Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

An Insult To G.E.D. Recipients Everywhere

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • An Insult To G.E.D. Recipients Everywhere

    Hi, everyone. Long-time reader, first-time poster. Quick background: I work inbound customer service for a major insurance company for existing policies (God, my parents must be so proud I chose this path instead of that whole pesky "college" thing). Sucky customers are pretty par for the course here, but I had one that absolutely took first place in the Hall of Fame.

    SC:
    Me: Hi!
    HD: Help Desk

    Me: Thank you for calling so-and-so. My name is Wade, how may I help you?
    SC: Yes, I was pulled over and got a ticket because my plates are suspended. I called the DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) and was told it's 'cause I don't have insurance.
    Me: Oh, no problem.
    SC: Why did this happen?
    Me: I honestly don't know, but nine times out of ten it's an error on the part of the DMV.
    SC: Look, I'm getting alot of finger-pointing here. They say it's you, you say it's them, I just want it fixed!

    Okay, pretty common occurence. The DMV, like many other places, often makes human error, and this is pretty easy to resolve. So, I go into his account.

    Me: Sir, I see we advised the DMV your policy is current with no lapse in coverage (keep in mind this was done in May, and the call happened in October).
    SC: I know, I got a letter from the DMV stating my suspension had been lifted!

    And we all live happily ever after, right? Come on, you know there's more to it than that.....

    SC: So I went to court and they gave me a form.
    Me: And what did the form say?
    SC: It asked me to plead "Guilty," "Not Guilty," or "No Contest."

    Oh, God in Heaven, here it comes.....

    Me: And, what did you do?
    SC: Well, I plead "No Contest," of course!

    Time out. Let's just say, hypothetically, you were in California, and someone was murdered in New York. You have fifty credible eyewitnesses to your wearabouts, yet you still say, "Yep, I did it!"

    Me: So, despite having evidence to the contrary, you accepted full responsibility?
    SC: Yes! What was I supposed to do?
    Me: Perhaps consult an attorney? (You know, those people who spend seven years in college to decipher such nuances of the English language as "Yes" and "No").
    SC: Well, would your company have paid for an attorney to represent me?
    Me: Not on a standard traffic violation, only if it was for a claim in litigation and the company deemed it necessary.
    SC: Well, I want to know who's gonna pay my fine!
    Me: You are, sir.
    SC: Well, this is just HORRIBLE customer service! I DEMAND to speak with a supervisor!

    No problem, I assure him. So, I dial up the Help Desk where the Senior Specialists are. Great bunch of people (seriously, they really are). Normally I introduce myself, Hi, this is Wade, my ID is blah-blah-blah. But for this one:

    HD: Help Desk, this is Jason. How may I help you?
    Me: Jason, this is Wade. You're not gonna BELIEVE this shit!

    So, I tell him what's up. After I finish, although this was over the telephone, I imagined Jason's face looked like

    After a few seconds of stunned silence, Jason says, "Okay, put him through..."

    So, I transfer him. Couple hours later, I had to call the Help Desk again on an unrelated issue, and got Jason again. Apparently, the guy transferred to Jason's supervisor, who said the same thing as I did, then transferred to that individual's Manager, who not only re-iterated everything, but reviewed my phone call (they're all recorded) and the policy's notes.

    And, the world keeps on turning....

  • #2
    What's the difference between "guilty" and "no contest"?

    Comment


    • #3
      Quoth Chromatix View Post
      What's the difference between "guilty" and "no contest"?
      Guilty means you openly admit your guilt.

      No Contest means you are not admitting guilt, but you are saying the evidence is so much that you can not prove yourself innocent.
      "It's not easy being evil in a world that's gone to Hell" ~ Anton LaVey

      Comment


      • #4
        Sucky that the DMV took him to court when there was a mix up. Unless moron decided not to mention that he had insurance until after the sentencing.

        Though maybe he should just pay the fine; the lawyer might be more expensive.
        Time! Time! Time is what turns kittens into cats.

        Don't teach me a lesson; all I learn is that you are an asshole.

        I wish porn had subtitles.

        Comment


        • #5
          Quoth depechemodefan View Post
          Sucky that the DMV took him to court when there was a mix up. Unless moron decided not to mention that he had insurance until after the sentencing.

          Though maybe he should just pay the fine; the lawyer might be more expensive.
          Not sure how it works elsewhere, but here if you're convicted of driving without insurance it'll double your insurance premiums as well
          Otaku

          Comment


          • #6
            Quoth DevilBoy View Post
            Guilty means you openly admit your guilt.

            No Contest means you are not admitting guilt, but you are saying the evidence is so much that you can not prove yourself innocent.
            Ah, so it's the criminal-law version of "settling out of court".

            Comment


            • #7
              My wife had a fender bender on the interstate once, and clearly it was the guy's fault, but instead she got ticketed for it by the state trooper who showed up. Basically, she was approaching an on-ramp, and in the left lane there were two big rigs, so she couldn't pull over to let the cars coming up the ramp merge. The cars weren't going to stop either, as they nearly cut her off, so my wife had to slow down. Guy driving a rented Penske truck rams my wife in the rear, shattering a tailight and bending the fender pretty good. My wife pulls off to the side, as does the guy, and they wait for the cop. Cop shows up. Guy starts saying my wife was drunk(!? Cop never gave a breathalyzer to prove otherwise, even though my wife demanded it), and when the cop heard my wife had slowed down, he tickets /her/ for impeding traffic as the cause of the accident, instead of the other guy keeping his eyes on the road like he should have, and also for following too close.

              So, I call up the court house to find out how much the ticket is. It's automated, so when it gets to impeding traffic, I hear: 'Impeding Traffic. Fine: $10..' Oh, that's not so bad... "Court Fees: $60". Anyways, I call up the court. At first, they thought that perhaps the cop had written down the wrong violation code, and told me to come in, so I did, but upon looking at the ticket saw it was correct and I just couldn't read his handwriting. So I'm given a form to fill out. I had the same three choices. 'Guilty', 'Not Guilty', and 'No Contest'. The form stated that if I chose 'Not Guilty', a hearing would be scheduled to contest the ticket. I couldn't afford a lawyer, and it would have been the cops word against my wife's, so I felt I had no choice but to select 'No Contest'. I paid the fine, and left it at that. Our insurance paid the repairs, but it of course raised our rates for a couple years. I really wish I had been there looking back. I feel that the whole mess was a case of the cop and the other guy taking advantage of a woman by herself, whereas if I'd been driving, it'd been a whole different ballgame. The truth will never be known, but I think in the end, it was a case of 'just pay the $2'.
              A fact of life: After Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says W T F.....

              Comment


              • #8
                Quoth Chromatix View Post
                Ah, so it's the criminal-law version of "settling out of court".
                No, that's plea-bargining.
                Low lie the Fields of Athenry/ Where once we watched the small free birds fly/ Our love was on the wing/ we had dreams and songs to sing/ It's so lonely around the Fields of Athenry

                Comment


                • #9
                  Quoth IT Grunt View Post
                  So, I call up the court house to find out how much the ticket is. It's automated, so when it gets to impeding traffic, I hear: 'Impeding Traffic. Fine: $10..' Oh, that's not so bad... "Court Fees: $60". Anyways, I call up the court. At first, they thought that perhaps the cop had written down the wrong violation code, and told me to come in, so I did, but upon looking at the ticket saw it was correct and I just couldn't read his handwriting. So I'm given a form to fill out. I had the same three choices. 'Guilty', 'Not Guilty', and 'No Contest'. The form stated that if I chose 'Not Guilty', a hearing would be scheduled to contest the ticket. I couldn't afford a lawyer, and it would have been the cops word against my wife's, so I felt I had no choice but to select 'No Contest'. I paid the fine, and left it at that. Our insurance paid the repairs, but it of course raised our rates for a couple years. I really wish I had been there looking back. I feel that the whole mess was a case of the cop and the other guy taking advantage of a woman by herself, whereas if I'd been driving, it'd been a whole different ballgame. The truth will never be known, but I think in the end, it was a case of 'just pay the $2'.
                  If you have the time, it's usually better to fight the ticket. You don't need a lawyer to fight a traffic ticket, and often the cop won't bother showing up. The rise in insurance premiums can be more than any court costs you'd pay over the long term. And the worst that will happen is you have to pay extra.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    What I've seen in traffic court is that the judge always takes the cop's word over the driver's, unless the driver has a witness.

                    The only time I've seen a difference was when a lawyer was filling in for a judge in traffic court. The lawyer actually went over what was presented, questioned the cop and the driver, and actually ruled in favor of the driver.

                    If the cop doesn't show up, then you normally win, but it depends on the judge and the violation.
                    Labor boards have info on local laws for free
                    HR believes the first person in the door
                    Learn how to go over whackamole bosses' heads safely
                    Document everything
                    CS proves Dunning-Kruger effect

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      That's why I think cars should have black-boxes. With video cameras or at least proximity radar.

                      Either of those would have shown that IT Grunt's wife had no room to manoeuvre, while the other driver did but didn't use it.

                      The black-boxes (flight recorder and voice recorder) are the primary tools of any air accident investigation. They are crucial in determining whether the pilots or something else were to blame. I can't help feeling that they would greatly improve road safety as well, since it's almost always a driver (or sometimes more than one) that were to blame.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Depends on the state. I've lived in a state where you are completely at fault if you rear-end someone. Black ice? Your fault. Person ahead driving like an idiot and randomly slamming on breaks? Your fault. Although there is some truth to be had, usually the person doing the rear-ending really is at fault. I'm very surprised the wife received a ticket.
                        A lion however, will only devour your corpse, whereas an SC is not sated until they have destroyed your soul. (Quote per infinitemonkies)

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X