Re: Problem with ADT Security Company

["Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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!
> >
> >
>
>