 CabalPremium
join:2007-01-21
Austin, TX
 ·Suddenlink
| There's a reason it takes 7 minutes or less Most of these cases (and I've looked over quite a few in my years) are people who won't pay their bill or back fees owed and figure they can get some money knocked off it in arbitration. They don't.
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru? |
|
| How many of them actually show up? I wonder how many of these cases did the people actually bother and show up? |
|
2 edits | None moon. 100 percent of people want to lose their case. Hence, it's safe to assume no people showed up in order to allow the companies to prevail every time.
As for arbitration, these companies have to give you the ability to opt out I imagine. It's called reading the contract. Therefore, if you sign up for one of these, be sure to make it known in writing you do not wish to be obligated to use arbitration. You'll know the result, before it happens, obviously. |
|
| reply to Cabal
I was thinking something like that. You'd expect to see a very high company win rate, if for no other reason than they have proceedures in place to make sure they are following rules and agreements to the letter. The consumer/customer on the other hand doesn't, and MOST of the time is filing the dispute based on a lack of understanding of the agreement. (ie, they shouldn't have to pay charge x because it's not valid, even though it was clearly laid out in the fine print) And that's before you take into account those who just don't want to pay their bills.
There are some nasty credit card terms out there. And I'm sure these people see claims based on the same charges over and over again with them. So if they already know that the clause was followed, and that the charge is valid, I could see it only taking 7 minutes to look it over and make a ruling.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/WD 74Gb Raptor/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler |
|
| Camelot,
While that might be true fifty percent of the time, I highly doubt EVERY PERSON in EVERY CASE is ill prepared. We all know how it works. ATT and Verizon want arbitration with a company they cherry picked to mostly rule in their favor. Seriously, give me a break. I don't k now any company that's 100 percent right and any person that's always 100 percent wrong. I could understand if it was skewed towards the company, but not this bad. |
|
| reply to jc100
said by jc100:None moon. 100 percent of people want to lose their case. Therefore, we all know your logic and inability to reason. Hence, it's safe to assume no people showed up in order to allow the companies to prevail every time. Give me a break. No one can ever take moon seriously. His comments are beyond the realm of reality. Your cluelessness never ends.
What I proposed was a valid question. Many people don't show up for court when they have a traffic ticket. They don't think that a bench warrant will be issued but it does happen. Judge went through cases like that many times and it would be the same sentence; "Defendant is FTA, bench warrant issued. NEXT" Happens in civil cases too.
said by jc100:As for arbitration, these companies have to give you the ability to opt out I imagine. It's called reading the contract. Therefore, if you sign up for one of these, be sure to make it known in writing you do not wish to be obligated to use arbitration. You'll know the result, before it happens, obviously. Try again. Comcast only allowed you to opt-out IF you were already a customer and you only had one month to do it. New customers are opted-in automatically. Don't like it? Don't sign up for Comcast.
Take a peak at your next new car contract. They won't let you sue them either. »www.remarsuttonassociates.com/el···tion.htm
Maybe you should read what I say instead of making your baseless assumptions as you usually do. Nice to know I live rent free in that empty skull of yours. |
|
| reply to jc100
said by jc100:Camelot, While that might be true fifty percent of the time, I highly doubt EVERY PERSON in EVERY CASE is ill prepared. We all know how it works. ATT and Verizon want arbitration with a company they cherry picked to mostly rule in their favor. Seriously, give me a break. I don't k now any company that's 100 percent right and any person that's always 100 percent wrong. I could understand if it was skewed towards the company, but not this bad. But it's not 100%, it's 95%. That would mean that 5% of the people actually won. My guess is this particular arbitrator spent the entire day looking at cases against one particular credit card company, with all of the complaints claiming the same thing. Have you seen some of the crap credit card companies put in their fine print? Just how many people do you think get screwed by the "make 1 payment 1 day late and your interest rate goes from 8% to 29%" clause? How many of them do you think file for arbitration, and how many of those claims get denied? Well, 95% of them.
All I'm saying is that credit card companies have legal departments that go over what they can and cannot do, and unless you find yourself in the odd situation where they haven't followed their own fine print, however ridiculous the fine print terms may be, you are going to lose in arbitration. (and in court, unless you can show the clause violates the law) So with that in mind, 95% sounds about right.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/WD 74Gb Raptor/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler |
|
|
|
 vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | reply to moonpuppy
It does NOT happen in civil cases, the defendant is not compelled to appear in a civil case, they will just have a default judgement issued against them. Same with a speeding ticket, if you don't show you automatically fail to prevail. |
|
| said by vpoko:It does NOT happen in civil cases, the defendant is not compelled to appear in a civil case, they will just have a default judgement issued against them. Same with a speeding ticket, if you don't show you automatically fail to prevail. My point exactly. If these people don;t show up for arbitration, the arbiter can get rid of cases in 7 minutes simply by default.
And people are compelled to show up for civil cases. Subpoenas are issued for a reason.  |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to jc100
said by jc100:As for arbitration, these companies have to give you the ability to opt out I imagine. It's called reading the contract. You're so called "Opt-Out" privileges go like this. "To get the services you want/need, you agree. You can opt-out: As in opt-out of the entire contract. No Telephone/Wireless/Cable/Internet/POTS for you."
Sure you have a choice. Their way, or the highway.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
| reply to moonpuppy
Moon,
Please read this carefully. When you sign a contract, you have every right to disagree with a clause. If they don't let you opt out, you can go elsewhere. However, I can't fathom them telling you no on their service, If they do, it's their loss. Still, I would take a wild guess ANY person saying they wish to opt out and sign up for the service will be taken. Care to give it a try? |
|
 ArgyleDSLCute and CuddlyPremium
join:2002-07-04
Flushing, NY | reply to moonpuppy
said by moonpuppy:How many of them actually show up? I wonder how many of these cases did the people actually bother and show up? In many cases the arbitrator is located in a place that makes it difficult for a consumer to get there. There was one company here in NY whose arbitration firm was in Albany NY. That is a good 3 - 4 hour drive from NYC. So now, if you want to appear, you have to take a day off work and then obtain transportation to the location.
--
My heart is old, it holds my memories, my body burns a gemlike flame. Somewhere between the soul and soft machine, is where I find myself again |
|
| reply to jc100
said by jc100:Moon, Please read this carefully. When you sign a contract, you have every right to disagree with a clause. If they don't let you opt out, you can go elsewhere. However, I can't fathom them telling you no on their service, If they do, it's their loss. Still, I would take a wild guess ANY person saying they wish to opt out and sign up for the service will be taken. Care to give it a try? Read what krk said.
To opt-out of a clause, you need to drop service.
Let me try and sign up for Comcast cable modem service and see if they let me drop some of their TOS sections that I don't like. Yeah, good luck with that. |
|
1 edit | Not their tos moon. Just one part of it. My guess is they cannot lock you into such a change. Here's an example. The Tos for EVERY ISP says they have the right to change their agreement. They did not have to give those people a 30 day opt out on your basis. If that's true, then why did they? Obviously, something obligated them to do that. On the same token, I am sure new people can get afforded that same privilege. There must be something in the law that requires them to give anyone the ability to get out of that clause for a certain period. What other rationale would have prompted Comcast to let existing customers do it. Hence, one must think that new customers have to be afford this same luxury. I highly doubt the old ones were grandfathered in. After all, an ISP can change their agreement at any time. |
|
| said by jc100:Not their tos moon. Just one part of it. My guess is they cannot lock you into such a change. Here's an example. The Tos for EVERY ISP says they have the right to change their agreement. They did not have to give those people a 30 day opt out on your basis. If that's true, then why did they? Obviously, something obligated them to do that. On the same token, I am sure new people can get afforded that same privilege. There must be something in the law that requires them to give anyone the ability to get out of that clause for a certain period. What other rationale would have prompted Comcast to let existing customers do it. Hence, one must think that new customers have to be afford this same luxury. I highly doubt the old ones were grandfathered in. After all, an ISP can change their agreement at any time. Ummm, Comcast immediately opted-in everyone to their new agreement (TOS) unless current users opted-out of the arbitration clause. For all new people, it's a take it or leave it attitude. As to why they did it in this case, it was because this is a case of taking away a BIG right of consumers (legal recourse through the courts.)
They can and do lock you into a change. It's not like I can sign up for service and say, "take out the no servers part of the agreement." Either it's no servers or find yourself another ISP.
And, yes, the ISP can change the agreement at any time. Your acceptance is your continued use of the service.
Try again. |
|
| Does it even matter? The courts have rules the arbitration requirements are not legal, so they aren't binding anyway. |
|
1 edit | reply to moonpuppy
Moon,
First, they gave all customers a chance to opt out. If you did not opt out, then you are automatically considered as accepting the new rules. However, I said it before, and it still stands. Something obviously obligated this company to giving their customers this right. The question begs to differ now can people singing up get afforded this same time limit to opt out. Prove to me they cannot. If a person here has signed up recently let us know. My guess, is that if you bring up the issue, you can opt out in the same time period as those who were current members. Once again, there must be some law that forced them to allow members to not be a part of the arbitration clause. Still, if I stand corrected and you cannot opt out, I'd go elsewhere. Either way moon, get your facts right. This is not cut and dry. It's a tricky issue since state and federal laws apply here. |
|
vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | reply to moonpuppy
said by moonpuppy:My point exactly. If these people don;t show up for arbitration, the arbiter can get rid of cases in 7 minutes simply by default. Didn't your point have something to do with bench warrants, which aren't issued for defendants in civil cases?
said by moonpuppy:And people are compelled to show up for civil cases. Subpoenas are issued for a reason. Witnesses can be compelled to testify and brought to court on a bench warrant if need be, but parties involved in the case (even if they're also witnesses) are not, they would simply have a default judgement issued against them. |
|
| reply to Camelot One
5 percent of people winning is a very low number. I highly doubt all the cases were that cut and dry on the same issues. It seems to be that it is very well skewed. In the business world, 95 percent is a very high number. I hate to burst your bubble but, that's too high. I am sure more than 5 percent of customers had complaints that varied. Are you seriously trying to tell me that most customers had the same complaints, so they were all dismissed at once? I find that hard to believe. I don't think this service is well balanced. My opinion. |
|
| reply to moonpuppy
When a case if filed in court, the individual has to be notified by a process server of the action. They don't have to appear in court, in which case the judge will make a default judgment. However, they have to be notified of the court case.
Arbitration doesn't require proof that the person has been notified of the arbitration proceedings. All that's required is that they send the notice certified or return notice receipt. This means anyone can sign for the mailing, or they don't have to sign at all -- the delivery person drops off the notice and returns a receipt that it has been delivered.
Many people aren't even aware of an arbitration proceedings until they're notified that the company is moving to compel the arbitration award in court. By that time, it's extremely difficult to get the award vacated.
Many of those '7 minute' cases are against people who didn't even know about the proceedings.
For others, they'll respond by rejecting the proceedings, under FAA law, stating there is no valid arbitration agreement. I'm not aware of any case where the arbitration company (especially NAF) has halted the proceedings until the arbitration agreement is proved in court. They continue with the proceedings despite the objection.
Many cases are brought by debt buyers, who make little effort to determine the validity of what they bought, or even if they have the correct individual. They file arbitration claims in bulk, providing data streams to the arbitration company, in a sort of shotgun approach -- more to intimidate the individuals than because they believe they will end up with enforceable arbitration awards.
All of this is covered in the report. I suggest reading it, and then consider commenting afterwards. |
|
