When this Azola couple got back from their honeymoon, they had about an hour of matrimonial bliss before being forced to flee as their house was engulfed in flames. So you can understand they had some things on their mind other than the status of their AT&T | Dish receiver as they ran for their lives. When they called to cancel service, the customer service rep asked if they had “remembered to pick up the receiver” as they left the house…
After the couple said no, AT&T told them they would have to pay $300 for the receiver and would not put any forbearance on the bill as the couple tried to get their life back together. Escalating to a supervisor yielded the same result. You would think AT&T would allow for some extenuating circumstances CONSIDERING THE WHOLE PLACE IS ON FIRE OF FEDERAL EMERGENCY PROPORTIONS! Still, AT&T has a right to recoup it’s property… which makes us wonder if the couple’s homeowner’s insurance will cover it, as the receiver isn’t actually theirs. Just an unfortunate situation all around.
In contrast, Washington Mutual is refunding overdrafts and ATM surcharge fees to wildfire victims.
(Thanks to Desiree!)
More From Consumerist
-
T-Mobile Backtracks On That Whole “Too Bad Your House Burned To The Ground” Thing
-
T-Mobile Doesn’t Really Care That Your House Burnt Down
-
AT&T And T-Mobile Briefly Reuniting In New York, New Jersey To Help Storm Victims
-
Victims’ Families Call Invite To Aurora Theater Re-Opening A “Ridiculously Offensive” Publicity Stunt
-
T-Mobile Assumes I Owe Them Money Just Because Of My Name
Wow. And I thought they were bad already. Going to the media should shame them into not being so stupid. Hopefully.
I would have told them to take it up with whatever deities they may or may not believe in and hung up, and I sure wouldn’t be paying them. They can fight with the insurance company.
I don’t really think AT&T is wrong here. Those people were renting equipment that was damaged in a fire. Shouldn’t homeowner’s insurance cover that? AT&T is a business after all and I think they’re being reasonable about repayment. They COULD be nice about it, but I don’t think they completely wrong.
I would agree, AT&T is probably in the right. The Home owner’s insurance should likely cover this.
So, AT&T should absorb the loss rather than the Home Owner’s insurance company?
You people seem to not know about “compassion”. AT&T has enough freaking money that they can afford it.
This is akin to Starbucks charging firefighters for bottled water as they worked at Ground Zero.
This couple shouldn’t worry – insurance will take care of it somewhere along the line, whether it’s their own or AT&T’s..
it’s no different with the cable companies. When I worked in the field we had to retrieve the equipment from people whose house burned down. Otherwise they would be charged for it.
So what happens when the homeowner’s insurance company denies coverage on the leased equipment? Setting a precedent where you are making people think about their rented TV equipment as they flee a burning house is not what AT&T wants.
After Katrina, I was shocked by how downright decent Cox was about their HD-DVR. We just had to fill out an affidavit swearing the box got flooded. It’s not like it would do us any good with another carrier anyway…
The homeowners probably just called too soon, before AT&T had figured out their policy for this unique set of circumstances. I imagine if they try next week they’ll have better luck.
I don’t think anyone thinks AT&T should take the loss for this situation.
However, the moral outrage is over the timing of the CSR’s responses. The homeowners have just lost a home, telling them they will owe you $300 and will have to pay it out of pocket when the bill arrives is shitty. The CSR should have flagged the account so the homeowners have a month or 2 to let the insurance company get done trying to fleece them.
This story is Diggworthy. That’s just evil. Though I guess an AT&T serf may not know how to confirm there’s a fire there, much less even know about it in Bangalore.
While I think AT&T is LEGALLY within their rights here, this is a case where someone with a brain should have stepped in. If AT&T had called and said “we see that you’ve just had a catastrophic loss – we’re going to suspend the account until you’ve had a chance to regain your footing and waive the cost of the box” they would have likely had a customer for life. Instead they have forever burned their bridges and ended up with tons of bad PR.
On a similar note, a number of credit card companies contacted their affected card holders after Katrina and extended courtesies to them. It builds brand loyalty and scores well in the PR department, not to mention, it makes the sould feel good.
AT&T losing a receiver and absorbing the cost? $300.
AT&T losing a customer to Comcast *gasp*? $Lots more
Even if they were polite and nice and offered to split the difference, it would have been better.
Not offering any forbearance is the biggest issue here IMO. At least allow the people to get things sorted out a little first. They want and deserve their equipment or money. But just a small exception would go a VERY long way in this case.
Well… AT&T’s evil, Comcast’s evil- so who else is left for broadband? If you live in the Bay Area or somewhere else that’s similar you have alternatives, but in smaller cities you don’t have much of a choice. I suppose there’s Verizon.
@jmuskratt: But is it really that unique a situation? Their house burned down. That isn’t exactly rare even if the scale of the wildfire that did it is.
You are probably right but I am surprised there isn’t an existing policy for how to handle the loss of equipment due to disasters outside of the customer’s control.
Isn’t it ironic that when you read the small print upon signing a contract or otherwise entering into a legally binding relationship in which a large institution or entity has the upper hand, it often includes that they are not liable for restoring anything to you “in the event of catastrophe, acts of war or civil insurrection?” If they don’t have to, why should we?
Now you know why I ceased doing business with AT&T, and will never, ever do business with them again.
@Buran: While I agree with your sentiment, I think it has less to do with compassion than just smart business.
Of course AT&T isn’t technically wrong here, but this isn’t about right and wrong. The wildfires are the biggest story in the country right now, and natural disaster stories generally don’t come with readily available bad guys. It’s easy to be the good guy (which is why politicians love to show up at the site of a tornado or a wildfire), and being a bad guy takes work.
AT&T did just that by putting themselves in the story. It’s hard to calculate the PR cost of this incident, but it’s probably worth more than $300. It’s irrelevant whether AT&T had the right to recover its equipment or insurance would cover it, when you recognize the effect public perception has on the bottom line.
Each receiver probably costs AT&T $50, maybe? They mark it up to $300.
If they had any sense of EXACTLY how badly they are held in contempt they might just offer these victims an out by offering to only charge them the $50.
They won’t.
Same shit happened to me in April 2004. Apartment caught on fire. Do you think the Dish Receiver (received through SBC at the time) even crossed my mine? Hell no. SBC didn’t want to hear anything of it though. “We don’t care that your house caught on fire, we want our money” (P.S. a literal quote).
@Rectilinear Propagation: The scale makes it so. While a fire that’s limited to your house is a life-changing event, if it’s just you, the recovery time is only limited by your individual situation. When it’s thousands of homes, getting everything back to “normal” will take years longer. Just try to find a contractor in southern California for the next two years. Try to find an insurance company that doesn’t thoroughly fuck their “client.”
These people will have a very hard “row to hoe” for much longer than they realize, and a fucking Dish box should be the least of their concerns.
@BVITA: While those credit card companies “extended courtesies,” they more often than not merely suspended payments, but recapitalized interest at the end of the “grace period.” This was even worse when mortage companies who were “helping out” demanded three – four months of mortgage payments all at once…from people without jobs or homes. The strings-free “help” was far and few between…but Cox was one of those companies…as much as they suck in just about every other facet.
I’m surprised by this. When we got hit by 4 hurricanes (So Fla.) in one year, DirecTV came out for free to reposition our dish each time.
I’m not saying a company should go bankrupt trying to help people out but AT&T would win all kinds of P/R and life long customers if they thought this through and forgave the costs for this equipment.
What’s worse, Broadband Reports is saying that Time Warner and DirecTV was forgiving in the replacement. AT&T won’t even wait for the insurance!
Apparently they don’t get Dish Network in AT&T’s corporate offices.
If the couple waits around long enough, they will probably be eligible for about $300 in the class-action lawsuit that is sure to be coming regarding AT&Ts illegal spying on Americans communications.
No amnesty for telcos!!!
This is asinine on the part of AT&T, not because they are being assholes, but because they are setting a dangerous precedent. How long is it before someone burns to death trying to rescue their cable receiver in order to avoid the $300 charge? Next thing you know, AT&T is facing a major lawsuit.
That just looks bad on AT&T. After Katrina, t-mobile gave away cells to anyone in LA who needed one, yet AT&T cannot afford to replace a few hundred (at worst) receivers!? It makes no sense to me, and I don’t care if they are legally right, its certainly not moral.
Sorry. AT&T is big enough and has enough customers in the affected parts of California to have a plan in place for this situation. California wildfires are a yearly event, aren’t they?
If AT&T really wants to bill their customers for DVR’s and equipment, they should at least give them a 90 or 180 day due date. This would allow most homeowners to submit a copy of the bill to their insurance company. It’s not like floating a few thousand dollars worth of equipment is going to hurt the bottom line.
AT&T and other companies that have customers in contracts should also freeze the contract for a period of time to allow their customers an opportunity to find a place to live and use it.
Instead, AT&T just decides to be the first in line to fleece their customers out of a few hundred bucks. I bet most of them don’t even have a mailbox to get the bill.
@Buran:
You have enough freaking money that I think you should give me some of it. I mean, you don’t need ALL of it do you?
AT&T has a right to be made whole. And Consumerist has a right to publicly shame AT&T, giving them ten million dollars in bad press.
Go Consumerist.
To those that think that AT&T is in the right b/c they leased the equip and deserve to be paid on it, I suggest reading an article a few above this one where it talks about how WAMU is going to waive certain fees that they are legally entitled to for the SD fire victims…BECAUSE IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO!
Yes, a BANK is going to pass on collecting fees that they are fully entitled to collect b/c they realize that these people have had a major traumatic experience in their lives and don’t want to compound that. What does it say about AT&T that they could learn a lesson in compassion and customer service from a BANK!?!
@hapless: My finances are none of your damn business.
@spinachdip: I highly doubt AT&T doesn’t have insurance on its assets. It wants to charge these people, then it will turn around and claim the destroyed equipment on its insurance, and profit from the double-dipping. Think about that?
I would just tell them that they can come and get it and can shove the charred, burnt receiver up their asses.
If they want to be jackasses over this type of catastrophe, then to hell with them.
There are plenty of other companies out there that will gladly give you service.
ATT is legally right, but shows how anti consumers and how insensitive it is. Is like fuck you.
It’s inconceivable that AT&T doesn’t already have a policy in place for these kinds of issues. It is indeed conceivable that CSR’s and their supervisors may not know that policy off the top of their heads, but you’d hope they’d hire people with enough brain power to assess the situation and say “let me see what we can do for you”. Recouping lost receiver boxes has to be weighed with the situation at hand. Companies are in business to make money, but alienating customers won’t help them achieve that goal.
Also, shouldn’t AT&T be insured to cover these kinds of losses, as part of their contingency plan?
So….At & T isn’t responsible when things happen on their end because of “Act of God”, but you are.
Very bad form….you don’t ask people about saving material things when they are running for their lives.
@jmuskratt: That’s a good point. I just would have thought waiting on the insurance, regardless of the scale of the event, wouldn’t have been a big deal.
@hapless: Your demand doesn’t inspire a lot of compassion.
How about a policy of cancelling the service when the customer calls, but putting a “temporary hold” on the charge for the unreturned equipment in areas of natural disaster (or even someone that swears by affidavit of a loss due to a home fire, flood, etc.) to give some time for the insurance/details get sorted out? This would be an easy policy to put into place nationwide, and they’d save a lot of grief from press like this without necessarily forever giving up the $300 they’re technically owed. At least it would give AT&T upper management some additional time to figure out how to handle these situations and get a policy in place that’s been at least somewhat more thought-out.
You know, now that I think about it, this woman should have just told AT&T to feel free to send them a bill…to their still smouldering half a chimney!
Where exactly does AT&T think this bill is going to be delivered to and when? Something tells me the USPS ain’t exactly making their normal rounds in that neighborhood.
Jackasses.
I have to wonder the fuss about this. When you borrow or rent something, you’re liable for it. If you’re a victim of a well publicised disaster that shouldn’t mean AT&T should foot the bill. Even though the wild fire isn’t their fault, failure to protect other people’s goods that are in their possession is.
There’s a reason why people buy home and contents insurance.
As for the phone call. They phoned up AT&T to cancel and AT&T informed them at the time of cancellation the charges they will be liable for as is probably required by law.
Goodwill gestures by companies should never be treated as an expected service.
There is what they are allowed to do, then there is what is the right thing to do.
ATT failed.
@davebg5: Oh man, I wish I could see the looks on their faces when they realize that they can’t send them the bill.
If you’re a victim of a well publicised disaster that shouldn’t mean AT&T should foot the bill.
@abigsmurf: If you were to lose money because AT&T’s services went down in the event of a natural disaster they would not be liable for that loss. The reverse should be the same.
There’s a reason why people buy home and contents insurance.
Yes, I’m sure events like this one are why the couple in the video bought insurance. Unfortunately, AT&T won’t wait for the insurance.
Goodwill gestures by companies should never be treated as an expected service.
Waiting for the insurance wouldn’t be goodwill it would be good business. It’s not like they are going to get paid immediately anyway. Why insist on the bad PR if it isn’t even going to get you paid sooner?
@davebg5:
I had Verizon wireless pre-Katrina. Canceled the phone service about 2 weeks prior to the storm. Was told over the phone that I had a zero balance. Katrina hits, no mail delivery. Temporarily forward mail to a PO Box, and then back to the house when service resumes. Loose lots of mail in the process. Jan of ’06 I pull a copy of my credit report and find a charge-off from Verizon for something like $70. Call Verizon and was told that I never paid my final bill. I told them that I never got my final bill, was told that I had no balance, and why didn’t they try calling me to tell me I owed them money (I had ported my number)? Not their policy, blah, blah, blah. I was livid. Talked to a very rude person in their collections department in Dallas. She told me that she would “allow” me to pay the bill since I was a “Katrina Victim” and that they would remove the charge-off. I did, and they did.
As someone with a billing address in the affected areas, Nextel gave me 2 free months. Verizon screwed up my credit
@Instigator: Excellent point.
@Rectilinear Propagation: That’s because telephone would lose millions every time there was a storm anywhere until they eventually went bankrupt and no one would have any service if they were liable for losses due to interruption of service. Also a bad example because if their equipment was damaged during a storm they would have to pay to get it repaired ASAP or be in breach of contract.
AT&T have no way of knowing if a customer is insured (unless they sold the insurance themselves). Any business that trusts people they don’t know whenever they say “the cheques in the mail” tend not to stay in business long.
Can we bring in Grandma “Hammer” to visit an AT&T office? Let’s smash some common sense into this lame telco. Hammertime!
Everyone who mentions, what is the fuss about? AT&T is in the right.
Sometimes it is not a matter of being right or wrong. AT&T could have given them time to get situated and get their insurance taken care of. Instead they went and alienated their customer who now won’t be coming back to them at all, meanwhile getting bad publicity in the process.
Doing the good and noble thing would have cost them less. They were still going to get their money, though over-inflated as it was. They could have earned some good publicity in the process, like WAMU, and perhaps get a customer for life. Why does it seem like idiots are the only ones that run companies?
Try explaining these things to your stock holders when profits go down…
@alhypo: I agree. Personally, though, I wouldn’t stop to save an $850 pair of Jimmy Choo’s if my durned house is on fire. But, as you said, some unlucky person is going to fear AT&T more than the impending fire and lose their life trying to unplug a stupid receiver. The “powers that be” at AT&T really aren’t thinking this through.
@davebg5: The problem is, these people’s credit may get ruined for a $300 receiver which is beyond ridiculous. AT&T is not going to lose in this situation no matter what. It’s too bad they can’t mail them some ashes along with a letter that says “Here’s your receiver. Enjoy!”.
I think a little compassion is in order personally but I see both sides. As for the person who said “This is akin to Starbucks charging firefighters for bottled water as they worked at Ground Zero” There is no comparison as this was a rumor and never happened. Check the facts (snopes)