Re: Problem with ADT Security Company

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

I guess that pretty well sums it up Bob; however, in all honesty, I doubt
very much if the way you handle it is the way the majority of companies that
use a LONG TERM auto-renewal clause handle it. Our market seems to be too
competitive to keep raising monitoring rates year over year. Too big an
increase, and customers would bail out on you..

Perhaps I'm getting a bit jaundiced in my old age, or our totally
unregulated part of the world may be worse than the norm in other areas, but
it leaves me personally uneasy about the potential for abuse. It has been my
experience in life that if business is left on its own to regulate its own
activities, that generally means the consumer will end up catching it in the
ear !! (yes, yes, I know...this may sound strange coming from someone
working in a TOTALLY unregulated environment....:))

I guess it comes down to once again...buyer beware ! If the consumer doesn't
like it, then don't sign it.....

RHC

"Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eQT5f.6594$%43.3807@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> So in closing, what I am hearing is that, the auto renewal clause is not
> the
> problem. What you have a problem with is that you are seeing a couple of
> companies that have abused of the clause. But, if administered simply as
> intended, it can be a good advantage for both the customer and the
> company.
> As you said, benefit given benefit received. I has worked for me.
>
> "R.H.Campbell" <rh.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:-vudnV1d7NMDVsreRVn-pA@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!
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>