I'm changing the focus of this customer service blog. In earlier blogs, I focused on highlighting the sort of things that have gone wrong, trying to show corporations how their policies are perceived from by the customers. Since my fundamental nature is to fix problems not just identify them, from now on each blog will contain at least one suggestion for how the company could achieve higher customer satisfaction in the situation.
Today, I'm looking at telephone service, an industry of tremendous competition. One article I read estimated that, in 2003, 30-40% of cell phone customers were changing cariers in a single year. And, the Census reported that 40 million Americans move each year; most of them will be getting new phone service, too. So, phone companies should know that, even as you're leaving them now, they could be competing for your business again soon. With that in mind, why aren't they nicer to departing customers?
Here are some examples of the sorts of things that make their customers unhappy:
PROBLEM: When I cancelled my business' land service, they sent a bill showing a credit balance. I had paid more than I owed but after several months T-W had made no move to send a refund. When I called and pointed out that they owed me money, I was advised that I would have to go through a series of hurdles lasting 30 days or more (call another number, wait for a form to arrive, fill out the form, mail it back, wait for it to be processed) in order to get the money that the bill indicated was clearly mine. Adding insult to injury, I next got a bill indicating that an "adjustment" had been made resulting in a zero balance; T-W had simply removed the credit from the balance (i.e., taken my money).
SOLUTION: T-W should create a feed to its billing system from its service system; the billing system should know when service has been cancelled. The billing system should be modified to note when 90 days have passed since cancellation (allowing time for proper credits or debits) and then issue a refund. Under no circumstances, should an "adjustment" be made which takes the client's credit and assigns it to T-W.
PROBLEM: When I switched long-distance services away from SPRINT on my home phone, I had about a $100 credit balance. And, again, although I was no longer a customer, they continued to send monthly bills showing they knew they had my money. At least when I called them, they promised to send a refund and the check arrived within a week or ten days.
SOLUTION: This is certainly the "least worst" situation. SPRINT didn't act on its own to return my money and I think they should have. Their billing system, too, should be programmed to wait after cancellation (just to ensure that the account wasn't the victim of "slamming") and then send a refund.
PROBLEM #1: My husband and I had gotten cell phones together and the account had randomly been placed in his name. This turned out to be a huge problem, because when I called to ask a question (like how many minutes had been used during the month or when the contract ends) I was informed I needed his permission to receive an answer. Even after he told them multiple times to stop doing that, they still insisted there were questions they couldn't answer without his permission ("oh, that's an exception"). Verizon doesn't acknowledge that the service is provided in a state with community property laws (where the legal default is that married couples jointly hold assets and jointly owe debts).
SOLUTION #1: Verizon should align with the law and make community property the default for married couples with "family plan" phones (one for each) in community propety states. In order to account for married couples who are legally maintaining separate finances (which requires some careful action and is rarely successfully done), Verizon could ask at the time of establishing service if only one spouse will be responsible.
PROBLEM #2: Since I'm the heavier user of cell phone service, we finally switched the account to my name. This involved multiple phone calls, nearly two hours in a Verizon store, and additional charges of more than $500. Interestingly, after paying all of the money, I've now received a credit of nearly $250 on the last bill with my husband's name. Now, we have to try to either get a refund check or get the credit applied to the bill (for the same two numbers) that's now in my name.
SOLUTION #2: In situations in which a bill is overpaid and there is no possibility for additional billing (as here, where future service bills are the responability of another party), the billing system should automatically issue a refund check.
PROBLEM #3: This one is incredible. One of my colleagues informed Verizon in writing that he was moving and wanted his service cancelled. After he moved, he continued to receive bills, pay them, and send responding letters (each month for the six following months) reminding them that he had moved and requested termination of service. On the seventh month, he refused to pay and got a termination notice. He (a lawyer) wrote to their legal department explaining the entire history and got a letter back indicating that they didn't accept letters and that he would have to phone Verizon to effectuate cancellation. He sent a certified letter again asserting that he had paid more than was fair and wanted the service terminated. In response he got a letter indicating that they would send his account to collection. He then spent several hours on the phone and spoke to multiple operators before finding one (who gave him the understanding that she is a contractor and not a regular employee) who retroactively cancelled his account back to the proper move-out date. After this was completed, he recieved a letter from a Verizon customer service representative asserting that the representative had "been trying to reach" him; this was a complete mystery since Verizon had been provided both his new phone number and address.
SOLUTION #3: Apply common sense. If Verizon can send bills, notices of termination, letters threatening collection, and letters from customer service, it stands to reason that it recognizes the effectiveness as well as the legal and evidentiary value of written correspondence. It should immediately cease and desist from telling any customer that it does not accept letters. And, of course, it should cease the actual practice of ignoring customer correspondence.
It's hard to believe that businesses have taken the position that they will simply hold your money unless, until, and sometimes even after you ask for it back. However, this is not the only industry in which I've seen the practice. Doctors' offices and hospitals seem to do this routinely, for example. I haven't had the opportunity to research the case law on the subject, but I have a hard time imagining the legal theory under which you're entitled to keep (and invest and earn returns on) money you haven't earned. While any one customer's credit may not be that large, the aggregate across thousands or millions of customers is tremendous. If the practice doesn't change soon, I expect to see some big class actions in the near future.