For the past three months, I have been helping my friend, a Sprint customer, providing him food and shelter.
His spleen was ruptured by his former domestic partner in a violent attack.
That person has been arrested and will stand trial for the crime but is free at this time.
My friend alleges that that person has made death threats against him.
It is imperative that my friend have phone service.
His cell provider is Sprint.
On November 2, Sprint cut off his service.
I called Sprint. Their representative told me that with a $70 payment, the service would be restored through November 9.
I asked to receive from Sprint an e-mail of the terms. The Sprint rep refused to do so.
Nonetheless, I made the $70 payment with my debit card.
And nonetheless, the service was again cut off the morning of November 6.
In doing that, Sprint violated Implied Authority of Contract.
It also denied phone service to a victim of violent crime who has an order of protection against his attacker and must be able to call others if he is out in the street.
I called Sprint on the phone; they refused to honor their employee's promise to me to keep service on till the 9th.
I went to my bank, which began an investigation.
I then contacted by e-mail top executives at Sprint, explaining my friend's dire situation to them. Several days later, my friend's account balance was paid, to the tune of about $135.
On November 29, Sprint again cut off my friend's phone service, without first notifying him in any way.
My $70 debit card payment had apparently been taken away from Sprint by my bank, due to Sprint's having violated Implied Authority of Contract.
Ironically, the $70 have not yet appeared in my account.
My friend alleges that he was controlled by death threats by his abuser for a two year period. He is suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The cutting off without prior notification of his phone service on November 29 tipped him over into a severe psychological incident. It became impossible for me to talk with him in any reasonable way, and he had to go outside to various clinic appointments without his phone. He needs to be able to call people including the police on his phone when he is out.
I again e-mailed top executives at Sprint. There was no e-mail response, so I called the company, and spoke with Patricia Sampier. She assigned Sprint case number 1504322 to this matter.
I explained why my friend has urgent need of phone service. She claimed that Sprint could not do anything unless they had my friend's account password.
Being as Sprint cut off his service without notifying him, I refuse to believe that they would be violating his privacy if they restored it. However that may be, I did not have his password. As his phone service had been cut off, and as he had gone out while suffering a severe episode of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, I had no means of reaching him.
He should have been back from his appointments around 4:30. At 5:20, he still hadn't returned. Worried sick, I called Ms. Sampier again.
The upshot of that conversation is that she resisted talking about restoring the service, I insisted, she went to her executive board while I held, then she came back to ask for my friend's Social Security number, which I found, whereupon she stated she would restore service but that credit for the $70 would only be given until next Thursday.
I wanted to establish e-mail contact with her for a verification of that, but she refused.
I have now spent hours and hours on this matter. The time I've had to take away from my work because of it and the resulting loss in income results in my being able to assist my friend less than I otherwise could have done.
Sprint violated Implied Authority of Contract with me over these $70. I want high level Sprint executives to remove the $70 charge permanently from my friend's account.
I want that not so much for the sake of the $70, but rather so that Sprint will behave more responsibly in the future towards those of their customers unfortunate enough to be victims of violent crimes.
There was never any doubt here that my friend's bills would be paid in full by those assisting him. But when I paid Sprint $70 on November 2 and was told by a Sprint employee that making the payment would guarantee phone service through November 9th, service should have been maintained through the 9th but was not.
Yes or no; does the company understand how its violation of Implied Authority of Contract has impacted both the customer and myself, and will it credit the customer's account for $70 in recognition of the hardships caused?
If not, I have no faith that Sprint executives will do anything to ameliorate the customer service problems evidenced. That Ms. Sampier refused to establish e-mail contact to give me written evidence of her promise to now keep service on for a week speaks volumes.
0 comments