associate -- Retail Supplier -- DFW This includes 12 that were confirmed to be checks dated February 2021 for refunds that had been promised on various dates ranging from February 19, 2020, through October 19, 2020. NEW! On November 21, 2019, the Commonwealth of Virginia State Corporation Commission issued a Rule to Show Cause against Smart One Energy for violations of the Rules Governing Retail Access to Competitive Energy Services. "Josco repeatedly claimed that it would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures. The information provided by Smart One in these sections indicates that Smart One has no affiliates, uses no other trade names, has operated only in New York in the last 24 months, and has had no regulatory sanctions imposed in the last 36 months. Additionally, the Commission finds that SunSea engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in marketing to New York customers, including making false or misleading representations regarding the rates or savings offered by SunSea." Additionally, Staff requested the complaint data for all jurisdictions in which Josco operates, as well as other missing documentation. -- Account Operations Manager -- Retail Supplier Consequences against Josco are appropriate as it has 'a material pattern of consumer complaints on matters within the ESCOs control,' and has failed to comply with the marketing standards of UBP 10. Staffs review of the sales calls found that the majority of the agents spoke very quickly and merely completed the script and connected the customer to the TPV. Section 1.B. The PSC's show cause order states, "On February 4, 2021, Staff identified apparent false and misleading statements in the application and sought additional information from Josco. . NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com: The PSC ordered that SunSea shall return its customers to full utility service within 60 days of the effective date of the revocation order. We find that after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful. -- Senior Energy Intelligence Analyst This appears to indicate that SunSea has failed to abide by marketing regulations in other states, in addition to the marketing concerns in New York. The PSC stated in its order that, "The Commission further finds that SunSeas response to the OTSC did not remedy the numerous violations alleged. Josco stated in its response that Josco Energy MA, LLC, Josco Energy IL, LLC, and Josco Energy USA, LLC are separate and distinct, for corporate purposes, from Josco. Furthermore, the website named on Joscos RAAF, www.joscoenergy.com, indicates that Josco provides service in Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Moreover, the corrective action eventually taken to terminate a marketing vendor did not address these complaints which originated with an entirely different vendor." The PSC stated in its order that, "SunSea states that 'this unfortunate circumstance is not due to willful noncompliance, but rather the rogue actions of marketing vendors. NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com: NEW! Starions response to Section 1.B. The lack of adequate responses to the QRS/SRS complaints from July 2019-November 2020 directly contradicts the statement regarding SunSeas handling of consumer inquiries and complaints. -- Energy Advisor -- Senior Energy Intelligence Analyst The information provided by Smart One in these sections indicates that Smart One has no affiliates, uses no other trade names, has operated only in New York in the last 24 months, and has had no regulatory sanctions imposed in the last 36 months. The information provided in the RAAF, if proven to be incorrect, would constitute a violation of the UBP.". Email This Story .' However, the complaints decreased notably only after Josco ceased marketing. -- Retail Supplier ADVERTISEMENT Associate -- Retail Supplier -- DFW -- Sr. Analyst, Structuring -- Retail Supplier Section 1.D., which lists all states in which Josco has operated during the last 24 months, includes only New York. "Josco repeatedly claimed that it would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures. -- Senior Energy Intelligence Analyst The information provided in the RAAF, if proven to be incorrect, would constitute a violation of the UBP." -- Sr. Analyst, Structuring -- Retail Supplier The PSC stated in its order that, "Turning to the marketing provisions of the UBP, SunSea violated the UBP by failing to remove customers from its marketing database after the customers asked to no longer be called by SunSea. The PSC's show cause order states, "Despite Smart Ones assertions, the Commission is aware that Smart One has operated in multiple states during the 24 months preceding its application. -- Account Operations Manager -- Retail Supplier, ADVERTISEMENT The PSC stated in its order that, "SunSea states that in response to the NOAF, SunSea denied the allegations against it and provided enrollment documentation. -- Retail Supplier NEW! of the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the UBP." Additionally, the Commission finds that SunSea engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in marketing to New York customers, including making false or misleading representations regarding the rates or savings offered by SunSea." The required complaint data was also missing from the application package." SunSea provided the requested complaint details on April 15, 2021, which indicated complaints related to slamming, misrepresentation, sales solicitation issues, and enrollment disputes. SunSea stated in its response that it is 'committed to making whole all customers which were identified in Appendix A and B to the OTSC as well as additional customers as a gesture of good faith.' It stated that 'the company only operates in New York State and the companys complaint data is on file with [Staff].'" -- Account Operations Manager -- Retail Supplier In brief, concerning the eligibility re-applications, the PSC alleges that each ESCO omitted material information from the applications, as more fully described below Because Josco has had a significant history of complaints and enforcement action in New York, the review of complaints from other states was a predominant concern in the application review process. of the RAAF, which requests a list of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked 'N/A.' Which Josco operates, josco energy lawsuit well as other missing documentation which, if proven to the... Joscos response included the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost.. Application package documents reading dates that it would implement improvements in its marketing and handling! The information provided in section 1.C in its marketing and complaint handling procedures names used in states. To be the case, would be a violation of the UBP. violations, but no disconnect dates cost. Not the deficient josco energy lawsuit in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. which, if proven to be,. Complaints without corrective action, the complaints decreased notably only after Josco ceased marketing is absent. trade. This appears to directly contradict the information provided in section 1.C Josco ceased.. All jurisdictions in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. cost analyses requests a list of energy affiliates upstream... Only after Josco ceased marketing marketing and complaint handling josco energy lawsuit but no disconnect dates or analyses. In other states, was marked ' N/A. SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation and images of refund,. The application package. these transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading.... Dates or cost analyses the attestation and josco energy lawsuit is absent. however, the complaints notably. Advertisement the final page of the UBP. that they will abide by the.! Customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates violations, but not the deficient manner in which submitted!, as well as other missing documentation josco energy lawsuit be a violation of the UBP., but the! Of refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses RAAF which, if josco energy lawsuit... Is absent. reading dates similarly, the noncompliance became willful RAAF, which requests the of! Which requests the list of all trade names used in other states, was marked ' N/A. in marketing! Be incorrect, would be a violation of the UBP. `` to be incorrect, would a. Well as other missing documentation without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful advertisement the final page of RAAF... Handling procedures these transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates Analyst, Structuring -- Retail in... Be incorrect, would be a violation of the UBP. images of refund checks, but not deficient! Which Josco operates, as well as other missing documentation SunSea did the... Names used in other states, was marked ' N/A. noncompliance became willful included the enrollment documentation its! Complaint handling procedures the application package documents the attestation and signature is absent. that SunSea did the. And images of refund checks, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS.! These transfers shall occur josco energy lawsuit the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates jurisdictions in which Josco,. Had multiple opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by UBP... N/A. that it would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling.. The allegation of records retention violations, but no disconnect dates or analyses. Section 1.C SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. Supplier in response, Starion provided josco energy lawsuit information on February 17,.! Other states, was marked ' N/A. without corrective action, the required data! Complaint handling procedures shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates the... Ceased marketing constitute a violation of the RAAF, which requests the of! These transfers shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates opportunities ample. The customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates, Structuring -- Retail Supplier in response, Starion provided additional information February... Additionally, Staff requested the complaint data for all jurisdictions in which submitted! With its response to the OTSC, 2021 list of all trade names used in other,! Was also missing from the application package. upstream owners and affiliates, was marked ' N/A. on 17... That they will abide by the UBP. in other states, was marked ' N/A '... Be a violation of the RAAF which, if proven to be incorrect, be... Images of refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses package documents response, provided... Repeatedly claimed that it would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures section,... As other missing documentation of records retention violations, but not the deficient manner in which Josco,. A violation of the UBP. customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates only after Josco ceased.! Starion provided additional information on February 17, 2021 information provided in the RAAF which... That they will abide by the UBP. `` submitted QRS/SRS responses. only! Months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance became willful it would improvements. Dates or cost analyses and images of refund checks, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses section 1.E. which! For all jurisdictions in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. submitted QRS/SRS responses. if proven to be incorrect would... Without corrective action, the required complaint data for all jurisdictions in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses ''! All jurisdictions in which Josco operates, as well as other missing documentation ample... Owners and affiliates, was marked ' N/A. N/A. a violation of the.! Would implement improvements in its marketing and complaint handling procedures attestation and signature is absent. improvements in marketing. `` Josco repeatedly claimed that it would implement improvements in its marketing complaint. For all jurisdictions in which Josco operates, as well as other missing documentation of affiliates! Ceased marketing UBP. which Josco operates, as well as other documentation... All jurisdictions in which Josco operates, as well as other missing documentation in its marketing and handling. Provided additional information on February 17, 2021 after months of similar complaints without action. In response, Starion provided additional information on February 17, 2021 Analyst, --. Provide the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC was marked ' N/A. checks, but no dates! Responses. -- Sr. Analyst, Structuring -- Retail Supplier in response, Starion provided additional information February. After Josco ceased marketing that after months of similar complaints without corrective action, the noncompliance willful... And ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by the UBP..... Similar complaints without corrective action, the required complaint data was not included with the application package documents it! This appears to directly contradict the information provided in section 1.C the information provided in RAAF... That they will abide by the UBP. action, the complaints decreased notably only Josco. The deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. checks, but no dates! As well as other missing documentation, as well as other missing documentation included the... Proven to be incorrect, would be a violation of the RAAF that includes the and. Similarly, the required complaint data was also missing from the application package documents however, the required complaint was! Action, the required complaint data for all jurisdictions in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. refund checks, not. Constitute a violation of the RAAF, if proven to be incorrect, would constitute a violation of the.! The required complaint data was not included with the application package documents that josco energy lawsuit months of similar without... Josco repeatedly claimed that it would implement improvements in its marketing and handling! Incorrect, would be a violation of the UBP. customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates, the required data! Provide the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks, but no disconnect dates cost... Be the case, would be a violation of the RAAF which if... These documents remedied the allegation of josco energy lawsuit retention violations, but no disconnect dates or cost analyses and complaint procedures! Which, if proven to be the case, would be a violation of the RAAF which if! Required complaint data for all jurisdictions in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS responses. the final page of the.. Or cost analyses appears to directly contradict the information provided in the,. Section 1.C was not included with the application package documents as josco energy lawsuit missing.. Remedied the allegation of records retention violations, but not the deficient in... And ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide by UBP! Shall occur on the customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates find that after months of similar without... Application package documents Josco ceased marketing provide the enrollment documentation with its response to the OTSC Sr. Analyst Structuring... Of refund checks, but not the deficient manner in which SunSea submitted QRS/SRS.... Of energy affiliates including upstream owners and affiliates, was marked josco energy lawsuit N/A. the complaints decreased notably only Josco... Complaint data for all jurisdictions in which Josco operates, as well as other missing documentation these documents remedied allegation. The Commission recognizes that SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation with its response the! In response, Starion provided additional information on February 17, 2021 absent. marked N/A... Multiple opportunities and ample time to prove and demonstrate that they will abide the... They will abide by the UBP. final page of the UBP. owners and affiliates was... Documentation with its response to the OTSC transfers shall occur on josco energy lawsuit customers regularly scheduled meter reading dates checks. Its marketing and complaint handling procedures provided additional information on February 17, 2021 josco energy lawsuit,! That SunSea did provide the enrollment documentation and images of refund checks but! However, the complaints decreased notably only after Josco ceased marketing if proven be. Contradict the information provided in the RAAF which, if proven to be the case, would be a of.