Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Sprint PCS / December 2003
Sprint renewed my contract without telling me
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Jim - 29 Nov 2003 02:14 GMT I just went to the sprint web page and signed in. When I looked at my contract details it said it expires in Oct 2004. My contract started Oct 2002 and was a 1 year contract. What is that all about?
tmc - 29 Nov 2003 02:44 GMT newsflash, they apprently don't need your permission to renew your contract any time you change ur plan or add certain features that require renewal of contract (aka 7pm n&w minutes... 8pm n&w minutes for customers who previously had 9 pm that sorta thing)... i dunno if sprint's the only one that does this or what... anytime they've renewed my contract i've never consented to it, it doesnt matter i guess.
> I just went to the sprint web page and signed in. When I looked at my > contract details it said it expires in Oct 2004. My contract started Oct > 2002 and was a 1 year contract. What is that all about? Jim - 29 Nov 2003 08:42 GMT I've never changed my plan or got a new phone.
> newsflash, they apprently don't need your permission to renew your contract > any time you change ur plan or add certain features that require renewal of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > contract details it said it expires in Oct 2004. My contract started Oct > > 2002 and was a 1 year contract. What is that all about? Mark Kim - 29 Nov 2003 16:03 GMT A Wireless Carrier is supposed to HAVE YOUR PERMISSION before they even renew their contract. That is an unfair business practice. If you think that your contract has been renewed without your permission, you will need to contact the FCC right away.
> newsflash, they apprently don't need your permission to renew your contract > any time you change ur plan or add certain features that require renewal of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>contract details it said it expires in Oct 2004. My contract started Oct >>2002 and was a 1 year contract. What is that all about? Jim - 29 Nov 2003 18:33 GMT Thanks, I wait for a response on my e-mail. If this is just a simple screw up and they take care of it I won't be upset but if they play games I'll be sure to contact everyone that might assist me.
> A Wireless Carrier is supposed to HAVE YOUR PERMISSION before they even > renew their contract. That is an unfair business practice. If you [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >>contract details it said it expires in Oct 2004. My contract started Oct > >>2002 and was a 1 year contract. What is that all about? Steven J Sobol - 29 Nov 2003 16:44 GMT > newsflash, they apprently don't need your permission to renew your contract > any time you change ur plan or add certain features that require renewal of > contract (aka 7pm n&w minutes... 8pm n&w minutes for customers who > previously had 9 pm that sorta thing)... i dunno if sprint's the only one > that does this or what... anytime they've renewed my contract i've never > consented to it, it doesnt matter i guess. Sprint will TELL YOU that taking a promotion or doing certain other things requires a contract extension. That's industry standard (especially with the promos, that's where the carriers gain value from the deal; they get to lock you in for a year or two). The range of actions that require an extension is bigger with Sprint than with some other carriers, but that's ok, as long as you are informed.
Last time I took a promo, it was the $5 PCS to PCS unlimited option, on 11/ 28/02. I was TOLD by the Customer Service rep that it would require a one- year Advantage Agreement, and I AGREED TO THE CONTRACT EXTENSION.
That is perfectly legal and it is the correct way to do things. A contract requires a "meeting of the minds" - both parties must agree to the contract. It should say in the T&C for your SPCS service that doing specific things will require you to agree to an extension.
On the other hand, I moved from Cleveland, Ohio to Apple Valley, California, and switched my wife's service in July.
*I did not accept any new promotions. I did nothing that would normally extend my contract. Yet I called a few months later and just out of sheer dumb luck, asked about my contract end date and suddenly it had changed to July of '04. Even the CSR agreed that that should not have happened!*
If you've been told that they're allowed to extend you any time, for any reason, I'm afraid you've been lied to. If you just assumed that, you're incorrect. In CERTAIN situations, yes, you will need to extend your contract but under NO circumstances should they ever just do it without telling you.
(Which is not to say that there aren't idiots working for SPCS that won't, but they're supposed to tell you and get your OK first.)
 Signature JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services 22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950 Steve Sobol, Proprietor 888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net
JRW - 02 Dec 2003 04:53 GMT It appears that Sprint tends to twist things around to best suit them.
I checked my online invoice and it showed my contract extended one month, from Jan 11 to Feb 11, with Jan 11 being my anniversary date. I called CS and she stated that I signed the contract in Feb 11. When I told her that I'm have the contract in my hand and am looking at it, she said she wasn't there to argue with me.
With that said.......
> Sprint will TELL YOU that taking a promotion or doing certain other things > requires a contract extension. Yes, they told me that if I accepted the 7 PM offer, it would extend my contract one year. I declined the offer.
Each time I've called this last summer for various minor issues, I asked when my contract expired and was told Jan 11, 2004.
> Last time I took a promo, it was the $5 PCS to PCS unlimited option, on 11/ > 28/02. I was TOLD by the Customer Service rep that it would require a one- > year Advantage Agreement, and I AGREED TO THE CONTRACT EXTENSION. I added PCS-to-PCS in Feb and that might have extended my contract as you described above, but as I pointed out, I asked several times and verified they contract ended Jan 11, 2003 - so adding the PCS-to-PCS did not affect my contract.
Now adding PCS-to-PCS is not a plan change, its only an option change. I went through this when they accidently removed my Vision. When I asked it be put back on at $10 per month, AS PER MY CONTRACT, I was told Vision is NOT PART OF CONTRACTUAL PLAN, therefore my contract had nothing to do with it and since the $10 monthly special offer expired, there was no way they could give it back to me.
Lawrence G. Mayka - 02 Dec 2003 15:06 GMT > she said she wasn't there to argue with me. Translation: "I insist that a contract exists even though I have absolutely no evidence of it whatsoever."
This approach is not quite so unreasonable if Sprint's lawyers are at least honest enough *not* to report such a case to the credit agencies. Actually reporting such a case to credit agencies (as if it were a just debt) is, of course, defamation of character.
Do we know for certain whether Sprint reports such false cases to the credit agencies?
Peterbilt - 06 Dec 2003 07:55 GMT Back in July I turned my old N400 in due to dropped calls to Best Buy, I have a two year service agreement with them. When I activated the new phone they said I qualified for 8pm unlimited start time as long as I agree to extend my contract one more year from that date and pay $.01 extra. I agreed but they told me about it. Come July 2004 I'll be looking into a carrier that has more technology options such as using the phone as a modem, not just to connect to their network.
> > newsflash, they apprently don't need your permission to renew your contract > > any time you change ur plan or add certain features that require renewal of [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > (Which is not to say that there aren't idiots working for SPCS that won't, > but they're supposed to tell you and get your OK first.) Bob Smith - 06 Dec 2003 12:17 GMT > Back in July I turned my old N400 in due to dropped calls to Best Buy, I > have a two year service agreement with them. When I activated the new phone [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that has more technology options such as using the phone as a modem, not > just to connect to their network. There are several phones right now that have that capability ... I don't remember which new models that can do it, but the Sanyo 5300 isn't one of them. Keep in mind though that you will be charged an additional data call fee of $0.39/min, each time for dialing into an isp, or sending a fax.
Just out of curiosity, what are you looking to do, that you can't do with Vision right now? Fax? Newsgroups?
Bob
Peterbilt - 06 Dec 2003 23:03 GMT I'm an IT consultant and sometimes I might need to dial in to one of my clients systems via pcAnywhere to correct an issue while I'm on the road. Plus I would like to be able to send faxes if needed. When I asked Sprint if they had something like this they wanted to sell me one of their pc cards for $200 and service for $99 per month. I don't do it often enough to validate that expense but I have been in a situation before where it would have came in handy. I think their pc cards only connect to their G3 internet network if I remember correctly so that wouldn't have worked for me anyway but come to think of it I could access their systems via the internet but considering the expense involved it just isn't worth it.
> > Back in July I turned my old N400 in due to dropped calls to Best Buy, I > > have a two year service agreement with them. When I activated the new [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Bob JRW - 29 Nov 2003 08:01 GMT > I just went to the sprint web page and signed in. When I looked at my > contract details it said it expires in Oct 2004. My contract started Oct > 2002 and was a 1 year contract. What is that all about? Did they reccently offer you 7 PM nighttime minutes? Did you take it? Did they tell you it would extend your contract?
Jim - 29 Nov 2003 08:42 GMT I have not changed my plan or purchased a new phone.
> > I just went to the sprint web page and signed in. When I looked at my > > contract details it said it expires in Oct 2004. My contract started Oct > > 2002 and was a 1 year contract. What is that all about? > > Did they reccently offer you 7 PM nighttime minutes? Did you take it? > Did they tell you it would extend your contract? Bob Smith - 29 Nov 2003 13:42 GMT > I just went to the sprint web page and signed in. When I looked at my > contract details it said it expires in Oct 2004. My contract started Oct > 2002 and was a 1 year contract. What is that all about? When SPCS changed their website, my account showed that my AA expired in Dec/2002, when I knew it would expire in Dec/2003. I sent them an email to inquire about it. I received an email back in a day where they mentioned they had a coding error on my account and fixed the problem. This might be something that applies to your account as well.
I'd suggest that you go to your manage page, go to the bottom of the page, click on contact us, then click on the email link on the next page, select the Topic on Other Services, and type in your inquiry on the length of your contract, that you were under the impression your contract expired in 2003, and ask them to research your account and check all the coding on the account as well.
Bob
Bill Ostler - 29 Nov 2003 14:24 GMT Same here, I never aggreed to extend my contract and only knew about it from the E mail, it said October 2004. I did call customer service to upgrade my PRL. I later called customer service to complain and they took it off. Later i noticed it was still on the website so I complained again by e mail. I got a written response by e mail from sprint saying I wont be charged if i cancel after my current contract. Since I am getting a 25% discount I am not in a hurry to cancel, but prefer to go month to month no extra charges until I need a new phone then go to Cingular.
> > I just went to the sprint web page and signed in. When I looked at my > > contract details it said it expires in Oct 2004. My contract started Oct [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Bob Jim - 29 Nov 2003 14:59 GMT Thanks, I called customer service and they claimed I had a 2 year contract. I know I would never ever consider a 2 year contract since prices change so often and I would never trust a cell provider to have consistant performance. They told me I would have to send an e-mail. We'll see what they say.
> Same here, I never aggreed to extend my contract and only knew about it from > the E mail, it said October 2004. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > > > Bob Steven J Sobol - 29 Nov 2003 16:36 GMT > I just went to the sprint web page and signed in. When I looked at my > contract details it said it expires in Oct 2004. My contract started Oct > 2002 and was a 1 year contract. What is that all about? Sprint's billing system is apparently very badly designed. There are a lot of things that shouldn't require a contract extension where the CSR ends up being *required* to extend the contract because the system won't let them put in a specific date.
That's a big problem. The bigger problem is that the CSRs say nothing about it happening.
The unilateral change in your contract is not legally binding.
Call *2 or 888-211-4PCS and talk to Customer Service. I did, and was told that a "high-priority" note was put on my account that if I cancel after 11/28/03 (yesterday!) there is to be no early termination fee. (Yesterday was my contract end date, but when I moved my account to CA from OH the date got changed in the computer to next July.)
My whole problem is:
1. The CSRs say nothing about it. 2. I don't trust that the note will stay on my account.
Since, on the whole, my SPCS experiences have been good, when we FINALLY have time to drive down to the closest Sprint company store (about a half-hour away), I will insist on getting a discount on the phone we need to buy for my wife. I generally haven't had problems and am willing to let the contract date end in July if they're willing to give me a phone subsidy in return. (See, that way I can get a cheaper phone without being locked in for another year. It would be, at most, 7 or 7 1/2 months. I figure that's a fair trade.) However, if you don't need a phone, that tactic would be useless.
I really think that what we *need* to do is make this idiocy public, and put a *lot* of pressure on Sprint to fix their problem. I don't fault the CSRs for the idiocy, although I am rather irritated that they don't feel the need to say anything. On the other hand, I suspect that they have been told by management not to say anything.
You may want to talk to your state's Attorney General or Consumer Affairs office about this. I'd recommend the Public Utilties/Public Service Commission too, if you're in a state where wireless is regulated as a utility. However, in most states that is NOT the case.
IANAL, but having been in business for myself for several years and being familiar with basic contract law, I can tell you that it's not likely that what SPCS is doing is legally binding. You may want to ask your friendly neighborhood attorney just to be sure, though.
Hope this helps. I enjoy using the service and the network, and in general Sprint PCS has been good to us. This contract issue is the one major problem I have with Sprint.
Especially now that number portability has gone into effect, I think we need to raise a huge, public stink about this policy.
 Signature JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services 22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950 Steve Sobol, Proprietor 888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net
Jim - 29 Nov 2003 18:02 GMT Thanks, I wait for a response on my e-mail. If this is just a simple screw up and they take care of it I won't be upset but if they play games I'll be sure to contact everyone that might assist me.
> > I just went to the sprint web page and signed in. When I looked at my > > contract details it said it expires in Oct 2004. My contract started Oct [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > Especially now that number portability has gone into effect, I think we need > to raise a huge, public stink about this policy. Steven J Sobol - 29 Nov 2003 18:41 GMT > Thanks, I wait for a response on my e-mail. If this is just a simple screw > up and they take care of it I won't be upset but if they play games I'll be > sure to contact everyone that might assist me. Please let us know (especially, let me know!) what happens.
 Signature JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services 22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950 Steve Sobol, Proprietor 888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net
Jim - 29 Nov 2003 18:33 GMT Thanks, I wait for a response on my e-mail. If this is just a simple screw up and they take care of it I won't be upset but if they play games I'll be sure to contact everyone that might assist me.
> > I just went to the sprint web page and signed in. When I looked at my > > contract details it said it expires in Oct 2004. My contract started Oct [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > Especially now that number portability has gone into effect, I think we need > to raise a huge, public stink about this policy. O/Siris - 30 Nov 2003 09:38 GMT > I really think that what we *need* to do is make this idiocy public, and > put a *lot* of pressure on Sprint to fix their problem. I don't fault the > CSRs for the idiocy, although I am rather irritated that they don't feel the > need to say anything. On the other hand, I suspect that they have been told > by management not to say anything. Never attribute to malice that which is more easily ascribed to laziness.
Seriously, I can assure you that management is *not* saying this. But I *do* wish they'd be more aggressive in doing something about it.
 Signature -+- RØß O/Siris I work for SprintPCS I *don't* speak for them.
Joel Horner - 29 Nov 2003 17:27 GMT > I just went to the sprint web page and signed in. When I looked at my > contract details it said it expires in Oct 2004. My contract started Oct > 2002 and was a 1 year contract. What is that all about? I had this happen as well, although it was only a month's extension. I believed it was the representation on the website that was incorrect, not their actual records.
Indeed, when I called to inquire, they gave me the correct contract end date. Although the website is still incorrect, at least I know that they have something that shows the true end date.
Joel
Jim - 30 Nov 2003 00:31 GMT Update-
I received a useless e-mail back from them claiming I had a 2 year account so I should call the number that told me I should send the e-mail. I don't understand why Sprint invites bad press. Now I'll be forced to contact the FCC, the BBB and just to make sure that they make sure their policies are clear, I will be contacting Mike Boguslowsky, since I'm sure he'd love to have something nice to report on to coincide with WLNP. I really despise sinking to this level but Sprint just invites this sort of behavior. They could have just said that was an oversight, offered me a nice deal to try to retain me. What better time for Sprint to shoot themselves in the foot? Why can't Sprint try to find some more people like O'sirus/BOB who actually try to retain customers instead of drive them off.
> I just went to the sprint web page and signed in. When I looked at my > contract details it said it expires in Oct 2004. My contract started Oct > 2002 and was a 1 year contract. What is that all about? Lawrence G. Mayka - 30 Nov 2003 02:50 GMT > I received a useless e-mail back from them claiming I had a 2 year account > so I should call the number that told me I should send the e-mail. I don't One approach is to demand that Sprint show evidence of the contract. Here is an extremely important post by O/Siris from 9/5/2003:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl470038390d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=v7 46b.365815%24Ho3.54359%40sccrnsc03
"When we use our primary billing application and add a contract to an account, there is a recorded message we read to the customer. That message will not disappear until we select either "Agree" or "Disagree." It also attaches to a numbered recording and notes that recording number in the notes. If our recording system is down, then we transfer to an automated attendant that does the process, but does not note. That's our job. If neither one happens, we're stuck with a contract for which we give you all the benefits, but no proof that you agreed to it."
Presumably because he is a Sprint employee himself, O/Siris does not explicitly say that Sprint must either provide this voice recording as evidence or waive the termination penalty; but that certainly seems to be his implication. You may have to get to the cancellation/retention department to find anyone knowledgeable and honest about the issue, though. And even then, maybe not.
O/Siris - 30 Nov 2003 09:46 GMT In article <BVcyb.7679$aw2.3026660 @newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, Lawrence G. Maykalgmayka000 @ameritech.net says...
> > I received a useless e-mail back from them claiming I had a 2 year account > > so I should call the number that told me I should send the e-mail. I [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > department to find anyone knowledgeable and honest about the issue, though. > And even then, maybe not. Oh boy, I *knew* being too honest would come bite me in the a.s later on :)
Just kidding. That same primary billing application includes an icon that tells us whether the system considers your contract verified or not. That leaves little doubt in our mind about whether the customer agreed to the contract. Unfortunately, in Customer Care, we don't get to decide the validity of a contract. If the system says there is one in force, we act accordingly. If you dispute it, that's for Legal to decide.
 Signature -+- RØß O/Siris I work for SprintPCS I *don't* speak for them.
Lawrence G. Mayka - 01 Dec 2003 19:41 GMT > Just kidding. That same primary billing application > includes an icon that tells us whether the system considers [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > force, we act accordingly. If you dispute it, that's for > Legal to decide. This is what you seem to be saying--correct me if I'm wrong:
Reps do not actually have access to the recordings that would prove consent to an agreement. Rather, reps only see a little icon displayed by a program. Reps have been *told* that the icon signifies that Sprint has such a recording, but in reality, Sprint could easily have simply told a programmer to display the icon whenever Sprint *wants* an agreement to exist.
If this is what you're saying, this is worse than useless, because it leaves customers in the same unreasonable situation as before: Customer knows he didn't consent to an agreement, rep claims he did but has absolutely no evidence. Ironically, your statement that a little icon "leaves little doubt in our mind" is particularly worrisome. Have you actually been taught to believe a little icon without a shred of evidence, knowing that Sprint has a very strong motivation to deceive you? After all, Sprint desperately wants you to be stubborn with the customer instead of admitting that you have absolutely no evidence on which to make a judgment.
The customer's best hope, apparently, is simply to cancel the account, refuse to pay the bogus termination fee, let Sprint send it to collections and place a black mark on the customer's credit rating. Customer then files a dispute with all 3 or 4 credit verification companies. Presumably, those companies will ask Sprint for evidence, Sprint will have none, and the companies will have to remove the black mark. The problem: Those credit verification companies know very well who really pays their bills, and are probably *very* reluctant to remove any black marks at all, especially if a dishonest Sprint executive says, "I can't show you the evidence but believe me, we have it."
Thomas T. Veldhouse - 01 Dec 2003 20:03 GMT > The customer's best hope, apparently, is simply to cancel the account, > refuse to pay the bogus termination fee, let Sprint send it to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Sprint executive says, "I can't show you the evidence but believe me, > we have it." Your statement that Sprint will have no proof is not true. Sprint will have an account that has a bound contract on it and an unpaid bill. That is proof enough. The credit agencies do not do contract verification, that is what lawyers do. So, unless you can afford to get a lawyer involved, it is probably not wise to simply let it go to collections. It is much better to be proactive and get a lawyer BEFORE it happens. You can sue Sprint for legal fees and damages if you indeed have been wronged.
I think that in *most* cases, people agree to a new contract because they just aren't paying attention to what they are doing. People often click through those end-user agreements when installing software, and they say yes I agree when asked to agree by CSRs. It is up to the consumer to be thorough enough to at least understand what they are agreeing to. I am not saying that mistakes don't happen, but I am saying that most of the mistakes [about contract end date] are probably by the consumer and not by the provider (in this case, Sprint PCS).
Tom Veldhouse
Lawrence G. Mayka - 01 Dec 2003 20:50 GMT > Your statement that Sprint will have no proof is not true. Sprint will have > an account that has a bound contract on it and an unpaid bill. That is Sprint will have no evidence of any contract. And an "unpaid bill" is simply a demand for payment, not evidence that any such payment is actually owed. You are apparently saying that credit agencies simply take Sprint's "word" (ha!) that a contract exists, and that payment is legally owed but not paid. If you are correct, then credit agencies are clearly in need of some heavy government regulation!
> I think that in *most* cases, people agree to a new contract because they > just aren't paying attention to what they are doing. People often click You're making a sweeping assertion. What evidence do you have? Did you read O/Siris' post of 9/5/03? The whole point is that Sprint claims to record evidence of the customer's consent; but I think you are implicitly agreeing with me that Sprint generally does not have actual evidence, but instead falls back on rash assumptions like yours.
You all are leading me ever closer to the conclusion that Sprint plays a deliberate game of deception. To the credit agencies, Sprint swears that it has recorded evidence of the customer's consent; but internally, Sprint employees know very well that no such evidence exists and instead fall back on rash assumptions of what customers "probably" do in "most" cases.
Steven J Sobol - 01 Dec 2003 23:15 GMT
> You all are leading me ever closer to the conclusion that Sprint plays a > deliberate game of deception. Being a fan of the service, it hurts me to say this, but the more I think about it, the less I can see it being anything other than intentional on the part of management.
 Signature JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services 22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950 Steve Sobol, Proprietor 888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net
Thomas T. Veldhouse - 02 Dec 2003 14:25 GMT > Sprint will have no evidence of any contract. Sure they do. Whether you agreed or not is in question, not the existance of the contract. Credit agencies do not do investigative work to verify whether you agreed or not, that is up to legal representation.
Tom Veldhouse
Lawrence G. Mayka - 02 Dec 2003 15:11 GMT > Sure they do. Whether you agreed or not is in question, not the existance > of the contract. Credit agencies do not do investigative work to verify > whether you agreed or not, that is up to legal representation. Your logic is absurd. By definition, a contract requires the consent of both parties, otherwise it isn't a contract. By definition!
What you are actually asserting is that credit agencies, though they claim to investigate consumer complaints of false reports, actually do no such thing. If you are right, we need a Congressional investigation. Literally.
Thomas T. Veldhouse - 02 Dec 2003 15:43 GMT > Your logic is absurd. By definition, a contract requires the consent of > both parties, otherwise it isn't a contract. By definition! Well DUH!
It would clearly be an invalid contract. However, it is a contract which can be collected on [until successfully disputed]. Clearly it can be disupted and won if no such evidence exists that there was consent. The credit reporting agencies are not the entities that will verify the validity of the contract [they would be bogged down forever if they were]. This is what I said and have been saying. It will almost certainly take a lawyer to get such an issue resolved, unless you can get Sprint PCS to admit the problem and remove the report themself.
> What you are actually asserting is that credit agencies, though they claim > to investigate consumer complaints of false reports, actually do no such > thing. If you are right, we need a Congressional investigation. Literally. No, that is not what I am claiming. It would not be a false report if Sprint PCS reported to them that you did not pay off their contract. They will investigate to the point of making sure legitimate paperwork is filed, but they will not go and force Sprint PCS to show that they have a recording of the customer consenting (or whatever method was used). That is a legal [civil] issue. That is not to say that Sprint PCS won't realize this on their own and fix the problem when the credit inquiry is made, but it certainly does not force them too.
Tom Veldhouse
Jim - 02 Dec 2003 16:55 GMT I asked for a copy of my written or oral consent to the 2 year contract. She said she would transfer me. I spoke with a rep today after about a 10 minute hold. She told me it is an automatic agreement and I would have to write the London KY address to get a copy of the "agreement".
> > Your logic is absurd. By definition, a contract requires the consent of > > both parties, otherwise it isn't a contract. By definition! [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Tom Veldhouse Thomas T. Veldhouse - 02 Dec 2003 17:09 GMT > I asked for a copy of my written or oral consent to the 2 year contract. > She said she would transfer me. I spoke with a rep today after about a 10 > minute hold. She told me it is an automatic agreement and I would have to > write the London KY address to get a copy of the "agreement". I suspect you will just get the verbage and NOT the recording or copy of the signature. I am not sure how online consent is handled. Make sure you are VERY CLEAR about what you are requesting. Chances are you won't get it, judging from past experiences I have had with big companies when asking for something not so run-of-the-mill.
Tom Veldhouse
Lawrence G. Mayka - 03 Dec 2003 20:11 GMT > I asked for a copy of my written or oral consent to the 2 year contract. > She said she would transfer me. I spoke with a rep today after about a 10 > minute hold. She told me it is an automatic agreement and I would have to > write the London KY address to get a copy of the "agreement". By this description, I *strongly* suspect that you will get merely the verbiage of the supposed agreement, and not any evidence of your consent. The term "automatic agreement" as much as tells you that Sprint arrogantly asserts the power to "assign" you a contract without your consent.
Lawrence G. Mayka - 03 Dec 2003 20:06 GMT > It would clearly be an invalid contract. However, it is a contract which > can be collected on [until successfully disputed]. Clearly it can be Without the consent of both parties, no contract exists *at all*, and to pretend that one exists in order to extort money is fraudulent.
> disupted and won if no such evidence exists that there was consent. The > credit reporting agencies are not the entities that will verify the validity > of the contract [they would be bogged down forever if they were]. This is Are you claiming that any arbitrary company (or any company I have dealt with) can falsely claim that they have a contract with me, and that upon my complaint the credit agencies will not even bother to ask for evidence of the contract? If so, the credit agencies are sorely in need of heavy government regulation, because they are obviously and severely out of kilter.
> No, that is not what I am claiming. It would not be a false report if > Sprint PCS reported to them that you did not pay off their contract. They If I did not actually consent, there is no contract, and if Sprint reports that there is, Sprint is committing fraud.
> will investigate to the point of making sure legitimate paperwork is filed, Ay, there's the rub! I think you are really asserting that Sprint's "paperwork"--i.e., its billing programs which are known, especially within Sprint (!), to bogusly insert contracts where none exist--will be treated by the credit agency as "evidence" of a contract. This again indicates that the credit agencies (as well as Sprint) sorely need heavy government regulation, because they should not be trusting a source *known* to be so negligently unreliable.
Thomas T. Veldhouse - 04 Dec 2003 14:21 GMT > If I did not actually consent, there is no contract, and if Sprint reports > that there is, Sprint is committing fraud. Fraud is willful. I find it very unlikely that any contract extensions are willful. Especially in the one case reported here of 30 days. Would taking a willful risk for 30 days be beneficial? Not really. You do seem to forget that wireless service providers have more oversight and watchdog critics out there than just about any other industry. If they sneeze funny there will be 10 reports about it on the internet in less than 30 seconds. I find it very unlikely that Sprint has extended any contracts intentionally and for the purpose of locking in customers without customers consent.
> > will investigate to the point of making sure legitimate paperwork is > filed, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > regulation, because they should not be trusting a source *known* to be so > negligently unreliable. I am saying that a smudge on your credit report is just that. Sprint is a big company that has a known history with collections. Equifax and others are not going to track down Sprint's lawyers and subpoena a recording to see if the contract is real or not. They have enough evidence to believe that it is a valid collections event and will leave it to your lawyers to figure out.
If you want to make out Sprint PCS to be a criminal and a fraud, that is your own personal agenda, but it appears to be based on fantasy to me.
Tom Veldhouse
Lawrence G. Mayka - 05 Dec 2003 01:24 GMT > I find it very unlikely that Sprint has extended any contracts intentionally > and for the purpose of locking in customers without customers consent. If
a) Sprint's software automatically changes a customer's contract term whenever certain kinds of changes are made, and
b) Sprint does not bother to rigorously train and force its representatives to solicit and obtain customer consent each and every time such a change occurs, and
c) Sprint's representatives nevertheless try to hold customers to such unconsented contracts, then
Sprint is committing fraud, at least through willful negligence (effective intent) if not through direct intent. A Sprint employee has asserted (a). A large number of Sprint customers are asserting (b) and (c).
> I am saying that a smudge on your credit report is just that. Sprint is a > big company that has a known history with collections. Equifax and others > are not going to track down Sprint's lawyers and subpoena a recording to see > if the contract is real or not. They have enough evidence to believe that > it is a valid collections event and will leave it to your lawyers to figure > out. But the credit agencies explicitly claim that upon a customer complaint, they will "investigate" a black mark. You are asserting that this "investigation" is essentially phony--that the credit agency will not even bother to ask for any evidence beyond the merchant's own self-serving bogus "paperwork."
Scott Stephenson - 05 Dec 2003 02:46 GMT > But the credit agencies explicitly claim that upon a customer complaint, > they will "investigate" a black mark. You are asserting that this > "investigation" is essentially phony--that the credit agency will not even > bother to ask for any evidence beyond the merchant's own self-serving bogus > "paperwork." The investigation is the same as the one done by the FCC, BBB, State Consumer Protection Agency, State Attourney General or any other organization you choose to report a dispute to. A letter is sent to the company in question, accompanied by a copy of your original complaint, and the company is instructed to respond to the agency with their 'resolution' to the situation. An acceptable 'resolution' in many of these cases is nothing more than a simple verification of the charges in question, with little or no documentation involved. As long as they contact you and the agency within the allotted time, they have met their obligation to these agencies. At no point does a representative of any of these agencies do more than examine the documents provided by the company. No independent investigation is done.
That being said, and having previously worked in the 'dispute' department for a large service corporation for about 3 years, I will say that I saw complaints from all of the agencies listed above, credit card companies and television 'consumer watchdog' programs, but I NEVER saw anything that originated from a credit reporting bureau......NEVER. And the reason why this happened is the same reason it will never happen at Sprint- Sprint is not going to be the one reporting you to the reporting bureau. The debt will be listed by whatever third-party collection agency they sell your delinquent account to. Your dispute now is between you and a company whose only interest is collecting every penny they can get from you. If presented with a dispute, they will more than likely contact their 'customer' (in this case Sprint) and ask them if the charges are valid. They will simply pass on whatever documentation Sprint decides togive them, and the dispute is resolved. In all fairness, true mistakes (billing error, payment error, etc) will more than likely be corrected by the original company. But in any contract dispute, their burden of proof is as simple as providing you with documentation that backs up their claim.
Steven J Sobol - 05 Dec 2003 05:42 GMT > originated from a credit reporting bureau......NEVER. And the reason why > this happened is the same reason it will never happen at Sprint- Sprint is > not going to be the one reporting you to the reporting bureau. The debt > will be listed by whatever third-party collection agency they sell your > delinquent account to. That assumes a lot.
First off, only the owner of the account can report it. The collection agency can't report it unless they have the express permission of the account owner.
And unless they really do sell it - and I'm thinking the debt would have to be very old for them to dump it completely - it has to be listed as a debt to Sprint.
 Signature JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services 22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950 Steve Sobol, Proprietor 888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net
Scott Stephenson - 05 Dec 2003 21:27 GMT > That assumes a lot. > > First off, only the owner of the account can report it. The collection agency > can't report it unless they have the express permission of the account owner. They actually end up owning the balance due on the account- they buy the right to collect the recievables and become the creditor on the account.
> And unless they really do sell it - and I'm thinking the debt would have to > be very old for them to dump it completely - it has to be listed as a debt > to Sprint. Not as old as you would think- I've seen accounts get assigned as quickly as 30 days after account cancellation. I'm sure they all have some formula that after so many days, they stand an x% chance of collecting the money, along with a formula that tells them just how long it is cost effective for them to pursue collection activity themselves. Once the account has reached their' unacceptable' threshold, they will sell the account to a collection agency for an agreed upon percentage of the balance due and write any shortfall off as bad debt. What I'm not clear on is the manner of the sale. I don't know if it is purchased outright, or if the rights to the account are signed over and they are paid a percentage of whatever money is collected by third-party. I would guess it is the second, as this would seem to be the only way third-party agencies could make money. It would also mean that Sprint could initially write the entire balance of to bad debt, and then post bad debt recovery as money is sent to them.
Steven J Sobol - 05 Dec 2003 22:36 GMT
> They actually end up owning the balance due on the account- they buy the > right to collect the recievables and become the creditor on the account. Absolutely right, in SOME cases.
But not in all.
I am FINALLY collecting on a debt owed me from 1999 (don't ask; it's been a long, drawn-out process. She's a weasel... but I finally was able to nail her bank account).
A law firm is handling collections on the judgement I have against the deadbeat.
They don't own the account. They can't and will not do anything without my express prior permission.
It's basically the same thing with the collections agency my parents use for their customers' bad debts. (Although in their case, it's usually a collections agency instead of a lawyer.)
What you're talking about is called factoring, and it is, in fact, done quite often; but it would be a mistake to assume it's always done that way.
 Signature JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services 22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950 Steve Sobol, Proprietor 888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net
Scott Stephenson - 05 Dec 2003 22:53 GMT > > They actually end up owning the balance due on the account- they buy the > > right to collect the recievables and become the creditor on the account. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > What you're talking about is called factoring, and it is, in fact, done > quite often; but it would be a mistake to assume it's always done that way. You're absolutely right- I was speaking about Sprint (and most of Corporate America) specifically. I should have been a little clearer. My humblest apologies, oh Great One. :-)
Thomas T. Veldhouse - 05 Dec 2003 14:34 GMT > But the credit agencies explicitly claim that upon a customer complaint, > they will "investigate" a black mark. You are asserting that this > "investigation" is essentially phony--that the credit agency will not even > bother to ask for any evidence beyond the merchant's own self-serving bogus > "paperwork." You continually put words into my mouth, and that serves no purpose but your own. I have not said the investigation is "phony". They investigate whether there is a legitimate case to be made. They do not take it so far as to actually hold court and decide who is correct. In cases where you have obviously never done business with somebody, or you have a letter stating things differently, that sort of thing might be enough to get an item removed from your report. But they will not go so far as so sopoena records and recordings to prove you actually signed a contract ... the existance of a contract is enough to make a claim legitimate. Legitimate is not the same as being indisputable [legally speaking]. If credit agencies did what you are trying to say they would simply no be able to do their job as there as simply way too many people that have credit scores and just a small fraction of them in dispute would shut them down completely. They probably keep track of 200 million personal credit histories and if 0.1% (just a guess) of them are in dispute at any one time that would be 200,000 cases at any given time. That requires ALOT of resources to investigate with, and each agency would have to do it.
Tom Veldhouse
Lawrence G. Mayka - 05 Dec 2003 20:12 GMT > records and recordings to prove you actually signed a contract ... the > existance of a contract is enough to make a claim legitimate. Legitimate is <Sigh> Without the consent of both parties, A CONTRACT DOES NOT EXIST.
There is no point in our debating this any further in this forum. But IMHO, if credit agencies actually take the same attitude that you exhibit, the industry clearly needs some heavy government regulation.
Steven J Sobol - 01 Dec 2003 23:14 GMT > Your statement that Sprint will have no proof is not true. Sprint will have > an account that has a bound contract on it and an unpaid bill But the contract date will not be a valid date. The question is, where is the proof that you agreed to the change? (Hopefully, SPCS's system has an audit trail that shows that the date WAS changed.)
> saying that mistakes don't happen, but I am saying that most of the mistakes > [about contract end date] are probably by the consumer and not by the > provider (in this case, Sprint PCS). I'd agree in the case of any other carrier, but I've gotten screwed on this, my mother-in-law has gotten screwed after SPECIFICALLY being told she wouldn't require an extension for what she was doing (which turned out to be wrong), and I am sure many other people who pay attention to such matters have also gotten screwed. Sprint needs to fix their software, or pound on the vendor to fix it.
 Signature JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services 22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950 Steve Sobol, Proprietor 888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net
Thomas T. Veldhouse - 02 Dec 2003 14:28 GMT > > Your statement that Sprint will have no proof is not true. Sprint will have > > an account that has a bound contract on it and an unpaid bill > > But the contract date will not be a valid date. The question is, where is the > proof that you agreed to the change? (Hopefully, SPCS's system has an audit > trail that shows that the date WAS changed.) I agree. However, a credit agency (like Equifax) will not give a hoot. They will simply report. You will need legal representation to fix the problem, as they are the people who will dig through records (or sopeona them) to find the verification of the contract (i.e. signature, web acceptance, recorded verbal consent, etc.).
Tom Veldhouse
Steven M. Scharf - 03 Dec 2003 05:57 GMT "Jim" <jim@justaskifyouneedit.com <mailto:jim@justaskifyouneedit.com>> wrote in message <news:piTxb.346079$Fm2.349885@attbi_s04>... I just went to the sprint web page and signed in. When I looked at my
> contract details it said it expires in Oct 2004. My contract started Oct > 2002 and was a 1 year contract. What is that all about? This happened to two relatives on AT&T as well. Apparently some carriers routinely extend people's contracts without telling them and then wait for people to complain about it.
In this case, I would not hesitate to move to another carrier, then put the onus on them to prove that you signed up for a new contract in order to get their termination fee. They will have to provide proof, which will be difficult for them to do.
They may turn it over to a collection agency who will send you nasty letters, then you'll have to write a letter explaining the situation and warning them about the consequences of any negative information appearing on your credit report and advising them to drop the matter.
The collection agency _could_ report you to the credit bureaus, but you do have several avenues of recourse if they do that, including placing a letter in your credit file explaining the situation, or suing them over it. And realistically, you're not going to get a home loan or car loan refused or a bumped up interest rate over a $175 item on an otherwise perfect credit report, especially when you've disputed the item with a lucid explanation. Some people let companies get away with murder with an irrational fear of something negative appearing on their credit report, but the reality is that if you have a reasonable defense of the negative information, and it's a single minor item on an otherwise exemplary credit report then no creditor pays any attention to it.
Definitely write a letter to your state's PUC, but forget about the BBB, they're worthless. cc Sprint on the letter.
Thomas T. Veldhouse - 03 Dec 2003 14:10 GMT > The collection agency _could_ report you to the credit bureaus, but > you do have several avenues of recourse if they do that, including [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > minor item on an otherwise exemplary credit report then no creditor > pays any attention to it. The problem is that many loans are granted based upon your FICO score and that is computed with little reguard for letters and lucid explanation. Straw ... camel ... back.
Tom Veldhouse
Steven M. Scharf - 04 Dec 2003 06:08 GMT > The problem is that many loans are granted based upon your FICO score and > that is computed with little reguard for letters and lucid explanation. > Straw ... camel ... back. > > Tom Veldhouse Yes, this is true. However the credit reporting agencies have to remove negative information if the creditor cannot prove that you owe them money. In practice this is difficult. Still, if you have otherwise excellent credit, your FICO score is high enough that the decrease caused by one negative item of less than $200 is not going to make any difference. I.e., the discount you get for a high FICO score on a home mortgage is usually above 680 or 700, and people with excellent credit are well into the mid to high 700's so one small item isn't going to matter. OTOH, if you have marginal credit then it could be the straw. OTOH, a lot of mortgage lenders don't publicize the fact that there is a wholesale discount for high FICO scores, and they keep the 1/4 point for themselves. The discount is actually printed on the wholesale rate sheets, as is the discount for a low LTV ratio. but most borrowers don't know how to get these rate sheets.
Jim - 02 Dec 2003 17:07 GMT I asked for a copy of my written or oral consent to the 2 year contract. She said she would transfer me. I spoke with a rep today after about a 10 minute hold. She told me it is an automatic agreement and I would have to write the London KY address to get a copy of the "agreement".
> I just went to the sprint web page and signed in. When I looked at my > contract details it said it expires in Oct 2004. My contract started Oct > 2002 and was a 1 year contract. What is that all about? Steven J Sobol - 02 Dec 2003 18:52 GMT > I asked for a copy of my written or oral consent to the 2 year contract. > She said she would transfer me. I spoke with a rep today after about a 10 > minute hold. She told me it is an automatic agreement and I would have to > write the London KY address to get a copy of the "agreement". Give a reasonable amount of time -- say, a week or two; this is a big company -- to get the info back to you. Send your letter with Return Receipt (you may need to use Certified or Registered mail to do this) so you are informed when the mail is received by SPCS, and give them a week or two after that date.
When they don't give you anything, nail their a.ses to the wall.
 Signature JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services 22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950 Steve Sobol, Proprietor 888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net
MTG - 30 Dec 2003 20:46 GMT I wonder what would happen if you asked Sprint to prove you authorized a contract extension??
> I just went to the sprint web page and signed in. When I looked at my > contract details it said it expires in Oct 2004. My contract started Oct > 2002 and was a 1 year contract. What is that all about? Steven J Sobol - 30 Nov 2003 21:10 GMT > I wonder what would happen if you asked Sprint to prove you authorized a > contract extension?? IMHO it's definitely worth Jim's time to ask!
 Signature JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services 22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950 Steve Sobol, Proprietor 888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net
Bob Smith - 01 Dec 2003 12:15 GMT > I wonder what would happen if you asked Sprint to prove you authorized a > contract extension?? > > > I just went to the sprint web page and signed in. When I looked at my > > contract details it said it expires in Oct 2004. My contract started Oct > > 2002 and was a 1 year contract. What is that all about? If this was a one year extension. Jim, are you absolutely sure that when you signed up for service, it was for only one year? Is it possible that you signed up for two years?
Meta, what's going on with your computer? Time date on your message here says 12-30-03 ...
Bob
|
|
|