Well...this is what happens when you have CSRs that are told to not deviate from a script (which creates the bad situation) and then a supervisor who is not empowered to make a decision without jeopardizing their own performance reports (making a bad situation worse) and then a company that, when faced with a local media issue sends the apology to the reporter and a cold, hard, credit to the person who initially had the issue. That was the worst part of all, IMHO.
The Cleveland case is clearly one where everyone at Direct did exactly as they were trained...and it was wrong. Had the newspaper not gotten involved, the answer is to send Direct a copy of the relative's committal papers and tell them that any and all contracts this person signed were null and void due to his condition. If a person has to be committed, their credit history is--let's face it--no longer terribly relevant. I was in this exact same position with a relative and let me tell you, dealing with companies that they purchased items from...that they could never use and should never have purchased...was quite a mixed bag. I got responses from "Oh, no problem" to you "must pay up, it's in the contract!"
I told each of the latter that they would shortly be sued in local small claims court and that they were welcome to send an attorney to the hearing. Each and every one, of course, backed off, since it was not worth it to pursue the matter.
I hated to pull that card, but when faced with a company that had decided you were lying in an effort to get out of a contract, there's not much else you can do (except call the Cleveland Plain Dealer
).
Oh, and just for the record, yes I am a current sub.
The Cleveland case is clearly one where everyone at Direct did exactly as they were trained...and it was wrong. Had the newspaper not gotten involved, the answer is to send Direct a copy of the relative's committal papers and tell them that any and all contracts this person signed were null and void due to his condition. If a person has to be committed, their credit history is--let's face it--no longer terribly relevant. I was in this exact same position with a relative and let me tell you, dealing with companies that they purchased items from...that they could never use and should never have purchased...was quite a mixed bag. I got responses from "Oh, no problem" to you "must pay up, it's in the contract!"
I told each of the latter that they would shortly be sued in local small claims court and that they were welcome to send an attorney to the hearing. Each and every one, of course, backed off, since it was not worth it to pursue the matter.
I hated to pull that card, but when faced with a company that had decided you were lying in an effort to get out of a contract, there's not much else you can do (except call the Cleveland Plain Dealer
).Oh, and just for the record, yes I am a current sub.
Last edited:
