Tweet
This one is still on going, I will do my best to obfusticate everyone involved since this is likley going to court.
Pig Lady (PL) is a high ranking lawyer (relevant). She owns a property that she rents out to Tenant (RT). RT, the animal loving person that he is, fosters a Piglet in said home (outside the terms of his rental agreement). When RT moves out, apparently there is lots of damage to the house, the carpets stink. PL then trys to get this cleaned by professionals (twice), unsuccessfully. PL then pays to have all the carpets replaced, before realising that she can actually claim some of this on insurance.
PL then calls up and speaks with Rep 1 - who tells her that, as per her policy wording, there will be multiple events and therefore multiple excesses (or deductables for you yanks). PL is unhappy with this this (as one would expect) and argues this to hell and back. Rep 1 then asks PL to sent in all her documentation and photos for our reveiw. PL obliges.
Documents are recieved from PL, showing the damage and supplying receipts for a whole range of costs, some which can be considered, some which cannot (clean up costs that are not damage etc). PL includes an email sent to the tenant (Sent on say 01/04/2013) , and says 'They just disappeared and left us completely out of pocket'
PL then calls up and speaks to Rep 2. During her conversation with Rep 2 she is again informed that we would be applying mutliple excesses - which for ease of calculation we would apply on a per room basis rather than each individual site of damage. PL is unhappy with this and then -
R2: So the tenants left, did you get to keep the bond
PL: Yes I got the bond, but the tenants just left and didn't want to pay me anything, they just left me completely out of pocket.
(For those counting, that is now twice, once in writing and once on a recorded phone call that PL has told us the tenants left her out of pocket).
To save time, I'll sumerise the next few interactions:
1) We agree to only 1 excess as a customer service gesture (grr)
2) We work to resolve the issues and apply the policy wording, and the tone of her communications goes from friendly to passive agressive, and including her 'Senior Soliciter' title in the tagline.
3) She starts to threaten us with various industry groups and working
4) She turns into a complete bee-yotch
5) She finally agrees to a settlement that was twice what she originally wanted, and includes a number of items from the email she sent RT.
Now the fun starts. We get in contact with RT to pursue our recovery of these costs. RT then sends us a whole email chain where he agreed to pay her back the costs she claimed
We appoint an investigator who goes out to talk to RT. He confirms the emails, the payment (including a confirmation receipt of the payment) and that PL had agreed this payment was 'full and final'. He tries to meet with PL who refuses to meet or explain the issues.
We sent PL a letter telling her why we are declining her claim. She then calls and says that she told us the whole way through of the money the tenant paid. I tell her that we have checked everything she sent us, every recording and reviewed the settlement that she has paid and she never told us that she had already been paid for it. She kicks up a huge stink and threatens to take us to court. She also says the Investigator intimidated her (Every time I've heard this excuse its been because they've been guilty)
What she doesn't know is that we are now having everything collated and we will see her in court....as the defendant on a Fraud charge (which, between recorded phone calls, all of our documentation and her additional false statement after the decline makes it a slam dunk). And, in an extra kick in the pants, because she identified herself as a senior soliciter, our in house lawyers are required to report her to the Law Society (our equivilent of the Bar)....
The amount in question by the way: less than $2000.00. For less than $2000, she is likely going to have a criminal charge, lose her job, and owe us money.
Pig Lady (PL) is a high ranking lawyer (relevant). She owns a property that she rents out to Tenant (RT). RT, the animal loving person that he is, fosters a Piglet in said home (outside the terms of his rental agreement). When RT moves out, apparently there is lots of damage to the house, the carpets stink. PL then trys to get this cleaned by professionals (twice), unsuccessfully. PL then pays to have all the carpets replaced, before realising that she can actually claim some of this on insurance.
PL then calls up and speaks with Rep 1 - who tells her that, as per her policy wording, there will be multiple events and therefore multiple excesses (or deductables for you yanks). PL is unhappy with this this (as one would expect) and argues this to hell and back. Rep 1 then asks PL to sent in all her documentation and photos for our reveiw. PL obliges.
Documents are recieved from PL, showing the damage and supplying receipts for a whole range of costs, some which can be considered, some which cannot (clean up costs that are not damage etc). PL includes an email sent to the tenant (Sent on say 01/04/2013) , and says 'They just disappeared and left us completely out of pocket'
PL then calls up and speaks to Rep 2. During her conversation with Rep 2 she is again informed that we would be applying mutliple excesses - which for ease of calculation we would apply on a per room basis rather than each individual site of damage. PL is unhappy with this and then -
R2: So the tenants left, did you get to keep the bond
PL: Yes I got the bond, but the tenants just left and didn't want to pay me anything, they just left me completely out of pocket.
(For those counting, that is now twice, once in writing and once on a recorded phone call that PL has told us the tenants left her out of pocket).
To save time, I'll sumerise the next few interactions:
1) We agree to only 1 excess as a customer service gesture (grr)
2) We work to resolve the issues and apply the policy wording, and the tone of her communications goes from friendly to passive agressive, and including her 'Senior Soliciter' title in the tagline.
3) She starts to threaten us with various industry groups and working
4) She turns into a complete bee-yotch
5) She finally agrees to a settlement that was twice what she originally wanted, and includes a number of items from the email she sent RT.
Now the fun starts. We get in contact with RT to pursue our recovery of these costs. RT then sends us a whole email chain where he agreed to pay her back the costs she claimed
We appoint an investigator who goes out to talk to RT. He confirms the emails, the payment (including a confirmation receipt of the payment) and that PL had agreed this payment was 'full and final'. He tries to meet with PL who refuses to meet or explain the issues.
We sent PL a letter telling her why we are declining her claim. She then calls and says that she told us the whole way through of the money the tenant paid. I tell her that we have checked everything she sent us, every recording and reviewed the settlement that she has paid and she never told us that she had already been paid for it. She kicks up a huge stink and threatens to take us to court. She also says the Investigator intimidated her (Every time I've heard this excuse its been because they've been guilty)
What she doesn't know is that we are now having everything collated and we will see her in court....as the defendant on a Fraud charge (which, between recorded phone calls, all of our documentation and her additional false statement after the decline makes it a slam dunk). And, in an extra kick in the pants, because she identified herself as a senior soliciter, our in house lawyers are required to report her to the Law Society (our equivilent of the Bar)....
The amount in question by the way: less than $2000.00. For less than $2000, she is likely going to have a criminal charge, lose her job, and owe us money.
ANY other judge (including a '64 GTO) would be smart enough to know that a dry cleaner losing an item would be worth (at most) the replacement cost of the item.
Comment