ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND -- As a consumer from your state, I felt it was my responsibility to bring to your attention the following incident. I am writing to complain about the inadequate customer service and “runaround” I received from Verizon DSL. On August, 28th 2006, my telephone service was switched from Spectrotel to Verizon at my request (Spectrotel has slammed me and I requested that Verizon return to be my carrier). Since the switch to Verizon took place, my DSL service has not worked. From Monday, August 29th until September, 4th, 2006, I made numerous calls to Verizon regarding my non-functioning DSL service.
I spoke with several DSL tech support personnel and supervisors who appear to pass me from one department to another because they could not tell me why my service was not working. Finally, on Monday September 4th, 2006, ** (tech number **) supervisor told me that I would have canceled my current DSL service since I had new line with Verizon and re-order the service. I called and cancelled my service on September 5th, 2006 and was given an order ID number **. I was also sent an email by a Verizon customer service representative stating my start date for DSL would be September, 18th, 2006.
Monday September 11th, called to check the status of my order was told by customer service representative that the present order was in the system to be cancelled. I was told by a technical support supervisor that to get DSL service, I would have to cancel the present order and re-order service. On Thursday September 14th, received call that my order had been cancelled and I can go ahead and re-order. I called Verizon and re-ordered service for DSL as soon as I received this call and the agent assured me it would go through.
I received a call on Friday 15th, Saturday 16th and Monday 18th, September 2006 telling me that my old service has been cancelled and to go ahead and re-order my service. I called on Monday, 18th September, 2006 and was told technical support supervisor that I already ordered my DSL service. I was told that it was not in the system and to call billing. I called billing on Tuesday, September 19th, 2006 and was told that I will have to re-order my service since my order from last week, the order was in the system as a cancelled order.
I called tech support several times afterwards and again like all the other times, I have called I waited on the telephone for 45-75 minutes on the telephone to be assisted. I am still without DSL service and appear to be no resolution in-sight and I am not sure what to do at this point and a faithful Verizon customer. As a resolution, I would like the following: I would like that I be not charged any termination or cancellation fee or any other action recommended by the Attorney General Office. Please contact me if you need more details regarding this incident.
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND -- Justice has received another black eye, this time from the Maryland Judiciary. A man charged with raping a 7 year old girl and molesting her over a three year period, was freed when the charges against him were dropped.
The charges were dropped because they were supposedly unable to find an interpreter who spoke the suspect's native tongue, as he was from Liberia. Shame on the idiots who made this determination, and also shame on the Liberian Embassy which refused to assist, claiming they could not force anyone to act as an interpreter. So far this all sounds quite reasonable, doesn't it? The thing that makes this whole situation intolerable is that the suspect attended High School and College in the United States, and speaks English fluently. For Pete's sake, he discussed the case with detectives in excellent English!
To claim that the man needed an interpreter to defend himself against the charges or that he was unable to understand English sufficiently to assist is his defense is balderdash! To see a Child Molester and Rapist walk free because of a phony baloney reason like this galls me. I agree that a person should be considered innocent until and unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, to use ridiculous concepts to twist our judicial system to escape punishment for one's patently criminal activities is unacceptable. I am not usually one to wish ill on anyone, but in this case, this person should become the victim of an 'accident.' Possibly a hit and run accident as he crosses a street. The Maryland Attorney General should join Mike Nifong in the Judicial Hall of Shame.
As a consumer from your state, I felt it was my responsibility to bring to your attention the following incident. Bank of America knows that customers use online banking so as not to have to keep track of their paper receipts with a calculator. Clients depend on the accuracy of the balance shown online, and often check that balance on days that they make transactions.
Bank of America (MD) Online banking purposefully does not show the true daily available balance on users' online statement. A posted transaction will appear instantly then disappear for a few days, fooling the user that the available balance shown is up to the minute or even the day. Then BOA allows (instead of denying) transactions to post based on the erroneous balance and simply charge overdraft fees, although it was their mistake in reporting the wrong balance.
So, BOA depends on being able to charge huge overdraft fees racking up on online banking customers who depend on their online banking daily balance to be correct and accurate. Transactions that post on a certain day show up instantly, then the available balance listed is assumed to be just as instant. But, the following day, and days after, the transaction is no longer shown and the available balance has reverted, unbeknownst to the client, who feels free to use their debit card, without having a register, to track spending otherwise.
Other online banking that I currently use will show the transaction and the available balance up to the minute and that available balance can be depended upon to be accurate and updated every day no matter how many transactions are posted and how many days pass. Please do something about the dangerous practice that Bank of America has developed. Only people who can least afford it will be financially harmed by it especially those of us who are accustomed to checking our online balance (sometimes several times a day) in order to stay within our debit card limit.
If the online balance can no longer be relied upon, we might as well go back to checks and check registers, and check fees, etc. Other banks are doing it right, so should BOA. I have contacted several CSAs by phone and requested that Bank of America refund the fraudulent fees, but they have so far refused, saying that I should keep a register and that the online balance does not reflect pending transactions, even though they have already posted. I would like my monies refunded, and BOA punished for this fraud. As a resolution, I would like the following: I want all the fees they fraudulently took refunded to me and the account closed.
Please contact me if you need more details regarding this incident.
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND -- As a consumer from your state, I felt it was my responsibility to bring to your attention the following incident. I purchased a used 1999 Toyota Camry in 2001. On Friday, June 11, 2004, this vehicle was involved in a serious accident involving major front end damage to the car. However, the airbag did not deploy. I took pictures of my vehicle and compared them to other vehicles on the lot where my car had been towed. After the comparison, I noticed that the damage sustained by my vehicle was similar to or greater than the damage sustained by other vehicles. I took pictures of different vehicles because I suspect that there is a problem with the airbags on my car.
As a resolution, I would like the following: I want Toyota to be held accountable for the problems that exists with this vehicle. I would like for the entire vehicle to be replaced as it appears that it should be totaled anyway. I would also like some monetary compensation because when the vehicle was purchased, it was advertised as having driver's and passenger's side airbags. This apparently is not the case so I should not have been paying for something that I did not have. Please contact me if you need more details regarding this incident.