Bogotá, July 25, 2018

Gentlemen
CODENSA S.A. ESP
E.S.D.

Attention: Resource for reconsideration and in support of appeal, claim No.

46420597. Client 0939732-1

JUAN CARLOS ROZO CAÑÓN, mayor and resident of this city, identified as it appears in
under my corresponding signature, acting in my capacity as co-owner of the property located at
Tena Cundinamarca, Vereda el Rosario, Estancia María Isabel, within the investigation in
reference, whose initial case file in the customer defender's office was subsequently redirected to
CODENSA PQR office no. 02165623, through this document I address you with
the end of filing a motion for reconsideration and in the alternative an appeal, against the fictitious act or
presumed issued by your company with no apparent date through which they establish that the payment
astronomical electricity bills are arising from the user without investigation.
complete your root cause.

It should be noted first of all that I have not been notified of a decision to date.
any administrative, although they express to me via telephone the existence of a
document that has not been notified to me, which is why I find myself in the urgent need to
file the present appeal based on the following:

IN FACTS

In summary, the matter in chronological order presents the following situations:

On several occasions, a complaint was filed with CODENSA due to the failure of a pole.
peripheral, which from the main transformer carries electric supply lines towards
meter of our property and return to the same pole and enter our property,
It shows deterioration due to exposure of the wooden base material to the elements.
That pole is leaning and is being supported by the power lines of ours.
house. This pole is located OUTSIDE of our property, on a farm
Aledaño. It should be clarified that the fall of this pole caused some cables to fall.
about the perimeter fence of our property energizing it, as well as the peeling
from the main supply cables to the house found on the property
provoking an additional prejudice. This causes the internal metal structure of
The building also energizes and transmits electric shocks in railings and windows.
In the direction of the inclination of the pole, which, finally yielding to its weight,
it would present an instantaneous break of the power lines to our property, damage in
the fencing of the estate and susceptibility to the safety of the property, damage that is
outside of our having nor provoked because of the tenants thereof. It is worth noting
add that we have an elderly person living on the premises, and
interrupting the supply would inevitably affect the health of that person since
is in a condition of disability to walk to another place in
energy search.

2. The following monitoring of the case is provided to better support the grievances.
Despite the repeated requests, we still do not have an official position from the
entity that in a written document responds to each of the requests that have been made
presented, thereby violating the very foundation of the right to petition.

Four complaints had to be made through different channels for the technicians to visit, and not
in the scheduled deadlines but exceeding the promised ones, the visit to the site for the review of the
However, we do not have a substantive response to the matter.

3. The technician's first visit to the site was to review the pole and the meter.
found that it was marking more than it should and condensation technicians proceed to
manipulate the landing of what was causing the overcount in the counter and
de-energize the fence.

4. Regarding the previous point, in the petition filed in item No. 3.

it is highlighted in its internal point number 7:

(…) The lack of diligence from the energy company to address the issue I have reported,
It can cause material damage and even injuries to the people who inhabit the
property, reason why in light of the omission and lack of effective response from your
company, I hereby hold you responsible for any damage and harm that may occur,
in the face of the negligent and ineffective action to solve the problem I have reported
with opportunity, without having an effective solution to date.

5. CODENSA proceeds to make a partial response to the case according to item 6, where
advise the user to pay a partial amount of $66,000, with the condition of a review
more detailed case from the technicians of CODENSA. However:

6. During a subsequent visit by a new technician to the property during record 2970965, it is reported
erroneously that a private technician intervenes making corrections to the landing.
These corrections are made by the CODENSA technicians for item 5. Without
embargo, this last visit refers only to the review of the meter indicating whether
is marking correctly, and not indicating the root cause of the envelope
marked. Technician indicates that CODENSA only sent it to check the meter, not the
energization of materials within the building or inspection of the pole that is
causing the main damage. It is reported through the record that the user must do
mandatory adjustments, but it does not indicate that they are caused by external factors
responsibilities of CODENSA that have caused several damages within
of the property.

7. A telephone record is made again requesting urgency in the process, due to

that the respective electricity bill is received for the amount of COP$877,570, (charge
exorbitant considering that the average consumption does not exceed $_______
And no response has yet been received from either of the procedures carried out by the two.
teams of CODENSA technicians, nor the arrangement of the billing which is
obviously caused since the pole tilted and energized the materials
metallic elements of the property.

8. A response is received from CODENSA with Subject: Communication No. 02176330 of 12 of

June 2018, humorously responding that they did not find the customer number, thus
that they cannot process the request.
 9. The second energy receipt is received on July 6, 2018, for the amount of
COP$971100. If we review the evolution of consumption, the jump in the bill is evident.
previous since the report of the fallen pole, and the consumption for the current month reports the
double the consumption that is normally consumed according to the history, a clear indication of
that something is still not working properly and the damage from the tilt of the pole on
the cables that enter the property continue to drain energy and affect our
billing.

10. The decision, supposedly made at the end of the month, was not communicated.
June, according to the CODENSA advisor on 80th street who provided a partial copy of it. It
It says it was sent to email but the communication never arrived. The advisor of
CODENSA says that, since a reasonable period has already passed, this current resource
the replacement will not be addressed against which we protest vigorously for the
negligence and administrative silence of the company which has no certain evidence of
the supposed notification by email, but rather the 'copy/paste' of an advisor within
from the system that claims to have sent it, but there is no real evidence of any email that
it would have indeed been sent.

11. The related technical visit, which was carried out by the technician Carolina Sánchez on the 8th of
June 2018, the property was requested by CODENSA solely to review the
meter of the property meter, according to her own testimony, does not contain a
serious research to determine the root cause of the increase in consumption, nor too much
less to solve the main problem that caused it, than by primary communication
On April 12, 2018, CODENSA was informed via telephone filing 15627534.
There was a nearby pole next to the property that was down, causing the mesh to become electrified.
perimeter and internal piping of our property. The technical analysis of the official of
CODENSA fails to meet reality as no adjustments were made with a technician.
specifically, it lacks a thorough and complete technical analysis, where a
evident energized metallic elements on the property, which causes the increase
of the receipt value, but omits it in the report of his visit.

The announced technical visits have not been attended to within the timeframes provided by the
same company.

As a consequence of the above, it is requested:

Requests of the resource:

Provide a root cause analysis that indicates the true genesis of the damage to the pole.
and subsequent increase in the energy bill establishing real responsibilities and
logical, not based on a scheduled visit to review only one part of everything
electric system which in this case was the meter.

2. Revoke promissory note No. 187803865 that was necessary to issue by the Advisor.
CODENSA street 80, as part of a payment agreement, to avoid the cut off of
power supply to the property as a temporary solution while the case is resolved.

3. Recalculate the cost of the invoices according to historical consumption before the
sudden increase due to the partial fall of the pole.

4. Refund the payment of the initial fee corresponding to promissory note No.
187803865, corresponding to COP$300,000 paid at Rapicade Calle 80 on the day
July 23, 2018

5. Finally, expedite the resolution of the case that has been reported.
since the month of April with numerous filings that can be consulted at the
system, including customer defender and superintendent of public services, and
that due to silence/administrative negligence, a timely solution has not been provided.
The arguments for appeal, in addition to what has been previously indicated, must take into account what
next:
Violation of Due Process
Despite the repeated requests in our capacity as users, CODENDA SA ESP has not provided
a substantive response with the corresponding explanations to all our requests, in fact
has not properly notified the responses to the respectful requests, thereby preventing this
the way contradiction and defense are exercised in the course of administrative action, of
this present resource is presented against a fictitious act that has not been notified and of
of which I am unaware of its entire content.

2. Collection of non-agreed concepts.

In accordance with the principle of the autonomy of private will, referred to in the article
1602 of the commercial code, individuals freely determine the content, scope,
conditions and modalities of their legal acts. Now then, in the case of service contracts
of public services, the principle of the autonomy of private will operates fully, according to what
provided in the users' regulations of this service, except in cases where, through
mandatory public order regulations, the state has regulated some aspects of this type of
contracts. Consequently, both subscriber and operator are obliged to comply with what
agreed.
In this regard, it is important to highlight that in the exercise of the autonomy of the will, I celebrate with
your company a contract for the provision of energy services, the rates have been paid
respective, but after my complaint, exorbitant charges have been made without explanation.
part of the CODENDSA, a value that to date has not been explained and regarding which I submitted
timely objection
Regarding such fact, I filed a complaint requesting clarity on this point, I requested information about
the concepts of billing and the dates and billed concepts, the breakdown of the invoice and
information about the reasons for the increase, without having a response as of the date
fund and sufficient
In this regard, the charge must be revoked.
3. Collection of what is not owed.

It is important to reiterate that without information about the exorbitant increase in the bill
it is making a charge without legal basis since the charge made must correspond to the
contracted service, if not, the subscriber can file the respective complaint so that it can be addressed
Your request has been resolved. Notwithstanding the above, the agreed conditions must be respected in the
contract, as long as they do not contravene public order regulations.

4.Violation of the right to petition

Although the onset of all the issues arose from the request to change a pole
As of now, there has been no substantial response or decision regarding the related requests.
with the change of the pole that threatens imminent damage to the property, the adjustment has not been resolved
the billing that suddenly increased without any justification.
 Legal Foundation
I invoke as legal grounds article 13 and 29 of the National Constitution, Law 1474 of 2011
CPACA, and 142 of 1993, and other norms that modify or replace them.
These powers are nothing other than those provided for in chapter VII, title VIII of law 142 of 1994.
as indicated in numeral 1.8 of chapter I, title III of the Single Circular
Superintendency of Industry and Commerce: "The powers provided for the Superintendency of
Public services regarding user protection are enshrined, among others, in the
Chapter VII, Title VIII of Law 142 of 1994, provisions that establish the conditions and
procedures for the attention of requests, complaints, and claims by the operators
the users.

TESTS

I request the following references of files before CODENSA to be taken as evidence.

CLIENT DEFENDER with its respective annexes in each report:

ANNEXES

Technical Visit Report

2. Copy of response to request by CODENSA not communicated to the
property owners, deduced from a technical visit with incomplete analysis.
3. Copy of promissory note No. 187803865

COMPETITION

You are competent to hear this appeal, as the procedure is under your office.
from the corresponding research.

NOTIFICATIONS

I kindly request that notifications regarding this appeal for reconsideration and any
another response related to the case should be made to Calle 64 C No. 68B-98 Block 6 entrance 2
Apartment 501 in the city of Bogotá, to the emailjuankhagen@gmail.comand to the
phone 310873818500

Sincerely,

JUAN CARLOS ROZO CAÑÓN

CC 80068424
CEL 3108738185