Closing account early - question on 'penalty fees'

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 01:03:49 GMT, "Scott Stephenson"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 23:22:39 GMT, "Scott Stephenson"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:19:27 GMT, "Scott Stephenson"
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> >> If that's the case, and they refuse to negotiate, they get zero from
>> >me.
>> >> >Good
>> >> >> luck collecting. It won't happen.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm sure I can work a deal with them when they hear my terms.
>> >> >
>> >> >Have fun- it will look real nice on your credit report. Of course,
>> >that's
>> >> >after you have to deal with third party collections.
>> >>
>> >> Not my credit report. A soon to be defunct FID#. 3rd party
>collections?
>> >My
>> >> home phone and doorbell will be nice and quiet. No doubt about it.
>> >
>> >Go ahead and think that- your name and address are on file along with
>your
>> >'soon to be defunct' FID#.
>>
>> I see you've never had one. My HOME address and HOME phone are NOT
>associated
>> with it in any way. Nor is my SS#. Do you even understand the purpose
>behind
>> one and the protections it affords ?
>>
>
>Yep- had one. It affords no protection from creditors by itself- it is
>assigned strictly for tax purposes. Continue to be a clueless moron and
>keep telling yourself that they won't find you.

I've tried to explain it to you, but sometimes a dolt cannot be taught. An
FID has far more usefullness than just "tax purposes". I seriously doubt
you've ever had one.

>And here's a little tip-
>your name is on it, and probably in your local phone book, too.

1st yes, 2nd no.

---

› See More: Closing account early - question on 'penalty fees'

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 01:13:39 GMT, "Scott Stephenson"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 23:21:03 GMT, "Scott Stephenson"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 03:21:40 GMT, "SueNY" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >May I ask why you think you aren't obligated to honor the terms of the
>> >> >contract you signed with Nextel? You agreed to THEIR terms, thats why
>> >they
>> >> >provided service, remember?
>> >>
>> >> Because $200 per phone is out of line and I'm not going to pay it.
>> >Period. I
>> >> needed the service at the time.
>> >>
>> >> >It's jerks like you that think you don't have to
>> >> >pay your bills that drive up the cost of service for the rest of us.
>> >>
>> >> Cry me a river.
>> >>
>> >> Do you truly believe that by ending my service early and giving Nextel
>> >$200,
>> >> that makes a difference? That's BS fee because they want my monthly
>money
>> >and
>> >> are trying to get it wether or not I keep service.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Well, I can see why you're going out of business- you probably screwed
>your
>> >customers just like this?
>>
>> Nope. Just not worth it anymore. Things are drying up. I suppose I'm
>the
>> only one being affected by the current economy?
>
>The current 'recovering' economy? Yep- its affecting me. And when it was
>totally in the crapper, I still found a way to pay off my financial
>obligations.

Good for you. Do I hear a round of applause? *chirp*chirp*


All your "high and mighty" bore is getting rather laughable. I hope, at the
very least, you believe your own drivel.

BTW, I ended my Nextel obligations Friday. I was able to negotiate a final
penalty fee of $225 for all 5 phones. As foolish as the fee is in the first
place, I can live with this amount.

In your twisted mind, this means your monthly rate will now go up to make up
the difference of $775 that "I should have paid".

Good luck with your twisted views of reality. You sure have a lot to learn.

Mark wrote:

> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 03:21:40 GMT, "SueNY" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>May I ask why you think you aren't obligated to honor the terms of the
>>contract you signed with Nextel? You agreed to THEIR terms, thats why they
>>provided service, remember?
>
>
> Because $200 per phone is out of line and I'm not going to pay it. Period.

Then you never should have agreed to it. Period.

I guess this is why your "business" is going defunct, huh? If you
consider all your contracts to be so fluid, then I'd not do business
with you either.

> I needed the service at the time.

That's what prepaid cellular is for. If you can't handle commitment,
you get yourself some TRACFones and be done with it.

> Cry me a river.
>
> Do you truly believe that by ending my service early and giving Nextel $200,
> that makes a difference?

Actually, it does. That $200 per phone, whether you believe it or not,
represents liquidated damages to Nextel. Ever wonder why a color screen
phone, walkie-talkie capability, enough memory to download and run apps
and the ability to connect to the internet all costs $199 in a cell
phone package, but half those features cost $400-plus in a PDA package?
Because the phones you bought were partially subsidized by Nextel; you
did NOT buy your equipment full price. In exchange for them selling you
your equipment at a loss, you promised to stick with them for a certain
length of time so that they may recover their loss (and perhaps manage a
small profit depending on how close you got to using all your minutes
each month) through the length of the contract.

Yeah I know, you don't give a damn. And that's fine. But it's still
bad debt that Nextel will have to write off, and on a grander scale, if
Nextel encounters more jerks like you, then that means higher prices for
everyone else.

Not that it matters. When the bill collectors come knocking down your
door going after the debt (and they could EASILY subpoena or research
your address, if Nextel thinks it's cost effective to go after you),
you're get more than your due in harassment.





--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

DevilsPGD wrote:

> In message <<[email protected]>> "brian"
> <[email protected]> did ramble:
>
>
>>Cell phones do not go on your credit rept. good or bad...
>>
>>thank god, otherwise half america would have ****ty credit...why do you
>>think you pay so much for service? because you're helping pay for the phones
>>of the millions that get contracts, and then drop em..
>
>
> Umm, huh? Why wouldn't they show up on your credit report? -- As long
> as they bothered to do a credit check when you signed up, then they
> definitely have the ability to claim an unpaid debt on your credit
> report.

NOT ONLY will it show up on your credit reports, but just like banks
have a separate reporting agency to catch habitual bad check writers,
the cell phone companies have their OWN reporting system to catch people
who habitually skip out on their phone bills:

http://www.lightbridge.com/cat.html?cat_id=3



--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

Must remember, dealers get paid by nextel like $120-150 for each phone
activation. Who's gona make up for that loss if the person cancels in a
month or 2?


"Isaiah Beard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> DevilsPGD wrote:
>
> > In message <<[email protected]>> "brian"
> > <[email protected]> did ramble:
> >
> >
> >>Cell phones do not go on your credit rept. good or bad...
> >>
> >>thank god, otherwise half america would have ****ty credit...why do you
> >>think you pay so much for service? because you're helping pay for the
phones
> >>of the millions that get contracts, and then drop em..
> >
> >
> > Umm, huh? Why wouldn't they show up on your credit report? -- As long
> > as they bothered to do a credit check when you signed up, then they
> > definitely have the ability to claim an unpaid debt on your credit
> > report.
>
> NOT ONLY will it show up on your credit reports, but just like banks
> have a separate reporting agency to catch habitual bad check writers,
> the cell phone companies have their OWN reporting system to catch people
> who habitually skip out on their phone bills:
>
> http://www.lightbridge.com/cat.html?cat_id=3
>
>
>
> --
> E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
> Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
>