Daily Archives: 11 Apr 2007

Furnace woes: the next generation

The previous parts of this story can be found here, here, and here.

I thought that perhaps I would be lucky enough to get past the trouble I had getting my furnace replaced with the involvement of the home warranty company (WC) I have a policy with. After all, it’s been almost six months, right? Keeping in tune with the insurance-type company standard, I am still having troubles today.

Heretofore I have named no names other than my own in relating this story. If something doesn’t change soon, however, I am going to start.

(Not that I am fooled into thinking that posting this on my blog would have any normal effect, but sending copies of my blog entries to places like the BBB and consumer advocacy groups regarding the unethical and deceptive practices of the WC, with names and infractions cited, just might.)

Three days ago I received a letter in the mail from the WC. Actually it is addressed to my wife. Why her and not me, I can only guess: she wrote the check when the new furnace was installed and had one conversation with the WC. Other than that, I have handled everything. At any rate, the letter says something to the effect of “3rd and final notice. You owe us a $55.00 trade call fee.” This is, I think, the sixth letter I have received from the WC on this subject, and the second “3rd and final notice.” Basically they are saying that I never paid the $55 service fee for the first time they sent out their contractor, and that I owe them money.

This is true. I never wrote a check for $55. I wrote one for $35 to the contractor the WC sent; as mentioned previously, he charged me his $35 trip charge instead of the $55 because the WC initially refused to cover the replacement of the furnace.

After I received the first notice, I sent it back without payment with the explanation that I had already paid the contractor at the time of service. In January, after having received a few more notices, my wife called the WC to reiterate this fact, and the WC rep told her we may still owe the $20 difference, and the WC would contact us to let us know. The only contact we have received since then was in the form of the notices sent by mail.

So when I got the most recent notice in the mail, I called up the WC the next day and spoke with them about it. The rep I spoke to could find no information stating that the WC had actually covered any costs and the $35 check I had written was marked as a non-covered cost fee. If the furnace had been covered, she said, I would have received the $35 check back. I explained that it was covered after much debate with the WC, and that I had not, in fact, received my check back. Since she could not find any information noting that the furnace was covered, she told me she would have to “check with the tech” (since when does a “tech” need to be consulted to read notes on an account?) and promised to call me back the next day (yesterday).

I didn’t receive a call the next day, and actually forgot that I was supposed to receive one until my phone rang this morning and I saw the number. I tried to answer it but being that I get wonderfully bad cell service at my house–which I need to contact Cingular about, but I hate hate hate speaking to Cingular, for reasons which I have not yet disclosed on this blog–the call was dropped. The phone rang again shortly thereafter and I just let it go to voicemail so I would at least be assured to get something.

I checked my voicemail on the way to work and it was a message from the WC rep I had spoken to two days ago, saying to call her back. A good thing I had taken down her phone number and extension before, as she left no contact information. I called back once I got to work and got her voicemail, saying I was returning her call and asking for her to call me back. I also left both my name and phone number to make it easy.

A little while later she called me back and explained to me her findings. In essence, the $35 was not marked as a trade call fee, and so I still owed the $55. I told her they could apply the $35 payment toward the $55, and send me a bill for the difference. She told me she would have to speak to accounting and call me back.

A few minutes later I got another call from her and she said that since I had written the check to the contractor and not to the WC, I could send in a “copy of the check”–by which I hope she meant the carbon copy, because I don’t have the original, as I explained before–and the WC would reimburse me the $35 and then I could write a check for $55. If I did not pay the $55 it would end up on my credit report. I explained that that was somewhat, i.e. really really, ridiculous. She said that it was necessary for all the accounting procedures, etc. I told her that while I technically owed the $20, I felt that I shouldn’t have to pay it in the first place because of the dubious way the WC had handled the entire case, but that if they sent me a bill for $20, I would pay it. I also posed the question on how much the WC was spending to collect this $20 (more on that below). She told me she could do nothing further, and I told her that was fine, and that I would be happy to speak with her supervisor.

(I have nothing against any of the reps of the WC thus far except the one who lied to the contractor and misrepresented me, and the “account executive,” a.k.a. sales person that tried to justify the unethical behavior and brought up inappropriate topics like religion. The rest of them were just doing their jobs, this current rep included.)

So I was transfered to the Authorization department where I briefly outlined the situation. The man I spoke with told me the same thing; I could send in the check copy for reimbursement and then pay the $55 fee. I explained again that this was a really really stupid way to do things and he said it had to be done that way. At this point I had to get involved in moving a server around at work and had to cut the conversation short. I took the rep’s name and number and told him I would call back when I had more time to discuss this, which will probably be tomorrow.

Now, as I mentioned before (and will mention again tomorrow when I call back), I don’t feel like I should have to pay the $20, but I will do that if I am sent a bill for that amount, and no more. I will not go through the silly process of being reimbursed $35 and then paying $55 back. I will also bring up the following:

The WC call center is, as far as I know, based in California. Google tells me that as of January 1, 2007, California minimum wage is $7.50 per hour. Assuming everyone at the WC makes minimum wage, then given the probably half an hour my wife spent on the phone with the WC in January and the hour or so I have spent in the last few days, we’re up to $11.25 in payroll expenses for the WC. Add in the time I will have to spend on the phone resolving this–let’s low-ball it and say just another half an hour–that brings the total up to $15.00. Now adding in the time it takes for whoever is responsible for sending out six notices by mail, plus postage, and processing a reimbursement, then billing the contractor for that amount, and then processing my hypothetical $55 check, and not forgetting to add in payroll taxes for good measure, I think that the WC has quite exceeded the $20 that they expect me to pay. Some of the people involved may even make more than minimum wage, and there increase the costs some more. Isn’t there a point where you cut your losses and call it a day?

If the WC refuses to apply the already-paid $35 and bill me only for the difference (and also possibly again threatens the credit report stuff), I will be happy to report to them that I will update my reports of the incidents with the names of people involved and their various questionable behaviors and forward them on to the BBB, consumer advocacy groups, and whoever else I can think might be interested. I will give them their $20, but not if they’re going to be stupid about it.

Further bulletins as events warrant.