NOW I Understand!!

I had used Rogers as my wireless provider for over 6 years and while Rogers may not have wowed me with their customer service they did nothing that would explain why the mention of Rogers to ex-Rogers customers evokes a response like that of waving the proverbial red cape in front of a bull.

It has taken Rogers less than a week to provide me a clear understanding of how it is that Rogers evokes a passionate distaste that borders on hate.

Rogers has definitely put me solidly in the ‘anyone but Rogers camp’. To the point that although I would like to keep the phone number I have had for the last 6+ years I will be quite willing to get a new phone number if that is what is required to ensure I do not have to deal with Rogers past the point of making the payments necessary to reduce my account balance to zero and sever me from the Albatross this is Rogers.

The Path that finds me sitting at my computer setting down this cautionary tale began at the end of November 2011 when the Cavalier I was driving was in need of expensive repairs such that it proved a wiser financial move to sell the Cavalier to the crusher and purchase the 1989 Cougar I currently drive for $1,000.00.

One of the most insidious aspects of poverty is the constant grinding away of the spirit and hope. One of the ways poverty grinds at you is the fact that you never have an opportunity to set any money aside for the little financial emergencies that are part of living. You are constantly one little mishap from homelessness.

A major financial disaster such as my car will, 99.99999999999999% of the time, result in homelessness. Immediately if you replace the car, several months down the road if you do not replace the car.

Having enough friends to contribute to the formation a pool of cash to lend to keep you housed and buy you the time to get your finances back up to poverty from bankrupt is the only way for the poor to survive.

In the scramble to get transportation and secure housing bills such as internet and wireless get bumped down the priority pay list. Putting you in arrears and struggling to slowly bring accounts current.

I did not try to hide the stretched state of my finances from service providers and have, through strict budget discipline, managed to go from three months in arrears to one month (plus/minus).

Other than Rogers my service providers have been patient and helpful as I work on bringing all accounts into current – even if it is a slow, slow process.

In order to avoid a service interruption I had arranged for payment to be made Friday; a few days late because it is Friday I get paid.

Wednesday my phone service was suspended and my calls were redirected and I found myself dumped into a computer voice options land where none of options offered was appropriate and none of the options offered gets you a live human being to talk to.

Leaving you on the phone with a computer system that is demanding payment, telling me I have a payment agreement on record and that Rogers had not processed the payment I made on the Friday 12 days.

I manage to use a……shortcut……to get connected to a actual person in credit services.

Who proceeded to tell me I needed to make a payment now in order to get service restored. I explained that until I am paid on Friday I have no money; that I had spoken with a Rogers representative and made arrangements for the Friday payment because I had no money until I got paid Friday and wanted to avoid a service disruption.

When I enquired why, with a payment agreement having been made service had still been interrupted I was told I needed to make a payment immediately to get service restored.

I explained that the unexpected and large expense of replacing my car had blow a large hole in my budget, that it was taking time to catch up on bills I was forced to defer and that the reason there was a payment agreement on file was because I got paid on Friday at which point I would have money to make the agreed upon payment – and why, with a payment agreement in place had my service been interrupted.

I was told that it would take at least 5 days to process my payment and – perhaps – restore services and that if I waited to Friday to pay it could take longer because of the weekend. I once again stated that I had no money to make a payment until Friday – when I was paid. That was why i had a payment agreement in place for a payment to be made on Friday.

He then suggested that I needed to increase the size of the payment set for Friday. I reminded him about how tight my budget was and that that was why that amount had been set for the payment and why I had no money to make a payment until I was paid on Friday.

He started in about how it was necessary to increase the size of the payment to bring the account current right away.

I reminded him – again – about the tightness of my budget etc.etc. etc.

When he returned to the need to make a larger payment to bring the account current I reminded him that, as stated previously, my finances were to tight to do this. He then suggested I use a credit card to pay the outstanding balance. I thanked him for making it clear that I needed to reduce my wireless costs in order to pay what I owed Rogers in as timely a manner as possible, thanked him and got off the phone.

Whereupon I promptly headed off to find another provider. And although the cost of services is about the same, I save close to $30 a month because my new provider does not nickel and dime me to death to the tune of $30, as did Rogers.

That weekend I phoned to inform Rogers I was accepting their termination of our relationship. Credit services told me I had to talk to customer services. Customer services said no I needed to talk to credit services. Someone at credit services finally told me I had to call back during the and talk the retention team. Retention team? Now there is a rather amusing concept. And would it not be simpler to treat customers with courtesy rather than trying to retain them after infuriating them?

I did make the payment as I had agreed to.

I phoned during the following week to make sure that the account was no longer in service and to say that I would be paying the balance owing, but with my tight financial state and the fact I would be giving priority to those service providers who chose to be understanding and work with me it would likely be close to the end of 2012 before the full balance was paid.

Subsequent to the final call I was able to make another payment.

This week (July 10, 2012) I received a call from Rogers about payment of the outstanding balance of $185. The statement that I did not owe $185 evoked the immediate threat of having the account assigned to a collection agency. At which point I hung up and composed the letter below, sending it to Customer Service and appropriate Rogers executives.

Ironically, as I sitting at the computer composing the letter to Rogers, I used online banking to pay my wireless bill from my new provider.

 

……stay tooned – we are talking Rogers after all……

On June 6, 2012 Rogers terminated our six year service provider/service consumer relationship by suspending phone service, unilaterally abrogating the payment agreement agreed to by Rogers and myself.

Attempts to speak to someone at Rogers dumped me into the computer automated disservice were I was consistently informed there was a payment agreement on record for my account, followed by demands for payment.

I escaped and spoke to an actual person.

My inquiry as to why Rogers abrogated the payment plan was met with a request for immediate payment. When I explained that the reason there was a payment agreement on the account, with payment to be made on Friday, was that Friday was payday, the Rogers representative responded requesting immediate payment. When it became clear that no matter what approach I took I was unable to get the Rogers representative to understand that it was not possible to make a payment Wednesday when I was paid Friday. I thanked him and said I would make the payment as per agreement on Friday.

This elicited the threat that if I waited to Friday, rather than make an immediate payment, it could well be late the next week before my phone service could be restored. The statement I would have to take that chance was met with the statement that making the payment larger or paying the entire balance would also prove beneficial in the restoration of phone services.

So it was that I found myself explaining to yet another Rogers employee that the need to fund an unexpected $1,000 expense in order to keep a car on the road coupled with being on disability, thus having a fixed and limited income, meant it was only through strict budgeting and disciplined spending that I would be able – over time – to bring my accounts current. That the payment agreed to was the maximum available in my budget.

It was suggested that in order to ensure phone service was restored and to avoid future service interruptions I should pay the entire amount. When reminded that I did not have that amount, it was suggested I put it on a credit card.

I chose not to comment on what that suggestion said about Rogers business ethics, saying simply that I could not do that, thank you and hanging up.

Whereupon I promptly went in search of another service provider.

I phoned on the weekend to inform Rogers I was accepting their termination of me as a customer. After being bounced between credit services and customer relations, before I was cut off, I was told I had to call back on a weekday and talk to the client retention team. A rather amusing concept.

I did make the payment as I had agreed to.

I phoned during the following week to make sure that the account was no longer in service and to say that I would be paying the balance owing, but with my tight financial state and the fact I would be giving priority to those service providers who chose to be understanding and work with me it would likely be close to the end of 2012 before the full $140.10 was paid.

Subsequent to the final call I was able to make a $20 payment, reducing the outstanding balance to $120.10.

This week I received a call from Rogers about payment of the outstanding balance of $185. The statement that I did not owe $185 evoked the immediate threat of having the account assigned to a collection agency.

Given healthy boundaries, I hung up once the threat was uttered.

This letter is to 1) set out what has transpired to date, 2) provide copies of my account statement at the point in time Rogers terminated our relationship, 3) record payments made and not reflected on the statement and 4) once again state to Rogers that the $120.10 will be paid as financial circumstances permit, albeit with preference given to the service providers being supportive of the struggle to recover from the car repair. Despite the anger I feel vis-a-vis Rogers’ threatening phone calls.

Rest assured the $120.10 will be paid. Regretfully, deeply so as it requires a longer relationship with Rogers, financial reality is that, whether to Rogers or a collection agency, finding the funds to pay the remaining $120.10 will require financial discipline and time.

 

 

James W. Breckenridge

 

************************************************

Excuses, Excuses, Excuses

Do we need more detox beds in Fraser Health?  Yes.

Is the (un)effectiveness of Fraser Health’s mobile detox programs, succinctly summed up in the words of those seeking  detox: “they [Fraser Health] are not looking for people needing detox, they [Fraser Health] are looking for people already detoxed”? Yes.

Are Fraser Health. our Provincial and Federal governments doing a poorer and poorer job of providing the support needed for people to find recovery and wellness even as our understanding of what supports are needed grows? Yes.

Does this excuse Abbotsford City Council’s childish ‘I am going to hold my breath until I turn blue if I do not get my own way’ attitude? No.

Does this excuse Abbotsford City Council’s ‘I am taking my toys and going home’ threats? No.

Does this provide an excuse for Abbotsford City Council to continue to ignore the facts about substance use and Harm Reduction? No.

For those who are seeking any excuse to justify their dogmatic opposition to harm reduction? I refer you to the words of Councillor John Smith: “If they aren’t going to give us detox . . . then quite frankly, [the harm reduction issue] is going nowhere with me.”

Then we have the sophistry of “…suggested that if Fraser Health was truly committed to providing harm reduction services in Abbotsford the first thing it should do is step up and fund the Warm Zone.”

I do not recall Council providing leadership, beating the bushes or pressuring senior levels of government to raise funds to keep the Warm, Zone open and operating. Now suddenly they are publically supportive of keeping the warm zone open, concerned about the consequences for those who depend on the Warm Zones services?

But then when the facts, experience and evidence are all against you and you are left clutching at straws, any excuse will do.

City Council’s finger pointing at Fraser Health on this matter brings to mind the quintessential Mom question, ‘if Fraser Health was jumping off the Lion’s Gate Bridge would you jump as well?’

Although……that does bring to mind the question: “what do you call the river bottom under the Lion’s Gate Bridge being littered with the bodies of municipal politicians, provincial and federal politicians and want-to-be ‘same old’ politicians and executives from BC Health? ”

A solid step towards good governance and healthy priorities by municipal, provincial and federal governments.

Detox, the Warm Zone – what healthcare is council advocating Fraser Health cut from services provided to the citizens of Abbotsford? Because when you call on Fraser Health (or any Health Region) to spend money on services, capital projects etc not included in their budgets, you are calling on the Health Regions to cut existing (budgeted) items to free up the funds to pay for the new (non budgeted) spending.

So what healthcare does council want to cut to pay for Detox and the Warm Zone?

Mayor and Council need to remember that Fraser Health can only spend the money the provincial government gives them. Remember that, unlike Abbotsford City Council,  Fraser Health cannot simply create a water crisis and scare/panic taxpayers into borrowing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to cover past, present and future misspending.

As to council’s sudden concern about detox……on my list of programs and services (including appropriate, affordable housing)  required in Abbotsford to help people achieve recovery and wellness, detox is well down my list of priorities. It is a waste of money to push people through detox and treatment without providing the support programs, services and housing that would aid them to remain in recovery more than a few days, weeks or months as is currently the case (less than 5% are substance free one year after ‘graduation’ from treatment)..

The reality of addiction and substance use is reflected in Councillor MacGregor’s statement that the issue of drug abuse needed a “layered” approach and Councillor Barkman stressing there is no “silver bullet” to substance abuse and that building relationships is critical to helping people escape addiction.

Harm: (noun) physical [of or pertaining to the body] injury or mental damage; hurt. (verb used with object) to do or cause harm to; injure; damage; hurt.

Reduction: (noun) the act of reducing [bringing down to a smaller extent, size, amount, number etc.] or the state of being reduced [to become lessened] .

I will be dropping a dictionary off at the mayor’s office to facilitate and encourage council to seek facts and understanding about what Harm Reduction is and is not – and to express my support for Harm Reduction and making Abbotsford a healthier place for ALL who live in the City.

Should you have a dictionary you would like to spare for council………

Words of Bamboozlement

Reading Mr Pizzutto’s comments on the AESC loss brought to mind the words Barack Obama used at a fundraiser:

“They’re counting on that you all forgot. They think that they can run the okey-doke on you. Bamboozle you.”

Mr Pizzuto stated “the city always envisioned having to pay around $2 million to operate the AESC…” Either Mt Pizzuto has failed to do his homework, or he is attempting to re-write history vis-a-vis City Council and Staff and the preposterous $100+ million dollar construction costs, the never-ending multi-million dollar subsidies to operate the AESC and the millions of dollars of taxpayer monies subsidizing the purchase of a profession hockey team.

A subsidy for the favoured few who stepped forward to enable Council and Staff to ‘save face’ by avoiding having built a hockey arena with no team and no hockey. I suppose that measured against the loss of $30+ million of funding from senior levels of government through city halls ineptitude, a $2 – $3 million dollar yearly cost for Council and Staff’s ego project seems paltry.

At least to a City Hall whose lack of financial and mathematical ability prevents the use of simple multiplication to see that 10 (years) times $3 million equals another $30 million dollar ‘ineptitude’ tax bill for taxpayers?

Nor will taxpayers be “you all forgot” that in the real world, as opposed to Mr Pizzuto’s revisionist history fantasy world, there was no mention to the voters that “The city always envisioned having to pay around $2 million annually to operate the AESC……” when Plan A was being sold to the public.

Council and Staff sold the AESC to the public with promise that the AESC would earn $1+ million a year and reduce, not increase, taxes. Indeed, Council and Staff issued guarantees of profits after those pesky naysayers dared to suggest AESC would require yearly subsidies by taxpayers in the neighbourhood of $2.5 million.

And Mr Pizzuto, those $1+ million dollar a year profits were guaranteed without a hockey team. A hockey team was suppose to increase the million dollar profits of AESC, not require millions of dollars in yearly subsidies to lure a money loosing franchise to Abbotsford.

But hey, a few millions of dollar losses per year instead of a $1+ million dollar profit is no big deal – at least to Council and Staff.

“The operating shortfall…… in 2011 has been finalized at $2.83 million…….” ” That figure is a $410,000 improvement over the projections made by the city in March……”

Why not a $820,000 ‘improvement’? All that would have required is for Council and Staff to have projected an operating shortfall of $3.650. Better yet, Council and Staff could have ‘improved’ the operating shortfall by 50% if they had the projected operating loss at $5.66 million.

“the city always envisioned having to pay around $2 million to operate the AESC…”

Of course as it turned out there were millions of dollars worth of costs and expenses that Council and Staff were aware of and felt the public did not need to know. After all one would not want to give the public who pays the bills information that would cause them to come to a rational, therefore different, conclusion than Council and Staff desire.

In Abbotsford Council and Staff ‘consult’ with the public by giving the public only the information that supports Council and Staff, deeming contrary information ‘not needed for the public to know’ and dismissing any points raised by concerned citizens  that Council and Staff cannot refute as naysaying.

Whether AESC, subsidizing professional hockey or a water processing system were the problem is storage to meet peek demand, not the ability of the system to process enough water – consultation for Council and Staff is not about facts and good decision making but about hiring consultants to put together a sales campaign to sell councils wants to the public.

And any facts that might have a negative effect on public support of council and staff’s wants are facts that would only confuse the public and therefore the public does not need to know.

At least until it is time to Bamboozle the public about the expensive consequences of Council and Staff”s behaviours. Then suddenly those guaranteed $!+ million profits become “the city always envisioned having to pay around $2 million to operate the AESC…”