Tweet
Guy calls in tonight wanting to discuss his bill. OK, no biggie, these usually don't take long.
Said he called in before (uh-oh, my SC sense is tingling) and was told by another rep that there was a problem on his last bill and somehow that meant he didn't really owe the past due amount listed on his current statement. OK, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt so far, our billing system isn't the easiest thing in the world to understand.
I check his previous month's statement and what happened his he made his payment, and then someone else's payment got put on his account. It happens. People pay on line or via automated phone and sometimes get the account number reversed and end up putting their payment on someone else's account. What happened is our wonderful A/R folks removed both the incorrect payment and the correct payment he made!
OK, our bad, but he paid via check-by-phone so that meant the money was returned to his bank account. His past due was also coincidentally the same amount as the payment that was returned. Now I know math is not the strong suit of the SC, but surely 2+2 is within their grasp right?
Sadly, no.
How he got started I'm still not sure, but Perry Mason Jr. started dropping the ten-dollar legal terms at me as if I would crumble at the feet of his large vocabulary. I guess he was hoping I wouldn't notice he was trying to scam his way out of his past due if he wove it in between the glossary of a first year law school textbook? The crux of his argument is that since the former rep and I both acknowledged a mistake was made, that meant any and all future bills (especially ones with past due balances no doubt) were unreliable and potentially inaccurate. I let him bask in his glory of getting the evil cable empire to admit a mistake before asking him if he bothered to check with his bank to see if the money was deposited back.
"..........uh........no............*goes back into legal rant sounding like a bad impression of Law and Order*"
I see.
So I ask him, don't you think (since this matter is of utmost urgency and importance) you should check to see if your money is back in your account? If it is, it would confirm that we did in fact return all payments made that month on the account and all you need to do is remake that payment and the world will be a happy land of fuzzy bunnies. He of course, attempts to dance around this dastardly attempt to introduce logical thinking to a SC encounter.
The guy went into yet another round of how us admitting we made a mistake absolves him of any responsibility of future past due balances, but as luck would have it his cordless phone ran out of battery just as the clock struck the end of my shift. And he wanted to speak to a supervisor too. I SO wanted to escalate that call and hear the gales of laughter. Oh well. I'm sure he called back and got someone else to issue credits with his tidal wave of legal jibber jabber.
Said he called in before (uh-oh, my SC sense is tingling) and was told by another rep that there was a problem on his last bill and somehow that meant he didn't really owe the past due amount listed on his current statement. OK, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt so far, our billing system isn't the easiest thing in the world to understand.
I check his previous month's statement and what happened his he made his payment, and then someone else's payment got put on his account. It happens. People pay on line or via automated phone and sometimes get the account number reversed and end up putting their payment on someone else's account. What happened is our wonderful A/R folks removed both the incorrect payment and the correct payment he made!
OK, our bad, but he paid via check-by-phone so that meant the money was returned to his bank account. His past due was also coincidentally the same amount as the payment that was returned. Now I know math is not the strong suit of the SC, but surely 2+2 is within their grasp right?
Sadly, no.
How he got started I'm still not sure, but Perry Mason Jr. started dropping the ten-dollar legal terms at me as if I would crumble at the feet of his large vocabulary. I guess he was hoping I wouldn't notice he was trying to scam his way out of his past due if he wove it in between the glossary of a first year law school textbook? The crux of his argument is that since the former rep and I both acknowledged a mistake was made, that meant any and all future bills (especially ones with past due balances no doubt) were unreliable and potentially inaccurate. I let him bask in his glory of getting the evil cable empire to admit a mistake before asking him if he bothered to check with his bank to see if the money was deposited back.
"..........uh........no............*goes back into legal rant sounding like a bad impression of Law and Order*"
I see.
So I ask him, don't you think (since this matter is of utmost urgency and importance) you should check to see if your money is back in your account? If it is, it would confirm that we did in fact return all payments made that month on the account and all you need to do is remake that payment and the world will be a happy land of fuzzy bunnies. He of course, attempts to dance around this dastardly attempt to introduce logical thinking to a SC encounter.
The guy went into yet another round of how us admitting we made a mistake absolves him of any responsibility of future past due balances, but as luck would have it his cordless phone ran out of battery just as the clock struck the end of my shift. And he wanted to speak to a supervisor too. I SO wanted to escalate that call and hear the gales of laughter. Oh well. I'm sure he called back and got someone else to issue credits with his tidal wave of legal jibber jabber.