United States - 30324-3300
AT&T assigned a bad number to my new home. The number was blocked by MCI for outstanding debts in past years.
AT&T said that they would give me a new number, but I would still have to pay the bill for the bad number.
I paid $106.
3 weeks later I received another bill for $53 on the bad number. AT&T said it was a bill for a partial month on the bad number. I paid $53.
One week later I received another bill from AT&T for $123 for a long distance call made to Thailand and I would have to pay, however, the agent agreed to drop the the charge down to $24. I paid $24.
One week later I received another bill from AT&T for $123. ON the phone again, and the AT&T agent said that It was dropped to $24, but I still had to pay additional taxes and fees amounting to $19. I paid $19.
Two days later I get another bill from AT&T for $123. I called and their agent said that I owed nothing and he would "stop the collection department errors".
I figured that it cost me about $200 to pay off a service that I never had from AT&T, but at least they wouldn't ruin my credit.
Five months later, December 18, 2006, I received a later from Money Control, Inc., a collection agency, for a debt of $123.07 owed to AT&T.
When I called AT&T, their computer would only only allow me to pay the bill, stating that I could not speak to an agent until the bill was paid.
My family has turned off all Cingular Wireless service for my deceased spouse since her death. Still, Cingular, has CONTINUED TO BILL AND TURNED THE IMPROPER BILLILNG over to Southwest Credit Corportation and they indicated that they will continue harassing telephone calls and other attempts at intimidation in order to attempt to receive payment for services which my deceased spouse did not and canmot use. They have indicated that, since they have not received payment as of today, they plan to publish an adverse, damaging credit report. When I asked Southwest Credit for their E-Mail address, explaining that I am a court-certified "American with Disabilities," they responded that "company policy restricted them from giving out their E-mail address". This does not seem to be credible behavior on the part of these employees of Southwest Credit with "Agency" to CINGULAR WIRELESS.
I must take actions, both to protect myself and the estate of my deceased spouse, and to change agressive, non-responsive, terrorizing actions by Southwest Credit on behalf of the principal company (Cingular Wireless). What, effective actions can I take to change the behavior of Southwest Credit / Cingular? I will contact the Attorney General for the state in which I live (Maryland) and, formally complain to his office (Consumer Affairs). I have complained by E-Mail to the President and C.E.O. of Cingular Wireless: Mr. Stanley T Sikman. I will ask for assistance from Members of our Maryland State Legislature (House of Delegates Delegate Gene Counihan, Chariman, Ways and Means Committee and others).
How can you help other Maryland residents and myself so that we can expect and demand responsive, effective change of behavior on the part of companies like Cingular Wireless and Collection agencies with which they contract in the state of Maryland?
I would like to file a formal complaint about billing practices against American Telephone and Telegraph. The particular account is for Internet provider service bundled to my phone service, my account number is [protected]. Service contact numbers are [protected] for Internet and [protected] for phone or general information.
To explain the situation, in June of 2006 I contacted AT&T, my new provider after purchasing SBC Global. about upgrading my internet service to DSL EXPRESS. I requested the service change, agreed to a new contract, and the upgrade was completed in late May. At first the service worked fine then after 3 or 4 days began to have problems with syncing the line. After receiving no service for a number of days I contacted the provider and they agreed to bring out technicians to help resolve the problem. They found many issues with the lines both outside the premises and also stated that the internal wiring could also be an issue. After doing numerous outside repairs they still could not synchronize the line even to stated minimum contract standards of 384 kbs. At that time I authorized work to the internal lines for $130.00 in equipment and technician time. There was no resolution to the problem and my download speeds were still considerable below stated contract minimums. I gave AT&T a little more time to resolve the problem but I kept getting conflicting messages from the three different departments involved in trying to resolve the problem. The final response was that they could not do any better than what I was currently getting based on my distance from the Central Office at 14,000 feet. After two more weeks of wrangling I decided to cancel my contract with AT&T based upon their lack of ability to fulfill their portion of the contract, not meeting stated download minimums. At that time they agreed to do so at no cost tome and I would keep my phone service with AT&T.
On my August bill AT&T has reversed itself and charged me for the internal work even though it was a complete failure. Since the original billing period they have combined the charges into the overall phone bill and cannot seem to differentiate between my phone bill and the Internet charges I refuse to pay after their original waiver of the fee. Since that time I have filed for a labor dispute to which they have no intention of granting. I continue to receive my monthly phone bill with the additional combined charge and receive threats and warning about not paying my bill. I have continually paid the portion of the bill covering basic phone services that I owe on time and without hesitation. On 9/17/06 I received a disconnect warning from AT&T claiming that I owe $126.73 for
phone service, demonstrating their fundamental lack of ability to segregate phone from Internet. The next morning I called AT&T billing as listed on the disconnect notice and then spent 45 minutes and spoke to 7 different service assistants who had no idea of how to help me. When I finally reached a person who had a clue she stated that AT&T was reneging on the internal services portion of the agreement basing their logic on the concept that the overall problem was based outside of the domicile. I was never notified of this decision after the verbal agreement reached in July of 2006 to terminate my service at no expense to me. In fact I was not billed for any work in July of 2006. On the August statement the internal work was posted in the statement with no explanation of the returned charges other than ADDITIONAL DSL EQUIPMENT and DSL WIRING REPAIR.
It has become apparently obvious that this corporation has no idea of what is doing other than trying to collect revenue from its customers. Their left hand and the right hand are oblivious to each other that they cannot even provide customer service. I refuse to pay for something when technicians come into your house and essentially break things. Would you pay a plumber or electrician who came into your home and made things worse and then demanded payment for there failed service? I don’t think anyone in their right mind would do so and neither should I.
AT&T knew from the beginning that upgrading the service at my domicile wouldn’t work yet they sold me the package anyway. The technicians who came to try to make things work admitted that the sales people do not take technical factors into consideration when selling services. It was the service technicians who explained to me that after numerous tries this would never work all the while the sales department was claiming they would and when all was said and done the overall situation was worse then when it began. What I want from AT&T is to admit that the original agreement for breech of contract is valid and to drop the $126.73 from my bill. If they so desire they can come back to my domicile and collect the installed phone jack.
519 #4 Sierra Vista Ave.
Mountain View, CA 94043
California Public Utilities Commission
Consumer Affairs Branch
505 Van Ness Ave.
San Francisco, CA [protected]
On the 23rd of August, my son's telephone was stolen from his vehicle at a Quiktrip store in Phoenix, Arizona. My daughter heard of this from my son on the 24th of August and told me. I immediately called Cingular and informed them that the phone had been stolen and needed to be turned off. Over the next few days, I received numerous calls from my son's stolen telephone, presumably because our numbers (wife's, daughter's, mine) were stored in the phone. Obviously someone of Hispanic heritage took the phone judging by all the calls being made to Latino states south of the border. I called again on the 29th of August and again requested that the phone be turned off because I was still receiving calls, sometimes at 2 or 3 in the morning, from some spanish speaking individual. I was told it would be turned off and that the bill would be remedied if I called back when I got my September bill (Sept 23rd). I called back on September 24th and reminded the CSR that the excess calls from the 23rd for that line (I have 3 phones for my family) needed to be removed from my bill. I was told they would be. Again, this past weekend (Oct 15th), I received calls from that number (678-852-1sss) so I called this morning to, once again, ask that that number be turned off only to be told by Mr. Larry Lovely that the phone had not been turned off due to a glitch in their system. He also explained that the $598.70 in charges attributable to that number would be credited to my account. Great, in comes Ms Carmela Heberly of Cingular this afternoon (Oct 16, 2006 5:33p) to let me know that the credits would not be applied because the telephone was not stolen. Her reasoning was that; because calls were made to my home phone number (stored within the stolen phone) and that I had requested international calling in July. I did indeed request international calling in July for my daughter's phone (678-852-1sss) for her graduation present/trip to Europe . I did not request int'l calling for my son's phone (678-852-1sss) nor did I want it. When I asked the Cingular representative in August why my son's phone was able to dial international calls, she specifically told me that Mexico is not considered International. However, Ms Heberly infers that it is.
Dealing with these people is a nightmare. I don't even have a contract with them (ended July) and they do not care that I won't even consider them as a potential carrier.
Ok, this is what happened... My husband and I signed up with cingular and we agreed that 1000 minutes would...
I had this cell plan for two years ago. At the time of initial signing on, it was not explained very clear to me that the minutes for my two phone numbers could not be used interchangeably. I was under the assumption that the minutes could be shared between the two lines under my name.
In November my parent was sick and as a result, I have been using one of the cell phones more than the previous month. Unfortunately, this resulted in a very high dialed called for 908 672 8sss.
I called December 21, and the Customer Service gave me a credit of $84.80 and charged me $136.91. However, my 908 672 8sss phone was hardly used at all (only 59 minutes); I felt it would be fairer to charge me the regular monthly rate of $80.20.
I have spoken with Merlin (095) and Trent (833), but both of them quoted ATT policy and Merlin indicated that I was "imaging', and I was not "listening", and "there is nothing they can do to help", and "they could not give me any more credit" etc..... After the conversation, it made me very upset and aggravated by Merlin's poor service attitude and bureaucratic mentality. I advised him to take more human interaction courses, instead of using all negative words to let the customers felt insulted. I requested a supervisor's phone number from Merlin and he denied my request.
Throughout the conversation, all I got was very poor customer care and improper antagonistic attitude. Such as negative impression on previously and potential future customers would have detrimental effects for AT&T and should be rectified. To obtain $56.71 more is not as important to keep the customer happy and maintain a better publicity.
The initial sign-on misrepresentation whether was my or AT&T's fault is not a focal point of this argument, it is the current AT&T's customer care attitude and trying to satisfy the customer’s need may ultimately make or break a company successful in such a fierce competitive cell phone market !
A past loyal customer and perhaps future customer.
This is a very serious matter: On August 15, 2006 I switched phone service from Verizon to AT&T based on your...
This is one of those outrageous early termination fee compaints. Had $15.99 internet scheduled in July for...
ATT Worldnet notified me by mail that ISP (Internet Service Provider) service for all of Puerto Rico (where I...