Anyone been FORCED to pay termination fee?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Are there any posters or lurkers out there that have been FORCED to pay a
termination fee on their silly "contract"? I'm not talking about being
scared into it by idle threats from some company hack. I'm talking about
anyone who has been prosecuted in court for NOT paying the termination fee,
or has had their credit report tagged and knows (not just thinks) it's
tagged.

Let's hear from any of you to this thread that has actually been FORCED to
pay the fee.....or positively knows someone else who has been FORCED to pay
the fees.

--
Larry

Oh, this is gonna be a fun thread....(c;

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Larry W4CSC" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns967A64CE08D75w4csc@63.223.7.253...
> Are there any posters or lurkers out there that have been FORCED to
> pay a
> termination fee on their silly "contract"? I'm not talking about
> being
> scared into it by idle threats from some company hack. I'm talking
> about
> anyone who has been prosecuted in court for NOT paying the
> termination fee,
> or has had their credit report tagged and knows (not just thinks)
> it's
> tagged.
>
> Let's hear from any of you to this thread that has actually been
> FORCED to
> pay the fee.....or positively knows someone else who has been FORCED
> to pay
> the fees.
>
> --
> Larry
>
> Oh, this is gonna be a fun thread....(c;

Let the fun begin.....

Years ago when I switch from Cellular One to then NYNEX the folks at
Cellular One (Now Cingular) sent my account to a collection agency.
The agency called me at home and sent a letter asking why I will not
pay etc. I first answered with a copy of every single invoice I had
from Cellular One that showed the bills were never correct, the
postings were late even when paying at the local office, the numerous
folks I had spoken to at the time to resolve the issues and what never
or did happen. I then called the lady at the collection agency and
explained it as I had written it and I told her that if the collection
agency posted anything to my report I would take both Cellular One and
them to court.

She after receiving and looking at the documents called back to say
that she believed I had a valid point of not paying and told her
client that. it never appeared in my credit profile and it has never
harmed me from getting service any where else. Now the hoot. I was not
on a contract since I was then a month to month since I started with
them as the 403 customer (Your cell number at the time showed your
rank in the phone number) no contracts as you have today. I have
noticed that if you take the company to Small Claims Court they are
more than willing to work it out before the judge gets involved. Taken
auto dealers and the like to the court and have not lost yet. Words of
advice "save all the contracts and updated documents they send and
read them carefully" many times the ETF can be waived.

Elector

 

[fred]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Generally it is easier for the provider to report you to the credit bureaus
as delinquent on your obligations, that usually gets the customer's
attention faster & gets the fee paid much faster.

Fred

"Larry W4CSC" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns967A64CE08D75w4csc@63.223.7.253...
> Are there any posters or lurkers out there that have been FORCED to pay a
> termination fee on their silly "contract"? I'm not talking about being
> scared into it by idle threats from some company hack. I'm talking about
> anyone who has been prosecuted in court for NOT paying the termination
fee,
> or has had their credit report tagged and knows (not just thinks) it's
> tagged.
>
> Let's hear from any of you to this thread that has actually been FORCED to
> pay the fee.....or positively knows someone else who has been FORCED to
pay
> the fees.
>
> --
> Larry
>
> Oh, this is gonna be a fun thread....(c;

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Fred" <agunat@yahoo.com> wrote in news:tYjte.768$up5.169@lakeread02:

> Generally it is easier for the provider to report you to the credit
> bureaus as delinquent on your obligations, that usually gets the
> customer's attention faster & gets the fee paid much faster.
>
> Fred
>

But, as I stated in my question, I'm looking for anyone who has been FORCED
to pay....not someone paying because of fear, their usual tactic. To date,
I've found NOONE!

Anyone been FORCED to pay? Let's hear your story!!

--
Larry

You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and your outlined in
chalk.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Fred" <agunat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tYjte.768$up5.169@lakeread02...
> Generally it is easier for the provider to report you to the credit
bureaus
> as delinquent on your obligations, that usually gets the customer's
> attention faster & gets the fee paid much faster.
>
>

But then the fee would not get paid because its already on your report and
the damage is done. There is no way in hell they will remove it even if you
do pay. Been there, done that.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

RM wrote:
> "Fred" <agunat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:tYjte.768$up5.169@lakeread02...
>> Generally it is easier for the provider to report you to
>> the credit bureaus as delinquent on your obligations,
>> that usually gets the customer's attention faster & gets
>> the fee paid much faster.
>>
>>
>
> But then the fee would not get paid because its already
> on your report and the damage is done. There is no way in
> hell they will remove it even if you do pay. Been there,
> done that.

But a 30 day deliquent is less negative points than a
90 day deliquent which is less than a 120 day deliquent?

-Quick

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

It will not show as delinquent but as a collections which arent dated past
the initial entry. You might get a couple points for it being paid but not
many. A termination fee is a onetime assessment not a revolving monthly
charge so i dont think it could show as delinquent with day counts.

"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119240129.99197@sj-nntpcache-3...
> RM wrote:
> > "Fred" <agunat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:tYjte.768$up5.169@lakeread02...
> >> Generally it is easier for the provider to report you to
> >> the credit bureaus as delinquent on your obligations,
> >> that usually gets the customer's attention faster & gets
> >> the fee paid much faster.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > But then the fee would not get paid because its already
> > on your report and the damage is done. There is no way in
> > hell they will remove it even if you do pay. Been there,
> > done that.
>
> But a 30 day deliquent is less negative points than a
> 90 day deliquent which is less than a 120 day deliquent?
>
> -Quick
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"RM" <rm@blah.blah> wrote in
news:5sqte.32060$yp5.29121@fe03.news.easynews.com:

> Been there, done that.

So, the only thing they "did" to you is attach to your credit report?

That won't stop you from getting a loan/credit card/etc., by the way.

--
Larry

You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and your outlined in
chalk.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Larry W4CSC wrote:
> "RM" <rm@blah.blah> wrote in
> news:5sqte.32060$yp5.29121@fe03.news.easynews.com:
>
>> Been there, done that.
>
> So, the only thing they "did" to you is attach to your
> credit report?
>
> That won't stop you from getting a loan/credit card/etc.,
> by the way.

It can effect the rate you're offered though. It's like getting
auto insurance with a DWI and a few chargeable accidents
on your recent DMV record.

-Quick

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:53:47 -0400, Larry W4CSC <noone@home.com>
wrote:

>Oh, this is gonna be a fun thread....(c;

Other than seeing you drag out the jet ski story again, the only fun
to be seen in this thread is why someone who *left* VZW and *had* to
pay their ETF would still be hanging around in the VZW group to answer
your question.

Maybe it would be better directed at VZW's competitors' groups.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote in
news:9uvdb19ag0dovlr5j5k4a7mv073t68mqg0@4ax.com:

> Other than seeing you drag out the jet ski story again, the only fun
> to be seen in this thread is why someone who *left* VZW and *had* to
> pay their ETF would still be hanging around in the VZW group to answer
> your question.
>
> Maybe it would be better directed at VZW's competitors' groups.
>

Is there an answer to my question in there somewhere....or just the usual
attacks to prevent them from finding out the truth?...(c;

By the way, I was a Verizon customer...before that a GTE customer...before
that a Cellular One customer...before that the 6th cellular customer in
Charleston, SC on Cellular One of Charleston...before that a Dialpage IMTS
customer...before that a Bell$outh IMTS customer. I have never broken a
contract with anyone, including Verizon Wireless. There are lots of
previous Verizon customers reading, posting and lurking on this PUBLIC
newsgroup. If you don't want to read our posts and comments, I suggest you
go to some company sanitized love group off Usenet the company hacks can
content control. Then, you won't have to read anything bad about Verizon's
business practices...the lies, false ads, false coverage maps, etc.
Everything will be just peachy! But, don't try to censor the usenet group.
It isn't going to happen which is why we are all here, including you.

--
Larry

You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and your outlined in
chalk.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote in
news:9uvdb19ag0dovlr5j5k4a7mv073t68mqg0@4ax.com:

> Other than seeing you drag out the jet ski story again, the only fun
> to be seen in this thread is why someone who *left* VZW and *had* to
> pay their ETF would still be hanging around in the VZW group to answer
> your question.
>
> Maybe it would be better directed at VZW's competitors' groups.
>

Oh, I forgot. My question wasn't about Verizon. I was also asking Verizon
customers who had broken their contracts with other carriers, any other
carriers, if they had been FORCED to pay the termination fee.

More obviously, today, the answer is no.....

--
Larry

You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and your outlined in
chalk.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Larry W4CSC wrote:
> The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote in
> news:9uvdb19ag0dovlr5j5k4a7mv073t68mqg0@4ax.com:
>
>> Other than seeing you drag out the jet ski story again,
>> the only fun to be seen in this thread is why someone
>> who *left* VZW and *had* to pay their ETF would still be
>> hanging around in the VZW group to answer your question.
>>
>> Maybe it would be better directed at VZW's competitors'
>> groups.
>>
>
> Oh, I forgot. My question wasn't about Verizon. I was
> also asking Verizon customers who had broken their
> contracts with other carriers, any other carriers, if
> they had been FORCED to pay the termination fee.
>
> More obviously, today, the answer is no.....

I'm still wrestling with what you mean by "FORCED"?
I get the impression that having your account sent to a
collection agency doesn't qualify? Are you looking for
someone that VZW went through a court action to be
paid? What are the chances of that? Bringing legal
action against individuals for $175 would not be a real
smart move by a multi million dollar company. It would
really piss off the courts and wouldn't be worth the negative
PR giving fodder to the likes of you.

I would think their goal would be to simply shove it to
a collection agency while making sure they marked your
credit. They recover some small percentage and remove
the individual from becoming a repeat customer in the
near future.

-Quick

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 13:53:35 -0400, Larry W4CSC <noone@home.com>
wrote:

>The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote in
>news:9uvdb19ag0dovlr5j5k4a7mv073t68mqg0@4ax.com:
>
>> Other than seeing you drag out the jet ski story again, the only fun
>> to be seen in this thread is why someone who *left* VZW and *had* to
>> pay their ETF would still be hanging around in the VZW group to answer
>> your question.
>>
>> Maybe it would be better directed at VZW's competitors' groups.
>>
>
>Is there an answer to my question in there somewhere....or just the usual
>attacks to prevent them from finding out the truth?...(c;

No, Larry. No one is attacking you. And I can't recall ever doing it
myself. My suggestion was merely that you might get a more of a
response by posting it where ex-VZW customers are likely to hang out.

>By the way, I was a Verizon customer...before that a GTE customer...before
>that a Cellular One customer...before that the 6th cellular customer in
>Charleston, SC on Cellular One of Charleston...before that a Dialpage IMTS
>customer...before that a Bell$outh IMTS customer.

Yeah, yeah. Larry, we know. And I just passed my 10 year mark with
them dating all the way back to the BAM/BANM days. And I had a phone
on a GTE MN corporate account briefly in the early 90's after having
800Mhz trunked service (with telephone patch) for a few years before
that. We've both been around the block a few times. What's your
point?

>I have never broken a
>contract with anyone, including Verizon Wireless. There are lots of
>previous Verizon customers reading, posting and lurking on this PUBLIC
>newsgroup. If you don't want to read our posts and comments, I suggest you
>go to some company sanitized love group off Usenet the company hacks can
>content control. Then, you won't have to read anything bad about Verizon's
>business practices...the lies, false ads, false coverage maps, etc.
>Everything will be just peachy! But, don't try to censor the usenet group.
>It isn't going to happen which is why we are all here, including you.

Hey Larry, I'll give you $100 if you can point out where I've tried to
censor you in this thread. If anything, I've suggested a route where
you might get more answers to your question by posting it in
*additional* forums. Is that your definition of "censorship", Larry?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
>
> No, Larry. No one is attacking you. And I can't recall
> ever doing it myself. My suggestion was merely that you
> might get a more of a response by posting it where ex-VZW
> customers are likely to hang out.

> Hey Larry, I'll give you $100 if you can point out where
> I've tried to censor you in this thread. If anything,
> I've suggested a route where you might get more answers
> to your question by posting it in *additional* forums.
> Is that your definition of "censorship", Larry?

Larry's tin foil hat is leaking. He will figure it out in a bit and
adjust it. When he does he will read a bit less into the
suggestions but we'll probably hear the story on removing
the chairs from the waiting room again... -

-Quick

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

I guess if someone canceled one of their additional lines early, but
kept their primary line.

The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:53:47 -0400, Larry W4CSC <noone@home.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Oh, this is gonna be a fun thread....(c;
>
>
> Other than seeing you drag out the jet ski story again, the only fun
> to be seen in this thread is why someone who *left* VZW and *had* to
> pay their ETF would still be hanging around in the VZW group to answer
> your question.
>
> Maybe it would be better directed at VZW's competitors' groups.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 18:37:03 GMT, Jerome Zelinske
<jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:

> I guess if someone canceled one of their additional lines early, but
>kept their primary line.

A rare exception indeed. And I'm sure that wouldn't fit Larry's
confined scope of questioning, anyways. By definition, those people
willingly paid the ETF to avoid having their remaining service
affected, or in contractual terms, they did so to "remain a customer
in good standing". Those obviously aren't the people he's looking
for. He wants the people who took them on and lost in specific ways.

>I'm talking about
>anyone who has been prosecuted in court for NOT paying the termination fee,
>or has had their credit report tagged and knows (not just thinks) it's
>tagged.

So only true ex-VZW customers will count for much in what he's looking
for.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 13:54:57 -0400, Larry W4CSC <noone@home.com>
wrote:

>The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote in
>news:9uvdb19ag0dovlr5j5k4a7mv073t68mqg0@4ax.com:
>
>> Other than seeing you drag out the jet ski story again, the only fun
>> to be seen in this thread is why someone who *left* VZW and *had* to
>> pay their ETF would still be hanging around in the VZW group to answer
>> your question.
>>
>> Maybe it would be better directed at VZW's competitors' groups.
>>
>
>Oh, I forgot. My question wasn't about Verizon. I was also asking Verizon
>customers who had broken their contracts with other carriers, any other
>carriers, if they had been FORCED to pay the termination fee.
>

The response basically remains the same. Why stop with just ONE
provider's group? Limiting the scope of the audience in such a way
brings an inherent bias into any results. Why not bless the entire
alt.cellular.* hierarchy with you poll?

Share the love, Larry;-)

(And I'd still like to see your results when you compile them.)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
news:1119290195.648523@sj-nntpcache-3:

> It can effect the rate you're offered though. It's like getting
> auto insurance with a DWI and a few chargeable accidents
> on your recent DMV record.
>
> -Quick
>
>

Personally, I think America could stand a very hard dose of poor credit
ratings. Debt is killing the young generation brainwashed by fast and easy
credit.

The rate is properly called "usury". We used to string them up for what
they are doing, now, back before 1900. Today, we've made it fashionable.

But, as you have noticed, not one single soul has said anything about being
FORCED to pay the termination fee to any company....in hot pursuit. It's
more companyspeak bullshit. Huge corporations don't worry about a few
hundred bucks....especially as huge as VZW. They don't even know you
exist. You're just a bacterium on an elephant's ass. He can't see you.
--
Larry

You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and your outlined in
chalk.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Larry W4CSC wrote:

>>It can effect the rate you're offered though. It's like getting
>>auto insurance with a DWI and a few chargeable accidents
>>on your recent DMV record.
>
> Personally, I think America could stand a very hard dose of poor credit
> ratings. Debt is killing the young generation brainwashed by fast and easy
> credit.

As someone who let credit get the best of him coming out of high school, I
would just like to wholeheartedly agree with you. Someone who manages money
the way I used to shouldn't have credit cards with $2,000 credit limits on
them, but I did.

> The rate is properly called "usury". We used to string them up for what
> they are doing, now, back before 1900. Today, we've made it fashionable.

I agree here too.

However, there are plenty of people who have good credit whose FICO score
would suffer pretty badly from having a collection or even a 90-day
delinquency on their account, and I still say that your insistence that they
just let it ride is foolish and irresponsible, even though you're not wrong
about the way credit is (mis)used these days.

> But, as you have noticed, not one single soul has said anything about being
> FORCED to pay the termination fee to any company....in hot pursuit.

Even if they sue and win, that's not a guarantee that you'll pay. But why go
through the hassle in the first place?

> more companyspeak bullshit. Huge corporations don't worry about a few
> hundred bucks....especially as huge as VZW. They don't even know you
> exist. You're just a bacterium on an elephant's ass. He can't see you.

True.

--
JustThe.net - Steve Sobol / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Coming to you from Southern California's High Desert, where the
temperatures are as high as the gas prices! / 888.480.4NET (4638)

"Life's like an hourglass glued to the table" --Anna Nalick, "Breathe"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Steve Sobol wrote:
>
> However, there are plenty of people who have good credit
> whose FICO score would suffer pretty badly from having a
> collection or even a 90-day delinquency on their account,
> and I still say that your insistence that they just let
> it ride is foolish and irresponsible, even though you're
> not wrong about the way credit is (mis)used these days.

Yea, I'm pretty particular about maintaining my FICO
score (~830). It gets me a good number of special offers,
rates and services. I suppose if you were retired and
you're pretty much done with any financial changes it
might not matter much.

Larry again:
>> But, as you have noticed, not one single soul has said
>> anything about being FORCED to pay the termination fee
>> to any company....in hot pursuit.
>
>> more companyspeak bullshit. Huge corporations don't
>> worry about a few hundred bucks....especially as huge as
>> VZW. They don't even know you exist. You're just a
>> bacterium on an elephant's ass. He can't see you.

Ahhh, I was just getting ready to ask about the agenda...
You're promoting a "just don't pay it" movement? Real
good Larry. Same thing for your federal taxes too right?

(my imagination is fired up now) Maybe it's a plan to "help"
the youth and money-management-challenged in this
country by ruining their credit and forcing them to deal
in cash up front? -- for their own good?

I am interested in hearing more though.

-Quick

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote in
news:ikgeb1tda3n2issbeiljusashi86i0tvvq@4ax.com:

> My suggestion was merely that you might get a more of a
> response by posting it where ex-VZW customers are likely to hang out.
>

As I pointed out, this is about all cellular companies, not just VZW. This
is the most active newsgroup. Hell, we hardly have anyone post to Alltel.

--
Larry

You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and your outlined in
chalk.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
news:1119291809.102227@sj-nntpcache-3:

> Are you looking for
> someone that VZW went through a court action to be
> paid? What are the chances of that? Bringing legal
> action against individuals for $175 would not be a real
> smart move by a multi million dollar company. It would
> really piss off the courts and wouldn't be worth the negative
> PR giving fodder to the likes of you.
>

Precisely the point. But, the scare tactic seems to work quite well,
especially with the young and useless. It's the same companyspeak cable
companies use pointing out you're going to be prosecuted for stealing CNN.
The big elephant has no idea the bacterium customer even exists...or could
care less.

--
Larry

You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and your outlined in
chalk.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote in
news:qkheb151prpbqjr57b54ktkjabu5evd70l@4ax.com:

> So only true ex-VZW customers will count for much in what he's looking
> for.
>
>

Not so. Many VZW customers here are FORMER customers of the other
carriers, many of whom tagged them, or attempted to tag them with ETF. So,
it also pertains to VZW customers "in good standing" who may have been
hammered by the other carriers on their way over here. I posted it here
because this is the most active newsgroup and read by a wide variety of
other cell users.

--
Larry

You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and your outlined in
chalk.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Quick wrote:
> Larry W4CSC wrote:
> > The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote in
> > news:9uvdb19ag0dovlr5j5k4a7mv073t68mqg0@4ax.com:
> >
> >> Other than seeing you drag out the jet ski story again,
> >> the only fun to be seen in this thread is why someone
> >> who *left* VZW and *had* to pay their ETF would still be
> >> hanging around in the VZW group to answer your question.
> >>
> >> Maybe it would be better directed at VZW's competitors'
> >> groups.
> >>
> >
> > Oh, I forgot. My question wasn't about Verizon. I was
> > also asking Verizon customers who had broken their
> > contracts with other carriers, any other carriers, if
> > they had been FORCED to pay the termination fee.
> >
> > More obviously, today, the answer is no.....
>
> I'm still wrestling with what you mean by "FORCED"?
> I get the impression that having your account sent to a
> collection agency doesn't qualify?

I've been thinking about what it means to "force" someone to do
something. It appears there is little if nothing that another can be
"forced" to do. I think compelled is a better term.

Even holding a gun to someone's head or putting them in jail may not
"force" them to do something. Those might be more compelling reasons to
perform the requested action, than putting a note of collections on
their credit record.

An entity could "take" the money by garnishing wages, putting a lean on
or reposessing some property. I suppose that's as close to forcing a
payment as anything.

So it seems, when we make "stupid" or not so stupid agreements in
contracts and then break them, the other party has varying levels of
recourse. Verizon has already set a price on what it costs to break a
contract, $175. That's a compelling reason to keep the agreement for
some. Then the compelling reason to pay the $175 is the tarnish on
one's credit record.

With the value most people put on maintaining the best credit possible,
that seems like a good reason to pay the ETF. Credit negatives have a
way of staying around for a long time. Some credit problems are an
excuse to get charged higher loan/credit rates.

Now I'm not sure what the real consequences of a collection on a credit
report are and under what circumstances it might cause getting charged
more for other credit?

There's several choices... keep the agreement, pay $175 or have a
record attached to one's credit report, with unknown negative credit
consequences for years.
A good question to ask would be... how did not paying the ETF effect
one's credit score and did it change subsequent credit/loan/mortages
rates or other opportunities? Any volunteers?

But it's nice to know that nobody can force me to pay the ETF

-
David