Cable customer refuses to identify himself for 11 months; reported to collections

[Mango]

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r221...stomer-Service

Here's a thread on DSL Reports that made my jaw drop. This guy calls Shaw Cable over a minor billing issue, but refuses to provide the last four digits of his driver's license number. Because the CSR can't verify who he is, they refuse to discuss the account with him. And he steadfastly refuses to provide any identifying information FOR ELEVEN MONTHS.

Shaw eventually reported him to a collection agency (good for them!) and he took a hit on his credit rating. AND FOR WHAT!? I cannot for the life of me see a logical reason why a customer would take a stand for something so asinine. Oh wait...I used "logical" and "customer" in the same sentence. Way to answer my own question

The best part of the thread is where he says "Yes! I could have given them my drivers licence number or my bank account numbers but I choose not to." He knows he could have likely had his issue sorted in five minutes or less, and admits he's making an effort to be difficult. Gotta love honesty...I guess...

m.

[Irving Patrick Freleigh]

And now, a few words about what I just read:

They have teh Internetz in Nunavut now?

And now, a few more:

Some people are nothing more than organic vessels for transporting stupid from place to place. Such as that guy.

Yeah, it probably was a mistake on Shaw's part. But instead of giving proper identifying information, so Shaw can verify he is who he says he is, he goes out of his way to be difficult.

And now he's pissing and moaning that his credit is shot?!

And this somehow is supposed to reflect poorly on Shaw's customer service?

That guy is owed nothing more than a swift kick in the head or 50.

[Aethian]

What about an account number or are the account numbers the DL number?

[Broomjockey]

What about an account number or are the account numbers the DL number?

An account number doesn't guarantee that you're actually the account holder. It just proves you have a copy of the bill.

[Pedersen]

First: The guy has a valid complaint. Shaw took more money than they were supposed to.

Second: He's right, there's no need for them to identify him in any fashion. He's reporting a problem with billing, that Shaw took too much money. This is something that should have been turned over to accounting.

His mistakes?

First: That he did not send them the cancellation request by way of a certified letter, and do so immediately.

Second: That he took no further action to enforce the cancellation request other than sending an easily forged email.

He had a valid complaint. And screwed up in his handling of the complaint.

[Kiwi]

I do not understand why people invite so much drama into their lives

Shaw internet in Vancouver British Columbia has cost me hours and hours of time and effort to correct their mistake and as yet will not listen to me - the customer.

he could have fixed this problem with reading out four freaking digits from his DL, instead he decides he is going to be all uppity and become angry and dramatic over a problem that was obviously a software glitch.

Some times being "right" is more trouble than getting something "fixed". If he is willing to spend hours and hours of his time debating about principal then he must not have much else to do or so it seems.

well its his life, if he wants to fill it with needless stress then he is free to. Personally I would have verified, accepted their apology and had my money refunded in ONE phone call with minimal fuss and aggravation.

[seigus]

It's interesting to note where peoples' priorities are - whether it's "solving my problem" or "I'll show you!". The happiest people focus on resolution. The SCs and assholes of the world think it's more important to make a stink. I often wonder how a person can go through life with so much rage and anger bundled up inside.

[Mr. Rager!]

I don't know how it works in Canada. But in America, my cable company would only discuss billing with me the account holder. Something about the FCC and that they can be fined.

How do I know this? My ex-roomie called the cable company one day because he was going to make his portion of the cable bill over the phone. He wanted to know how much the bill was to make up for any Pay-Per-View and Video On Demand that he had ordered. They would not discuss that with him.

I called in, I had to verify it was me the account holder and they would talk to me. Asked why they could not talk to my roomie, they said it was because of the FCC.

[Broomjockey]

First: The guy has a valid complaint. Shaw took more money than they were supposed to.

Second: He's right, there's no need for them to identify him in any fashion. He's reporting a problem with billing, that Shaw took too much money. This is something that should have been turned over to accounting.

Unless he has it set up to withdraw cash automatically when the bill is issued, they didn't take any money. Shaw is a phone/internet/cable company, so paying them immediately, especially when the amount can vary month to month (long distance calls, PPV, etc) isn't necessary, so if he DID set up automatic withdrawl, he's a putz.

Second, yes, actually, they do need to verify who he is just for a billing error. They didn't have to just "listen," they'd need to verify information, such as services ordered, address of service, etc. That means knowing who he is. And if BC's version of FOIP is anything like Alberta's, you go to jail if you give out anything protected by FOIP without confirming who it is.

[Pedersen]

Unless he has it set up to withdraw cash automatically when the bill is issued, they didn't take any money. Shaw is a phone/internet/cable company, so paying them immediately, especially when the amount can vary month to month (long distance calls, PPV, etc) isn't necessary, so if he DID set up automatic withdrawl, he's a putz.

So, he's a putz. To wit:

I had automatic debit from my chequing account and called them to tell them they took too much money from my account.

Second, yes, actually, they do need to verify who he is just for a billing error. They didn't have to just "listen," they'd need to verify information, such as services ordered, address of service, etc. That means knowing who he is. And if BC's version of FOIP is anything like Alberta's, you go to jail if you give out anything protected by FOIP without confirming who it is.

Fair enough. I'll admit I hadn't considered that aspect.

I still stand by my insistence on his two other mistakes. If he wanted to cancel, using email was not the way to do it. And failure to follow up was his other mistake.

[Bandit]

For the letter writer, I have only one word - Dumbass.

Double Jeopardy for him - Direct Withdrawal for *any* cable company in Canada is bad news. (Don't get me started on Robbers Cable), and not identifying himself as the account holder is the icing on the Fuck Me Hard cake. Canada's PIPIDA Act (Bill C-6) is pretty damn strict on who companies can give info to.

B

[flybye023]

I was reading the replies on that forum and one of the posters pointed out that he had to be the one who provided his DL # as an identifying item and if he didn't want to use it he should have picked something else.

The guy has a point to prove, period just like seigus says. Unfortunately, he's the only one who cares.

[Boozy]

I was reading the replies on that forum and one of the posters pointed out that he had to be the one who provided his DL # as an identifying item and if he didn't want to use it he should have picked something else.

Exactly.

He obviously provided his DL number at one point. If he was okay with giving Shaw that information at that time, there is no logical reason not to provide it again. They already had that information. This was simply for verification.

This man does not know how to pick his battles. I can think of countless reasons to fight with corporations, and this is one of the dumbest I've ever heard.

[Icelator]

It's his own stupid fault, companies have validation rules and the agents who want to keep their jobs aren't going to break them. I was a phone rep for bell I had to deal with people not wanting to answer questions for validation all the time. It's a simple sensible policy, if you didn't want to give your dl number to them then you never should have given to them in the first place, he was just being a jerk and he deserves the stain on his credit report because it was well within his power to fix but he wanted to be a jerk.

[Icelator]

For the letter writer, I have only one word - Dumbass.

Double Jeopardy for him - Direct Withdrawal for *any* cable company in Canada is bad news. (Don't get me started on Robbers Cable), and not identifying himself as the account holder is the icing on the Fuck Me Hard cake. Canada's PIPIDA Act (Bill C-6) is pretty damn strict on who companies can give info to.

B

some won't even send you a bill, and the one we have will charge extra for a paper bill versus an electronic bill.