There are no words....

[Ashaela]

This situation is one of the most obnoxious I've ever dealt with. Because the details are so unusual and specific, I don't want to say too much and possibly get in trouble.... So I'm going to say that what we're dealing with is something directly analagous to the following:

SC: Mr. Please-hit-me-with-a-clue-by-four
Me: Ms. I'd-be-glad-to

SC: I need to get a refund on a New York Times subscription.

Me: Okay, what's your subscriber number?

SC: It's not for me, it's for a good friend of mine. The number is XXXXXX.

Me: Okay... first of all, you're not allowed to make requests on behalf of other subscribers... and second, that account has already been canceled when we were notified that the subscriber was deceased.

SC: I know he's deceased; I'm his very good friend and the heir to his estate and I need you to send a refund.

Me: Company policy states that we are only able to submit refunds if the subscriber notifies us they would like to cancel within 30 days of renewing. This subscription was last renewed in 2009; that's more than 30 days ago.

SC: But he went blind in 2000 and couldn't even read the paper! It's wrong of you to let him keep paying for something he couldn't use!

Me: I can't tell you why he kept paying for the paper under those circumstances, but that was the subscriber's decision. We cannot issue any refund.

SC: But I talked to the San Francisco Chronicle and they said they would never continue to charge someone for the paper if they couldn't read! You'd better give me a refund for everything he paid you since he went blind!

Me: We have nothing to do with the policies of the San Francisco Chronicle. You're calling the New York Times. If your friend had wished to cancel his subscription, he was free to notify us at any time. We are not going to refund a newspaper that he continued to renew for nine years regardless.

SC: I don't want to get my lawyers involved! I'm the son of this man and the heir to his estate and you were preying on him by taking his money when he couldn't use the paper!

Now lather, rinse and repeat every couple of days for the last month or so. I've spoken to him three times; I think everyone in my department has spoken to him at least once. He's such a money-grubbing greedy person that he'll demean the memory of his "best friend" by making the friend out to be such an incompetent that he shouldn't have been allowed to renew his subscription at all; just so he can squeeze every last cent out of anything he can possibly get. It really makes me wonder if this guy was friends with the deceased at all, or just hanging around hoping for a big pay-off.

There's no reasoning with him. He's decided that he's entitled to the money that his friend chose to pay out, and he's going to harass us every other day until he gets it. I have no idea why the friend kept renewing; with most of them, it's a matter of pride, but regardless, it's so insulting to retroactively take away another grown man's autonomy by deciding "well, he shouldn't have been doing this, and you shouldn't have let him."

We told him to send something in writing and we'd send it through channels; all that'll get him is a nice official stamped-and-sealed letter saying "NO." but maybe then he'll leave us alone. He keeps saying he's already sent his demands in writing but there's nothing to be seen....

[Exaspera]

SC: I don't want to get my lawyers involved! I'm the son of this man and the heir to his estate and you were preying on him by taking his money when he couldn't use the paper!

I see he also went from good friend to son! All in the space of one phone call!

And if he is the son/good friend, wouldn't he have noticed newspapers around a blind man's house after 8 or 9 years?

[Ashaela]

SC: I don't want to get my lawyers involved! I'm the son of this man and the heir to his estate and you were preying on him by taking his money when he couldn't use the paper!

I see he also went from good friend to son! All in the space of one phone call!

And if he is the son/good friend, wouldn't he have noticed newspapers around a blind man's house after 8 or 9 years?

Oh, it's worse than that. Remember I said that this was not the exact scenario, but one directly analagous? In the situation as it really stands, it's the same as if the blind man had a reasonable expectation that at some point he would regain his sight and at that point would want to read all the newspapers.

[Eddyisme]

wow....

Just wow, you have to be one one cheap bastard to try and take money from a dead (friend/father...) this really makes me wonder if it's caused by the economy crisis, or just by people similar to this person, The other guy's dead, I'd have respect for that.

[Sleepwalker]

Perhaps someone else in the house was reading it? First think I thought of was that only one person is usually on any subscription, but more than one person uses it.

[Ashaela]

Well, I have an update. After bothering us on the phones for a month-plus, dude finally sent something in writing like we kept telling him to. It was full of pseudo-legalese and threats that were trying to look like not-quite-threats (the "It would be unfortunate to have to take this matter to court" kind of thing. Which, A, I'm pretty sure a citizen of one state can't sue another state's government according to the 11th Constitutional amendment, and, B, is usually the sign of someone who knows they wouldn't have a chance in court and who wants to intimidate you into thinking they would.

The best part is that one of the documents he sent was an agreed order we tried to execute back ten years ago, which, if the man who is now dead had signed it, would have canceled his "subscription" immediately. He refused to sign it, so the order was changed to say that he would agree never to read the paper again until we gave him permission. To me, that really sounds like he didn't want to give up the subscription regardless if it was doing him any good or not (which a lot of them don't; it's a matter of pride) and regardless if he was physically capable of using it. Which makes it all the more obnoxious for his so-called friend to come circling around after he was dead to demand the money back. You know what? This whole "newspaper" analogy is getting harder to work with..... *sigh*

So I gave the letter to my boss, who gave it to her boss, who'll pass it up to the GC's office who can have her lawyers draft a very nice and very pointed letter telling this dude to go screw off.

[MaseMan]

Working in the fitness business, I get this all the time too. People don't want to take responsibility for their own finances.

"I wasn't using the membership for six months! You should give me a refund!"

Um, sorry, but we have hundreds of members...the impetus is on you to use something you're paying for. Otherwise pick up the phone and call us when you want to cancel...not several months after the fact and then expect a magical reimbursement you feel entitled to.

I love how this guy thinks you should just take him at his word that his "friend" wasn't able to read the paper for several years. Can he even prove when his "friend" supposedly went blind?

[Ashaela]

Hah! Speak of the devil; he just now called again!

It looks like the newspaper analogy isn't working very well - more people distracted and the point isn't getting across. So I'll be a little clearer and cross my fingers....

I work for a state agency, (as in, part of the government) that processes and regulates professional licenses (is that still vague enough?). The licensee in question was revoked in another state - not due to any criminal or lawbreaking action, but due to the fact that his physical impairments could cause him to pose a danger. As a result of that state's action, my state also investigated him and sent an agreed order that he could sign which would relinquish his professional license here as well; however, he refused to sign it.

This isn't uncommon; it's a very big point of pride for many of our elderly licensees. They worked hard to get through school, they worked hard to get the license, and they don't want to give it up. So instead of taking the license away from him, we sent another agreed order stating that he could not practice his profession in our state until the situation changed and the agency's review process determined that he would be allowed to resume his professional duties.

Well, the situation never did change. No one expected it to, really, but it was a way to allow the licensee to keep his license that he had so much pride in. He died with the license still technically active but unusable.

Now that he's dead, this 'friend' of his has decided that he wants the money for "fifteen years" (which has now jumped from the eight he was claming earlier) that this licensee paid for a license he could not use.

The logics of the situation have been explained to him many times now - four times by myself, and multiple times by others - and he keeps saying it was "unethical" for us to charge for a license that was useless. I only wish the licensee had been able to predict the kinds of things this guy would be saying about him after he was dead - he may have wanted to change his will! If there were someone who had a vested interest in making me out to be as incompetent and stupid, smearing my name, and making their low opinion of me so obvious, I wouldn't want them to have any profit from my estate, I can tell you that!

He's being so incredibly generous - trying to avoid putting us through the expense and fuss of a long, drawn-out litigation. Isn't that kind? Completely disregarding that he's a citizen of another state, and thereby prohibited from suing any of our state government's agencies unless we consent to it... and completely disregarding that even if he could find a lawyer to attempt it and a court that would hear it, he has no standing anyway!

He keeps saying that we have no signed agreed order allowing the licensee to keep renewing his license - there's no such requirement anyway. The registration form that he sent in and we processed is the only signed document required to register in the first place!

He also says that if we can settle this amicably, he'll forgo charging interest on the payments the licensee made. This is so absolutely ridiculous that there's no way to even address it! "If you give me X amount of money that I have no right to and no legitimate claim to, I won't demand that you give me even more money."

I tried to reason with him for a while, which of course went nowhere.... Then I just kept telling him that we'd received his written correspondence and that management would be responding to him. I don't know what he thinks he'll accomplish by calling - most of the people who answer the phone have no authority to submit a refund request. I can request it, but even the very standard, no-questions-asked refunds have to be authorized by my supervisor and then by Finance. He doesn't ask for a supervisor (or the Executive Director, as some demand) but he seems to think that if he can get just one person on the phone to agree with him, he'll have everything he wants. Finally, after the umpteenth time he mentioned getting lawyers involved "if he had to" I told him that he could have his lawyers contact our litigation department or the General Counsel's office and that I would have to let him go now.

I hope they keep me updated on what happens - my supervisor will usually tell me when she can. I just want to see this guy get smacked down....

[r2cagle]

Actually... your paper analogy was pretty good.

I had kind of figured out it was a licence... and I have an idea of what kind of licence. Considering the kind of fees that are paid for those renewals, that is a chunk of change, I'd guess.

A$$hat is just not used to anyone telling him no. Too bad he can't be sued by someone that contests his right to be the legitimate heir... or maybe he is .. and that's why he's trying to dig up all the money he can.??? who knows.

Hang in there, and don't let him get under your skin. Karma will get him... she always does.

[Geek King]

I'd stop coddling this leech and turn it over to your lawyers. Someone needs to call this ass on his bluff.

[lupo pazzesco]

I'd stop coddling this leech and turn it over to your lawyers. Someone needs to call this ass on his bluff.

This. Exactly.

"I'm sorry, sir, but as you've mentioned legal involvement, any and all future contact must go through our legal department, as I am no longer allowed to discuss the matter with you."

[Imprl59]

That license most certainly served a purpose all these years. It gave an old man HOPE. There is nothing more important to anyones in poor health than hope for a happier tomorrow, take that away and they wither and die. What a jackass this person is.

Steve B.

[Magpie]

Forget hope, it helped him to not loose his identity. He probably knew full well he'd never practice again, but it was part of who he was. If I get my PEng you bet damn well I'm staying an engineer - I went through school for this, I submitted my papers for this, I sat my exams for this, I AM an engineer, and I want to retain the right to call myself one. (Please read the above with future conditional tense if you're someone who can get me in trouble for misusing the term engineer :P)

As for the lawyers: Can you get him for harassment?

[Darkforge]

This. Exactly.

"I'm sorry, sir, but as you've mentioned legal involvement, any and all future contact must go through our legal department, as I am no longer allowed to discuss the matter with you."

This^

that way you force him to either bring it up legally (which as he is from another state he can't) or he can leave it and walk away.

[underemployeed]

Gee, maybe I should go to cabellas and demand they give me the $6000 my grandma's estate paid to her cabella's credit card. OH thats right 70yr old women don't tend to buy fishing equipment because she clearly had no ability to drive her boat as her driver's license was suspended, tends to happen when you back into the neighbors car and have to ask "Did I hit something?"

Of course that would be example of my uncle getting part of the estate before something happened.

I may be in my mid 20s but I have learned one thing, you really get to see the true side of people when a family member dies by what people try and pocket or decide to leave behind. Or in this case, try and milk from the estate. I mean can you ballpark how much was spent on this license? Are we taking 5-10K, 20-40K, 40K+?