- Report: #1003552
Complaint Review: Charter communications - Saint Louis Missouri
Reported By:
clif -
Traverse City, Michigan, United States of America
Submitted:
Updated:
-
Author Not Confirmed
Why?
Charter communications
12405 Powerscourt Dr. Saint Louis, 63131 Missouri, United States of America
Phone:
314-543-2412
Web:
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
Charter communications Michael Henry, Jennifer Page Improper termination of services, reprisal Saint Louis, Missouri
Two years of constant cable television problems (tiling, pixilating, total freeze ups) were finally resolved after Charter Communications replaced corroded terminals on poles bringing lines to my location and replacing the line from pole to my house.
So I asked for the credit that their customer service reps told me "could only be applied when the problem has been resolved.) I got jerked around by customer service so often that I filed a BBB complaint. A Charter rep called me shortly thereafter. He proposed a reduction in my bill over a two year period instead of an outright credit. I declined this offer. Charter reported the complaint resolved to the BBB. Not true.
I could not get the Charter rep (Harold Kersey) who made the offer to call me back. I could not get anyone higher up to handle my complaint (Michael Henry). I filed a small claims suit in the *^th District Court of Michigan.
A subpoena for the last two years of customer service and technician records was ordered. It went unanswered by Charter. One week before court Charter's Escalations officer, Michael Henry, offered to settle for my claim for the damages I asked the court to award. However, their offer of settlement denied all my allegations and asked me to forfeit any future suit against them for any reason. I declined to sign the settlement because of the conditions and denials.
On the day of court, no one showed up to represent Charter. I was awarded a default judgement for the damages claimed and costs. Three days later, Michael Henry sent me a letter informing me that Charter was going to terminate my cable television and internet services in less than 30 days.
The company claimed that their terms of agreement allowed for this when "we determine that the use of Services interferes with our ability to provide Service to you or others."
I called Michael Henry and asked that this be reconsidered. I explained that I had never complained about my internet service. I also explained that the tv signal problems appeared to have been resolved some months ago and were no longer an issue.
He called me back a few days later, with his paralegal (Jennifer Page) conferenced in on the call. It was explained to me that they had discussed my case with "the local office" and the decision to terminate service was upheld. I protested that the internet shoulod not be affected, I had no complaints about this. I protested that it was not proper to ask me to settle under the terms offerred. Ms. Page explained that those were standard terms. She said that I would not have had my services terminated if I had accepted the offer.
I have never, in more than 10 years of service, refused to pay a bill , or make a payment on time. I believe that this termination of services is a vindictive reprisal for refusing their settlement offer and terms. The default judgement awarded less than $100 costs to the total award.
Mr. Henry admits that the expenditures for replacing equipment and the refund he complains that I cost the company do not jeopardize Charter's financial solvency. So how does my continued service interfere with Charter Communications ability to provide services to me and others? Its just spite, its no such reason at all.
A complaint has been filed with the Michigan Public Service Commission. I do not have much hope however for a satisfactory resolution. The industry is not really a regulated utility. Its a d**n local monopoly that likes to push its customers around.
Charter Communications' customer service reps are adept at dropping calls , failed transfers, forgotten holds and dead end voice mail messages. Service technicians know that old equipment in need of replacement is the root of many continuing service problems. Most techs try to placate, or numb the customer with totally redundant box swaps, fitting tightenings and other nonesense that requires you to be home for half the day and still have the problem. Not all however. A couple of senoir techs really took the problem to heart. The problem was solved signal wise.
But I've been terminated for my attempt to get the company to honor their promise for a credit when the problem was resolved.
So I asked for the credit that their customer service reps told me "could only be applied when the problem has been resolved.) I got jerked around by customer service so often that I filed a BBB complaint. A Charter rep called me shortly thereafter. He proposed a reduction in my bill over a two year period instead of an outright credit. I declined this offer. Charter reported the complaint resolved to the BBB. Not true.
I could not get the Charter rep (Harold Kersey) who made the offer to call me back. I could not get anyone higher up to handle my complaint (Michael Henry). I filed a small claims suit in the *^th District Court of Michigan.
A subpoena for the last two years of customer service and technician records was ordered. It went unanswered by Charter. One week before court Charter's Escalations officer, Michael Henry, offered to settle for my claim for the damages I asked the court to award. However, their offer of settlement denied all my allegations and asked me to forfeit any future suit against them for any reason. I declined to sign the settlement because of the conditions and denials.
On the day of court, no one showed up to represent Charter. I was awarded a default judgement for the damages claimed and costs. Three days later, Michael Henry sent me a letter informing me that Charter was going to terminate my cable television and internet services in less than 30 days.
The company claimed that their terms of agreement allowed for this when "we determine that the use of Services interferes with our ability to provide Service to you or others."
I called Michael Henry and asked that this be reconsidered. I explained that I had never complained about my internet service. I also explained that the tv signal problems appeared to have been resolved some months ago and were no longer an issue.
He called me back a few days later, with his paralegal (Jennifer Page) conferenced in on the call. It was explained to me that they had discussed my case with "the local office" and the decision to terminate service was upheld. I protested that the internet shoulod not be affected, I had no complaints about this. I protested that it was not proper to ask me to settle under the terms offerred. Ms. Page explained that those were standard terms. She said that I would not have had my services terminated if I had accepted the offer.
I have never, in more than 10 years of service, refused to pay a bill , or make a payment on time. I believe that this termination of services is a vindictive reprisal for refusing their settlement offer and terms. The default judgement awarded less than $100 costs to the total award.
Mr. Henry admits that the expenditures for replacing equipment and the refund he complains that I cost the company do not jeopardize Charter's financial solvency. So how does my continued service interfere with Charter Communications ability to provide services to me and others? Its just spite, its no such reason at all.
A complaint has been filed with the Michigan Public Service Commission. I do not have much hope however for a satisfactory resolution. The industry is not really a regulated utility. Its a d**n local monopoly that likes to push its customers around.
Charter Communications' customer service reps are adept at dropping calls , failed transfers, forgotten holds and dead end voice mail messages. Service technicians know that old equipment in need of replacement is the root of many continuing service problems. Most techs try to placate, or numb the customer with totally redundant box swaps, fitting tightenings and other nonesense that requires you to be home for half the day and still have the problem. Not all however. A couple of senoir techs really took the problem to heart. The problem was solved signal wise.
But I've been terminated for my attempt to get the company to honor their promise for a credit when the problem was resolved.
