Re: Problem with ADT Security Company

["R.H.Campbell" <rh.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Points well taken Bob ! Since I work in a totally unregulated environment,
license numbers etc simply don't exist and escaped my vision on this issue,
and are a not so obvious benefit to the client. However, this thread was
really about the "auto renewal" clause in a lot of contracts, and with a
little more thought on the issue, I have to agree with you on most of what
you say. It's not whether it's there or not, it's how it's administered when
the time comes. So, is it unethical in and of itself....no! (I stand
corrected). Can it be abused and often is it abused ? Certainly, my
experience here is that it is, and there it becomes unethical behaviour. And
if it is, then should something be done about it ? Yes, but how and what are
the questions ? I don't have any answers for this, other than to educate the
buyer in some small way to watch out for it !! Legally, it is likely dealt
with sufficiently in that if the client doesn't read his contract and signs
it blind....well...stupidity is as stupidity does !! And consumer protection
laws only address issues that are large enough and common enough to come up
on the political radar screen ! One can only hope that unhappy consumers who
are victim to a full 5 year payout second time around, and simply want to
move from the home, will be sufficiently pi**ed at paying $25x 60 months in
extra billing, that the company in question will get that much negative PR
from forcing the issue....

The Rogers negative option billing that came up about a year ago, cost them
a load in lost customers and bad PR. This was a situation where customers
were going to be automatically billed for extra things unless you advised
them you didn't want them. There was a storm of controversy over this and
they quickly abandoned their plans to do so.

Your auto renewal approach makes good sense because it gives the client a
visible and obvious benefit. However, to repeat myself, I do see quite often
where HOW it is administered CAN be and IS abused. As such, it has fallen
out of favour locally here, and most companies simply let the contract
continue on a month to month basis. Even the Borg do that, since a lot of
their clients that I take over ARE on month to month and have been since the
end of the original contract. I've asked customers about this, and they
simply say no one ever approached then about re-signing another long term
contract, so things just went along in a matter of fact fashion...

The two companies that were infamous for holding clients hostage to these
auto-renewal contracts are either out of business in one case, or in the
second case, have changed names and are operating the same way still.

RHC


"Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:50O5f.1614$zp4.1286@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "R.H.Campbell" <rh.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:KpqdncI7aehUGMveRVn-pg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> BTW, thanks for your comments and clarifications, and a good discussion.
>> I
>> like your idea of a long term price guarantee as part of the long term
>> contract. Benefits given for benefits received !! I wish it was more
>> common...
>
> Regardless of common perception, contracts are a two way street. Each
> party
> has responsibility to the other and either can cause a breach or default
> on
> the contract. Both parties are protected and one for the consumer is that
> if
> there is anything that does not meet the consumer protection guidelines,
> state and/or federal, such as size of print, location of certain language
> within the body of the contract, license numbers if applicable, notice of
> affiliation with any particular governmental departments, etc. will
> usually
> render the contract null and void. It isn't hard to get an opinion from
> the
> AG's office on a particular concern. Back at ya on a good conversation!
>
>