Business

Issue over a balance of zero

Tell Claudienne

Claudienne Edwards

Sunday, May 19, 2019

Print this page Email A Friend!


Dear Claudienne

On Thursday, April 25, I received a voice message from a person who identified herself as Nadesha from Flow. In the message, the person indicated that charges relating to account number 177... had been reversed to reflect a balance of zero.

Within minutes of receiving this message I noticed, in my mailbox at home, a letter that had been sent via post from one Island Collection and Bailiff Services about the said account being delinquent.

I then tried to find the caller who had left the message described above. As the caller had made the telephone call from Flow's switchboard number, I contacted a Flow Network migration agent for whom I am in possession of the number for a direct line.

When I enquired about the identity of the caller who had left the message I was told, by the agent with whom I was having the conversation, that she would be able to relay a message to the individual with whom I was trying to mak contact. The agent also stated that I would receive a call back re the issue.

As I was interested in finding out the time frame to expect this call since I was in transit, I was eventually told that Nadesha (the representative who had left voice message) would send me an e-mail about my concerns.

On Friday, April 26, I noticed this email message sent from JM-CustomerFirst CustomerFirst@cwc.com>.

Upon seeing this message I had no idea about the source of the message, so I decided to check online. I was directed to the Flow website. While I appreciated this message, I take very seriously that my name was sent by Flow again to a collection agency. The same thing was done in 2009 at which time I also disputed the charges on the grounds that the service was out of order yet I continued to be billed.

Over the past few weeks I have been communicating with the Flow Help Desk about trying to resolve this same matter. (I will forward that latest correspondence to you at a later time.)

In that correspondence from the Help Desk I was told that the matter was being investigated to determine what action to take. I would have appreciated it if the Help Desk would have communicated to me that the investigation had been complete and about the action to be taken.

Here are my present concerns:

• This final letter stating that the charges have been reversed was sent from a Smartphone and there is no signature/ sender's name indicating who is dealing with the matter; in the event I ,as the the customer, will need to make contact. To make matters worse the name Flow is not indicated/ clearly indicated in any way in the sender's email address or in the contents of the letter.

• I deserve a formal notification in writing which clearly shows that it is coming from FLOW, so that I can contact this collection agency and will no longer be hounded about the matter.

• When I visited the FLOW office in May Pen back in January of this year, it was confirmed that the balance was adjusted in 2009 from the amount of $18,007.10 to reflect the now $7,125.81. The representative at the office could not give an answer when I asked the reason. She made reference to 'rewards' being given. This suggests to me, the customer, that FLOW/Cable and Wireless has serious flaws with its record keeping.

• This flaw is even more evident as the agent in May Pen mentioned that there is no indication on record that I had reported the inaccessibility of the service in 2009. I was able to tell her however, that the reason the balance was adjusted was as a result of my constant reports via telephone about being continued to be billed for a service that was out of order. She then replied that I should have reported the matter in office. Therefore, I was forced to update her that there was no office in May Pen at that time. She proceeded to tell me of the Cable and Wireless offices that were in other parishes at the time. It was at this point that I noticed that the conversation was not going to be worthwhile.

At this point I am severely frustrated, and wish that this matter can be laid to rest once and for all. I have come to realise that I will not escape the confusion, as a customer, resulting from the many different departments operating at the same time under the FLOW umbrella. This causes information to be communicated in a fragmented way to the customer.

I have maintained a track record of honouring all bills with FLOW over the many years that the landline and Internet service have been at my residence. Recently, I have had to utilise several hours of my productive time to compose correspondence to be sent to various parties in an effort to clear my name.

I hope that you can help me to shed this burden once and for all.

AB

Dear AB

Tell Claudienne conveyed your concerns to FLOW and, in an e-mail, the company responded as follows:

“Thank you for bringing AB's concerns to our attention.

We sincerely apologise to our valued customer, AB for her experience.

We have reviewed the matters highlighted by AB and wish to advise that the necessary actions were taken to ensure that her account was regularised and the required communication done with the debt collectors. This information was communicated to AB via e-mail on May 7, 2019.

Additionally, we note that AB indicated that the final letter from us, outlining a reversal of her charges, did not include a contact reference. Please be assured that this is not our practice.

At the time of our response to AB, we were in the process of upgrading our e-mail platform and this impacted the inclusion of the usual contact information.

We are happy, however, to advise that with this upgrade, our customers will now be able to track their communication with us.”

Tell Claudienne notes that, according to the correspondence you received from FLOW, the account in question now has a zero balance.

We wish you all the best.


Now you can read the Jamaica Observer ePaper anytime, anywhere. The Jamaica Observer ePaper is available to you at home or at work, and is the same edition as the printed copy available at http://bit.ly/epaperlive


ADVERTISEMENT




POST A COMMENT

HOUSE RULES

1. We welcome reader comments on the top stories of the day. Some comments may be republished on the website or in the newspaper � email addresses will not be published.

2. Please understand that comments are moderated and it is not always possible to publish all that have been submitted. We will, however, try to publish comments that are representative of all received.

3. We ask that comments are civil and free of libellous or hateful material. Also please stick to the topic under discussion.

4. Please do not write in block capitals since this makes your comment hard to read.

5. Please don't use the comments to advertise. However, our advertising department can be more than accommodating if emailed: advertising@jamaicaobserver.com.

6. If readers wish to report offensive comments, suggest a correction or share a story then please email: community@jamaicaobserver.com.

7. Lastly, read our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy



comments powered by Disqus
ADVERTISEMENT

Flirting while in a relationship is disrespectful.
Yes
68%
No
11%
It depends
21%

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Today's Cartoon

Click image to view full size editorial cartoon
ADVERTISEMENT