Waits improve at IndyMac bank branches [LAT] (Thanks to Kathy!)

(Photo: zoliblog)

Our friend, travel expert Christopher Elliott has opened our eyes this morning with the story of Wendy Watkins. She was scheduled to fly from Oakland to Southern California, but accidentally boarded an nearly identical-looking flight to New York. Her flight was scheduled to leave a 1:00 pm from Gate 9, the New York flight left at 1:00 pm from Gate 9a.

How could this happen? How could JetBlue scan Wendy's boarding pass and not notice that she was on the wrong flight?

From Elliott.org:

I went to what I thought was my gate, and waited for them to call my boarding class. When the line died down I walked up to the ticketing area, gave them my ticket, they ’scanned’ it, and gave me back my half.

I then got on the plane and off we went. About a half hour into the flight I looked down at the landscape and thought it looked a little odd. I took my ticket out and the lady next to me looked at it and said, “That’s not good, this flight it going to New York.”

I couldn’t believe it! How was I able to get on this flight? They took my ticket and supposedly scanned it but still let me on the flight.

I guess where I got confused was the fact that there was a gate 9 and 9a and they were both leaving at 1 p.m. I didn’t even think twice about it. Also, the ladies next to me said that it was weird how they never mentioned that we were taking off to New York, like they usually do. It was a string of unfortunate events.

JetBlue flew her back, but is unwilling to offer additional compensation because it was "human error." Wendy also says the supervisor she spoke to was condescending and rude. Hey JetBlue, can't you do a little bit better? Yes, she made a mistake, but in this case, human error was a two-way street.

“The worst travel experience I’ve ever had” [Elliott]

The California Public Utilities Commission and state officials believed that crisis-era pacts with San Diego-based Sempra Energy and others were costing consumers an extra $1.45 billion to $3.08 billion — an amount they had hoped to return to electricity customers, possibly by reducing or eliminating future charges.

A Washington utility had hoped to get relief from a nine-year power contract with Morgan Stanley Capital Group. Under that contract, the Snohomish County Public Utility District is paying $105 a megawatt-hour, well above the historic norm for the Pacific Northwest of $24 a megawatt-hour, but also well under the $3,300 a megawatt-hour hit at the peak of the energy crisis that spread beyond California's borders, according to the court's synopsis.

Justice Scalia scolded the states for whining about "buyer's remorse." Roger Berliner, a lawyer for Nevada utility Sierra Pacific Resources, applauded the Justice for his unrivaled ability to blind himself to reason:

"It was the failure of regulators to protect consumers from market manipulation" that caused the utilities to overpay for power. I don't think the court appreciated the extent to which the dysfunction in the market made it impossible for there to be just and reasonable contracts."

Supreme Court deals blow to states on electricity [Los Angeles Times]



(Photo: Getty)

The Illinois lawsuit alleges Countrywide "caused significant harm to the public, the market, and scores of Illinois borrowers and homeowners," and seeks damages for residents affected by foreclosure. Attorney General Jerry Brown of California accuses Countrywide of deceptively marketing risky mortgages to consumers and plotting to "mass produce loans for sale on the secondary market." The California lawsuit also seeks restitution for affected borrowers. Both lawsuits also named Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo as a defendant.
Illinois to Sue Countrywide Over Lending Practices [CNN]
Calif AG Sues Countrywide Over Alleged Loan Scheme [NYT]

To Whom It May Concern,

I have never contacted any company with a complaint before, however my recent experience with American Airlines was the single worst consumer experience I've ever had. From beginning to end my friend and I were confronted with rude representative, lies and absolutely no concern for the completely screwed up travel plans.

I purchased a roundtrip ticket on American Airlines for my friend to fly out from Los Angeles to Atlanta for my wedding.

The problems started in LA where the planes was delayed, initially gate agents claimed this was because of thunderstorms in Dallas where my friend was connecting on to ATL.

However, another wedding guest was already in Dallas, where as he told me, "there isn't a cloud in sky." Eventually, after several hours delay attendants admitted that the flight was waiting for a fax regarding permission for another passenger who needed an oxygen supply for the flight.

Eventually the flight left LA, but by then the connecting flight was long gone. The next connecting flight from Dallas to Atlanta was the next morning, forcing my friend to spend the night in the Dallas airport.

Not only was my friend not offered a hotel room for the night, the attendants in Dallas wouldn't even give her or other passengers blankets, water or any other basic necessities.

So she and the other passengers were forced to spend the night hungry and cold, unable to sleep or leave the airport.

My understanding of your "conditions of carriage" agreement is that my friend deserves compensation. The relevant section reads: "If the delay or cancellation was caused by events within our control and we do not get you to your final destination on the expected arrival day, we will provide reasonable overnight accommodations, subject to availability."

The fact that attendant already refused to provide meal vouchers or a hotel room means that, in my view, my friend deserves some sort of flight voucher or other compensation.

To make matters worse I (since I paid for the ticket) attempted to contact American Airlines on my friend's behalf to complain about her treatment and was told that customer service complaints may only be made through e-mail, mail or fax. Fine. So I filled out the form on your website outline the same issues mentioned here and I received back a form letter thanking me for the positive feedback.

Some people will keep their mouth shut and usually I am one of these people. I feel violated, taken advantage of and left with only one choice which is that letter. I realize there's no guarantee this will be read and not just rerouted to the problem customer file to never be looked at again.

To assure myself that have done all that is possible to have my letter read by all powers that be, I will be forwarding this to as many executive email addresses that I can find.

Cheers,
S.

Good luck, S, and good letter. It's clear, directly asks for specific compensation, and lays out the concrete reasons why they owe it to you. We hope it gets you what you deserve.

(Photo: zonaphoto)

Dear Mr. R:

Thank you for contacting Tony Roma's Guest Relations. Please accept our apologies for the disappointment you had at Tony Roma's in San Francisco, CA. Each guest plays an important role in helping us maintain the standards by which we operate and we appreciate your feedback. Your message is being forwarded to the franchise owner/operator and the Director of Franchise Operations for this location. Management would like to discuss your visit and will contact you at the earliest opportunity. Thank you.

Martha Killion
Guest Relations
Romacorp, Inc.

Alex has promised to keep us updated on this developing story. We shall wait and see whether they make things right, or decide to reinvent math.

PREVIOUSLY: Tony Roma's, Where 16oz = 14oz

(Photo: Rick McCharles)

Alex and his friend went to Tony Roma's, a casual dining place known for its ribs, and got a little twinge in their torso when they realized that the "16 ounce" beer they were served came in a 14 ounce glass. The glass was just as tall as a normal glass, but it had a thicker bottom, making it hold less. These glasses are known as "falsies." The friends might not have noticed the difference except that Alex's buddy got his beer served in a normal glass and Alex got the thick-bottomed one. They conducted experiments involving pouring water between the different glasses and concluded that yes, Alex got 2 ounces less. When they complained, the manager said, "who said we served pints?" and said it was policy to only serve beer in 14 ounce glasses, and soda in 16 ounce glasses. Which might have been ok, except when the waiter first took their order, he specifically asked whether they would like 16 ounces or 23 ounces. 16 is not 14. Alex's letter, inside...

Dear Consumerist,

My friend and I went to Tony Roma's in San Francisco Friday 6/13. We decided to go there to get dinner and a couple of beers. I read your site frequently and had already seen the post about restaurants using glass that hold 14 ounce instead of a 16 ounce pint. I also forwarded the article to my friend who came with me that day.

The waiter comes to our table and asks us if we would like drinks. My Friend orders a Spaten and I order an Anchor Steam and the waiter asks us if we would like a 16 oz or 23 oz glass. We both opted for the 16 oz glass. Once they arrived I noticed that my glass had a thicker bottom on it than my friends. We immediately realized I had been given the smaller sized glass. My Friend was like you should complain and I told him I would not until we got our food because I did not want them to spit in it. We finished our first beers and my friend orders another one to make sure it is not just a mistake. He ordered another Anchor Steam and the glass that it came in was the same size as the one that I had drank.

After we finished our food we got a couple glasses of water. We poured water into the glass we thought was actually a pint, filling it to the top. Then we poured the water in that glass into the ones we thought were smaller. We figured if both glass held the same amount of water then we were wrong and would not complain. After pouring the water into the smaller glass we found that about 2 oz of water was left in the bigger glass.

At this point my friend went up the manager at the front of the restaurant to complain about the beer. He lets the lady know that we ordered pints but that the beer was served in 14 ounce glasses instead of 16 ounce ones. To which the manager asked how he knew that there were 16 ounces in a pint. My friend told her he had been drinking beer long enough to know what is in a pint. She then told him that beer is served in 14 ounce glasses and they only served soda in the 16 ounce glasses. He told then asked why they served him a 16 ounce glass and me a 14 ounce one. She then asked him who said they served pints?

At this point my friend came back to the table so we could pay our bill and leave. He did not tell me what had happened until after we left the place or I would have pointed out that our waiter in fact asked us if we wanted 16 oz or 23 oz.

We understand that they may not serve full pints and maybe the waiter was mistaken in asking us if we wanted 16 or 23 oz, but I really couldn't picture the wait staff asking customer if they wanted 14 or 23 oz. Not to mention the price for the beer is what you would expect to pay for a pint at the bar across the walkway from Tony Roma's. I have emailed their corporate site to see if they respond, I am not expecting much. We would have hoped they would at most take a little off the bill like a dollar or at the very least apologize, but no such luck.

I have no intention of going to Tony Roma's again and if by chance I do I will be sure to order a soda since I get a full 16 oz and free refills.

Sincerely,

Alex R.

If this happens to you, the Wall Street Journal advises you wait for the foam to settle and then ask for a "top-off."

I just wanted to share with you my story all about how the uhaul company is a poorly managed company that you should avoid at all costs.

Last weekend I moved. As part of this move, I made a reservation for a 17 foot Uhaul truck. I made this reservation weeks in advance, and after doing so I received a confirmation email (complete with confirmation number and everything!) I even received a nice phone call from someone at uhaul confirming my reservation. At this point I was very pleased and I was impressed with the way Uhaul actually called me to confirm. These people were really on top of things... or so I thought.

The day of the reservation comes, and I show up at the alloted time (9 am) at the Uhaul location on my reservation:
U-HAUL CENTER SUNNYVALE
939 E EL CAMINO REAL
SUNNYVALE, CA 94086
(408) 735-7060

Inside the uhaul place there is a long line of people in front of me. Directly in front of me in line is a girl and when it's her turn she walks up to the counter and says "I have a reservation for a 17 foot truck" (the same type of truck I had reserved). At this point point the clerk behind the counter looks at his board of truck keys which is conspicuously missing keys in the "17 foot Truck" section of the board. He looks back at the girl... looks again... pauses... looks back at the girl
and says "you have a reservation?"
"yes"
"I'm all out of 17 foot trucks"

At this point it was obvious that my day was not going to go as planned. So after a lot of frantic calling around and talking to people, the clerk does his best to come up with a solution for the girl. The solution was to give her a 14 foot truck instead of 17 foot. She reluctantly agreed and commented that now she would have to take two trips. The clerk told her it was his last 14 foot truck.

Now I was becoming nervous I wasn't going to get a truck at all... then I started thinking about how I had a reservation, and how it had been confirmed both via email and a phonecall.

It was then that I noticed the large poster behind the counter that said in big bold letters "RESERVATION GUARANTEED" Under the big bold letters it had check boxes for "Equipment", "Location" and "Time" indicating that these were the three criteria guaranteed by the reservation. Lastly, it stated that Uhaul would compensate the customer $50 should they fail at providing their guarantee.

OK... so.. at least I had that, I thought to myself. Surely I was entitled to this $50 as clearly my 17 foot truck that I was promised was not in stock.

I get to the counter, and inform the man that I too had a reservation for a 17 foot truck. At which point he tells me to stand to the side while he figures it out. He makes more frantic phonecalls in a valiant effort to track down my missing truck. As expected he offers me a 14 foot truck just like he did the girl before me. At this point I was happy to have a truck at all, seeing as I had to be out of my apartment that day and had already rounded up a group of my friends to help me.

I agreed that while not ideal, I could use the 14 foot truck he was offering instead. He then tells me that the girl before me got the last 14 foot truck at our location and that I had to drive a few miles down the road to another uhaul to get my truck. I was thinking in my head that it seems like they should at least drive the truck to me, seeing as how they were the ones who had screwed up my supposedly "guaranteed" reservation, but I took comfort in the fact that surely I would be able to get this $50 discount that was clearly posted on the wall.

I said to the clerk "so, I'm getting a 50 dollar discount on this, right?" and he tells me he cant do that. I point to the poster and say "Your poster says that I'm guaranteed equipment, location and time... none of those criteria have been met today." He turns around and looks at the poster like he's never seen it before in his life, and turns back around and says "well you are getting a truck, i cant give you 50 dollars and a truck."

I knew this was complete BS, but it was obvious I wasn't going to get anywhere with this clerk and I was already an hour behind schedule. So I decide to go to the other location and get the 14 foot truck.. which I get, and have the same conversation with the clerk there about this so called guarantee. I get the same answer from him. Of course after all of this i was seething mad, and I decided that I better go home and read the fine print on this "guarantee", before I strangle the guy behind the counter.
Here it is:

Item number 5 does indeed state that they can substitute equipment, but ONLY if it is of equal or greater value than the equipment reserved.

I was promised a certain truck (or better) at a certain location, at a certain time, or else I would receive 50 dollars. What I got was a different truck at a different location at a different time, and no 50 dollars.

So, this means that Uhaul doesn't make good on their guarantees and you cannot rely on them.

After having this experience I was dismayed to find that there was already a class action lawsuit against Uhaul for this exact same issue:

It appears as though Uhaul has not changed it's policies one bit.

I have sent this story to the uhaul customer service address and were given a confirmation that I would be contacted in two business days. It has been over two days and I have not been contacted yet... which I am not really that surprised about. I'm really less concerned about being compensated my 50 dollars and more concrned with making sure no one else has to deal with the extreme hassle that I had to deal with. I don't know what I would have done had they been completely out of even the inferior trucks.

The so-called $50 guarantee was actually the product of the class action settlement — so unless we're crazy you're actually legally entitled to it. We'd report them to the California Attorney General's office for not living up to the terms of their settlement. Anyone have any other ideas? Anyone managed to collect on this $50 "guarantee?"

From the San Jose Mercury News:

The giant fencing organizations came tumbling down Wednesday when a joint task force arrested 17 people, including 11 in San Jose, on charges of federal money laundering and interstate transportation of stolen goods. They confiscated six semi-trucks loaded with $5.5 million in stolen property and - along with pallets of Tylenol and Oil of Olay - seized $140,000 in cash, gold bars, Mercedeses and diamonds.

The investigation was titled "Operation Norcal Shortdate," referring to Northern California and the slang for a product about to expire. Officials said the busts had brought down major local players in the $30 billion black market in stolen retail merchandise.

"This wasn't where they were ripping off product and selling it from the back of a truck on some street corner, these were very organized operations," said San Jose Police Chief Rob Davis.

Aside from driving up the cost of goods for consumers, these bandits sold products which may have become unsafe by improper storage.

The hordes of "booster" thieves are not directly related to the crime organizations. They are independent bandits who hit store after store on a routine basis, stealing a variety of products from Safeway, Target, Walgreen's, Longs Drugs and Savemart. They might stealthily stuff handfuls of Claritin into their clothes or boldly make off with shopping carts full of items without paying.

They would contact the Vo and Le organizations to "fence" the merchandise, receiving 25 cents on the dollar. The families were not cooperating but acted as "friendly competitors," according to officers John Barg and Doug Gerbrandt, the lead case agents.

"We were impressed with their sophistication," Barg said. "They treated this trade as if it were a real job and they worked pretty hard at it and at concealing what they were doing. They were smart, but not enough to outsmart us."

The Vo organization worked their operation out of two San Jose storefronts - JV Tool and Wholesale on Senter Road and on Old Bayshore Highway.

On the surface the businesses were tool shops. But in the back, there were giant warehouses of locally stolen merchandise, repackaged and organized, ready to be shipped.

The organization would regularly ship out four to six pallets of stolen products a month to various locations in Utah, Florida and New York. Police estimated that each pallet is worth approximately $120,000 in retail value.

San Jose police bust huge criminal retailing rings [SJMN]

(Thanks to Ronald!)
(Photo: Mike McCaffrey)

The 25-page lawsuit, a copy of which was reviewed by The Times, claims the company violated its franchise agreement with the city by having subscribers spend hours on hold with customer service representatives and allowing excessive repair work delays.

"Hundreds of thousands of Los Angeles residents were ripped off," Delgadillo said in a statement. "Time Warner must be held accountable for its promises."

The lawsuit cites several examples of how Time Warner Cable mislead customers or failed to live up to agreements made when it became the main cable provider for Los Angeles two years ago, including:

• their advertising gave a false impression that prices would remain the same
• they failed to answer 90% of customer service calls within 30 seconds, which is a requriement of their franchise cable agreement
• their technicians failed to show up on time or complete repairs promptly

The paper says Time Warner Cable could face "civil penalties of tens of millions of dollars." We can't wait to see what Time Warner Cable says about this.

"L.A. to sue Time Warner Cable over poor service" [Los Angeles Times]
(Photo: Getty)

"When we were trying to sell the house one time, there were about 100 paparazzi there," Davis, the real estate agent who holds the listing, told the AP.

McMahon's spokesperson says that Ed's been unable to work since breaking his neck 18 months ago.

"There are plenty of people affected by the weak economy, bad housing market or bad health," Bragman told the AP.

He also said that McMahon and his wife are negotiating with Countrywide, but it's unclear whether or not they will be able to stay in the home.

Countrywide declined to comment. Um, does anyone want to show up at Ed McMahon's door with a giant check? Save Ed!

Ed McMahon fighting foreclosure on his Beverly Hills home [AP]
(AP Photo/Matt Sayles, FILE)

The San Diego Union Tribune asked the company what they were thinking:

“We want to reduce our inventory,” Connal says. “We're prepared to bite the bullet. ... Right now, every builder I know is selling houses at less than it costs to build them.”

Connal insists the sales prices are legitimate. The first few row homes sold for about $540,000. The market subsequently went south, and the price dropped to $400,000. Several of the 2-acre estate homes closed escrow for between $1.6 million and $1.8 million.

Apparently, they've only gotten one offer — but instead of a BOGO, the buyer wants to trade his current house toward one of Michael Crews'. They're thinking it over.

Buy $1.6 million estate, get a row home for free [SDUT]
Buy One Get One Free [Austen Real Estate Blog]
Michael Crews

From the San Jose Mercury News:

We're halfway down the block when the manager comes running out and tells us to stop right there,"' Fukuba said.

The students were ordered to return to the store, where a security guard and the manager called police, Vicenti said.

Sgt. Sandra Brown confirmed that the store called the Palo Alto Police Department and an officer responded, but made no arrests. She said the store issued the teens an "admonishment" to leave the store, but police did not force them out.

After being lectured by the manager on the dangers of "hacking" into the phones, the teens were photographed and told their pictures were being sent to all Apple stores "so they'd be on the lookout for us," Rogers said.

He and Patel were then allowed to leave. Fukuba and Vicenti, who are both under 18, had to wait for their parents to come pick them up.

Over the next few days, the boys worried about the ban's repercussions.

Fukuba wondered what will happen if he needs to get his computer or iPhone repaired.

"I'll have to get a friend to buy stuff for me, like a drug deal," Fukuba said.

Later in the week, the teens had heard through a friend that a different manager had told said they were still welcome at Apple, despite what the other employees had said.

"I'm not really sure what's going on," Fukuba said.

An Apple spokesperson confirms that the teenagers are not banned from the Apple store in any way: "They were not banned from that store or any other store," he said.

Teens say they were banned from Apple stores for life, company denies it [SJMN]
(Photo: epicharmus )

"He made a mathematical decision and just let it go," said Gregory Emerson, Mr. Canseco's lawyer.

Mr. Canseco bought the 7,300-square-foot home in Encino, Calif., for nearly $2.8 million in 2005, according to public records. He transferred partial ownership to a trust last year, according to Mr. Emerson. That trust defaulted on mortgage payments in October, and foreclosure was recorded in February, public records show.

The house already had at least one lien placed on it, from the Internal Revenue Service, and a judgment stemming from a 2005 court ruling in which Mr. Canseco and his brother Ozzie were found liable for a 2001 brawl in a Miami Beach nightclub. Together, the liens and judgment totaled some $1.3 million, according to Mr. Emerson and Tina Cameron, Mr. Canseco's real-estate agent.

"Given that there were liens on the house and the market had gone down, he made the decision to let it go," Mr. Emerson said. He said that the decline in property values alone meant that Mr. Canseco's equity in the house had fallen by about $1 million.

Mr. Canseco is currently promoting his second tell-all about steroid-use in Major League Baseball, and continues to assist federal agents who are investigating Roger Clemens for perjury, etc. Canseco told Inside Edition:

“I do have a judgment on my home and it to me is very strange because it didn’t make financial sense for me to keep paying a mortgage on a home that was basically owned by someone else."

“I decided to just let it go, but in most cases and most families, they have nowhere else to go,” he said

Home Run: Canseco Lets House Go Into Foreclosure [WSJ]
Jose Canseco: Walking Away from His Mortgage ‘Not Difficult Emotionally’ [WSJ]
(AP Photo/Luis M. Alvarez)

MetLife, Prudential and Unum Insurance have settled with the San Diego DA's office over their alleged payments in the hundreds of thousands to an insurance broker to send business their way. Universal Life Resources (ULR) was contracted to get the best insurance value for life, disability, and health insurance by large businesses for their employees. Instead, the suit claims, ULR got payments to funnel business to the insurers. The settlement calls for the insurers to pay a total of $1.1 million, which will fund more public enforcement of fair competition cases.

DA Announces $1.1 Million Settlement With Insurance Companies Accused of Secret Payments (PDF) [Press Release]

(Photo: Getty)

Since 2004, UCSF said it provided the names and addresses of 30,590 patients to Target America, paying the company $12,000 a year.

Hospital officials said it contracted with the company to assist "with identifying names of individuals who could potentially receive communications from UCSF."

"Identification of potential donors who were active in the philanthropic community was one objective, along with identifying individuals who had corporate relationships, such as board service, or were affiliated with relevant community programs and health care biomedical organizations," Kaarlela said.

After the breach was discovered, the hospital said it required Target America to hire "an objective third-party firm" to investigate. UCSF received the forensic analysis report March 26. It showed that information was potentially accessible from July 1 to Oct. 9 last year "if a query for a specific name was made." Notification letters were mailed to patients April 4.

To Dixon, the expert on medical identity, the disclosure lag was far too long.

"In Internet years, that's a century," she said.

In January, California began requiring health care providers to alert consumers if their medical information is breached. Swift notification is considered important so consumers can monitor credit reports and bills.

According to Joanne McNabb, chief of the California Office of Privacy Protection, notice should be given "in the most expedient time possible, without unreasonable delay."

"It's a judgment call, the how and the when part," McNabb said. "The idea is to give early warning so that people can take defensive action. On the other hand, you don't want to needlessly worry people."

It's not the worst case of lost records we've seen, but mining for donors seems so much worse than "whoops, lost another laptop!" At least people's social security numbers weren't included with the data. People who think their identity may have been stolen should pour themselves a stiff drink before sitting down to read this comprehensive post.

6,000 UCSF patients' data got put online [San Francisco Chronicle] (Thanks to Paul!)
(Photo: Getty)

"It was a switched card reader at one of the aisles," McCarty said. Recent shoppers of the Los Gatos Lunardi's should check the status of their bank or credit card accounts for charges they did not make, according to police. "Specifically look for charges in the Southern California area, Pasadena, Huntington; that's where most of them seem to be," McCarty said.

The Charlotte Observer says that the lender has increased its security and filed a civil lawsuit in Orange County, CA. The lawsuit names "three California-based mortgage lenders, eight individuals and two other businesses as co-defendants."

LendingTree did not say how many customers' accounts were exposed, but the article did say that the company was notifying consumers who they believe were affected.

LendingTree tells clients of breach [Charlotte Observer] (Thanks, Sarah!)

UPDATE: Reader Chris forwarded the letter that LendingTree is sending out:

April 21, 2008

Dear LendingTree Customer:

We want you to know that some loan request forms our customers sent to LendingTree may have been seen by lenders without our consent. These lenders then used the forms to market their own mortgage loans to our customers. While we don't believe that the forms were used for any other purpose, we want you to know what happened and what we did to correct this situation, as well as what you can do to monitor your credit records.

What Happened and What We Did

Recently, LendingTree learned that several former employees may have helped a handful of mortgage lenders gain access to LendingTree's customer information by sharing confidential passwords with the lenders. When we learned of this situation, we quickly contacted the authorities, and LendingTree is helping with their investigation. We promptly made several system security changes. We also brought lawsuits against those involved.

Based on our investigation, we understand that these mortgage lenders used the passwords to access LendingTree's customer loan request forms, normally available only to LendingTree-approved lenders, to market loans to those customers. The loan request forms contained data such as name, address, email address, telephone number, Social Security number, income and employment information. We believe these lenders accessed LendingTree's loan request forms between October 2006 and early 2008.

What You Can Do

Again, we don't believe any identity theft or fraudulent financial activity resulted from this situation. However, we suggest you get a free credit report. Look for any accounts you didn't open and/or inquiries from creditors that you didn't initiate. If you see anything you don't understand, contact the credit bureau. If you see anything suspicious, you may want to file a fraud alert with the bureaus. For more information on how to do this, please refer to LendingTree's Guide to Protecting Your Credit and Identity.

Where to Get More Information

We regret any inconvenience and apologize for any unwanted mortgage calls you may have received. For more information about this situation, and for more information on what you can do, please refer to the attached Questions & Answers .

Sincerely,

R.L. Harris

I just wanted to provide some clarification regarding Daniel's situation. The technician parked in front of Daniel's house did not disconnect the connection in any way. But we did want to try to resolve the issue for Daniel as quickly as possible. We received the initial call regarding the outage at 11:00 AM. We had a technician at his location by 3:00. The technician verified the connection and identified a network problem that could not be rectified (or caused) on the Customer's premises. We escalated the situation to have this looked into. We also promised to have this resolved within 1 business day. The next afternoon we called Daniel to inform him the network issue was resolved. We have also apologized to him for the problem occurring in the first place. The initial outage occurred on April 8 and it was resolved on April 9. We have also followed up with Daniel to make sure that he has not had further problems.

It is certainly our goal to avoid outages, but at times they do occur. When this happens we want to resolve it as quickly as possible. This was not related to wiring or connections, so this was not the doing of the technician in question.

We do apologize that the van was blocking his driveway and for the inconvenience of the outage!

PREVIOUSLY: Ask Comcast Tech To Move His Van, Mysteriously Lose Signal

(photo: Spidra Webster)

I just started reading The Consumerist. I did a search on bedbugs to see if you had any posts, and then thought I'd tell you my own story after reading about the people who found bedbugs in a Santa Monica hotel. In August of last year, I stayed at the Holiday Inn in Santa Monica.

The last night of my stay, I woke up about 2am, got up for a minute, but when I went back to bed, I saw a small bug crawling on my bed. Then I looked at the other bed, and saw another tiny brown bug. Grabbed kleenex, tossed them in the toilet, but every time I walked back to the beds, there were more of them. Most were tiny and brown, a couple of them were larger and a dark black/brown. Didn't know what they were, but I called down and asked the front desk to move me to a different room. Was creeped out, but didn't think anything of it until three mornings after I returned home, I woke up covered in bites. Did some research, and figured out that they were bedbug bites (three bites in a row, that swelled up and were very itchy). The pictures I found matched the bugs I saw on the bed in the hotel room. I had to go back to that hotel the following week (for work, the company booked the room) and I told them that I had found bugs in my home which matched the bugs I found in their hotel. Got a gee, that's too bad response.

Once I confirmed with an exterminator that I did have bedbugs, I called the hotel again. Got another gee, that's too bad response, but they did refund the cost of the stay (about $950). Over the next month and a half ( the time it took to get the exterminator to my apartment and then get the treatment) I spent about $5000 on dry cleaning, storage supplies, the exterminator, and moving out of my apartment during the two-week treatment. I called the hotel again, and asked them to cover those costs. Since then, I've been given the run around, ignored by the hotel manager, passed off to corporate who said gee, that's too bad but it's up to the hotel, and finally given over to a risk management/insurance firm for InterContinental Hotels. This firm has called me a liar, said that I didn't have proof of bedbugs being in my apartment because even though I found them in my apartment and the exterminator confirmed what they were and treated, the exterminator never wrote down specifically that they found bedbugs, that because I didn't go to the doctor and have the doctor confirm that the bites were from bedbugs that I had no proof that they were indeed bedbug bites, and now will not return phone calls. They say that the hotel exterminator checked all the rooms and found no evidence of bedbugs, even though the hotel told me that their exterminator wasn't looking only for bedbugs, just does a bi-weekly sweep for general problems and didn't find anything.

I'm staying after them, but the worst thing I can wish on them is not that I go to court, sue them and they lose - it's that the hotel management and the people from this risk management company all bring home bed bugs and have to go through the sheer hell that is getting rid of them.

Regards,
Sarah

Here's some advice for travelers from Harvard University (PDF):

During travel, before you check into a hotel, check into the mattress. Carefully remove the sheets and examine the head section of the bed, look at the seams of the mattress as well as both sides of the head board. If you see any small insects in either of these locations, they are probably bed bugs.

Bringing your favorite pillow along on your travels may increase the chances of this pillow becoming infested with bed bugs and the transport of these bed bugs back to your home. If you have a favorite pillow, make sure it is encased in a bed bug proof sealed pillow case.

Remember not to place your luggage next to the bed. Find a location as far from the head of the bed as possible, and store your luggage in this location. This same principal applies to portable radios and other items that could conceal bed bugs.

If you do see bed bugs or think you have been bitten by bed bugs during your travel, it is extremely important to report this incident to the hotel management or else other unsuspecting individuals may meet the same fate.

Any readers been through what Sarah is going through? Advice?

(Photo:Getty)

Tess Vigeland from Marketplace Money found one of these mythical towns and interviewed some of the residents. With so many houses standing empty, one of the few remaining families has decided to stop paying their mortgage. You might expect tears, but the Sinclairs say it feels "great" to be living rent free with a "bank full of money":

Sinclair: If they reduced our interest rate back to 4.25, we might be able to make the payments, but I don't think we're going to.

Vigeland: Now, why not?

Sinclair: We would do it if the equity was there, but in a case where we're already so behind... Imagine that for five years, say, we're gonna pay four grand a month and then we're just gonna be back up at what we bought the house for. We feel like we're throwing away money.

The Sinclairs say they want to take responsibility for their debts, but right now it makes more financial sense not to.

Sinclair: I mean, you ask a good question. Is it really the right thing to do to let the mortgage companies take up the difference? That's a really tough ethical question.

Dan says he experienced the various stages of grief, including denial and anger. Now he's just relieved.

Sinclair: We went through months of being skinflints, because we knew that we were going into the red, so we didn't buy anything. All the sudden, we had a bank full of money and we're living rent-free, but we know that's not really our money.

Vigeland: How does that feel?

Esmeralda Sinclair: Great! Like he said, we were so tight with money...

Dan: It does feel great, because all the sudden, we feel like we have a little margin now where we can go out to dinner, get a babysitter...

Vigeland: But you're not paying your mortgage. You're not paying the biggest obligation you have. How does that feel good?

Esmeralda: We already went through the guilt. This is really what we need to do, not what we wanted to do, but what we need to do.

Ghost Town USA [Marketplace Money]
(Photo:Tess Vigeland)

In 2004, the suit alleges, California resident Elizabeth Marcotte was hit with a $25,0000 award, plus $10,000 in attorneys' fees, in a credit-card collection case. But Ms. Marcotte allegedly wasn't notified about the arbitration, because she was served at an old address, even though she had notified the credit-card company of her new address. The NAF awarded the attorneys' fees without requiring proof that the debt collector actually incurred the fees, according to the suit. Ms. Marcotte wasn't reached for comment.

In another credit-card collection case, the NAF allegedly entered an award against California resident John Sheakley, without responding to his request to appear at a hearing and explain why he didn't owe the purported debt to a bank that was a predecessor of FIA Card Services.

Starbucks CEO, Howard Schultz, however, is more concerned about how the media is portraying Starbucks than he is about paying the back tips. Why? According to a spokesperson, Starbucks won't be changing their practice and they won't be paying up.

Chairman and Chief Executive Howard Schultz, in a voice-mail message to employees Wednesday night, called last week's ruling by a California judge "extremely unfair and beyond reason" and said he wanted employees to know the truth.

"I want to personally let you know that we would never condone any type of behavior that would lead anyone to conclude that we would take money from our people," he said.

In a separate statement, the company also said, "Contrary to some reports, Starbucks has not taken money from any of its partners, and nor is there money to be refunded or returned from Starbucks." A spokeswoman said Thursday that Starbucks Corp. has no intention of ending the practice of sharing tips among baristas and shift supervisors in California while it seeks an injunction.

San Diego Superior Court Judge Patricia Cowett, in her ruling last week, said there was "uncontroverted testimony that Starbucks continues to utilize the distribution of tips from the tip pool to compensate shift supervisors as well as baristas." Cowett ordered Starbucks to pay thousands of California baristas $86.7 million plus interest for breaking the law.

Cowett ruled that Starbucks had illegally forced baristas to share tips with shift supervisors, and the judgment could rise to nearly $106 million. The judge found Starbucks violated California law because "agents" of the company, or, in this case, shift supervisors, were sharing tips with baristas. Similar lawsuits were filed this week in Massachusetts and Minnesota, with threats of more suits in other states, including Washington.

Starbucks won't pay back barista tips [Seatlle P-I]
(Photo:Sillygwailo)

To file amongst other I hate Verizon articles. Typing and summarizing while on hold with Verizon for approximately the 8th time...

Approximately 2 months ago, our apartment building alerted us that Verizon would be installing FIOS. Hooray, I thought...I can finally access the internet at what the Japanese and Europeans consider "broadband" speed.

A month after install, FIOS finally became available in our unit. I suppose before then, the fiber optic cable in my closet didn't really exist. I scheduled an install 2 weeks out, between 8 am - 7 pm. A customer-friendly 11 hour window.

2 days before, I get robo-called and am forced to submit to a voice-prompt menu to confirm my install date.
Verizon 1 | Dignity 0

The techs arrived, and said the original techs didn't connect the fiber correctly in the garage, and that type of tech would have to come again. They would call and let us know when they would come so we could open garage.

No call.

4 days later we get buzzed by a Verizon tech who is at our door, looking for garage access. We let him in. Repairs are supposedly made to the garage. We get rescheduled for a 3/20 between 1-3 pm to install FIOS.

3/19...Verizon robo-caller forces me to listen to computer to confirm the install appointment again.
Verizon 2. Dignity 0.

3/20 Verizon doesn't show. Doesn't call.

3/21 In attempting to call home, the call won't go through. Arriving at home, I discover no dial tone. Phone is dead.

3/21-3/23 Out of town.

3/23 evening, I return home and decide to call Verizon about still dead phone. Can't get to phone service via robo-menu. Forced into FIOS tech support. I explain that I don't have FIOS (yet) and that they never showed, but bigger problem is no phone service. I am told that Verizon thought I wanted FIOS phone and switched that over. Then apparently called me at my DISCONNECTED number at 8 pm on Thursday the 20th to "reschedule." I tell support I don't want, never wanted, and will never want FIOS telephone. I need my phone turned back on immediately. He tells me I can't call tech support directly b/c system thinks I have FIOS and will only route me to FIOS support, which can't fix "copper" problems. He attempts to connect. 30 minutes later he can't get through, tells me to call billing on Monday during office hours.
Verizon 3 | Sanity 0

3/24 I call billing. They acknowledge I don't have FIOS. Still don't offer to fix telephone issue. I ask for 3 month phone credit (I have basic service- $17/month including taxes, just local service). They refuse and I ask for supervisor, who I'm holding for now still, about 16 minutes by my phone timer.

They told me my phone service was set for service by 7pm on 3/25. They refused my request for 3 months of service credit, and only offered 5 days (the time I've been disconnected to date) of credit. My phone is still off, I still have no FIOS install date, and a "supervisors" supervisor is supposed to call me back tomorrow on my cell phone.

I admit I almost lost it today, as I was on hold almost 15 minutes waiting for the supervisor to connect me to repair (which never happened, they came back and said a repair ticket was already created, which surprisingly took 15 minutes to check). As I was on hold, they repeatedly played a voice-over advertising the free HD TV redemption offer for some level of FIOS order, and I asked why they could give away tvs but not credit me for $45 worth of phone service after they cut it off themselves. Then I asked for the TV. That was also refused.

Questions:
1) Why can't someone offer to actually fix my copper line? Maybe handle that while I hold?
2) Why does the robo system refuse to connect me to copper support? Is it inconceivable that an error like mine could happen?
3) Why doesn't Verizon give their own employees access to other departments to install / correct / fix services?
4) Can someone give me some suggestions on any other high-speed service in Santa Monica California I can use to dump Verizon forever?

I saw you have the executive customer service reps email on Consumerist.com. I'll email that tomorrow if my phone is not turned on.

212-395-1060 is the number for the CEO's office.
212-719-3349 is the fax number for the CEO's office.
212-321-8700 is Verizon Executive Customer Service.
ivan.g.seidenberg@verizon.com is the CEO's email address.

Mark D. Reddick
Executive Customer Relations
140 West St.
Manhattan, NY 10007
Mark.D.Reddick@verizon.com
212-321-8457 (office)
212-321-1047 (fax)

Call 1-800-483-7988 and press 3 to reach the Verizon Customer Advocates for landlines and DSL.

Cassandra Flippin
Consumer Advocate in the Verizon Executive Offices
212-321-8458

william.barr@verizon.com, robert.e.ingalls.jr@verizon.com, thomas.j.tauke@verizon.com

(Photo: Cayusa)

It's against California law for supervisors to share employee tips.

Starbucks spokeswoman Valerie O'Neil said the company planned an immediate appeal of the ruling, calling it "fundamentally unfair and beyond all common sense and reason."

The lawsuit was filed in October 2004 by Jou Chou, a former Starbucks barista in La Jolla, who complained shift supervisors were sharing in employee tips.

The lawsuit gained ground in 2006 when it was granted class-action status, allowing the suit to go forward for as many as 100,000 former and current baristas in the coffee chain's California stores.

Starbucks Ordered to Pay Back Tips [Yahoo!] (Thanks, Bladefist!)
(Photo:Travelin' Librarian)

[via Boing Boing]

"Taking it seriously" is a phrase companies use over and over again in public statements whenever they have bad PR. Our series of posts on occurrences of the phrase is our attempt to question how seriously companies are really taking these matters if every time they trot out this phrase by rote.

(Photo: Getty)

RELATED
"USDA Stops Production At Meatpacking Facility After Undercover Video Showed Sick Cows Being Abused"
"USDA Recalls 143 Million Pounds Of Beef"

The award issued by an arbitration judge was the first of its kind and prompted Health Net to announce it was scrapping its cancellation practices that are under fire from state regulators, patients and the Los Angeles city attorney.

Arbitrator Sam Cianchetti, a retired Los Angeles County Superior Court judge, found that Health Net violated numerous state laws in canceling Patsy Bates' policy and declared the company's actions "despicable."

Cianchetti also blasted the company for tying employee bonuses to the number of policies canceled and the amount of money saved.

"It's difficult to imagine a policy more reprehensible than tying bonuses to encourage the rescission of health insurance that keeps the public well and alive," he said in a 21-page opinion.

"Bates was contacted by Mr. Robert Torrez, who called regarding health insurance. When advised she already had health insurance, Torrez suggested he might be able to get her a better rate. An appointment was made," reads the arbitration award.

The arbitrator found that HealthNet's agent did not properly explain and review the forms Ms. Bates was required to sign and also changed her weight on the application without her written consent.

"When asked about her weight, she told him her weight on her driver's license was 185lbs. She never told Torrez to change the weight, nor was she aware that the weight had been changed."

After Ms. Bates was diagnosed with breast cancer, HealthNet rescinded her coverage because of the weight change and left her with over $100,000 in unpaid medical bills.

Health Net ordered to pay $9 million after canceling cancer patient's policy [LATimes]
Arbitration Award (PDF) [LA Times]

I wanted to inform consumerist that the manager from the Apple Store at Stonestown called me back to apologize about the incident and to invite me back to the store. She apologized for the employees making ID a requirement of purchase and that they were doing it to protect from fraud. She then mentioned that they understand they were not following the merchant agreements but will do so here on out. I will go back to make my purchase!

Thanks for your support,
Ignacio

(Photo:PhotoMarkR)

Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer said his department has evidence that Westland did not routinely contact its veterinarian when cattle became non-ambulatory after passing inspection, violating health regulations.

''Because the cattle did not receive complete and proper inspection, Food Safety and Inspection Service has determined them to be unfit for human food and the company is conducting a recall,'' Schafer said in a statement.

A phone message left for Westland president Steve Mendell was not immediately returned.

Federal officials suspended operations at Westland/Hallmark after an undercover Humane Society video surfaced showing crippled and sick animals being shoved with forklifts.

Two former employees were charged Friday. Five felony counts of animal cruelty and three misdemeanors were filed against a pen manager. Three misdemeanor counts — illegal movement of a non-ambulatory animal — were filed against an employee who worked under that manager. Both were fired.

Authorities said the video showed workers kicking, shocking and otherwise abusing ''downer'' animals that were apparently too sick or injured to walk into the slaughterhouse. Some animals had water forced down their throats, San Bernardino County prosecutor Michael Ramos said.

USDA Makes Nation's Largest Beef Recall [AP]
PREVIOUSLY: USDA Stops Production At Meatpacking Facility After Undercover Video Showed Sick Cows Being Abused
(Photo: flikr)

From the LA Times:

"We're outraged that they are asking doctors to violate the sacred trust of patients to rat them out for medical information that patients would expect their doctors to handle with the utmost secrecy and confidentiality," said Dr. Richard Frankenstein, president of the California Medical Assn.

Patients "will stop telling their doctors anything they think might be a problem for their insurance and they don't think matters for their current health situation," he said. "But they didn't go to medical school, and there are all kinds of obscure things that could be very helpful to a doctor."

WellPoint Inc., the Indianapolis-based company that operates Blue Cross of California, said Monday that it was sending out the letters in an effort to hold down costs.

"Enrolling an applicant who did not disclose their true condition (and the condition is chronic or acute), will quickly drive increased utilization of services, which drives up costs for all members," WellPoint spokeswoman Shannon Troughton said in an e-mail.

"Blue Cross feels it is our responsibility to assure all records are accurate and up to date for HMO providers," she said. "We send these letters to identify members early on in the process who may not have been honest in their application."

Doctors balk at request for data [LA Times] (Thanks, Everyone!)

The video shows cows that are too sick to walk being lifted and prodded with forklifts in order to get them to move into the slaughter box. Although the USDA says it doesn't have proof that the sick cows entered the food supply, just the simple fact that workers were hitting sick cows with forklifts while 8 USDA inspectors looked the other way was enough to prompt the agency to shut down the company.

From the LA Times:

Cliver, professor emeritus of food safety at UC Davis, said the suspension of the plant is "long past due."

"It's a shame when USDA has to read about this stuff in the newspaper before they take action," he said. Cliver said he was especially shocked by the news, because as someone who has worked on food safety for 45 years, he believed in the federal inspection process. "That the most intensive inspection system we have was asleep on this situation bothers me enormously," he said.

One retired food inspector, who once worked at Hallmark, said the USDA supervisor in charge of the plant had to have been aware of the practices shown in the Humane Society's video.

"The supervisor should have known what was going on," said Paul Carney, western council president for the National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals, the USDA inspectors' union.

Bill Bullard, chief executive of the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, an advocacy organization that represents cattle-raising farmers and ranchers, was also critical of the USDA's lax enforcement.

"We would hope that this example will impress upon the USDA the need to bolster its inspection processes to enforce the current law that prohibits downer animals in the human food supply," Bullard said.

USDA's oversight of meat safety criticized [LA Times]