The $39.6 million should be returned to customers by January of next year. The Commission also ordered the energy company to start refunding about $73 million from the sale of its Palisades Nuclear Plant, but there's no timetable on that.

"Consumers must refund about $39M to customers" [Jackson-Citizen Patriot]
(Photo: tsmall)

Daniel had a payment due on September 6th, so he paid it on August 22nd. Then, the day after that payment was due—that is, on September 7th—he made another payment for the next cycle.

The problem is, that new cycle hadn't started yet, so Chase applied it as a second payment to his past statement. Then when the new due date came and passed earlier this month, they reported him late and charged him a $39 late fee.

Daniel has repeatedly tried to reason with Chase, pointing out that he has a history of making all of his payments on time and early, but Chase would only repeat the same boilerplate rejection over and over. Below are some of the responses Daniel's gotten from Chase CSRs this month:

I am unable to take further action regarding the late fee reflected on your statement. Your payment was due on 10/7/2009 and as of today 10/13/2009 we have yet to receive a payment for your account.

Please keep in mind that Chase offers the following tools to better assist you in managing your account:

-Alerts - Alerts can be personalized to fit your personal needs.
-AutoPay - Autopay can be set up to pay the minimum payment or statement balance in full on your statement due date.

Although, I wasn't able to make the adjustment as requested, I am glad I was able to provide other payment options. If you have any further questions, please reply using the Secure Message Center.

Your account was previously reviewed and the response explained why we could not make the adjustment requested. I am unable to take further action regarding the late fee reflected on your November statement.

I apologize we could not credit your account as you wished but hope that you have a good week.

If you have any further questions, please reply using the Secure Message Center.

Thank you for taking the time to contact us again in regards to the payment made on your account ending XXXX.

A late fee was assessed because your payment of $64.38 was received before your 09/11/2009 statement cycled. Therefore, the payment was applied to the previous due date of 09/06/2009 so a payment for the 10/06/2009 due date has not been received.

Hence, a minimum payment is due and the account is in past due status.

Thank you for contacting Chase with regards to the issues currently affecting your account.

I am unable to remove the late payment fee and interest charges because a minimum payment was not received by the due date.

If you have any further questions, please reply using the Secure Message Center.

This is a common enough occurrence (at least judging by the tips we receive) that I suspect it's a deliberate fee trap set up by credit card companies: they get you in the habit of thinking in terms of a payment due date, but what matters just as much is the statement cycle date, which they conveniently gloss over. Then people attempt to pay early because they're trying to be more responsible, and the credit card company makes a little extra money.

The bank could easily avoid this by presenting an alert when a customer schedules a payment that says, "This payment will be applied to the statement cycle of [date range]." That Chase doesn't do this makes it pretty clear that it's yet another crack the bank hopes new customers like you fall into.

Don't give up the fight yet, Daniel. So far all you've done is dealt with the lowest, least empowered foot soldiers on the Chase side of things—faceless CSRs who spend their days assembling responses from snippets of pre-written blather. Here are two other strategies to try:

1. Call Chase and explain your story. Make it clear you understand now what the "statement cycle" date means as far as paying your bill, but that this wasn't made clear to you in any way as you scheduled that payment, and that's why you were led to believe it would apply to your next payment. If you have proof that an identical action resulted in no late fee back when the card was owned by WaMu, point that out. Escalate the issue as high as you can if you keep running into bad Do Nothing employees.

2. If that fails, try sending an Executive Email Carpet Bomb (EECB) to Chase. Make your letter short but full of detail, and make it very clear what happened.

If Chase ignores you, complain to the following agencies. Remember, charging a late fee for a missed deadline isn't illegal, and that's really all that happened here. But what you should keep hammering over and over is the fact that Chase makes it possible for customers to accidentally pay "too early" without triggering any sort of warning, and then uses that trap to generate late fees.

1. Report Chase to the Comptroller of the Currency at 202-874-4700.

2. Report Chase to your state's Office of the Attorney General.

3. Report Chase to your elected officials. You might want to make sure yours are on the side of consumers first—here's how senators voted on the Credit CARD Act of 2009.

4. Report Chase to the FTC:

(Photo: blmurch)

Now Bonnie wants to help them get back the $600 they overpaid, and Verizon will only meet her 25%.

My senior-citizen parents just discovered that Verizon has been
billing them for both dial-up internet and DSL for two years. They
live in Ventura County, CA. Apparently, when they switched over from
dial-up to DSL two years ago, Verizon just kept billing them for the
dial-up along with the DSL. My folks are older, and not assertive or
tech-savvy, so they never thought to question their bill until two
weeks ago when a computer tech who was fixing their email looked at
the bill and noticed the dial-up charge on there. When my dad
contacted Verizon's customer service to ask about this, they removed
the $24.95/month dial-up charge, but refused to credit them for any of
the two years of overbilling. 24 months of dial-up charges would total
$600.

When I heard this, I was outraged and called up Verizon's customer
service myself last Thursday. The rep I spoke to said that they would
issue my parents a 6-month credit for $149. When I said that was
unacceptable and asked to speak to his supervisor, I was told that the
supervisor, would call my parents within 24 hours. Of
course, they never received a call. From an online search, I found
the phone number for the Verizon Consumer Advocate, and received an
address to mail a written complaint. We are in the process of
composing a complaint letter requesting a full credit.

To me, this is simply outrageous. It would be one thing if my parents
had mistakenly been signed up for additional services or add-ons that
they did not request. In that case, I suppose that Verizon could
reasonably assume that by paying the bill they were tacitly agreeing
to the charges. However, in this case, I can see no justification for
continuing to bill them for an old service that they had replaced with
an upgraded service. To confirm this, I called Verizon New Accounts,
and the sales rep I spoke with said that it was standard practice to
discontinue dial-up when DSL is initiated.

Verizon is clearly at fault and should credit my parents with the $600
they are owed.

This story serves as a very obvious public service announcement: read and understand all of your bills.

The key question is: did Bonnie's parents still have access to dial-up even though DSL was installed and in use? If the dial-up account remained active but unused for the two years, that poses a problem in getting a refund.

On the other hand, if Verizon failed to cancel their dial-up account, as was standard practice, then the original situation is their fault. The length of time it went on, however, is not.

Who do you think is at fault here—Bonnie's parents or Verizon?

(Photo: *nomad*)

The Energy Star program is overseen by both the Energy Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, although they monitor different product categories. Last December, the EPA admitted it couldn't really verify whether the products it oversees (computers, TVs) deserved Energy Star label. And now the Energy Department is confessing pretty much the same thing:

While the Energy Department requires manufacturers of windows and L.E.D. and fluorescent lighting to have independent laboratories evaluate their products, the report said, companies that make refrigerators, washing machines, dishwashers, water heaters and room air-conditioners, which consume far more energy, can certify those appliances themselves.

The problem for consumers is that unless the program is properly regulated, you could be sold an appliance that uses more energy than promised, costing you more money over time. The New York Times says the Energy Department and the EPA "signed a memorandum of understanding" last month in which they promised to have all products in the program certified by independent labs—but there's no mention of when this will happen, if ever.

"Energy Star Appliances May Not All Be Efficient, Audit Finds" [New York Times]
"Energy Star has lost some luster" [Consumer Reports]
(Photo: tom.arthur)

Andrew Ramadge of News.com.au spoke with Thorne about how the email letter came to be:

Now South Australian prankster David Thorne, famous for an email exchange in which he attempted to pay a bill with a drawing of a spider, has admitted to the hoax.

"It took me five minutes in Photoshop," he told news.com.au this week.

[...]

Of creating the hoax, Mr Thorne said: "Paper background and logo courtesy of Google Images. Signature courtesy of the Robert Mugabe page on Wikipedia. Address courtesy of Google Maps. Content courtesy of being ripped off by McDonald's several times."

The memo had appeared on Mr Thorne's website earlier in the year as part of a prank email exchange about test-riding a motorcycle.

"Prankster David Thorne behind McDonald's hoax" [News.com.au]

A Consumer Financial Protection Agency would unify the various organizations that regulate parts of the financial services market into a single, streamlined agency. Hopefully. Most of the legislation is necessarily vague (the legislation "Requires the Agency to seek to promote transparency, simplicity, fairness, accountability, and access in the market for consumer financial products or services"), in the hopes that it can be applied to nasty new bank practices that we can't even think of yet. Below are some specifics.

• The CFPA would have the authority to restrict or ban mandatory binding arbitration. You know how we feel about mandatory binding arbitration.
• The CFPA would also have the authority to designate fees, charges, or behaviors as unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices, and ban them as the agency sees fit. So if Bank of America, for example, dreams up a new way to screw you that wasn't banned by the recent credit card law, the CFPA could review it, ban it, and start ringing up the fines. Fines for violating these bans range from $5,000 to $25,000 per day.
• CFPA legislation would require the Fed to review the consumer credit card market-including credit card agreements, practices, costs, and availability-every two years to judge market innovation, competition, and fairness. This is a good proactive approach that would keep the agency on top of developing issues and potentially dangerous trends and actions.
• Importantly, the CFPA legislation treats federal action as a floor, not a ceiling, so individual states would be allowed to enact stronger laws as necessary and appropriate. This is especially important considering that...
• One thing CFPA legislation definitely will not address is usury-a cap on interest rates. Earlier this year, a senator attempted to attach a usury cap to the credit card reform legislation that was signed into law; the amendment failed by a large margin and would probably fail again or doom the underlying legislation it was attached to. Fortunately, some states already have existing usury bans that curb excessive interest rates.

The legislation can be read in its entirety here. A (large) handy comparison chart is viewable here. For more information, check out Consumer Reports's financial policy blog, Defending Your Dollars.

(Photo: frankieleon)

The New York-based phone company has been ordered to "to refund up to $50,000 it wrongfully charged consumers."

"Frontier failed to spell out in its contracts the existence of costly fees," said Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo. "The company is now fixing the issue by providing written notices of these fees and paying back consumers who were wrongfully charged."

The only way you'll be getting a refund is if you filed a complaint aginst Frontier prior to December 31, 2008, which is a great illustration of why you should always report company misbehavior to authorities like your state's office of the attorney general.

"New York Attorney General Smacks Frontier: ‘Early Termination Fee' Controversy Could Net Hundreds in Refunds to NY'ers" [Stop the Cap! via Michigan Telephone]

Multichannel News notes that you can buy your own cable modem for around $100, which will pay for itself in less than two years at Comcast's new rental rate.

"Comcast Hiking Cable-Modem Fee to $5 From $3 Monthly Nationwide" [Multichannel News via dslreports] (Thanks to CZ!)
(Photo: scriptingnews)

"If you don't have a credit card, you can use a debit card," said the restaurant's co-owner, Tony Zazula. "If you don't have a debit card, you probably don't have a checking account. And if you don't have a checking account, you probably shouldn't be eating at Commerce to begin with."

The Wall Street Journal says the owner got the idea after riding on an American Airlines flight. We hope that's as far as his brainstorming goes; we'd hate to see what kinds of surcharges a creative restaurateur could come up with in the spirit of air travel.

"New York Restaurant Loses Its Appetite for Cash " [WSJ] (Thanks to Chad!)
(Photo: gailf548)

How does that work? Prices are falling on the wholesale energy market, but some all local power companies purchase their power far in advance to insulate themselves against rising prices.

If you reside in the Northeast, West or in a central state like Texas where rates are based on spot prices, you stand a good chance of getting some relief.

Customers in more regulated markets or in spots where utilities calculate bills based on long-term contracts will not benefit so much. In those markets, rates tend to be more stable.

A decrease in industrial electricity use, and relatively milder weather nationwide, not consumer light bulb preferences, account for most of the decrease.

Demand for electricity sputters and bills may fall [AP]

(Photo: frankieleon)

The carriers disagree that we're getting screwed, of course:

As you might expect, the wireless industry issued a press release proclaiming the study was based on "flawed assumptions" that "just don't make sense." If you look at the data the way carriers would like, you're getting quite the bargain. The CTIA does have a point that the OECD's usage categories seem low — particularly when it comes to MMS use. Another reason U.S. prices seem high? Carriers charge a hell of a lot of money for service. They also spend millions on lobbyists who tirelessly work to eliminate consumer protections and price controls.

Additionally, this dumb study isn't taking into account the cutting-edge technology our carriers employ, which is so far ahead of other countries that it's nearly lapped them and is now behind, or something like that. (I'm trying to think like a cellphone executive; it hurts.) As an example of what more than $600 a year buys you, just look at today's column from PC Magazine's editor in chief, Lance Ulanoff:

Back at home, some calls did get through, but all were so poorly connected-with frequent drop-outs-that I had to hang up and try again. I looked at my phone and noticed that 3G connectivity was hovering around a half of a bar. Every once in a while, the tiny bar would disappear. It was replaced by a bar and a half of Edge Network connectivity. I wasn't even moving and the phone was busy dancing around, trying to get me a reasonably good connection. At one point, I even moved outside to try and get a better connection. This helped a tiny bit: I think I got one more bar. Still, the call connection and quality remained unreliable-at best. The other problem was that I wasn't receiving calls. Everyone was getting bumped to voicemail. (I do give AT&T credit for delivering voicemail in a timely fashion. Sprint messages could take days to arrive.)

"Consumers In U.S., Canada Pay More For Wireless" [dslreports via Jesse Harris]
"Mobile phone calls lowest in Finland, Netherlands and Sweden, says OECD report" [OECD]
"Love My BlackBerry Bold, Hate AT&T 3G" [PC Magazine]
(Photos: thisisbossi, AMagill)

My AT&T bill is set to charge to my American Express every month. Its simple, I get the points, and I make one payment to AMEX for everything. After receiving my recent AT&T bill, I noticed that AT&T stated that I owed $317.60, including $157.40 from last month's bill and $160.20 in new charges.

I did not notice anything significantly different last month, but I went and checked my AMEX statement anyway - sure enough on June 27, AT&T charged me $157.40 as they should have. Well, my bill stated that my card was declined and that's what the AT&T rep said. "Your card was declined, spoco." was pretty much the way it was handled. I could not escelate because "I did not have a valid concern that would need to involve a supervisor." The local AT&T store could not help either.

So even though I have transaction IDs and proof that the bill was paid by automatic draft to my AMEX, they will not discuss it. Well, on 7/26, they charged my AMEX the full amount due, $317.60. I contacted them again, and its the same song and dance - "I owed from a previous bill." I can't even get anyone to even look at the possibility that there was a mistake on their part.

Spoco, if you can't get anyone at ground-level customer service to help you, it's time to aim higher. Try contacting others within the company and explain what's happening.

You should also make it clear to AT&T that you will initiate a reversal of the payment should they refuse to investigate it.

One of her tips to plug all the gaps is to go a little maniacal and unplug absolutely everything when you go out and about:

I should show you what our apartment looks like for electricity. BF went hardcore this time...

EVERYTHING we have plugged in, including our microwave, are all on power strips. The oven is the only exception. When we go to sleep, we shut off the power strips, therefore, cutting all energy vampire suckage while we are conked out.

The post also recommends buying used cars over new, suppressing the need to unnecessarily upgrade your toys and getting over your self-image in order to wear clothes past whatever you think their fashion-mandated expiration dates might be.

The advice is all sound except for the bit that recommends against pining for 50-inch TVs. Those save you money by taking away wall space you might feel the need to re-paint or cover with expensive wall decorations. Right?

When money silently trickles away [Fabulously Broke In the City]
(Photo: The Joy Of The Mundane)

He writes:

So, on Monday my wife and I decided to go out to Longhorn Steakhouse to celebrate our 5 year wedding anniversary. Today I log into my bank account to make sure my paycheck went through when I see a charge at Longhorn Steakhouse for 47.13, which was higher than my bill was even after the tip I'd left. I did some quick math and determined that they over charged me by 4 dollars.

But it gets worse.

While steaming over that little pricing error I noticed two lines above that that I'm being charged 38.38, which as I'm staring at my receipt from the night is the actual charge minus the tip...

I was wondering what the protocol was for getting your money back out of a restaurant that appears to have double billed you... I've got the receipt, and placed it in my wallet for safe keeping, but I'm wondering what the easiest way to dispute the second charge is going to be, will they have records, or should I print out my bank statement and bring it with me?

Would I be out of line to request my tip be removed so the waiter does not get a tip? Afterall, the tips themselves are to show an appreciation of the value of their work, if the waiter billed me twice then he doesn't deserve a tip as he's forced me to enter their location and argue finances on my own time.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated...

Thanks.

We think the advice at punny.org is good, and it suggests three steps in this order:

Punny.org also suggests working in a checksum when you tip, so that you'll be able to quickly spot altered totals when reviewing your account later. The problem with that, of course, is it requires basic math while you're figuring out your tip, and sometimes (too many drinks, dinnermates talking to you) that can be hard to pull off accurately. Thankfully technology can help—we found a link to at least one paid iPhone app that will do this for you, but better still (as in, free) is this web-based app called TippyTops that was made for the iPhone but should also work on other smartphones with a decent web browser.

One final note: it's possible that the first tip-free charge is a hold placed on the card to pre-authorize it, and it hasn't dropped off your statement yet. You should review that option with your bank when you call them. That doesn't explain the doubled tip, however.

Update: James sent us the above email two days ago, and in the meantime he'd already called the restaurant (he thinks like many of our readers do, apparently, and gave them the benefit of the doubt). He also describes some of the waiter's bad behavior, which we think justifies the lower tip.

Here's his follow-up:

Just as a brief update to it, I called the restaurant, asked for a managed, complained about the charge and they began looking it up. apparently they had just recently upgraded their credit card transaction system. But more importantly the manager informed me that this particular employee had used my card on someone elses bill, realized what he'd done, reversed the charge, and then billed me properly.

The error here is that the employee did not inform me of his mistake, as such when I went to look at my bank statement a couple days later I noticed the two charges. The manager proceeded to explain to me that the charge should drop off his receipt within a day or so.

And indeed it did, the following morning it was gone.

The manager asked for my address so he could mail me something to make up for the error, having worked retail before I politely declined the offer as I knew it would've most likely been a gift card. I informed him that my intention was to highlight the poor service that the waiter gave us and that had he at the very least informed us of his error then I would've been less agitated.

I also took the time to explain to the manager that the waiter himself mostly chatted away with two other employees (women, one in a green shirt vs. the usual white, so I'm guessing a manager) and "shoulder checked" us to see if we needed anything, only asking when he was walking by to check on something or wait on someone else, then returning to the two employees to chat some more as they ate. I informed him that so long as the employee was "re-educated in the proper use of a credit card transaction device" that I would be satisfied, and he assured me that he would.

Total time: 20 minutes

Items required: Last night's receipt (For receipt number), dollar value of both charges for look up ($38.38 and $47.13) and credit card used for the transaction.

Did not require even setting foot into the store. Also want to note that even if they'dve had to do a charge back, a trip to the store would not have been required.

Thanks for posting the story, enjoy the update.

"Fight Thieving Restaurant Servers With Checksum Tips" [Punny Money]
TippyTops Tip Calculator
(Photo: rick)

So until the aquapolypse it's best to learn how to save money on water sooner rather than later. DIY Guy, a syndicated Popular Mechanics column that ran in the San Francisco Chronicle, has 15 tips to help you lower your water bill.

One of them is to limit flushing:

Don't use the toilet as a trash can. Dispose of tissues, cotton swabs and dental floss in the trash — you'll save water and also prevent clogs. Consider replacing toilets with dual-flush models, which use less water depending on the contents being disposed. Another option is the Aquanotion, which allows you to retrofit your current toilet with a dual-flush system.

Or just obey the old nursery rhyme, "If it's brown, flush it down. If it's pee, let it be."

15 Ways To Save Water (And Money) [San Francisco Chronicle]
(Photo: Crawfishpie)

At this point, I decided to call AOL myself. After spending 10 minutes on hold, I reached a human being. She asked for the answer to the security question on the account–which we had set up nine years ago and neither my wife nor I remembered anymore. That was a dead end, so I asked her to send a printed bill to my home address. But she wasn't authorized, either.

By the time Caller No. 5 rolled around, I was out of patience.

How can you charge me for something I didn't order and certainly didn't want, about which I was never informed, and for which I have received no bill of any kind?

Replied Caller No. 5: "You did agree to it, sir. You agreed to it when you opened the account."
Really? I said incredulously. Can you document that?

"Yes, of course, sir," he answered. I could almost hear his nose growing as he hesitated. "It was on … it was on … page C of your original account agreement."

As if this weren't preposterous enough, Caller No. 5 then offered me free AOL access "for the rest of your life" if I would just pay the $103.60.

If it was a free benefit when I was an employee and it's now free forever to anyone who wants it, I asked, then why exactly do I owe $103.60?

"For the upgrade you requested, sir."

I didn't request any upgrade.

"Yes, you did, sir, on page D."

Wasn't that page C a minute ago?

"Yes, sir, quite right, page C."

Are you confused yet? So was Zweig. He gave up on trying to kill the zombie account, and instead barricaded his property—that is to say, put a fraud alert on his credit report.

You've Got Blackmail: The AOL Account That Wouldn't Die [The Wallet]

(Photo: kalleboo)

Shannon, Paul's girlfriend, writes:

I have had an unusually bad experience that is still unresolved with Comcast Cable.

My boyfriend, Paul, canceled his Comcast account over three weeks ago, returning all of the company's equipment and obtaining a receipt that reflected a zero balance.

Comcast has since continued to send bills for future service and rental for the returned equipment. Three customer service representatives have told us that it is company policy that they can keep your account active and bill you indefinitely until they decide to disconnect it. You have no real power to cancel your own account.

The disconnection appears to be scheduled each day for the current day and is automatically rescheduled at the end of every day for the following day when it is not done.

In addition to speaking with customer service reps over the phone, we have attempted to contact them through email to no avail.

He has filed a complaint with the attorney general of our state because he believes Comcast is using his old account information to maintain a fraudulent account.

I just wanted to warn other customers of this company policy.

Shannon later sent us an update:

I wanted to let you know about the conclusion of the story (I hope).

I had filed a complaint with the Connecticut State Attorney General's Department of Public Utility Control and they called Comcast on my behalf.

As a result, Comcast resolved the dispute and pro-rated the last month of service.

The actual disconnection was finally performed, possibly related to the fact that I filed a complaint with the FCC for leaking RF signal, though I do not know this for sure.

So, it was not a normal channel for resolution, but it's resolved nonetheless.

Have any other readers had a problem with AOL suddenly billing them out of nowhere, without any notice? I had an account with them that I opened nine years ago, perhaps paying about $9.99 initially, but I haven't paid for their service since around 2000, after it was converted to a free account provided to me when I worked at Time Warner. Then, of course, I went to broadband like the rest of the country.

In February/09, after probably years of not using AOL, I was sent a notice in the mail to "update" my account because they were having a hard time billing me. I logged in and hit "update" and I got a message saying I had a free account and all was well. But I guess it wasn't. Yesterday, I got a notice from a collections agency saying I owe $103.60 for four months of service. I've called AOL repeatedly, and they insist that a $25.90 per month charge was being successfully billed to a Visa, but the Visa stopped working in November/08. I've never had a Visa! And I certainly didn't authorize a $25.90 monthly charge for a free, subpar internet service. So who was paying for my account?

I don't know what to do at this point. I'm having them send me a fraud form, since that may be my best chance at fighting this, but I have so far been unable to convince them that something is wrong here. Incidentally, I pulled a credit report on myself last night to see if there was a latent or delinquent Visa I wasn't aware of, and there are no Visa cards on it. I have perfect credit and am worried about the collections agency reporting this if I can't solve the problem. Any advice?

She can't do a chargeback when the account was billed to a credit card that doesn't exist. Other than going all customer service ninja and contacting someone in a position of power, any ideas as to what Jennifer can do?

(Photo: kalleboo)

How will the TSA enforce the new limits? The answer lies in subsection (e):

(e) Use of Template

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, TSA shall install and utilize a template with a maximum depth and width that will prevent the conveyor belt passage at each security checkpoint of carry-on baggage or a personal item that exceeds the dimensions set forth in subsection (a).

Otherwise, the bill would provide roomier new carry-on limits.

...the proposed bill would allow travelers who currently have bags at the limit to buy a new bag, or expand their current one, as the new limit would be 22 inches by 18 inches by 10 inches.

But many domestic carriers now require bags to be smaller than that. American Airlines requires bags to be a maximum of 45 inches (length plus width plus height.) Delta Airlines and United Airlines set the limit as 22 inches by 14 inches by 9 inches.

The bill sponsored by Rep. Dan Lipinksky (D-IL) has yet to attract any co-sponsors, but the three-term Congressman is a member of the Transportation Committee's Aviation Subcommittee.

We're fans of the larger carry-on limits, but we're told the TSA is there to keep us safe. Maybe we should let them focus on going through our bags instead of worrying how large they are.

Thanks, Uncle Sam! Carry-on baggage limits may increase by a few inches [Tripso]
H. R. 2870 - Securing Cabin Baggage Act [THOMAS]
(Photo: mil8)

"It's just so obvious that, as the plumber said, 'You couldn't use that much water,'" she told News4's Tom Sherwood.

Ellen Cohen is worried about the stress this could cause her mother in law. Jeannette Cohen has lived in the same, modest house in the Tenley Circle area since 1955, and in December she turns 100.

"She would never dodge something that she owed, but she's also very fair and she has a real belief in justice," Ellen Cohen said.

Jeannette Cohen has a hearing scheduled for June 30.

"Well, I have hopes," she said. "I would love to have it fixed just because it is so stupid and so wrong."

99-Year-Old's Water Bill Jumps Almost 4000% [NBC]

He writes:

I broke up with my girlfriend a few months ago and moved out all my belongings from the apartment we shared. Being a shared apartment, we tried splitting things down the middle: she paid for the cat's vet bills while I paid for the Time Warner internet bill — hell, that seems rational to me. The thing about signing up with an internet service provider is that they have your social security number and credit score all to their own devices in case you, say, decide to forgo paying the monthly bill.

After I moved out of my ex-girlfriend's apartment I forgot to do one thing: change the name of the person attached to the Time Warner account (me). I figured that she would call up Time Warner and put her own name on the account since I don't think I can just call up and put her name on it since I a) don't know her SSN and b) didn't want to talk to that crazy woman!

Three or so months went by and I hadn't talked to my ex for the bulk of that time — beautiful since I really had nothing I wanted to say to her (except that I missed the cat). It was at this point where I received a phone call from Time Warner, threatening to turn off my cable tomorrow unless I paid the $140 worth of past-due bills (three months). WHAT?!

Turns out that my ex decided to NOT pay the Time Warner bills but, of course, still use the service since my name was attached to it. I told Time Warner the situation — that I have not lived there for over three months — and they simple responded, "Well, the account is under your name so it's your credit score and you gotta pay it." I think what ticked me off the most was that Time Warner was completely in the right and it was my responsibility to take my name off any account I had associated with that apartment. I guess I didn't think my ex would actually go so far to do that to me but in retrospect I definitely had it coming.

I did end up paying the $140 in the end, but I learned some valuable lessons:

1) When you break up with someone whom you live with, be sure to have a dialogue about bills and whose name is attached to what so you don't end up in a $nafu.
2) If you get a threatening phone call from a company, pay the bills IMMEDIATELY so your credit score won't get hurt anymore than it has from the past due fines/bills/whatever.
3) Steal the cat when you walk out the door because you'll always miss the cute way he cuddled on your lap on the couch. :(

Just some tips for those dealing with bills and breakups. And yes, I do have a new girlfriend now who doesn't maliciously stick me with a $140 bill. And no, we don't have a cat. Yet.

The same goes for roommates and even amicable splits. Bills in your name should be sent only to places you're still living.

(Photo: frankieleon)

Hypothetically, your dumb boyfriend may have even taken that scammy Facebook IQ test and entered his cellphone number for the results (results: FAIL), and since you pay the bill, you're hit with a recurring $15 monthly fee from PlayPhone Inc. This is all hypothetical, of course.

If you're with AT&T, there's a simple fix for this: call them up and ask them to block purchases from that line. You'll be emailed a PIN that will be required to authorize any future purchases. Then, in our hypothetical scenario above, you can print out the PIN, delete the email, then eat the paper the PIN was printed on.

We couldn't locate similar free options from T-Mobile or Verizon, but if you're a customer and know of a free way to do the same thing, please let us know in the comments.

Sprint does offer a similar feature called Parental Controls. Or you can just wait a few more months to see if Sprint goes belly up. Ha ha I kid, Sprint. No I don't because I hate you.

(Don't feel too bad for Sprint; they overbilled my account by more than $900 several years ago, then tried to stall on returning the funds.)

(Photo: lizjones112)

He writes,

17 months ago I made a purchase on ProFlowers.com. I do recall that I was offered a number of other services after the completion, all of which I declined. I did not receive any email or other communication regarding any of these other services.

Recently, in an effort to get more control over my spending, I have been entering all of my transactions into Quicken. I noticed a repeating charge to a company called "Easy Saver" for $14.95 once a month. Not recognizing the company name I entered it into Google. Immediately I noticed a large number of hits complaining about a similar unauthorized charge after purchasing from ProFlowers.com.

I have called the number listed for Easy Saver, 1-800-355-1837, and requested a full refund. They agreed without a struggle, honestly it was too easy. I have been told that it will take 7-10 days for the refund of the first 15 payments, the other two will be via mailed check. I will follow-up with my experience after I receive this refund, but felt it pertinent to inform your readers of this potential scam.

Update: Mark wrote back in to address the suggestion in the comments below that he signed up for a free shipping offer. He says no.

I did not receive any rebate on shipping. I do specifically remember this offer but did not sign up for it. Easy Saver was unable to show any record of my having received benefit and therefore agreed to a full refund.

Oh, it also comes with an enrollment in some sort of identity theft protection program for $13 a month.

Looks like Wachovia (a Wells Fargo Company) is now taking its lead from a singing pirate. Just in time for your post yesterday on the CARD Act and its impact on "free" credit reports, I recieved the attached letter from my bank, asking me to simply attach a sticker and return the mailing in the enclosed prepaid, already-addressed envelope to get a Free Credit Report! What could be easier!

Naturally, upon reading the fine print, one finds this little doozy: "Unless I call to cancel during my thirty-day trial, my protection will be automatically continued at the $12.99 monthly credit monitoring fee, or then current monthly fee, debited from my primary Wachovia checking account each month, without my having to do anything further."

Granted, it's all laid out for you relatively clearly in the small print, but how is this any different than what FreeCreditReport.com is doing? And why is my bank selling my personal information to a third party for the sole purpose of shadily trying to get me to sign up for a "credit monitoring service" of dubious value? This stinks. The only reason I've stayed with super-inconvenient Wachovia while living in New York City is out of loyalty - I used to work for them - but if this is the way they're doing business now, screw 'em.

We know why they're doing it—because there's still a lot of confused or ignorant consumers out there who either don't know about annualcreditreport.com (the only real source of free credit reports), or who see the phrase "free credit report" and stop looking for alternatives. The sticker gimmick seems particularly silly, and aimed at customers who have an "I just won a contest!" mentality when it comes to offers in the mail.

We don't know if offers like this one will be covered under the CARD Act, because Wachovia does make it quite clear that there's going to be an ongoing fee after the first 30 days. It's nowhere near as misleading as the FreeCreditReport.com commercials, in other words.

That doesn't change the fact that if you really want to pull your credit reports for free, annualcreditreport.com is the only place where you can do it.

The bill in question is not fake and is in fact from a third-party vendor that Sprint has hired to help us with billing wireline charges to a customer who does not have an account with Sprint or to a customer whose local exchange carrier does not have a billing agreement with Sprint.

Although this explains the off-brand look of the invoice, we think Sprint—or perhaps their third-party vendor—should take greater pains to make the billing more seamless. This invoice is sort of like the American Express verification call that sounded remarkably like a social engineering scam—in both cases there were several things that we (and our OPs) interpreted as red flags, and they could have probably been explained away with better communication on the company's side.

From the original post:

Roderick writes,

My mother received a fake phone bill today. A few interesting notes:

• The number listed was not hers
• The collect call received was never made
• The P.O. box and 800 number are not in Sprint's database
• The bill stated that the charges would not show up on any other bill.

I suppose that last bit is supposed to snare people who realize that their "Sprint" bill went from vibrant yellow and black to white with a blue table. I was going to wait until the bill was scanned to send this email, but I wanted to make sure that the info went out A.S.A.P.

The guy's address is listed as:

Sprint
PO Box 600670
Jacksonville FL 32260-0670

From the letter:

THE FOLLOWING CALLS WERE COMPLETED USING SPRINT'S NETWORK.
THE CHARGES FOR THESE CALLS WILL NOT BE ON ANY OTHER TELEPHONE
COMPANY BILL. AMOUNTS DUE MAY BE REFERRED TO A COLLECTION
AGENCY IF NOT PAID. PLEASE PAY UPON RECEIPT. THANK YOU.

(Photo: RBerteig)

So like everyone else, I'm feeling the effects of the economic downturn. The last few months I have barely made my Comcast payments. I decided to downgrade service at the end of April. I spent twenty minutes on the phone with the "account specialist". Explained to her that I could no longer afford my current plan and hoped she could downgrade some things to lower my bill. She did her thing and lowered it about $40 a month. I was very pleased. She never mentioned anything about this breaking my contract or a fee. I didn't ask because I figured I was entering into a new contract.

My bill came today...$150 early termination fee.

I called and was told there is no way whatsoever to waive the fee. I asked if it was possible to switch me back to my old plan, so the fee wouldn't hit. Nope, can't do it.

It's no wonder everyone thinks these companies are the spawn of Satan.

Is there any chance at all for me to get rid of this fee?

Comcast can't rope-a-dope you into paying an early termination fee. They should have clearly warned you that changing your service level would trigger the charge. If they didnt, it's reasonable to ask them to either waive the fee or restore your old plan.

Reach out to Comcast's headquarters, either through an Executive Email Carpet Bomb, or through their ever-cheerful Twitter team.
(Photo: cmorran123)

(Photo: TheTruthAbout...)

Consumers Union has set up an action alert where you can call your Senators toll-free and tell them you're sick of being screwed by banks and credit card companies, and you'd like them to support S. 414, the Credit CARD Act.

To find out more about the current credit card legislation, check out last week's post, or the text of the House and Senate bills themselves.

(Photo: TheGiantVermin)

First, here's the backstory from Chris:

I wanted to cancel my [T-Mobile] account and return to ATT and I also wanted to get a sim unlock code for my previous T-Mobile Phone. I found a plan on ATT that would satisfy my cellular needs and I wanted to continue to use the little flip phone that I purchased with my T-Mobile account.

I called T-Mobile's customer support about 4 months ago and spoke with a very nice gentleman and he assisted me in SIM unlocking my phone and apparently canceling my account. Since I was on a Flex Pay account I was told that I was not under a "contract" like most phones but if I didn't pay my bill I would not receive a bill for the next month, kinda like a Go phone right? Wrong...

So I checked my checking account a few months back and sure enough T-Mobile continued to debit my account with a total of $51.14 each month for a total of two months. I immediately called the T-Mobile Customer Service number and expressed concern with my findings. I was told by another Customer Service Representative that under no circumstances would they ever cancel any account and not charge a early termination fee.

I was flabbergasted to say the least. I work for a very large consumer electronics company that will stay unnamed, and we pride our selves on customer service. I basically was told "you cannot speak to my supervisor because she is going to tell you the same thing I just told you." After about 45 minutes of getting a run around I politely ended the conversation and told the gentleman that I would contact an Executive for T-Mobile and I would get things straightened out myself.

Well here comes the good stuff! I immediately went to your website and searched for T-Mobile executives' emails or phone numbers. I found a great email listing for Executive Response.

Chris sent a detailed email that basically repeated what he just described above, although in greater detail including the dates and times of each discussion he had with a T-Mobile rep. He also explained just why he was frustrated by the experience so far:

I know what customer service is and I pride myself on making a situation right for the customer no matter what. So when I was told that I was going to have to pay a 200 disconnect fee to cancel my plan that I thought had already been canceled or continue to receive debits from my account, I was less than thrilled to say the least. Now I understand that business is business but I will not be responsible for an error made on the CSR's part. The other thing that I realize is that the Customer Service Team is the voice for your company to the public. So if an agent over the phone told me that everything was taken care of, but there is not a single note regarding canceling my plan but sure enough there are notes about me wanting to unlock my phone for another carrier, why do I become responsible for it? I wish I had noticed my account was being debited last month as well because this email would have been sent sooner. So far I have been charged for a phone that I no longer use nor do I have access to and to a phone number which has not been used in over two months, and the charges add up to $102.90. So it seems I have payed for 2 months of usage and I haven't even used it.

[...]
In closing I would like for you to understand what I, the customer, would like to see happen. First I would like to no longer receive debits from my account, thus canceling the account completely without paying a disconnect fee. And I would like at least one month of a credit back into my checking account. I do feel that I have been unfairly treated and unfairly charged fees that should not be there.

Here's what happened after he sent the email:

I just received a phone call by a very polite and professional woman who claimed to be from the Executive Response Team and she said she would be more that pleased to cancel my account, not charge me a termination fee and get this, refund the 2 months worth or account balance back to me in the form of a check.

All in all I just wanted to pass along the word to you guys because even though I just check the website a lot just to see how screwed up big business is in America I just so happened to be a victim and without this website I would not have known where to turn. Maybe this will be posted online and let other individuals know that there is a way to get the outcome that is right and that all we need is the resources to find out how those outcomes come to light.

If you don't know what an Executive Email Carpet Bomb (EECB) is, or how to write one, read How To Launch An Executive Email Carpet Bomb.

RELATED
"How To Launch An Executive Email Carpet Bomb"
(Photo: hirnrinde)

What we still can't figure out is why so many companies continue to go ahead and bill for activity that's going to lead to outrageous amounts like this, instead of disabling the account and sending an email, text message, or voice mail to the customer warning him about what he's doing. The caller does say that the wireless provider agreed to drop the bill to $17,000, though.

"Movie Download Madness" [CNN] (Thanks to Alan!)

Taylor writes:

I've just gotten off the phone with T-Mobile—actually, they hung up on me, immediately after I told them I wanted to cancel my service and would be sending a report to The Consumerist. I had a Blackberry Pearl that broke on me, back in August. I replaced it with a non-data phone, and used t-mobile.com to cancel my Blackberry data add-on in August of 2008. Flash forward to earlier this afternoon, when I received notice that my bill was past due, and for an amount significantly higher than what I thought it should be. I opened up 'My Services" on the their website, and found that I've been charged $19.99 a month for the Blackberry add-on since August, with no interruption, despite my canceling the service and not even owning a Blackberry. T-mobile admitted their error and offered to credit back the last 60 days of Blackberry service, but refused to credit back the remaining five months they've charged me for services not rendered. As mentioned at the begining of this email, I was hung up on immediately after mentioning the consumerist.

The call went like this:

Tmobile: "Sorry, that's all we can offer you, the last 60 days."
Taylor: "So, roughly $40?"
Tmobile: "It would be... let's see, it comes out to $39.98"
Taylor: "And you owe me, doing the math in my head, $140?"
Tmobile: "We can only credit back the last 60 days, I'm sorry."
Taylor: "That's unacceptable."
Tmobile: "Sorry, that's all we can do."
Taylor: "Okay, please cancel my service immediately"
Tmobile: "Are you sure?"
Taylor: "Yes, please cancel my service."
Tmobile: "You're out of contract, there's no termination fee. You can get a new phone if you extend—"
Taylor: "Please cancel my service."
Tmobile: "We can credit you that $40."
Taylor: "When you owe me $140? That's unacceptable, please cancel my service, and I will be writing The Consumerist about this."
*click*

I'm on my way to the nearest Verizon store.

Verizon's policies aren't any more consumer-friendly than T-Mobile's—telecoms are all largely the same—but the incident should serve as a reminder to keep a close eye on your bills, and to immediately dispute problems as they arise.

(Photo:Crawfishpie)

Jeff writes, probably in the dark from under his desk, trembling in fear,

I'm working from home today and an IDT rep saw me through my ground floor window. He circled back and tapped on the window with his pen. He said "Excuse me" I looked at him, saw his IDT id tag around his neck, and said "No thank you." He stuttered slightly and said "Have a good day." Now he's trying to buzz into my building. So far no one has obliged, but is there some way to report this guy before he gains access? My apartment building is mostly old people or people who don't speak English very well, so I'm concerned about the big scam potential. If he comes by my window again I'm gonna get a picture of him for you.

A few minutes later, Jeff emailed us again. This time he was probably locked inside a cabinet, trying very hard to type quietly.

So I read some of your past articles about IDT, and called the attorney general's office. The first guy who answered said he had heard about IDT, and thanked me for calling, and said he'd transfer me to "Investigations." But when I got connected there, the woman had no idea what IDT was, and didn't really seem to care about my explanation. I even told her to go to your website. She ended up just taking my address and said she'd send a form so I could file a report. Unfortunately, there's not much to report, as I didn't let the guy give me his pitch. In hindsight maybe I should have let him in, but I have two kittens, and I read what they do to pets! [They kidnap them. -Ed.] So for now, I'm posting a note in my building lobby warning people about IDT and suggesting they visit your site for more info.

Jeff brings up a good point, which is that in NYC there are a lot of people who maybe don't speak or read English that well. In an attempt to spread the word about IDT, we've written a short Spanish version of a warning. Unfortunately, we don't know Spanish very well. Please improve upon this in the comments (maybe take out the zombie references), and we'll post a downloadable PDF warning in English and Spanish next week.

¡Peligroso!

No abiertes la puerta por zombis de IDT. [Something here like, "They will try to get your account information for ConEd, and then will switch you to a more expensive service without your permission."]

Si tu lee un IDT zombi, email detalles a escocomplaint@gmail.com, o llame 718-766-8828

You can also copy or print out this statement to get the word out.

RELATED
"New York Asks You To Report IDT Energy"
(Photo: atp_tyreseus)

Screw the Recession: How to Spend Less and Get More [Gizmodo] (Photo: Listener42)

Michael writes:

Got this in the mail. The other side of it is meant to look like a generic ad listing all their channels—they probably were hoping most people would ignore it and throw it out. However if you look closely they will now charge you $5 for the privilege of downgrading your service, which, according to their rep is a "processing fee."

Given that this is occurring at the same time as they are hiking rates across the board and removing channels (like Nick West) to bundle into premium-priced packages, my guess is they are trying to make money off of the people who will inevitably be pissed at the rate hike and seek to downgrade their services once they go into effect.

Gotta love the continued nickel and diming. At least they still offer the best internet access in Chicago in terms of service...no transfer caps, no throttling (that I'm aware of). I feel like I'm picking between the lesser of two evils though.

My fiance and I signed up for Cox cable service [in San Diego] last May when we bought a home together. We signed up in her name as she was an existing subscriber and just transfered her account to our new address. We married, but still received our cable bill under her previous name. I handle the bills so we decided to have it sent to us under my name.

My wife set it up over the phone no problem. When I received the new bill under my name, I discovered a $20 Digital Activation Fee and a $20 Video Activation Fee in addition to our regular charges.

I called customer service and spoke to Michael. After looking into the issue, he said it was a legitimate charge as they had to disconnect the service, then reconnect the service back on to change our name! He was sorry, but that's the way that they do it.

I couldn't believe it. Seriously. Since when do you have to physically turn a service off then turn it back on again to change a name on a computer screen?

I'm not a huge fan of AT&T, but if they bring their UVerse video service to our neighborhood, I will remember this incident.

(Photo: LabyrinthX)

Adriana Lee at phonedog.com gives the details:

Here's how it works: New Virgin customers who choose plans priced at $29.99 or more get the Pink Slip plan immediately, but aren't eligible for benefits until they've satisfied two months of paid service. Existing customers don't have to wait two months, but need to sign up before the June 30th cut-off date. To activate the plan, Virgin Mobile requires proof of state-unemployment-benefits eligibility.

As you can see, the coverage isn't automatic, so if you're a Virgin Mobile customer be sure to follow up on it after tomorrow.

"Got laid off? Virgin Mobile's got you covered" [phonedog.com]
(Photo: snofla)

The bill's sponsor, Tim Burchett, said consumers shouldn't have to be held accountable for delays beyond their control:

It is not right for credit card consumers to pay late fees if the payment is sitting on the desk of an employee of the credit card company or if it arrives late due to slow mail... Many Tennesseans have faced these charges, even though they made their payments on time.... Consumers should not have to pay for the mistakes of others when their efforts can be proved by a postmark.

What an awesome bill; we hope it goes through. It would be nice, too, if other states step up to protect their residents, especially since the federal government has been so slow to act.

"Pro-Business Committee Passes Pro-Consumer Bill" [Knox News](Thanks to Jeff!)
(Photo: Steve 2.0)

"New Bill Looks to Clamp Down on Mobile Spam" [InternetNews via mocoNews]
(Photo: nate steiner)

PJ writes:

My wife just received a bill for $1800 for my wife's blackberry when she normally pays around $65. They claim she used 150mb of data and charge an outrageous amount per kb for an extra $1500 in data charges and $200 in taxes! They can't explain what the data was that caused this mess and expect us to pay the bill. She has had her Blackberry for 2 years and never had a bill over $70 and never used more than the 4mb (that's the blackberry plan she is on).

I can't believe that they expect us to just pay the bill.

I would try the ol' escalation trick to get this figured out.

Here's her story:

In my area (Portland, OR) Comcast recently "upgraded" their digital service (which seems like a downgrade to me, because it required me to get 2 "digital adapters" so I could continue to get the same channels I already got on my televisions with a cable box). This is unrelated to the FCC digital switch. Long story short, they offered me an option - pay $20 and have someone come out and install the adapters, or for free they would mail me a "self-install kit" - I chose the free option, and then on my monthly bill had a $9.95 shipping charge. Comcast says they'll remove the charge, but I just wonder how many customers didn't notice this charge and trusted that it would be free, like Comcast originally said....? Might be worth letting Comcasters know to watch out for this... $9.95 x lots of Comcast customers = more $ than I'll ever have!

(Photo: dizznbonn)