Small Claims Guide Class Actions Lemon Laws FAQ Newsletters
|
|
NEWS
RECALLS
COMPLAINT FORM
SCAM ALERTS
RESOURCES
Small Claims Guide Class Actions Lemon Laws FAQ Newsletters |
Share |
| Automotive Education Employment Electronics Family Finance Health Homeowners Insurance Pets Shopping Travel |
 Print This  Email This
|
|
|
The Defense Rests |
||||
|
Arman of Paramus, NJ, writes:
My complaint is about complaints. As a customer service representative of a very large and well known cellular carrier I have been looking through all the complaints filed against my company on this site. I would have to say that some of these complaints are clearly the fault of my other collegues and that does disturb me greatly, however the vast majority of the complaints are unwarranted. Any complaint focused on billing, contracts, or anything related to charges or credits (i.e., rebates) seem to only relate to a consumer's unwillingness to accept the terms and conditions for wireless service. Now one may certainly disagree with the terms of service and we do appreciate that fact, however, that does not change the status of the account nor what is fair. Remember that a consumer complaint about the policies and procedures of a company is something different than a consumer wanting to somehow change the rules just for themselves. That is simply a breach of contract, but really, anything like that is completely unfair to the millions of quietly paying customers who do not decide to fight legitimate charges. Credits issued against a legitimate charge tend to cause significant issues. Why should the consumer that complains loudly and aggressively be allowed to get away paying what every other customer has accepted -- how unfair is that when the charge is accurate? In other cases, of course this does not apply -- I work very hard to make sure our customers get what they pay for and pay for what they get: now that is a balanced approach. Too many of these complaints fail to consider that most of these charges are accurate and have been disclosed. Let me end by paraphrasing one of my favorite conversations with a customer: Customer: "No one reads that [service contract]." Me: "But it is the contract for what you are entitled to and responsible for and also mine. Customer: "Well then you should have made me read it!" Me: "How can I make you read it? And even if, how will I really know if you read it?" Bottom line: Most of these complaints are baseless and if customers took the time to understand what they are buying and what it is exactly that they are obligated for, then very many of these complaints would simply disappear. However, I don't believe that is going to happen anytime soon(if ever) And let me just close with saying -- Buyer beware, (it is as easy as reading) PS: Every major wireless carrier now has a prohibition on their service contract against class action lawsuits and any attempt (in any civil action) to claim punitive damages unless it is as a direct result from our gross negligence. This is what's known as damning with faint praise. It's unusual for one to use this argument in his own behalf but it's apparently the best Arman could come up with. Arman may be right that, in some cases, consumers have failed to read the fine print. But there are many other cases in which the fine print is drawn in the sand. Humaira of Berkeley offers a particularly recondite reduction of Sprint PCS's shifting-sand policies. From what we've seen, Arman's employer operates in much the same manner. |
|
||
Back to the top | | ||||
Advertisement
|
|
Custom Search
|
||||
Terms of Use Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use
Copyright © 2003-2009 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. All Rights Reserved. The contents of this site may not be republished, reprinted, rewritten or recirculated without written permission. |
|
