;
  • Report:  #152893

Complaint Review: VERIZON - Durham North Carolina

Reported By:
- Durham, North Carolina,
Submitted:
Updated:

VERIZON
verizon.com Durham, 27705 North Carolina, U.S.A.
Phone:
800-621-9900
Web:
N/A
Categories:
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good? What's this?
Dear Verizon:

On June 22, 2005 I was in the process of purchasing a new home. When the credit report came back to my demise I discovered I was the owner of a $710.00 outstanding unpaid phone bill. Thus, I called Verizon long distance to find out when and how I signed up for another long distance service when I already had a phone in my name for the last ten years. Needless to say the service was put in my name and social security at a different address without me knowing any thing about the service. Now, the troubling matter about this fraudulent telephone service is that I didn't know anything about the fraud for six years. The woman Aretha Franklin of Durham, North Carolina (by the way she has been arrested for obtaining property by false pretense). Ended the fraudulent service after one year and did not pay the final bill of $710.00 and gave a misleading forwarding address.

Needless to say I did the research and found the theft and filed a police complaint for identity fraud. Ten days later Aretha Franklin was arrested and we are awaiting trail. Now that sad thing about North Carolina ID theft was not on the books until 2003. The crime was committed in 1999-2000, thus, she was not charged with ID Theft but obtaining property by false pretense. Now the second troubling situation is VERIZON unwillingness to change how they set up telephone service. VERIZON has explained to me if you call in with a social security number and the name matches the number they will assume you are that person and will not ask for any additional information to verify the information is true and correct, even if you have an establish number with VERIZON.

I asked VERIZON why they didn't check with me to see if I was really setting up another number 10 blocks away from my home. Again VERIZON said this is not the way VERIZON do business and they have on way of checking to make sure you are not using someone else social security number and unless you tell the credit bureau to flag your number they (VERIZON) will assume you are telling them the truth and not using someone else social security number. Needless to say what if you were not having a problem with your else social security number and never inform the credit bureau and someone got your number and used it to open up an account with VERIZON you will be out of luck if you think VERIZON has a plan to protect you. I believe VERIZON just like the credit card companies has a duty to its current customers to make sure there information is not used fraudulent.

Needless to say VERIZON has not approached me and express to me any plans to make sure this kind of thing does not happen to me under there watch. VERIZON has yet to acknowledge there wrong doing. Needless to say because of poor customer service VERIZON leave me no choice but to end my service with them and move on to another telephone service, because VERZION can not be trusted!

PL

Durham, North Carolina
U.S.A.


1 Updates & Rebuttals

Pl

Durham,
North Carolina,
U.S.A.
New Law for North Carolina identity theft and Social Security numbers

#2Author of original report

Sat, September 24, 2005

Credit 'freeze' bill could foil ID thieves By ANDREA WEIGL, Staff Writer ****** Miot Fuller can speak to the need for legislation aimed at thwarting identity thieves. His elderly father was on the hook for almost $10,000 in Visa credit card bills on an account his son never knew existed. The police eventually charged Marion Fuller's caretaker and the caretaker's son-in-law with fraud. But the spending spree might have gone on longer, Miot Fuller said, if he hadn't noticed a charge for cell phone service on the credit card bill. "He's an 82-year-old man," Fuller said. "He doesn't have a cell phone." Attorney General Roy Cooper is pushing legislation that he thinks will stop identity thieves by controlling how Social Security numbers are collected and distributed by businesses and government agencies. But the bill is among many major pieces of legislation that lawmakers have yet to pass with just a few days left in the session. In this case, the bill needs approval in the House. The bill, which proponents describe as the most comprehensive identity-theft proposal in the country, has already passed the Senate and now moves to a full House vote, the last step before it is sent to Gov. Mike Easley to be signed into law. "The Social Security number is a crowbar criminals use to commit identity theft," Cooper said. "We have to act this session, or thieves will have at least another year of easier access to our personal lives." One part of the proposed legislation might have helped protect Marion Fuller. The bill would allow North Carolina consumers to "freeze" their credit with the national credit bureaus, which would then forbid any credit inquiries and prevent potential thieves from opening accounts or applying for loans in other people's names. Once a freeze is requested, consumers receive an identification number that allows only them to "thaw" their credit when they want to buy a car, apply for a credit card account or seek a loan. Giving consumers the protection of a security freeze, Miot Fuller said, "sounds like a pretty good idea." Such freezes are being considered or have passed in 25 states. Such a law already exists in California, which is home to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group. "It gives individuals peace of mind that there's no way for the thief to access the credit report," said Beth Givens, founder of the San Diego-based group. "It is really the ultimate protection." Freeze is just the tip The freeze is just one part of North Carolina's proposed legislation. Information companies, such as LexisNexis, were opposed to earlier drafts of the legislation that would have required a huge cleansing of their records. Media companies were concerned that the bill would deny access to public records. Some businesses were worried that a provision in the bill would spawn a series of class-action lawsuits because it allowed consumers to sue for treble damages if their personal information was mishandled. Cooper's staff modified that provision and others to quell opposition. Under the draft worked out in committee, companies would no longer be permitted to mail documents with full or partial Social Security numbers to customers. And companies would not be permitted to require customers to use Social Security numbers as part of their online identification numbers. If businesses want to dispose of any records with such personal information, they will have to shred or burn the documents so the information cannot be read or reconstructed by dumpster-diving thieves. When consumers' information is lost, stolen or tapped into by computer hackers, companies would be required to report any such security breach. Such breaches have become common. Since last fall, Wachovia, Bank of America Corp. and ChoicePoint Inc., which collects data for credit agencies, reported security breaches affecting almost 1.4 million customers. Josh Stein, head of the consumer protection at the North Carolina Attorney General's Office, said that between February and June, there were 45 instances of security breach affecting 50 million people in the United States. The bill also attempts to eliminate the government's collection of Social Security numbers. In many instances, government agencies have been unnecessarily collecting such information, Stein said. A couple of examples: A person has to give his Social Security number when applying for a temporary fishing license; a social service caseworker has to list his own Social Security number on all files. "My child is registered to go to summer camp at one of the state museums," Stein said. "For a weeklong day camp for children, it had a slot for my child's Social Security number and my Social Security number. It's absolutely unnecessary. They aren't running a credit check on my child."

Reports & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
Also a victim?
Repair Your Reputation!
//