Text 12758, 110 rader
Skriven 2006-08-30 11:51:36 av Robert Comer (1:379/45)
  Kommentar till text 12744 av Rich Gauszka (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Verizon - we don't have phones in customer relations!!!
===================================================================
From: "Robert Comer" <bobcomer@mindspring.com>

I only lost $50 on the deal and just let them have it (amongst some harsh
words).  They would win no matter what anyway.  Of course they totally lost my
business after that, but they don't seem to mind that.

I wouldn't even think of blogging about it...

--
Bob Comer


"Rich Gauszka" <gauszka@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44f4e2bc@w3.nls.net...
> In this day and age of the complaint blogs I wonder how firm bean counters
> justify the cost of the negative publicity for a $99 item?
>
>
> "Robert Comer" <bobcomer@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:44f4e07f$1@w3.nls.net...
>> I'm not at all surprised, I had a run in with Verizon on my cell phone
>> service -- a total pita.
>>
>> --
>> Bob Comer
>>
>>
>> "Rich Gauszka" <gauszka@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:44f4b6b8@w3.nls.net...
>>>
>>> http://weblog.infoworld.com/foster/2006/08/25_a441.html#a441?source=NLC-GRI
PE2006-08-29?source=NLC-GRIPE2006-08-29
>>>
>>> A Warranty Replacement, Verizon-Style
>>>
>>> A pattern seems to be emerging in the gripes I'm hearing about Verizon.
>>> A few weeks ago (see Verizon Never Stops Lying to You) a cell phone
>>> customer had promised free minutes snatched away when he needed them.
>>> Now we hear from a Verizon broadband customer whose troubles began when
>>> a DSL modem went bad while under warranty. See if you can spot the
>>> common thread.
>>>
>>> "In the summer of 2004 we signed up for Verizon DSL in our computer
>>> shop," the reader wrote. "We received a new DSL modem as part of the
>>> package we purchased, paying higher rates of course for the DSL service
>>> because we had a 'business' account. We had trouble with the modem from
>>> time to time, and eventually contacted Verizon while their modem was
>>> still under warranty. Verizon kept insisting the problem was with the
>>> DSL line or service, and even sent a technician to our place of business
>>> to check the lines. This runaround went on for several months, during
>>> which the modem went out of warranty. Eventually Verizon admitted that
>>> the modem was defective, and agreed to send us a new one for no charge
>>> even though it was out of warranty, because we had reported the problem
>>> within the warranty period."
>>>
>>> In December 2005 the reader received the new modem along with an invoice
>>> specifying that there was zero charge for the modem under warranty. "The
>>> new modem worked fine, and we felt vindicated since we had maintained
>>> all along that this was a modem problem, and not a line problem. Our
>>> problem was solved...end of story."
>>>
>>> Not. "Three months later, in March of 2006 we received an addition to
>>> our regular Verizon bill for $99 for a new modem," the reader wrote. "I
>>> called Verizon and they stated that after a careful review, they were
>>> charging us for the modem because it was out of warranty. I was aghast,
>>> and pointed out to them that the modem WAS replaced under warranty, and
>>> that we even had it in writing stating so. I spoke to several Verizon
>>> representatives and even a 'supervisor' over the next few days trying to
>>> resolve the issue, without success. They insisted we pay the bill, or it
>>> would be turned over to collections, with of course the implied threat
>>> of service termination. We had to pay the extra charge or face loss of
>>> all phone service, a death knell for any business."
>>>
>>> All Verizon would offer was a $30 rebate to knock the price of the modem
>>> down to $70, so the reader decided to return Verizon's modem and buy a
>>> generic one instead. "Now get this," the reader wrote. "Verizon stated
>>> they could NOT take back the modem because we had kept it for more than
>>> 30 days. But we had thought it was a free replacement because Verizon
>>> did not bill us for 90 days. In other words, they waited until their
>>> self-imposed return period was up to inform us that we now had to pay
>>> for it. Is this a scam or what?"
>>>
>>> The ridiculous turned to the sublime when the reader tried to complain
>>> about this treatment. "We were furious, and asked to speak to customer
>>> relations," the reader wrote. "They gave us an address in Arizona to
>>> write to, but we wanted to call instead since phone calls are harder to
>>> ignore. The Verizon representative said 'they don't have phones in that
>>> office.' Come again? Verizon, a phone company, has customer service
>>> offices without phones? The representative repeated this preposterous
>>> claim several times, so we finally drafted an angry letter and sent it
>>> off to Arizona last March. And we all know what happened next. Nothing.
>>> Nada. NO reply of any kind and it is now five months later. Verizon was
>>> right, letters of complaint are a lot easier to ignore than phone calls.
>>> And the thing that gets me is we still have the invoice sent with the
>>> replacement modem stating in black and white that there was no charge
>>> for it."
>>>
>>> The moral of this story of course is the same as the previous tale about
>>> Verizon. Whatever part of the company you may be dealing with, the deal
>>> you have with Verizon today may be taken away tomorrow. Or 90 days from
>>> tomorrow. That's a pattern anyone who has a choice may want to consider
>>> before signing up with Verizon.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)