November 15, 2004
Sprint Corporation
Sprint World Headquarters
Len J. Lauer, President & COO
Gary D. Forsee, Chairman & CEO
Robert J. Dellinger, EVP & CFO
6160 Sprint Pkwy.
Overland Park, KS 66251
Re: Account # 0526791478-2; Cell Phone # 708-646-4342
Gentlemen:
I, Fred Nance Jr., and my wife, Darlene Bouyer-Nance, were disrespected by a supervisor that works for Sprint. My PhD is in Social Policy Analysis and Planning. I follow the stock market and address policy and procedures of various corporations whose acts may offend or compromise the rights of the socially disadvantaged and disenfranchised. My wife will be receiving her Master’s Degree in Educational Leadership in 4 months. I present this historical background to suggest our ethical standing and character.
On Saturday, November 13, 2004 at approximately 2:00 pm (CST), my wife and I spoke to a representative of Sprint regarding the above account on our speaker phone at home. The Sprint representative is identified by your customer service representatives as IMCDOW-04. I have her name at home. The notes on this call will inform you that this person referred my call to a supervisor.
My wife and I had concerns about the billing for roaming charges to the phone. This particular phone is used by our son who is attending Alabama A&M University. We were originally informed when we acquired this account that the phone would not be roaming in Alabama. Nevertheless, we acquired a package that including roaming. Yet, we found difficulties in how the billing was applied for roaming charges, which we originally were told would not happen. This was before we recently changed the package to a Fair and Flexible plan for families.
On Saturday November 13, 2004, my wife was speaking to the young lady and did not understand the charges for roaming after it was explained to her. I was typing a paper at the time, but partially listening to the conversation. I stopped doing the paper and told the lady to explain to me what she had told my wife about the roaming charges. The lady told me that she did not have time to explain what she said all over again. I requested to speak to her supervisor. She stated, “Why do you want to speak to a supervisor. They will tell you the same thing.” I insisted on speaking to a supervisor. She put us on hold for about ten minutes.
I started typing my paper again. A male came to the phone stating that his name was AL and that he was a supervisor. My wife told him just a minute. I want you to speak to my husband. We were still on the speaker phone at home. I informed AL of what the young lady had told us about not having time to explain our request. I asked AL if would explain the roaming charges.
AL told me that he was not going to explain the roaming charges to me because he wanted to speak to my wife. I informed him that both of us were on our speaker phone. My wife spoke to assure she was listening and speaking also. AL said that I, Fred Nance Jr., had to get off the phone. I asked AL if I could speak to his supervisor. AL said I could not speak to his supervisor. I, Fred Nance Jr., informed him that I would find out who his supervisor was to complain about his service to a customer. AL said, “You don’t have enough “juice” to speak or find out who my supervisor is. You can’t even pay your bill.” AL continued and said, “If you don’t get off the phone and put your wife on the phone, I will disconnect this call. You have 3 seconds.” AL started counting 3, 2, 1, and then the phone disconnected. This kind of behavior should not be tolerated, especially from someone who calls himself a supervisor.
When I changed my son’s phone to the Fair and Flexible Plan I informed the agent that I would be bringing my other two phones with Verizon over when the present plan is over, which is December 2004, and February 2005 because I think it is a wonderful plan for the family. With the kind of service I received Saturday, I am unsure if I will put myself in a position to be treated in a manner as illustrated above.
With the experience I have with addressing policy and procedure issues, I don’t think my situation is an isolated event. This behavior illustrated by your supervisor did not just occur with this incident. Behavior such as displayed usually defines ones character.
I would appreciate a response to my letter. As I do with all correspondence addressed for behavior such as this, I will alert the public to the practices of Sprint’s customer service. Many individuals do not know how to complain until they see illustrations of the process of complaining, especially of nefarious acts.
Please respond. I will send a fax of this letter to 913-523-8312. I will send a hard copy to each individual mentioned above in the caption of this letter.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC
cc: http://www.complaints.com/
August 24, 2005
Sprint Corporation
Sprint World Headquarters
Len J. Lauer, President & COO
Gary D. Forsee, Chairman & CEO
Robert J. Dellinger, EVP & CFO
6160 Sprint Pkwy.
Overland Park, KS 66251
Re: Account # 0546210493-0; Cell Phone # 708-921-1395
Gentlemen:
On February 17, 2005 I, Fred L Nance Jr., entered into a “Fair and Flex American” Plan/Contract with Sprint for cellular phone service with a $200.00 spending limit. It was explained to me by Ms. Rachel Smith, a customer representative of Sprint, that if I reached this limit my cell phone service would be disconnected until I paid my bill. On July 17, 2005 I canceled this service and entered into the Sprint “Family Plan” sharing the “Fair and Flex American” plan with phone number 708-574-9822, with the same $200.00 spending limit with sales representative Ms. Renee Bryant-Smith. Both transactions took place at the Sprint location at 5234 South Blackstone, Chicago, Illinois. At no time during either sales transaction was I told I would be billed at a prorated price, meaning, I would be billed a month in advance. I was only told what the cost of my service would be.
My first contract on February 17, 2005 consisted of 300 minutes for $35.00, roaming charges for $5.00, insurance for $5.00, $5.00 for 7:00 pm free nights and weekends, and $5.00 for PCS to PCS (this is a charge paid to call other people with Sprint phones). This totals $55.00 plus tax. The second contract on July 17, 2005 consisted of the same additional services except I have 800 minutes (being shared by 2 phones) for $70.00 and 7:00 pm free nights and weekends. I do not have the additional cost of $5.00 for 7:00 pm free nights and weekends. This total is now $85.00 plus tax.
From February 17, 2005 to July 18, 2005, I paid my monthly bill, which was in the range of $65.90 and $75.20. The last bill I paid was on July 18, 2005 for $65.90. On or about August 21, 2005 I called complaining about receiving a text message reporting my cell phones would be cut off because I had exceeded my $200.00 limit. I spoke to a supervisor on August 21, 2005 disputing the charges and requesting my cell phones reinstated. The supervisor reinstated my cell phones informing me she was giving me a $60.00 credit, which would last 10 days before my cell phones would be cut-off if I did not pay the bill. I informed this supervisor I had not received an invoice since I paid the bill on July 18, 2005 for $65.90.
On August 22, 2005 I talked to Mr. Sandro of the Sprint Select Services Retention Department. He informed me I had a cell phone bill for $255.73. I was livid and irate. I asked him, “How could I have a bill for $255.73?” He informed me it was my regular monthly service and my next month’s service (prorated). I asked him, “How can Sprint cut someone’s cell phone service off because they have not paid the future month’s or prorated bill?” I told him more importantly, “How can Sprint cut a person’s cell phone off when they have not even received an invoice so they can pay the bill?” “Why would I receive a text message stating my cell phone service will be cutoff before I receive an invoice?”
I informed Mr. Sandro I had not received an invoice. Since talking with Mr. Sandro, I received this invoice from Sprint on August 23, 2005 for $255.73. On August 22, 2005 I asked Mr. Sandro if I had exceeded my 800 minutes of use. He said I had not exceeded it. Mr. Sandro and I talked about my plan. Mr. Sandro agreed I had the plan mentioned above, which totaled $85.00 plus tax. My question to Mr. Sandro, “If my plan totals $85.00 plus tax and I have not gone over my minutes for my plan, why do I have a bill for $255.73?”
I asked Mr. Sandro to examine my bill with me. We found out I had been charged $20.56 for additional usage, that being use of the Internet. I informed him, which he examined and found to be true, I called in and requested both cell phones on this account be restricted from the use of Internet. With Sprint, the restricted use of the Internet is “IP Basic.” Mr. Sandro informed me the person I talked to when I asked for this restriction, restricted both phones from accessing, but did not apply the “IP Basic” as they should have. Applying “IP Basic” restricts the cell phone from any miscellaneous contact with the Internet, such as the Internet being connected without the user’s knowledge. Mr. Sandro stated it was not my fault and gave me a $19.09 adjustment to my bill. He also gave me a $5.00 adjustment to my bill.
The most important part of this adventure with Sprint came when Mr. Sandro and I discussed the policies of Sprint. Mr. Sandro informed me that it is the practice of Sprint to prorate charges on cell phone use. I informed Mr. Sandro this practice is not on the contract I signed with Sprint. In addition, I informed Mr. Sandro cutting cell phone service for a customer because they have not paid a prorated cost on their phones is a “bad” business practice, especially when the customer is not aware of the practice and the practice is not a part of the sales contract. In addition to this, the customer is not made aware of the cut-off of services due to proration at the time of the contract sale. The sales person of Sprint is just trying to make a sale. The sales person does not give the pertinent information needed to the customer so the customer can make an informed decision.
I informed Mr. Sandro I would be contacting the Illinois Attorney General’s office on this matter requesting an investigation to determine if fraud and deception is being used in Sprint’s business practices toward its clients/customers. Requesting the Illinois Attorney General issue an alert to all and any customers and future customers of Sprint’s business practices suggesting an investigation into other cell phone companies with similar business practices.
I informed Mr. Sandro I wanted out of my contract with Sprint because of this breach. I informed Mr. Sandro my wife, Darlene Bouyer-Nance, acct. # 0526791478 cell phone number 708-921-1393 and 708-646-4342, is having the same problem with Sprint. My wife called me while I am constructing this letter informing me she received a text message stating her cell phone will be cutoff if she does not make a payment right now. My wife stated to me, “I just paid them some money last week.” This may be a familiar statement among Sprint customers because they do not know the prorated pricing of Sprint attaches itself to their present price creating the Sprint system to shut off service because the customer has reached their “spending limit.” I would suggest there may be many Sprint customers who have inflated pricing they are not aware of as illustrated with the inflated pricing I mention when I asked for my cell phones restriction of Internet and other servicing.
A copy of my wife’s invoice dated May 21, 2005 and a copy of my invoice dated August 18, 2005 (cover sheets only) accompanies this letter to the Illinois Attorney General. My invoice states, “Balance summary $31.87; Monthly Service Charges $170.00, Additional Usage Charges & Purchases $20.56, and Taxes, Surcharges, & Fees $33.30, totaling $255.73; amount due after September 14, $268.52. This is outrageous and appalling. I owe Sprint for service from July 18, 2005 to August 17, 2005, which is $85.00 plus tax. This bill illustrated should be for that period of time. This bill illustrated charges me for August 18, 2005 to September 17, 2005 plus all applicable taxes. This is the bill Sprint text messaged me on August 22, 2005 stating my cell phone service will be interrupted if I did not pay because I went over my spending limit of $200.00. I have not gone over my spending limit. Sprint has prorated my charges giving the appearance I have gone over my spending limit. Sprint may guilty of fraud and deception because when they inform a customer of a spending limit, the customer is thinking of an “actual” expenditure. The customer does not know the spending limit encompasses the “prorated” pricing, which may lead to their service being interrupted.
I informed Mr. Sandro Sprint customers need to know how Sprint promotes a business practice where a customer never catches up with their bill because of the prorated price added to it. I informed Mr. Sandro I would be posting this complaint on http://www.complaints.com/ and http://consumerxchange.org/.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
cc: http://www.complaints.com/
http://consumerxchange.org/
