Hough notified set limitation was not applicable per reason T mobile did not yet fulfill payments to clients referred and was notified prior to preliminary service not applicable interruption. Activation fee was not applicable per reason TMOBILE should not have charged amount to commence with and TMOBILE was notified to payments owe prior to second service. Your payment is not true per reason 8/3 your retailer was paid amount adequate to revive account.
Your retailer guarantee service revitalize not longer than 2 hours thereafter. Said service was not revived and payment was not yet refunded.
Too 12/12 T Mobile paid preliminary $100.00 deposit to acct, aforesaid was entire payment to client refer and aforesaid amount was not to time, Therefore TMOBILE service interruption was to entire erroneous and not applicable.
TMOBILE account placement to PINNACLE was to entire not applicable.
How do you not yet resolve complaint then refer acct to collection.
Punitive penalties are applicable to TMOBILE per reason ample notice for payments not yet resolve was given. More important it was found TMOBILE impose and reflect not applicable fees call government fees and TMOBILE did not pay aforesaid amount to government.
TMOBILE reflect not applicable to Pinnacle and this are addition to complaint Therefore complaint is valid and $20,000, 000.00 is facet settlement close to coherent law. Law requires entire resolve payment to compliant and actual worth calculable to person time utilize file complaint, not necessary time it took to resolve, prime clients referred, alleviation, important calls misses, few person and relations died and much more. Judge did rule not for T mobile though amount $75.00 was not suitable.
Actual to law is far more than $20,000, 000.00 to resolve this litigation. Though it seems this was effort negotiation response too extreme is not beginning it is actual not honor approach to decent respect to client and law.
Isang Umoren
Director
Reasons to complaint validity
Phone numbers reference to #202/422/0566 and 301/ 2567497
Nigeria market
Zimbabwe market and many other referrals
1) Per law there is requirement to complete amount not paid to every complaint. 2) Not though close to suitable offer to then only offer to repay amount expense to obtain another phone per reason $75 offer is not entire and your counsel[1] recognize it is not to law to attempt to not complete entire litigation payment 3) Opportunity value to time is person time utilize to resolve complaint person could utilize to other valuables. This is calculable to person actual worth and or close to person worth. 4) It is not to law to owe any wages, fee, commission and or salary. 5) It is not to law to delay any payment and or payment wages. Law requires 10% repayment per day payment addition to punitive present to time amount was default.
) It is not to law to reflect not yet resolve complaint and litigation to person credit. 7) It is not to law not to give rate payment schedule accuracy to clients and or misapply payments. 8) Amount paid thus far to alleviate T / mobile phone is $1454.[2] 9) It is not to law to put other businesses to not gain business anticipation. 10) Per reason it value to each call is far more worthy and view to possible client is reflection to phones.
Complaint
This complaint is per fees not yet paid to sale to Nigeria and Zimbabwe markets. Too is per two line ADPRESS and Isang Umoren did not receive suitable notices per not applicable line tossed and per reason invoice was not receive prior to T mobile tossed to lines. Too these invoices were overpriced per claim there were tax payments to government when findings turn out this payment is not paying any fees to government. Next to these reasons very important calls were missed. ADPRESS made good efforts to receive invoices and also receive calls and was guarantee such would be sent. It is common knowledge to law action is not taken till entire dispute is resolve. Beyond this and thereafter though T / Mobile was notify to payments not yet resolve make not applicable reflection to credit. Reason this approach is commendable is to make every real effort to come to suitable resolve and to try to not to litigate per reason litigation norm this would come out far more. Beyond this conclusive decision to resolve amount is Isang Umoren decision and even if this goes to litigation it is similar Isang Umoren who would decide to suitable offer therefore we can decide now to minimize time and expenses or $35,000, 000.00 settlement amount would seem not suitable to resolve this litigation. You are to reach resolve amount agreement and implore to way to sent repayment prior to any transaction. There were errors to T mobile who per receipt to payment did not revive line though it agreed to do 2 hours later. There was error to charge addition and did not revive line. There was error to take action prior to T Mobile notification. Payments to 15th SNW, WDC retail outlet errors places were phone and agreements were enter are not yet paid. Therefore ADPRESS amount sought is far more than reasonable per reason to slice this complaint more entire amount to resolve calculable to law is more $20,000, 000.00 and any amount remove to credit bureau.
This amount is not comprises to actual worth. Amount sought is too per two $9,000, 000 each to two phones lines Respondent did not give proper notice, $2,000, 000.00/ year is close business opportunity value though such value is more, missed important calls, airline ticket, fee completion on clients referred and refund on line Litigant didn't have to sign up had Respondent brought back prior line upon receipt to payment and require to law
<br clear="all">
[1] Gill/Bates 2600 Virginia Avenue NW #1000, WDC 20037
[2] v. Mobile, verizon, sprnt
0 comments