Run this past the logical part of your brain and tell me if I’m out to lunch. The phone company tells you you owe them 158 dollars by end of month. Because you’re not made of money, and they’re not the only ones who’d like you to hand over what you do have of it, you strike up what you think is a vaguely sensible arangement that will both give them their money and not leave your bank account crying on the floor. The arangement is, according to the phone company, going to result in not needing to drop a nuclear warhead on their accounts receiveable department about your service being suspended for non-payment. So, you pay according to that arangement. Then, fast forward a week or so. You’re trying to do something with your phone, and get the lovely privilege of speaking to accounts receiveable about your service being suspended.
That got to be me with Rogers first thing this morning. Now, I have a question. Is it common practice at Rogers to tell the customer one thing and document the opposite? When I called a week ago, I was told I wouldn’t need to deal with service restoration according to the arangement. In the notes, apparently, was a different storry–I was aPparently made aware that such an arangement wouldn’t guarantee I’d avoid a suspension. Naturally, I provided the agent I got to argue with today with an education. 20 minutes later and service ended up being reenabled.
A suggestion for Rogers employees. If indeed you must insist on not getting your info straight, perhaps give not escentially calling your customers liars during acts of not getting your info straight. It really makes you look like idiots. Well, more so than usual. Please to be seasing and desisting. That’d be awesome.