Re: Billing issues revisited

[Seattlebound one]

I think its funny when people say that verizon wireless is going to sue
you for the 175. They actually don't care if you pay it or not. As my
roommate can contest too. He canceled service because of a billing error
that was his fault (didn't read the print about his roaming) and decided
since he couldn't afford paying every month he canceled. Didn't pay the
175 cus he thought it was unfair. Now he is getting married and him and
his new wife cant get a descent loan for their house. They aren't going
to sue you. They write you off. Send you to a collection agency who than
hands you to another, and than another etc. Personal a 1.25 411 charge
is nothing. (by the way 411 is not verizon communication or verizon
wireless) --
Seattlebound


"No Spam" > wrote in article
>:
> And if you read my item in "Billing Issues" about those pesky 6/8c per month
>
> This month it was extra 411 connect charges.
>
> I DID make the three listed and on the third call specifically asked them to
> try and:
>
> a) get the correct number this time (the last two had been wrong) - and
> Verizon ARE the local telephone company in the area I was inquiring - you
> would think their 411 database would get this bit right!
>
> b) give credit for the two calls that got me wrong numbers - they agreed
> they would.
>
> As the credits were not on the bill - I called and asked. "They can take 6
> weeks to appear". Me - "If you can bill immediately - you can credit
> immediately. You may NOT have the extra use of my money for 6 weeks."
> Service rep agreed it was unreasonable. I can't wait to see me getting
> billed for latepayment on the amount I was credited during that call.
>
> We actually discussed the constant problems of small billing errors. She
> agreed it was a significant cost to VZW and a significant reason for annoyed
> customers - she then started the "Can we review your account speech" - Me -
> "We have been on this call 20mins+ - thanks no" Her - "I have to..." Me -
> "For the supervisor reviewing the tapes - allow the reps some discretion
> this is STUPID". She laughed and I said goodbye politely.
>
> Like the previous writer - With an error a month I have no reason to believe
> that I will ever have a problem getting out my contract if necessary. The
> Rhode Island Public Utilities and Attorney General's Office are prompt and
> hot on this sort of complaint.
>
>
> "Elector" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Jason S" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Ok. So after a year of a great network and great customer service I
> > > have decided to cancel my Verizon account due to constant billing
> > errors
> > > for the last year. Every month warranted a phone call or two and
> > now I
> > > have to deal with other people's billing issues at my own job and
> > I'm
> > > certainly not going to come home and deal with it for an additional
> > hour
> > > or two. I upgraded back in October to the T720. After that fiasco
> > I
> > > wound up with a great lg4400. I called to cancel and several of you
> > > here were helpful on my last post. They didn't want to waive the
> > ETF
> > > even though my reasons for canceling were entirely based upon the
> > lack
> > > of consistently accurate bills. Then they wanted to have me send
> > the
> > > phone back instead of the ETF. I did pay some money for that phone.
> > I
> > > don't think that's fair. I certainly was willing for many months to
> > > deal with the billing errors until it finally just got too
> > aggravating
> > > to deal with any longer. I've referred others to VZW, and
> > constantly
> > > vouch for the best nationwide network in the U.S. I feel they could
> > do
> > > me a little better since the billing was constantly a mess. Any
> > > opinions?
> > >
> > > [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular
> > groups]
> >
> >
> > This is just an option you may not want to do this but right is right.
> > Just tell them to close the account and have them sue you for the $175
> > and when they get to the point where they place the *bad Mark* on your
> > Credit report you can write a letter to all three Credit Bureaus with
> > a valid explanation of why you choose to leave and that the verizon
> > wireless company still wanted to suck you out of an additional fee
> > when they did nothing to correct the situation.
> >
> > I believe another person here also had the idea of *canceling the plan
> > your on* then have the plan reactivated and to see if that would
> > correct your billing issues. You could also write to the FCC on line
> > at http://www.fcc.gov and use the on line complaint form and report
> > the poor service and actual damage Verizon has done to you.
> >
> > You can depending on what state your in complain to local government
> > authorities, these would be named Attorney Generals Office, Consumer
> > Protection Board look in the government section of your telephone book
> > and file that complaint.
> >
> > If all else fails take them to court. No I did not say arbitration as
> > in their customer service agreement. In arbitration you do not have
> > the same rights as in a local court action. They may say your bound by
> > that American Arbitration Association etc. but you are not. Simply pay
> > a small fee to the court for the filing and have them served at any
> > company location.
> >
> > When you get to court and they try to jerk you around with this
> > agreement or that agreement you will see that Verizon will waive the
> > fee and you will get out of the contract. Your showing the judge the
> > constant billing errors will more than likely serve as a basis of
> > terminating your contract. You will also have to make sure that the
> > court issues a decision that makes it impossible for Verizon to place
> > any negative information on your credit report. And lastly think about
> > this, do you this Verizon will send lawyers at $$$ to fight a $175
> > fee? I very much doubt it. When and if they decide to settle and they
> > will try, have it all in writing and get it sent to you overnight at
> > their expense. If they want the phone back have them pay for it. (The
> > portion you paid is fair)
> >
> > Believe me in many cases a simple call to an Account Executive may or
> > should settle the matter in your favor. Try it and see. Then if it
> > doesn't work out take Verizon to court.
> >
> > Elector
> >
> >
>
>
>

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

[Elector]

"Seattlebound one" > wrote in message
...
> I think its funny when people say that verizon wireless is going to
sue
> you for the 175. They actually don't care if you pay it or not. As
my
> roommate can contest too. He canceled service because of a billing
error
> that was his fault (didn't read the print about his roaming) and
decided
> since he couldn't afford paying every month he canceled. Didn't pay
the
> 175 cus he thought it was unfair. Now he is getting married and him
and
> his new wife cant get a descent loan for their house. They aren't
going
> to sue you. They write you off. Send you to a collection agency who
than
> hands you to another, and than another etc. Personal a 1.25 411
charge
> is nothing. (by the way 411 is not verizon communication or verizon
> wireless) --
> Seattlebound
>

Verizon Wireless will place you into collections who then (Collection
Agency) as their agent try to sue you for the money. Six of One half
dozen of the other. Still comes out the same. If the original poster
wanted to fight the charge *I* told him/her how to do it. If it ends
up on a credit report *AFTER* a judge sides with the customer the
company can then be held accountable and sued for damages under the
*Fair Debt Collections Practices Act* it is when folks let the big
companies screw them over that is the shame. And not everyone is like
your room mate. There are actually folks with real billing and service
problems and they should be addressed not through Arbitration but in a
court. The reason being is that arbitration rules don't give you
*motions for discovery* and monetary relief for the companies errors.
Nor will it pay the arbitration fees for an appeal if there can be
one. I will say that a $5-$10 filing fee to the court is well worth
the trip and again when judgment is rendered against Verizon or god
knows what other company they will have to appear. It sure costs more
than $175 for a company attorney and they can't get the money back for
the appearance. That is what is so great about the US Legal system.

The little guy can still fight the big corporations and win. If you
have valid reason for not paying that $175 you should not have to go
all the way to court to have it settled, but you don't want the
corporation to ruin the credit rating of the consumer because of their
stupid rules etc. Think about it.

Also 411 is the Verizon Information number for my area (NY). So yes it
most certainly is Verizon. Verizon wireless uses 411 Connect again six
of one half dozen of the other is still the same thing.


Elector

[Joel Horner]

Elector > wrote:

> This is just an option you may not want to do this but right is right.
> Just tell them to close the account and have them sue you for the $175
> and when they get to the point where they place the *bad Mark* on your
> Credit report you can write a letter to all three Credit Bureaus with
> a valid explanation of why you choose to leave and that the verizon
> wireless company still wanted to suck you out of an additional fee
> when they did nothing to correct the situation.

This probably one of the most overused pieces of bad advice I see for
this type of issue. Facts:

1) Verizon will not sue for the $175. They will give it to a collection
agency.
2) The collection agency will do what collection agencies do: call you,
send you letters, trash your credit.
3) The moral ground that you stand on will mean nothing when you're
paying higher interest charges for loans and/or credit cards (if you
don't pay off your balances).
4) Posting a consumer response on a credit report does nothing.
Computers deciding your interest rates don't read them; they look at the
credit history. People you talk to in person are driven by the computers
that make the decision. Computers are used for consistency...anyone can
put a statement on his/her credit report...and can pretty much say
anything they want.
5) I'm sure lots of people have a "legitimate" reason for not paying a
bill. "I didn't like the late charge, so I decided not to pay my bill."
"I blew all my money in Vegas, so I thought I would just skip a couple
of months."

If one cannot get out of the ETF (after trying all courses of reason),
the only two options that won't cause long-term pain are:

1) Suck it up and use the service to the end of the contract.
2) Change to the lowest available rate plan, thus reducing the out of
pocket expenses---and continue to pay it through the end of the rate
plan.

If the moral high ground is that important, you can pay the ETF and sue
Verizon to get it back. Keep in mind, the burden of proof is on you at
that point, and Verizon probably has a few good "zingers" in your
contract that tilt the odds in their favor. Depending on the contract,
in fact, they may actually have an arbitration clause.

Joel

[Joel Horner]

Elector > wrote:

> Verizon Wireless will place you into collections who then (Collection
> Agency) as their agent try to sue you for the money. Six of One half
> dozen of the other. Still comes out the same.

Wrong...very wrong. The collection agency doesn't have to sue to place
the mark on the credit report. They have to prove that the debt was
owed and not paid.

> If the original poster
> wanted to fight the charge *I* told him/her how to do it. If it ends
> up on a credit report *AFTER* a judge sides with the customer

It's on the report well before it goes to a judge...if ever. It's
written off as uncollectable. If a suit is filed and won, it is changed
to judgement. The severity level of the mark increases with each step
in the collection process.

>Arbitration but in a
> court. The reason being is that arbitration rules don't give you
> *motions for discovery* and monetary relief for the companies errors.

Verizon's contracts, which the customers sign, have arbitration clauses.
There's very seldom any choice but to start with arbitration. The
customer is agreeing that any disputes start with arbitration.

> Nor will it pay the arbitration fees for an appeal if there can be
> one. I will say that a $5-$10 filing fee to the court is well worth
> the trip

And the attorney fees? You do realize that Verizon, at its option, can
elect to file suite outside of a small claims venue. That means that the
defendant must have an attorney--or have a real good knowledge of the
legal system (process and procedure). That costs money.

> and again when judgment is rendered against Verizon or god
> knows what other company they will have to appear.

IF the judgement is against Verizon. If they file the suite, they'll
appear...count on it. But it's all moot anyway; they aren't going to
file suit over $175. It's better for them just to tarnish the poor guy's
credit record.

> It sure costs more
> than $175 for a company attorney and they can't get the money back for
> the appearance. That is what is so great about the US Legal system.

Actually, they certainly can if they win. They can countersue for
attorney fees if he files suite. If they file suite, they will file
suite for the ETF and attorney fees.

You act as though you have legal knowledge, and knowledge of how debt
collections work. It is clear from your note that you do not have
expertise in either. If you're going to give advice, at least do some
reasearch before posting nonsense like this.

[Ben Skversky]

Joel, are you an attorney???


"Joel Horner" > wrote in message
...
> Elector > wrote:
>
> > This is just an option you may not want to do this but right is right.
> > Just tell them to close the account and have them sue you for the $175
> > and when they get to the point where they place the *bad Mark* on your
> > Credit report you can write a letter to all three Credit Bureaus with
> > a valid explanation of why you choose to leave and that the verizon
> > wireless company still wanted to suck you out of an additional fee
> > when they did nothing to correct the situation.
>
> This probably one of the most overused pieces of bad advice I see for
> this type of issue. Facts:
>
> 1) Verizon will not sue for the $175. They will give it to a collection
> agency.
> 2) The collection agency will do what collection agencies do: call you,
> send you letters, trash your credit.
> 3) The moral ground that you stand on will mean nothing when you're
> paying higher interest charges for loans and/or credit cards (if you
> don't pay off your balances).
> 4) Posting a consumer response on a credit report does nothing.
> Computers deciding your interest rates don't read them; they look at the
> credit history. People you talk to in person are driven by the computers
> that make the decision. Computers are used for consistency...anyone can
> put a statement on his/her credit report...and can pretty much say
> anything they want.
> 5) I'm sure lots of people have a "legitimate" reason for not paying a
> bill. "I didn't like the late charge, so I decided not to pay my bill."
> "I blew all my money in Vegas, so I thought I would just skip a couple
> of months."
>
> If one cannot get out of the ETF (after trying all courses of reason),
> the only two options that won't cause long-term pain are:
>
> 1) Suck it up and use the service to the end of the contract.
> 2) Change to the lowest available rate plan, thus reducing the out of
> pocket expenses---and continue to pay it through the end of the rate
> plan.
>
> If the moral high ground is that important, you can pay the ETF and sue
> Verizon to get it back. Keep in mind, the burden of proof is on you at
> that point, and Verizon probably has a few good "zingers" in your
> contract that tilt the odds in their favor. Depending on the contract,
> in fact, they may actually have an arbitration clause.
>
> Joel

[Steven J. Sobol]

From Joel Horner ):
> Elector > wrote:
>
>> Verizon Wireless will place you into collections who then (Collection
>> Agency) as their agent try to sue you for the money. Six of One half
>> dozen of the other. Still comes out the same.
>
> Wrong...very wrong. The collection agency doesn't have to sue to place
> the mark on the credit report. They have to prove that the debt was
> owed and not paid.

Wrong - the CREDITOR places the black mark on the report. The
collections agency isn't allowed to.



--
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge, JustThe.net
POTS: Toll Free from anywhere in the USA or Canada, 888.480.4NET (4638)
HTTP: www.JustTheNetLLC.com
MAIL: 5686 Davis Drive, Mentor on the Lake, OH 44060-2752

[Elector]

"Joel Horner" > wrote in message
...
> Elector > wrote:
>
> > Verizon Wireless will place you into collections who then
(Collection
> > Agency) as their agent try to sue you for the money. Six of One
half
> > dozen of the other. Still comes out the same.
>
> Wrong...very wrong. The collection agency doesn't have to sue to
place
> the mark on the credit report. They have to prove that the debt was
> owed and not paid.

The original creditor hires the collection agency to collect the debt.
They can place no mark on your credit report while it is in dispute.
Read the law

>
> > If the original poster
> > wanted to fight the charge *I* told him/her how to do it. If it
ends
> > up on a credit report *AFTER* a judge sides with the customer
>
Again the report cannot be filed as a bad debt but in dispute. See my
reply above.

> It's on the report well before it goes to a judge...if ever. It's
> written off as uncollectable. If a suit is filed and won, it is
changed
> to judgement. The severity level of the mark increases with each
step
> in the collection process.
>

Again see the above answer and go to the Google and look up the FDCPA.

> >Arbitration but in a
> > court. The reason being is that arbitration rules don't give you
> > *motions for discovery* and monetary relief for the companies
errors.
>
> Verizon's contracts, which the customers sign, have arbitration
clauses.
> There's very seldom any choice but to start with arbitration. The
> customer is agreeing that any disputes start with arbitration.
>

Verizons contract stipulation for Arbitration is not binding in many
states. New York is one of them. So the customer can actually send a
letter to Verizon like I had done many years ago telling them I did
not agree to it,. In fact Verizon sent letters to every customer and
told them to write back with the agreement of arbitration or not.

> > Nor will it pay the arbitration fees for an appeal if there can be
> > one. I will say that a $5-$10 filing fee to the court is well
worth
> > the trip
>
> And the attorney fees? You do realize that Verizon, at its option,
can
> elect to file suite outside of a small claims venue. That means that
the
> defendant must have an attorney--or have a real good knowledge of
the
> legal system (process and procedure). That costs money.
>

Verizon is limited by law to settle in the venue of jusridiction. In
my city the costs up to $2500 can and must be settled at the small
claims level. No lawyer is needed and big companies and private
persons who do not show up, have a judgement placed against them. You
don't know what your talking about.

> > and again when judgment is rendered against Verizon or god
> > knows what other company they will have to appear.
>
> IF the judgement is against Verizon. If they file the suite, they'll
> appear...count on it. But it's all moot anyway; they aren't going to
> file suit over $175. It's better for them just to tarnish the poor
guy's
> credit record.

The $175 being subject to placement on a credit report is reason
enough to have it removed and it can be removed. Read the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act. Verizon has to abide by the law of the
court and federal standards.

>
> > It sure costs more
> > than $175 for a company attorney and they can't get the money back
for
> > the appearance. That is what is so great about the US Legal
system.
>
> Actually, they certainly can if they win. They can countersue for
> attorney fees if he files suite. If they file suite, they will file
> suite for the ETF and attorney fees.
>

Again you don't know what your talking about. Its the first party that
is suing for damages in money relief. A citizen need no attorney to
file or represent him/her self. The court refuses to allow counter
claims on the filing. So again you have no knowledge of what your
talking about. If the court hears the case and states the consumer is
wrong and must pay the $175 the judgement is then rendered. If the
court states that the $175 is not payable by the customer then no
payment can be obtained nor can they collect on it in the future and
the company must then mark the Credit Report as it must be marked or
cleared.

> You act as though you have legal knowledge, and knowledge of how
debt
> collections work. It is clear from your note that you do not have
> expertise in either. If you're going to give advice, at least do
some
> reasearch before posting nonsense like this.
>

And for your information I work as a side to a few attorneys in the
process of bankruptcy filings and I never had one thrown out yet.

Elector

[Elector]

"Steven J. Sobol" > wrote in message
...
> From Joel Horner ):
> > Elector > wrote:
> >
> >> Verizon Wireless will place you into collections who then
(Collection
> >> Agency) as their agent try to sue you for the money. Six of One
half
> >> dozen of the other. Still comes out the same.
> >
> > Wrong...very wrong. The collection agency doesn't have to sue to
place
> > the mark on the credit report. They have to prove that the debt
was
> > owed and not paid.
>
> Wrong - the CREDITOR places the black mark on the report. The
> collections agency isn't allowed to.
>
>
>
> --
> Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge, JustThe.net
> POTS: Toll Free from anywhere in the USA or Canada, 888.480.4NET
(4638)
> HTTP: www.JustTheNetLLC.com
> MAIL: 5686 Davis Drive, Mentor on the Lake, OH 44060-2752

Yes Steve that is correct. In fact in the old days that was the
"threat" collection agencies used to force you to pay the debt to the
original creditor. Only the original creditor can place the mark on
the credit report, they can modify, verify it, and remove it. The
credit bureau can also remove it if its not verified or time lapsed.
Or if a court of competent jurisdiction orders them to do so.

Elector

[ArSeNiC]

"Elector" > wrote in article
>:

> Also 411 is the Verizon Information number for my area (NY). So yes it

> most certainly is Verizon. Verizon wireless uses 411 Connect again six

> of one half dozen of the other is still the same thing.

>

>

> Elector

>

>



You can call 411 from anywhere and you will get that areas information.
So yea if you live in a Verizon landline area you will get Verizon
landline 411 but it's seperate from VZW's 411 Connect Service.

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

[no_spam@optonline.net]

(Joel Horner) wrote:


>
>IF the judgement is against Verizon. If they file the suite, they'll
>appear...count on it. But it's all moot anyway; they aren't going to
>file suit over $175. It's better for them just to tarnish the poor guy's
>credit record.
>
>Actually, they certainly can if they win. They can countersue for
>attorney fees if he files suite. If they file suite, they will file
>suite for the ETF and attorney fees.
>
>You act as though you have legal knowledge, and knowledge of how debt
>collections work. It is clear from your note that you do not have
>expertise in either. If you're going to give advice, at least do some
>reasearch before posting nonsense like this.

With your extensive legal knowledge, I guess you spent so much time
studying that you don't know it's "suit," not
"suite"...............................

[Joel Horner]

Steven J. Sobol > wrote:

> Wrong - the CREDITOR places the black mark on the report. The
> collections agency isn't allowed to.

Yes, correct. My point was meant to state creditor. (Although, some
"agencies" are really departments within the creditor's company.)

Thanks for pointing out my misstatement.

Joel

[Joel Horner]

> wrote:

> With your extensive legal knowledge, I guess you spent so much time
> studying that you don't know it's "suit," not
> "suite"...............................

Touche. I do know it is suit, and was surprised when I saw your note
illustrating my error. Another long day. Thanks for the constructive
feedback.

Joel

[Elector]

"Joel Horner" > wrote in message
...
> Elector > wrote:
>
> I had prepared a point by point rebuttal, but decided that I'm
really
> done with this argument.
>
> My original intent was to prevent people doing searches--or reading
your
> posts--from making a rather large mistake. You interpretation of one
> section of statutes governing credit, reporting of credit, and debt
> collection practices is truly bad advice. You want to publish it as
> fact, that is your option.
>
> For those of you who want to test Elector's theories, best of luck
to
> you. It is far easier to damage a credit report than it is to clean
it
> up. A number of my clients wish they could have gone back in time.
Many
> of them had bad interpretations of what the laws were regarding
> contracts and financial obligations.
>
> If my post placed one element of doubt in the minds of those who are
> using a search (or this newsgroup) for advice, I've achieved my
original
> goal.
>
> Joel

Joel:

One thing about my posts is I can back up my statements. The full act
is below:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpajump.htm

When the person here is reading the act, they will note that any
company/credit reporting agency that places "erroneous" information on
a credit report is held accountable. We were talking about the ETF
($175) and that the original poster was being hit with it when Verizon
was violating the law with poor service. (If in fact that was true or
false is not up to me) What initially happens is the creditor places
this on a person credit report to "black mark" the customer and then
they try to collect the $175 giving no regard to the service issue.
(They however have to prove the debt is real under the law and the
credit reporting agency must show it as in dispute if the customer
tells verizon that they are so doing it, DISPUTING THE DEBT) They
(Verizon) in turn have an arbitration clause in the contract which is
not binding. Note the words "are not binding" on "YOU" the consumer.
They "VERIZON" place this clause into the contract because the costs
associated with filing a court claim hurts the company "Verizon".
(They have to answer the charge in the court and jurisdiction of
filing) A simple non appearance helps the consumer. If Verizon cannot
back up their claim to the Fee in COURT then the right to post such
false information is taken away from them and the creditor can have it
expunged.(By the judgment in favor of the consumer) Read the law it is
not my statements. (sending the order from the court to verizon and
the credit bureaus should clear it up).

Now in your estimation via your statement above, the trouble to remove
it is bothersome. Well I would not want to be any client of yours if
you won't work for me, and are working against me. Many things in life
are not easy but you fight for what is right.

When any court of competent jurisdiction issues an order be it that
the credit report be corrected, or have the item placed on the credit
report (As with judgments and liens), it is done lawfully. It is the
wily nilly way almost anyone can access and post to your credit report
that these laws and many other safeguards were put into place.

I give no legal advice and I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.
I give the law as it is written. If you can find fault with that Joel
then there is something wrong with your advice and I would not want to
be taking any of it from you.

The person reading can make up their own minds and then seek the
course that is best. I can go into many other tricks a consumer can
use against a company but this is not the venue for that type of
discussion. Lets just say "check the words on a contract, the time
limits for filing, the statute of limitations on debts, etc. etc"
which can vary from place to place. If the company has a legitimate
claim let them PROVE it. If a consumer has a legitimate claim then
also let them prove it. It can not be any simpler.

Elector

[Elector]

"Joel Horner" > wrote in message
...
> Elector > wrote:

<Snip the whole thing>

Joel:

In the statement of my not having Bankruptcy thrown out when I should
state "Prepare them" I don't represent the client. In fact I just do
the listing of the matrix, the assets and liabilities and any other
forms that need to be filled out.

The meeting of creditors as you stated is where the hammering out of
details are made. And yes its very unlikely the client will re-affirm
a debt unless he/she is a total idiot.

When I was referring to the original poster is not to let "Verizon-Big
Business" get away with placing black marks on them. A violation of
their contract is not automatically a right for Verizon to ask for
that early termination fee, and it should not be settled in
arbitration and rather the courts. I am stating that it is companies
like Verizon that use the "Big Corporate Identity" to scare a consumer
into paying.

getting a little off the subject. When cellular service first came
about I was the 403 customer of Cellular One your cell number on the
end reflected at that time your rank so to speak. I used a bag phone
from NEC and life was good. But I had to constantly call every single
month for years and years to get my account straighten out. It was
well documented on both sides. And it never got better. The service
was excellent and I had few dropped or missed calls. But when I went
to change providers after years of this mess the company took me to
collections for the termination fee. First off after being with them
for 9 years they did not have such a thing for me to pay, secondly I
had the disputes every month for the amounts of money owed and the
minutes used or not used.

The company then placed a mark in my credit report and I immediately
filed the necessary dispute in with not only the cell company but TRW
as it was called back then. I also received a collection letter and
call from a company that was pretty decent in that I faxed the proof
of my actions against Cellular One and after much hoop jumping and
legal threats ( My attorney sent them a letter) the company (Cellular
One) had the mark removed. It was then that I decided that I would not
let any company do to me what this company did. Did they have a case?
No. Could they prove their claim? No.

Additionally the aspects of what constitutes service as acceptable is
something for a court to decide. If I pay any company for cellular
service and say every single call is dropped and the company states
"there is nothing we can do for you" then why would you have to pay
that company? You are not getting what is perceived as acceptable
service. Check your states laws and this will be bore out. If the case
was that on getting the service and the contract stated you are
connecting to a cellular network and that your calls will more than
likely not get through and for this non service you pay us ??? $'s
then the person getting that type of service has no case. But that is
not the case with a person that has a documented problem as you
pointed out and then having the threat of Verizon to demand an early
termination fee. If the service is unacceptable then no fee should be
paid. If service is acceptable under certain standards and the company
acted in good faith to correct the situation and then you decide to
leave then yes pay the early termination fee since I am sure a court
would say that it was the customer that breached the contract.

I hope that places us back on the right track? Like to have friends
when I visit the news groups :-)

Elector

[Jason S]

All I'm saying is that I don't think it's right that a customer should
have to spend 1 to 2 hours on the phone each month trying to explain,
usually more than once and in grave detail, why he was overcharged.
Even though the company eventually sees its system's error and corrects
it, I don't believe the company should expect any of its customers to
committ to that amount of time and frustration each month. It just
creates bad feelings for both the consumer and the carrier.

"Elector" > wrote in article
>:
>
> "Joel Horner" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Elector > wrote:
>
> <Snip the whole thing>
>
> Joel:
>
> In the statement of my not having Bankruptcy thrown out when I should
> state "Prepare them" I don't represent the client. In fact I just do
> the listing of the matrix, the assets and liabilities and any other
> forms that need to be filled out.
>
> The meeting of creditors as you stated is where the hammering out of
> details are made. And yes its very unlikely the client will re-affirm
> a debt unless he/she is a total idiot.
>
> When I was referring to the original poster is not to let "Verizon-Big
> Business" get away with placing black marks on them. A violation of
> their contract is not automatically a right for Verizon to ask for
> that early termination fee, and it should not be settled in
> arbitration and rather the courts. I am stating that it is companies
> like Verizon that use the "Big Corporate Identity" to scare a consumer
> into paying.
>
> getting a little off the subject. When cellular service first came
> about I was the 403 customer of Cellular One your cell number on the
> end reflected at that time your rank so to speak. I used a bag phone
> from NEC and life was good. But I had to constantly call every single
> month for years and years to get my account straighten out. It was
> well documented on both sides. And it never got better. The service
> was excellent and I had few dropped or missed calls. But when I went
> to change providers after years of this mess the company took me to
> collections for the termination fee. First off after being with them
> for 9 years they did not have such a thing for me to pay, secondly I
> had the disputes every month for the amounts of money owed and the
> minutes used or not used.
>
> The company then placed a mark in my credit report and I immediately
> filed the necessary dispute in with not only the cell company but TRW
> as it was called back then. I also received a collection letter and
> call from a company that was pretty decent in that I faxed the proof
> of my actions against Cellular One and after much hoop jumping and
> legal threats ( My attorney sent them a letter) the company (Cellular
> One) had the mark removed. It was then that I decided that I would not
> let any company do to me what this company did. Did they have a case?
> No. Could they prove their claim? No.
>
> Additionally the aspects of what constitutes service as acceptable is
> something for a court to decide. If I pay any company for cellular
> service and say every single call is dropped and the company states
> "there is nothing we can do for you" then why would you have to pay
> that company? You are not getting what is perceived as acceptable
> service. Check your states laws and this will be bore out. If the case
> was that on getting the service and the contract stated you are
> connecting to a cellular network and that your calls will more than
> likely not get through and for this non service you pay us ??? $'s
> then the person getting that type of service has no case. But that is
> not the case with a person that has a documented problem as you
> pointed out and then having the threat of Verizon to demand an early
> termination fee. If the service is unacceptable then no fee should be
> paid. If service is acceptable under certain standards and the company
> acted in good faith to correct the situation and then you decide to
> leave then yes pay the early termination fee since I am sure a court
> would say that it was the customer that breached the contract.
>
> I hope that places us back on the right track? Like to have friends
> when I visit the news groups :-)
>
> Elector
>
>

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

[Joel Horner]

Elector > wrote:

> I hope that places us back on the right track? Like to have friends
> when I visit the news groups :-)

We're on the same page. Your posts are helpful--I like friends here as
well.

Joel