Doreen
Washington,#2UPDATE Employee
Mon, April 24, 2006
Dear RipOffReport readers, as is almost always the case when a customer actually follows up with us, upon further examination Swapnil M. concedes that he did actually fail to meet the deadline. Here is the email I sent this customer on April 20th, in response to his argument that he believed the activation date to be different than what was listed on the invoice he received from us: Swapnil, my records indicate that the lines were activated 9/12, which makes the deadline for submittsion [sic] no later than January 10. That's why our recrods indicate your submission of January 27 is 17 days late. According to your most recent email, you're telling me [that you were working under the assumption that] your Cingular statement shows an "activation date" of 9/2, which means you believed it to be 10 days earlier than what I show. If this is the case, then the postmark would have been late by 27 days even further past the deadline. Is this what you are saying? He did not dispute our rebuttal to his argument, and I am therefore closing this case and reporting it as resolved. Doreen InPhonic
Swapnil
Chalfont,#3Author of original report
Thu, April 13, 2006
Hopefully something will come out the complaint filed with BBB. I agree with one of the threads on RipOffReports... this problem is so widespread that it validates a class-action suit.