 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Verizon / April 2004VZW internal blacklist?
Does anyone know if VZW maintains an internal blacklist of people who owe money to Verizon (land line) or Verizon Busness Services? I think my freind is getting the big ($1000) deposit excuse, because of an old unpaid house phone bill. VZW is say its his credit but we've gone over it and it's not that bad. He has Gotten a mortgage, car loan, credit cards and other credit with the bad credit VZW is talking about. Yesterday He applied for and got approval for credit at Cingular, T-Mobile and Sprint, without a deposit. I am realy curious about this. > Does anyone know if VZW maintains an internal blacklist of people who owe > money to Verizon (land line) or Verizon Busness Services? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I am realy curious about this. I would imagine they do. And unlike the credit bureaus, they can keep these records and pursue the balance for as long as they like. <snip> > I would imagine they do. And unlike the credit bureaus, they can keep these > records and pursue the balance for as long as they like. No they are bound by the same statute of limitations on the collections of debts depending on your state of residence. Most are 6 years and only the original creditor can initiate the collections in that time frame. They must show diligence in trying to collect and if they let it sit for over that time they can get scratch. I had a friend at work that left an apartment and never got the electric bill from his last month at the old place sent to the new address even though he had gas and electric at it. What the gas company did was turn it over to their lawyers and they got a judgment which is good for 10 years, even though he never knew it until he bought his home and then since the ten years were not up or not renewed he was forced to pay the original bill plus interest. He paid almost $1,300.00 for $200 bill owed. (Lawyers fees were tacked on and poundage etc.) he was livid. The company can keep the internal record of the amount owed but can do squat unless they tried to collect within that time span. Elector > <snip> > > I would imagine they do. And unlike the credit bureaus, they can [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > The company can keep the internal record of the amount owed but can do > squat unless they tried to collect within that time span. But all they had to do was try to collect the the amount owed (your own words). Sending a bill or letter asking for payment satisfies that requirement in all jurisdictions. However, they can refuse service no matter the time frame. <snip> > But all they had to do was try to collect the the amount owed (your own > words). Sending a bill or letter asking for payment satisfies that > requirement in all jurisdictions. However, they can refuse service no > matter the time frame. Not after the six years are up. it is considered a dead or uncollectible account. (In New York). Diligence in the time frame would be the key here. If they had a judgment still on record then that would have sufficed as well. Elector > <snip> >> But all they had to do was try to collect the the amount owed (your [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If they had a judgment still on record then that would have sufficed > as well. So you're saying they can't arbitrarily require a deposit as long as they are not discriminating? Lets assume he was belligerent in the store and the sales person just didn't like that. Would it be illegal to require a deposit? -Quick -Quick <snip> > So you're saying they can't arbitrarily require a deposit as > long as they are not discriminating? Lets assume he was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -Quick In New York and I am not sure about elsewhere it would be discriminatory practices. They (insert company here) have to base their credit decisions on merit and not frivolity. I can however check with my agency attorneys as to the law in this matter, he (insert customer here) would have to prove that was the basis of the denial. Sort of a catch 22. Elector > <snip> > > But all they had to do was try to collect the the amount owed (your [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > If they had a judgment still on record then that would have sufficed > as well. Whatever the case, even a dead account with them would remain on their books, and they are within their rights to refuse service or demand a high deposit for a new account in this case. One thing that bothers me here- why not pay your bills? There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of remorse over the fact that Verizon was apparently stiffed on a bill some years back, but there appears to be some confusion and outrage because it may be causing some difficulties in getting service now. Go figure. <Snip> > Whatever the case, even a dead account with them would remain on their > books, and they are within their rights to refuse service or demand a high [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and outrage because it may be causing some difficulties in getting service > now. Go figure. Scott, I have empathy for folks that cannot pay their bills for one reason or another. I don't think anyone wants to fall behind. Lets also understand that the credit lenders are a good part of the blame here. The poor consumer has to have the latest TV or car or Home or home appliance and the lenders let the consumer have it since its good for the economy. Jobs and people being happy create more credit and more need for those goods. Although I did not take this course in college I am sure there is a real name for what is happening. Then all of a sudden Japan, China and other countries can make these goods better, folks lose their jobs, cannot afford their rent, their credit card bills are not paid or late in paying (Then you get the interest rate increased for being late, oh not just that card but now all the companies want to do it) resulting in defaults. Defaults result in higher rates for credit and more of credit guideline to obtain credit. Cause and effect. In bankruptcy cases the number one reason was listed economic loss due to job, home, marriage or even medical bills. All of which can happen to anyone of us. But when a person tries to get back on their feet the list of credit grantors are small and predatory in nature. 40% in interest, even loan sharks don't go that high. My father always said that its the defaults that cause the higher rates and make it harder for new credit to be granted. That may be true but have some understanding in why these events happen. Oh and I believe $1,000.00 on each account is outlandish. Elector > <Snip> > > Whatever the case, even a dead account with them would remain on [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > true but have some understanding in why these events happen. Oh and I > believe $1,000.00 on each account is outlandish. Yes we can all sympathize with people in those positions. Then there are those where it may look like this sort of situation but is actually greatly caused by the person themself and could have been prevented (yes, family on the wife's side is an example :)). Finally there are those who are flat irresponsible. How do you tell? It's a business. It's based on probabilities. There is a large sample size to derive the statistics from. Most lenders are not a charitible organizations. Many are public companies and have an obligation to shareholders to make/maximize profits. I take it you are in the legal business. Does your firm use a sliding scale including taking cases for free in like circumstances? If so, what percentage? and does this cause you to charge the paying clients more? -Quick <snip> > I take it you are in the legal business. Does your firm use a sliding > scale including taking cases for free in like circumstances? If so, > what percentage? and does this cause you to charge the paying > clients more? > > -Quick No I work for a public agency. We have lawyers on staff. However many times when you encounter the situation you are inquiring about (Sliding fee schedules) the law firms make the money on actual work performed and not in lending or giving credit. This is clearly not the same as a credit card issuer or store. Many credit card issuers depend solely on the credit reporting agency and the information supplied at time of request from the consumer. When that same customer falls on hard times the card and stores now have this addendum on the credit agreement that states they can raise your interest rate up very high if you fail to make payments to them or your other creditors. However I don't see where this is not motivated by nothing but greed. I once had a credit card with a fixed 9% and when the card company was taken over by another card company they sent a letter stating that all rates will now be 12% and I called and pointed out via one of the agency attorneys that I had a legal and binding contract and when they bought out the other they had no legal right to raise my interest rates. They lowered it back to 9% for awhile and then they found out how to raise them legally and I called and canceled the card and paid it off at 9%. Which I was told I could do. It is the credit issuers that are really causing these defaults and its due to greed. Take into consideration that checking and savings accounts are giving 1-4% for interest on your money but they are charging 23-35% for credit cards. Makes you wonder huh? Elector > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > performed and not in lending or giving credit. This is clearly not > the same as a credit card issuer or store. True, but I think some analogies can be drawn. You negotiate an hourly wage for representation. Some time into the case you lose your job and can't pay the agreed upon rate... I'm not sure that raising the rate on default is that much of an issue. If you can't make the original payments it doesn't matter that the subsequent rate is increased. I suspect it's a very small percentage that miss or forget a few payments and then cannot handle the increased rate. This usually occurs long after people have dug themselves past the debt load they can afford. I also think it's become more of a practice for people to live on the edge without a safety net. Many don't factor in considerations like "what if I get laid off in the near future?", "what if I incur significant medical expenses?", etc., when deciding to incur significant debt. I believe this is part of fiscal responsibility. Rarely is it the case that the problem debt was originally incurred due to a necessity. I see the rate jack as a deterrent and yes, also a stab at getting whats left when it looks like there is a problem. On the other hand, many CC issuers will work with you with plans like closing your account and letting you pay at a reduced rate over a longer period to time. No, it may not completely save your credit rating but can save your home and/or declaring bankruptcy. > Many credit card issuers depend solely on the credit reporting agency > and the information supplied at time of request from the consumer. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > or your other creditors. However I don't see where this is not > motivated by nothing but greed. See above. It's in the agreement and there is no excuse for not *considering* it prior to incuring a debt. > They lowered it back to 9% for awhile and then they found out how to > raise them legally and I called and canceled the card and paid it off > at 9%. Yes, I've often been notified that the rate would be changing and given the option to continue and accept the new rate or quit using the account and pay off the existing balance under the original terms. Seems fair to me. > Which I was told I could do. It is the credit issuers that are > really causing these defaults and its due to greed. Take into > consideration that checking and savings accounts are giving 1-4% for > interest on your money but they are charging 23-35% for credit cards. > Makes you wonder huh? About what? That a business is making a profit? Do you feel that businesses should have a profit cap imposed upon them? Yes, there are usury(sp?) laws but this is out in the open and apparently legal. Yes, some of the marketing and teasers are aimed at the uninformed but McDonalds does some of the same right? You seem to be equating the lenders to drug dealers offering the "first ones are free" to get the unsuspecting hooked on credit. -Quick > > <snip> > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > hourly wage for representation. Some time into the case you lose > your job and can't pay the agreed upon rate... [See 1 Below] > I'm not sure that raising the rate on default is that much of an issue. > If you can't make the original payments it doesn't matter that the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > this is part of fiscal responsibility. Rarely is it the case that the > problem debt was originally incurred due to a necessity. [See 2 Below] > I see the rate jack as a deterrent and yes, also a stab at getting > whats left when it looks like there is a problem. On the other [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > See above. It's in the agreement and there is no excuse for > not *considering* it prior to incuring a debt. [See 2 Below] <snip> > > Which I was told I could do. It is the credit issuers that are > > really causing these defaults and its due to greed. Take into [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Yes, some of the marketing and teasers are aimed at the uninformed > but McDonalds does some of the same right? [See 3 below] > You seem to be equating the lenders to drug dealers offering the > "first ones are free" to get the unsuspecting hooked on credit. > > -Quick [1] If you were to make an agreement for fees paid for services this is not the same as fees paid for extension of credit and as such is not for this discussion. If you lets say pay your attorney or your contractor and then run out of money. When the money ends the service of legal advice and your home being built ends. [2] In a consumer retail contract for credit the conditions are spelled out. If you default the costs to you for collection are borne by you. They can ask for the cards back, they can sue you etc. etc. etc. all which are clearly spelled out. So there are no surprises. Bankruptcy is a means for an end. Many bankruptcy judges comment when they issue a relief judgment that when creditor make noises they usually get no sympathy from those judges. In stead they get you caused your own problems via the continued extension of credit, giving a higher limit, making deals for their payments etc. It is borne by many a release. The creditors also like to try and get any money they can by any means. Look at the poor family man that had hardship and tries to work things out and stay afloat the card company then goes on a collection frenzy. Your other creditors join in because they see you heading down the river, add more grief on the guy or gal that is trying to pay the debt and wham now they are in Bankruptcy Chapter 7. And the cycle starts all over again. [3] If its ok to have the banks and lenders making these huge profits then why is it not ok to give higher interest rates for the use of the depositors money? The federal reserve lowered interest rates and yet banks and credit lenders are raising these very same rates because of greed. And yeah it would be like a drug dealer since they give you a taste then give you more and more until your at the edge and wham..Look what happens. In the cell phone department the costs associated in defaults is mainly in fraud and theft loses. If you owe a $40 cell phone invoice for a gazillion free minutes plus long distance included the choice is to simply turn off the phone and lose $40 and not $40,000.00 from a customer. And how many customers owe huge amounts? Scott I noticed your reply and in many cases folks in or out of a bankruptcy are also good candidates for credit since they cannot use that protection for many a years and the credit lenders know it. So I don't feel sorry for them. Elector > Scott I noticed your reply and in many cases folks in or out of a > bankruptcy are also good candidates for credit since they cannot use > that protection for many a years and the credit lenders know it. So I > don't feel sorry for them. I'm sorry- any failure to allow bills to go to the point where they and up on a credit report shows a disregard for complete financial responsibility. By this, I mean that in times of hard luck, the first types of bills that people choose not to pay are usually the luxury credit items, which are the same type you are talking about trying to get again. Yes- in some cases, there are legitimate reasons for this to happen. However, these represent a small portion of cases, and the lender has no way to verify why the debt wasn't paid- it just wasn't paid. And there is no guarantee to the lender that these legitimate reasons might not reoccur. Can you guarantee that you won't lose your job again, get sick again, get divorced again? In this thread and another, you have mentioned both an unpaid credit card on a credit report, and an apparent old, unpaid obligation to Verizon. You can't question Verizon's reluctance to treat it as a good credit risk- they've already been burned once. <snip> > In this thread and another, you have mentioned both an unpaid credit card on > a credit report, and an apparent old, unpaid obligation to Verizon. You > can't question Verizon's reluctance to treat it as a good credit risk- > they've already been burned once. Scott, were not talking about credit of mine. I have great credit. The thread was started by a guy named Breezy. It is still going on in another thread. What I pointed out was that circumstance of economic loss and other factors can and will cause good folks to have difficulty in making their payments, the credit industry is just as much to blame as the consumer. I have been a customer of Verizon and Cellular one from they day they opened their doors. Never missed a payment. Then again if odd chance was to befall me then hey the company can do what they want. But, not as a wilily nilly as trying to collect a debt past its legal limits. (Which is what the original poster was talking about) Elector > <snip> > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > their payments, the credit industry is just as much to blame as the > consumer. You're right and I screwed up- I'm sorry I got you confused. Nothing in your posts indicates bad credit on your part, and now that my brain fart is over, I don't want to imply otherwise. > I have been a customer of Verizon and Cellular one from they day they > opened their doors. Never missed a payment. Then again if odd chance > was to befall me then hey the company can do what they want. But, not > as a wilily nilly as trying to collect a debt past its legal limits. > (Which is what the original poster was talking about) The OP was not stating that Verizon was trying to collect the old debt. They were stating that VZ was asking for a high deposit on a new account, which may be the result of an old account that was never paid in full. I am in total agreement with you that once the time limit has expired, no company has the right to collect that debt. But I believe they are well within their rights to protect themselves with new accounts based on previous internal payment history, no matter how old. It looks like we really got our wires crossed on this one- shall we try again with a clean slate? > It looks like we really got our wires crossed on this one- shall we try > again with a clean slate? No Problem.. :-) Elector <snip> > In this thread and another, you have mentioned both an unpaid credit card on > a credit report, and an apparent old, unpaid obligation to Verizon. You > can't question Verizon's reluctance to treat it as a good credit risk- > they've already been burned once. [Please remember to get whom is speaking/posting to the correct poster] Path: twister.nyroc.rr.com!news-rtr.nyroc.rr.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn52fe ed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s51.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Breezy" <suziq4you2@yahoo.com> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.verizon Subject: VZW internal blacklist? Lines: 14 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: <V8zic.21659$aQ6.1320120@attbi_s51> NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.218.224.212 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: attbi_s51 1082834613 24.218.224.212 (Sat, 24 Apr 2004 19:23:33 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 19:23:33 GMT Organization: Comcast Online Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 19:23:33 GMT Xref: news-rtr.nyroc.rr.com alt.cellular.verizon:153832 Does anyone know if VZW maintains an internal blacklist of people who owe money to Verizon (land line) or Verizon Busness Services? I think my freind is getting the big ($1000) deposit excuse, because of an old unpaid house phone bill. VZW is say its his credit but we've gone over it and it's not that bad. He has Gotten a mortgage, car loan, credit cards and other credit with the bad credit VZW is talking about. Yesterday He applied for and got approval for credit at Cingular, T-Mobile and Sprint, without a deposit. I am realy curious about this. [My first reply which was to your posting to Breezy] Path: twister.nyroc.rr.com!news-rtr.nyroc.rr.com!news-out.nyroc.rr.com!twist er.nyroc.rr.com.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "Elector" <elector@my-deja.com> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.verizon References: <V8zic.21659$aQ6.1320120@attbi_s51> <rYWdnTnew_SUVhfdRVn_iw@adelphia.com> Subject: Re: VZW internal blacklist? Lines: 32 Organization: Spam & Kook Killers Are Us X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: <ILOic.96410$M3.73501@twister.nyroc.rr.com> Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 13:08:56 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.195.48.51 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com X-Trace: twister.nyroc.rr.com 1082898536 24.195.48.51 (Sun, 25 Apr 2004 09:08:56 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 09:08:56 EDT Xref: news-rtr.nyroc.rr.com alt.cellular.verizon:153875 "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message news:rYWdnTnew_SUVhfdRVn_iw@adelphia.com... <snip> > I would imagine they do. And unlike the credit bureaus, they can keep these > records and pursue the balance for as long as they like. No they are bound by the same statute of limitations on the collections of debts depending on your state of residence. Most are 6 years and only the original creditor can initiate the collections in that time frame. They must show diligence in trying to collect and if they let it sit for over that time they can get scratch. I had a friend at work that left an apartment and never got the electric bill from his last month at the old place sent to the new address even though he had gas and electric at it. What the gas company did was turn it over to their lawyers and they got a judgment which is good for 10 years, even though he never knew it until he bought his home and then since the ten years were not up or not renewed he was forced to pay the original bill plus interest. He paid almost $1,300.00 for $200 bill owed. (Lawyers fees were tacked on and poundage etc.) he was livid. The company can keep the internal record of the amount owed but can do squat unless they tried to collect within that time span. Elector > <snip> > > In this thread and another, you have mentioned both an unpaid credit [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > [Please remember to get whom is speaking/posting to the correct > poster] <snip> You are totally right- I'd blame my error on old age, but am not willing to admit to that yet. Please accept my deepest apologies. > The company can keep the internal record of the amount owed but can do > squat unless they tried to collect within that time span. No- they can choose not to provide service to you a second time. They are under no obligation to provide service to everyone, and as long as they are consistent in their application of the policy, not in violation of any fair trade laws. >> The company can keep the internal record of the amount owed but can do >> squat unless they tried to collect within that time span. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > consistent in their application of the policy, not in violation of any fair > trade laws. Actually, I think you're both right. Elector seems to know the NYS laws pretty well, so I am assuming he's right. BUT he's talking about collections activity. You're saying the company is under no obligation to extended credit a second time, and you're right, but you're both right about different things.  SignatureJustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/ "someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003 <snip> > No- they can choose not to provide service to you a second time. They are > under no obligation to provide service to everyone, and as long as they are > consistent in their application of the policy, not in violation of any fair > trade laws. The utilities are under the Public Service Commission in New York State, it is their guidelines and regulations that the companies are under. In the case of the gas company or electric company or even the telephone company (landline) they MUST provide service even if you owe them money. It the law. However the wireless segment of the telephone company may not be under the public service commission rules and regs. I will look in McKinney's laws this afternoon if I get the chance. If they are for sake of discussion then any internal black list would be "illegal" and non-enforceable outside of the regular collection laws which are in place. A good analogy of this would be a consumer gets a Chapter 7 and the company although forbidden by federal law cannot collect the debt later notes that you once owed it and now refuses service. The company is now in violation of not only federal statute but state law as well. That is why I am assuming here that any sort of internal black list would be highly suspicious as to being enforceable. Remember a few years ago those stupid commercials were this lady was cut off while talking on her home phone and the ad states " Get a new connection and keep your existing number even if you owe money to the phone company" I wish I could remember that company. Elector > The utilities are under the Public Service Commission in New York State, it > is their guidelines and regulations that the companies are under. In the > case of the gas company or electric company or even the telephone company > (landline) they MUST provide service even if you owe them money. It the law. True, but we are not dealing with a utility- at least not yet. It wouldn't surprise me to see cellular added to the list at some point. > However the wireless segment of the telephone company may not be under the > public service commission rules and regs. I will look in McKinney's laws [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > refuses service. The company is now in violation of not only federal statute > but state law as well. If all of your statements apply to utilities under the control of the PSC, I agree. However, I don't think the same logic or analogy can be applied to those not under the regulation of the PSC. Another analogy would be that I own a business and you do business with me to the tune of $1000, which is ultimately wiped out through bankruptcy. Ten years later, you come to me again and ask for my services. I remember our previous relationship and decide you are not the type of customer I want to do business with. I would be within my rights in using my personal 'blacklist' to determine who I want to do business with- is it any different? > That is why I am assuming here that any sort of internal black list would be > highly suspicious as to being enforceable. Remember a few years ago those > stupid commercials were this lady was cut off while talking on her home > phone and the ad states " Get a new connection and keep your existing number > even if you owe money to the phone company" I wish I could remember that > company. But remember one thing- in this case, the OP is not stating that they are being refused service. Instead, VZ is asking for a very high deposit,and is willing to do business once the deposit requirement is met. If the internal list is used to not deny service, but determine the terms of new service, I'm not sure they are out of bounds in any way. <snip> > But remember one thing- in this case, the OP is not stating that they are > being refused service. Instead, VZ is asking for a very high deposit,and is > willing to do business once the deposit requirement is met. If the internal > list is used to not deny service, but determine the terms of new service, > I'm not sure they are out of bounds in any way. Scott very true, in as much the original debt (the $1000.00 analogy) was owed to you and is no longer collectable you would be right to refuse service. In the telephone company and other utilities again they cannot ask for certain things and must give service. And in that you are also correct. As if they are a utility. And not a private company. I was looking at McKinney's today and could not find any laws relating to deposits other than the land line companies that must pay interest and must give back within 6 months etc. I also found something to the effect that "utilities" may not discriminate against a customer in securing service due to any income deriving from public assistance, disability or social security, or where it can be established via gender or marital status or sexual orientation. Then again it was numerous in the information that it kept directing me to other volumes such as General Business Obligations, CPLR, Public Utilities etc. I would have to be a lawyer to figure it all out. ha ha Elector > Scott, I have empathy for folks that cannot pay their bills for one > reason or another. I don't think anyone wants to fall behind. Lets > also understand that the credit lenders are a good part of the blame > here. And I understand that people do come into hard times- been there, done that. It wasn't my creditors' fault- I failed to live up to my end of the bargain. And those that took time to make whole showed up on my credit report. I paid a price for this, and don't blame anyone but myself- I overextended. > The poor consumer has to have the latest TV or car or Home or home > appliance and the lenders let the consumer have it since its good for > the economy. No- the poor consumer WANTS the latest new things, and will live beyond their means to get it. There is no 'has to have'. Those that "have to have" the latest are more concerned with image than finances. >Jobs and people being happy create more credit and more > need for those goods. I still contend that 'need' and 'desire' are not the same thing. >Although I did not take this course in college I > am sure there is a real name for what is happening. Then all of a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > higher rates for credit and more of credit guideline to obtain credit. > Cause and effect. Which is a perfect reason why people should try to live within their means. A new car is not a necessity when a used car at less than half the price will function just as well. And when people don't live within their means, there are consequences that occur when the whole house of cards come tumbling down. People need to accept these consequences. Bankruptcy does not wipe out the actions that created it, only the debt. And with the numbers going higher and higher every year, there is going to be a growing reluctance by any company to treat someone with a bankruptcy the same as they would a high credit score customer, and they are going to look at past financial performance closer than they have in the past. If you have had problems in the past, they are going to come back to haunt you- they did for me for quite a while. > In bankruptcy cases the number one reason was listed economic loss due > to job, home, marriage or even medical bills. All of which can happen [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > true but have some understanding in why these events happen. Oh and I > believe $1,000.00 on each account is outlandish. Your father was right, and I don't mean to sound as cold as all of this comes across. There are a few things to consider here- the last time I looked, Verizon's bad debt writeoff was a significant portion of revenue, and not in line with many other carriers. Maybe they have tightened up their postpay requirements. But from a business perspective, how many times do they have to get burned before they take action to prevent it? Have you considered prepaid plans? How many minutes a month does your friend think he will need? JoshIII upstate south carolina > Does anyone know if VZW maintains an internal blacklist of people who owe > money to Verizon (land line) or Verizon Busness Services? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I am realy curious about this. > Does anyone know if VZW maintains an internal blacklist of people > who owe money to Verizon (land line) or Verizon Busness Services? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I am realy curious about this. Don't know about checks, but on 1/1/2004 they changed things, and started denying stuff if there was anything at all on your report, and started pushing prepaid for those denied. > > Does anyone know if VZW maintains an internal blacklist of people > > who owe money to Verizon (land line) or Verizon Busness Services? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > denying stuff if there was anything at all on your report, and started > pushing prepaid for those denied. Are they asking for more deposits as well, or just denying all together? >>> Does anyone know if VZW maintains an internal blacklist of people >>> who owe money to Verizon (land line) or Verizon Busness Services? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Are they asking for more deposits as well, or just denying all > together? Actually both, The deny I was referring to was giving you an account with any sort of blemish whatsoever. They do still take deposits, just deny you deposit free status. > Have you considered prepaid plans? How many minutes a month does your > friend think he will need? He has already gone with Cingular. With no deposit. We did seriously look at Prepay. I estimated his bill would be double, if not triple. http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/controller?item=prepayItem&action=viewP repayOverview > Does anyone know if VZW maintains an internal blacklist of people who owe > money to Verizon (land line) or Verizon Busness Services? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I am realy curious about this. If your friend has a lot of accounts that are young or a lot of accounts that are nearly maxed out (or both) that is a big red flag for Verizon and it lowers your FICO until it changes. I purchased a home and a car in the same two month period and that showed two large accounts that were young and had near 100% balance owed ... that caused a $400 request for deposit when I talked with Verizon at that time. My score was in reason, but they apparently weight these factors differently than just the FICO. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 Maybe if your friend paid his bills in full and on time, VZW wouldn't have asked for a big deposit. They're just making sure they aren't ripped off by a customer who obviously can't pay his bill. >Does anyone know if VZW maintains an internal blacklist of people who owe >money to Verizon (land line) or Verizon Busness Services? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >I am realy curious about this. I have to laugh, by your own admission you state: >> but we've gone over it and it's not that bad. Guess what, ever consider that it should be "good" instead of "not that bad"? Why not expend some energy and fix it, rather than expect people to ignore faults and give you things? >> Does anyone know if VZW maintains an internal blacklist of people >> who owe money to Verizon (land line) or Verizon Busness Services? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >> I am realy curious about this. [original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth] >Does anyone know if VZW maintains an internal blacklist of people who owe >money to Verizon (land line) or Verizon Busness Services? > >I think my freind is getting the big ($1000) deposit excuse, because of an >old unpaid house phone bill. If that is the case, he can fix it by paying the "old unpaid house phone bill" promptly after he became aware of it. My son had a funny with only with a low value account. He had been in the military and once, when transferred, there was a ~$35 electric bill he was unaware of after he was transferred. He has the best rate on many credit cards (7.9%), mortgage... One outfit wouldn't give him $!000 store credit. I pursued his credit report, discovered the bill, paid it, showed the store, got his credit! (0% financing offer). The store accepted the resolution. It really pays to fix small stuff! gerry SignaturePersonal home page - http://gogood.com gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots > [original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth] > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > It really pays to fix small stuff! Especially if you're asking for "phone credit" after a delinquent, or unpaid, phone bill! Larry Just found out that No, there is no internal blacklist for VZW. They are a separate business unit over at Verizon. Separate everthing. They do not "cross-reference" customer list with the LL business unit with the Wireless unit. They go by score and "certain" derog items on the CRA report they pull, and age of credit too. They use FICO modeling in addition to an internal scoring system to assess risk. Special Thanks to *dg0474* for this info Well, if you want to call it a blacklist, I guess you can. All the credit dept has to do is type in your Social Security number, and your info comes up if you had an account with them in the past. Your past performance is taken into account if you apply for a new account. If you haven't had an account with them, they just go off data from credit bureaus (Experian is the main one they use). People with no credit history at all are usually asked for a $400 deposit. To be asked for a $1000 deposit, you must have either stiffed them in the past, or your credit bureau history is bad (worse than your friend has told you.) > Does anyone know if VZW maintains an internal blacklist of people who owe > money to Verizon (land line) or Verizon Busness Services? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I am realy curious about this. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.