 RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT | Well, In fairness to at&t there is a normal process that people should go through for something like this. It's called..Insurance...and filing a claim with your insurer for what you've lost. And not simply calling whomever you owe and asking to be relieved of your obligations.
Assuming these folks are insured..they're going to most likely be reimbursed for this and, if at&t were to simply forgive this debt..technically these homeowners would be benefitting financially from having had the fire in the first place.
In other words..they'd be keeping the 300.00 themselves.
What did at&t do wrong? They need to flag these accounts to work with these homeowners until their claims are resolved and wait for their money the same as the homeowners have to wait on theirs. Insurance co's will move quickly on this though and chances are..these folks will soon have a check anyway for their losses.
What AT&T SHOULD do as a PR move, is to forgive or at least, reduce the debt of anyone who wasn't insured. But that will take some time to sort out as to who or wasn't insured.
I also don't really think this reflects on the company as a whole. First line call center folks don't have this kind of authorization and basically read from a script. This is an upper management issue to deal with. They should have done so however already..having had this issue publicized for days now.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|
| said by Rick:In fairness to at&t there is a normal process that people should go through for something like this. It's called..Insurance...and filing a claim with your insurer for what you've lost. And not simply calling whomever you owe and asking to be relieved of your obligations. They were simply calling ATT to cancel their service until their house gets rebuilt. They don't want to be stuck paying for something they cannot use.
Insurance takes time. Payouts can take a while (especially when you have a lot of other people affected by the same event.) Let's add that it also takes time to rebuild.
said by Rick:Assuming these folks are insured..they're going to most likely be reimbursed for this and, if at&t were to simply forgive this debt..technically these homeowners would be benefitting financially from having had the fire in the first place. In other words..they'd be keeping the 300.00 themselves. They NEVER asked for the debt to be forgiven, they simply asked it to be delayed until they get their insurance check.
said by Rick:What did at&t do wrong? They need to flag these accounts to work with these homeowners until their claims are resolved and wait for their money the same as the homeowners have to wait on theirs. Insurance co's will move quickly on this though and chances are..these folks will soon have a check anyway for their losses. What AT&T SHOULD do as a PR move, is to forgive or at least, reduce the debt of anyone who wasn't insured. But that will take some time to sort out as to who or wasn't insured. What ATT should do as POLICY is to suspend these accounts (so people won't get billed) and wait for the homeowners to get their insurance money.
And I don't know about where you live but when I bought my house, I was REQUIRED to have homeowner's insurance (required by the mortgage company) and it came with coverage for structure and contents (to certain amounts for certain things like computers and electronics.) Even when I rented an apartment, I was REQUIRED to have renter's insurance since the apartment complex didn't have to cover my items.
said by Rick:I also don't really think this reflects on the company as a whole. First line call center folks don't have this kind of authorization and basically read from a script. This is an upper management issue to deal with. They should have done so however already..having had this issue publicized for days now. It does reflect on the company since call center folks are the first line of communication.
ATT needs to do the following:
- Apologize profusely. This was a BIG mistake. They could even come out with saying something like this, "Due to the extraordinary circumstances caused by the recent wildfires in California, we will be working with ATT subscribers to make sure they are not charged immediately for equipment lost during this extraordinary tragedy."
- Immediately contact all CSR reps and inform them of the new policy specifically for customers affected. |
|
RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT | Sorry, but your reply to me is somewhat bizarre.
I agree with you in virtually every respect..but yet you presented it as disagreeing with my post.
As for them having insurance..you're right..mortgage co's do require it.
But what if they didn't have a mortgage..or had let it lapse?
or what if they (or others) didn't own the house(s) that were burned down..and were just renting it?
Not everyone has renters insurance.
There's always all kinds of scenario that can develop in a case like this.
Bottom line is..AT&T should work with them and..assuming these people are getting reimbursed..I don't see why at&t should be forgiving this debt.
should they wait on their money? Yep. That's just good PR.
Should first line Cust. Reps. be advised of this?
Yep..
with something that big..they should have a system in place to respond to it already.
Unfortunately..what people are seeing is the result of the huge conglomerate that AT&T has once again become.
It just takes too long to move these ocean liners of a company on a minutes..or even days and/or weeks notice.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|
| said by Rick:Sorry, but your reply to me is somewhat bizarre. I agree with you in virtually every respect..but yet you presented it as disagreeing with my post. You seem to think insurance payments are immediate. They are not. Even more so since this isn't one house but entire areas. You seem to think it is o.k. for ATT to demand payment immediately. Insurance takes time and ATT should be more thoughtful and wait.
said by Rick:As for them having insurance..you're right..mortgage co's do require it. But what if they didn't have a mortgage..or had let it lapse? Mortgage companies will not let a policy lapse. If it does, they send strongly worded letters in which you get insurance or they will charge your for it. The video clearly states they had insurance and anyone that doesn't have it is an idiot.
said by Rick:or what if they (or others) didn't own the house(s) that were burned down..and were just renting it? Not everyone has renters insurance. I rent property and I REQUIRE it. No insurance, then don't come crying to me when I evict you after a fire.
said by Rick:There's always all kinds of scenario that can develop in a case like this. Bottom line is..AT&T should work with them and..assuming these people are getting reimbursed..I don't see why at&t should be forgiving this debt. should they wait on their money? Yep. That's just good PR. Should first line Cust. Reps. be advised of this? Yep.. with something that big..they should have a system in place to respond to it already. Again, they NEVER asked to have the charge forgiven. They merely asked for time and ATT said no. The argument of forgiveness of the charge is a moot point.
Also, it's not like this hasn't happened before. ATT failed to read the writing on the wall and was clearly unprepared.
said by Rick:Unfortunately..what people are seeing is the result of the huge conglomerate that AT&T has once again become. It just takes too long to move these ocean liners of a company on a minutes..or even days and/or weeks notice. They are quick to charge but slow to refund. They need to change or step aside. |
|
RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT | Again, I agree with most if not all your points.
Why you keep posting to me as if I didn't is rather strange.
As i've stated at least two times now, I think that at&t should work with these people who are affected AND should wait on their money as well.
My point is that if they are insured..then at&t shouldn't be forgiving this debt for them but, as I stated in my first post..they should also be waiting on their money.
As for insurance payments being immediate..no, they're not.
But in cases like this they are usually paid out pretty quick. At least in part. The cause of this is obvious..as is the loss.
And, even if these people were billed by AT&T right away..they still have some time to pay it.
But, again.they shouldn't be faulted if they didn't right away. AT&T should wait on their money along with the rest.
You RENT property to others and REQUIRE that they carry PERSONAL property insurance?
Sounds pretty illegal to me.
Because surely you don't mean you REQUIRE that they carry insurance on YOUR dwelling? That would also be illegal.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|
| reply to Rick
WHAT! Att and dish should be slammed for this. I don't want to hear about how they lost fiber & equip. They have insurance too as well as they will raise rates to compensate for any money lost. Multi-billion dollar company crying over a dish/receiver that really only cost them $100 probably is just f'd up. Nationalize them all! |
|
|
|
| reply to Rick
said by Rick:My point is that if they are insured..then at&t shouldn't be forgiving this debt for them but, as I stated in my first post..they should also be waiting on their money. Watch the video. They clearly state they have insurance. That's not the issue.
said by Rick:As for insurance payments being immediate..no, they're not. But in cases like this they are usually paid out pretty quick. At least in part. The cause of this is obvious..as is the loss. Not when you have a disaster of this magnitude. Payments will be slow. They might get a small check up front to pay for basic living expenses but not the whole amount. Look at what happened with Hurricane Katrina where State Farm contested whether the houses were destroyed by wind (covered) or by the flooding storm surge (not covered.) Took the courts to tell State Farm to pay up and that was many months after the whole thing happened.
»www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/busin···ure.html
said by Rick:And, even if these people were billed by AT&T right away..they still have some time to pay it. But, again.they shouldn't be faulted if they didn't right away. AT&T should wait on their money along with the rest. ATT's CSR clearly told them they wanted immediate payment. So they have 30 days after they receive the bill to pay it. Who knows if the check will arrive in time.
said by Rick:You RENT property to others and REQUIRE that they carry PERSONAL property insurance? Sounds pretty illegal to me. Because surely you don't mean you REQUIRE that they carry insurance on YOUR dwelling? That would also be illegal. They are required to have RENTER'S insurance. That protects all their personal property (clothes, electronics, furniture.) I have insurance on the structure.
And it is not illegal. |
|
RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT | Katrina was a completely separate issue. That was flood damage and it's rarely if ever covered under a traditional homeowners policy.
This is fire damage..and it always is under every residential policy i've ever seen. Assuming of course they didn't set it themselves. This was a widespread issue..the cause is clear.the liability is clear..they'll get their money in a hurry. There's nothing to contest here.
At least part of it will be paid probably within days via a mobile command center type of operation in fact.
And again..for what..the third time now? I said I agree that AT&T SHOULD WAIT ON INSURANCE. How many times will you be agreeing with me on that?
And lastly, why on earth would you require your tenants to have PERSONAL property renters insurance on THEIR OWN property?
That has absolutely nothing to do with you and I would contend that it is in fact..illegal..of you to require that as a condition of renting out a unit to someone.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|
 GlobalMindDomino Dude, POWER Systems GuyPremium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL | reply to Rick
The problem is this isn't a debt in the sense of a loan as for a car or home.
What this is very simply is a fee. Fees are able to be waived and that's what they should do in this case.
I don't believe they are asking to be relieved of their obligation to pay for say last month's service. |
|
| reply to Rick
said by Rick:Katrina was a completely separate issue. That was flood damage and it's rarely if ever covered under a traditional homeowners policy. The policies in question did cover wind damage but not flooding. Because State Farm coded everything mostly flood damage, they thought they did not have the pay. Judge told them since they couldn't prove it, they had to pay up.
said by Rick:And again..for what..the third time now? I said I agree that AT&T SHOULD WAIT ON INSURANCE. How many times will you be agreeing with me on that? First, you said IF they have insurance. Had you seen the video, they said they told ATT/Dish they did. However, ATT/Dish wanted the money now.
Did ATT do something wrong? Legally, no. PR wise, yes.
said by Rick:And lastly, why on earth would you require your tenants to have PERSONAL property renters insurance on THEIR OWN property? That has absolutely nothing to do with you and I would contend that it is in fact..illegal..of you to require that as a condition of renting out a unit to someone. Show me where it is illegal. I'll wait.
As for why I require it, I don't want a lawsuit because someone lost their stuff in a fire and have no insurance to pay for it. A lawsuit costs me money and costs them nothing if they lose. |
|
