The heartbroken mum of a woman killed in house fire has been told she must pay out $320 to cancel her dead daughter’s phone contract.
Kyrie Knight died in the early hours of New Year’s Day – just a few short hours after sending her mum, Mandy, a text wishing her a happy new year.
She had decided to stay in for a quite night with her five-month-old son, Caden, but died of smoke inhalation when a tea light candle set fire to her lounge in Addlestone…
A week after Kyrie’s death Mandy called mobile company 3 to cancel her daughter’s contract but was told by call centre staff she would have to pay a $400 fee – which was then reduced to $320.
Grieving Mandy, who is already struggling after paying out for her daughter’s funeral, is now forced to pay the $20-a-month contract until she can raise the $320.
It takes next to no effort for a supervisor to override the rules for a CSR. Need be, managers can bump a step higher. Anyone surprised there’s still no change, here?
Thanks, K B
A parent is not responsible for the bills of their adult children. She should not pay it unless she owned the account and then asking for a supervisor would get the job done.
I say send let the company send the bill to collections. Maybe they’ll get a clue.
And they wonder why they have such a bad reputation…
I don’t understand why she would feel an obligation to even think about paying that bill. Just don’t pay it, let it go to collections, and hopefully at some point, someone with half a brain will realize the situation and drop it.
Would there be a story if the mom was upset that she had to still pay that month’s phone bill for that old fashoioned dial phone the daughter still had used, but now didn’t for another month during mourning and the time it took to sort through her things? I doubt anyone would rush to her pity on that. It’s the exact same principle. Even though the service is not used, there is an agreement, be it monthly, yearly, or 3 years, or decades, the bill still arrives for the service that was agreed to, and if it’s a long term contract people either have to negotiate a new settlement or abide by the terms. In the case of cell phones they make it very clear that they are long term contracts. Is the author of this story going to publish that the bank should forgive the loan on the 8 years left on the daughter’s home mortgage? Hello? The cell companies provide a way for people to pay for these phones over time, by offering a contract. They can’t “take back” the phone as it’s worthless, where as a home is worth something. Do you really expect cell phone companies to just eat their costs of the phone? Hello?? Oh, it’s for you. It’s the banker, he wants to make you an offer……
“…and if it’s a long term contract people either have to negotiate a new settlement or abide by the terms.”
And the dead woman would do this… how?
About home mortage, I don’t know how it is in the US, but in France, you’re required to subscribe to an insurance that’ll pay in your place if you die. And concerning long term contracts, like mobile phones, it’s mandatory to have an automatic and free resiliation clause if the subscriber dies.
Ridiculous! The mom does not have to pay anything, so f….k Planet 3 and send them into orbit. Get it really into the headline news and that stupid company stands to loose hundreds of thousands and not 320… This abuse make me go ballistic… What the h…l is Planet 3 anyway?
At the time of the AT&T divesture, Judge Green made a small concession and allowed Ma Bell to give each member of the Telecom Providers Association a heart of stone.
#6
And the dead woman would do this… how?
Apparently you have never been involved in the settlement of someone’s estate. The estate is responsible for the payment of all obligations. If the mother is the executor of the estate, then she has the responsibility to settle the mortgage, the credit card bills, auto loans and any other contractual debt using monies from the estate. If she has not co-signed a contract, then she should not be personally obligated to pay the debts with her funds.
I am not an attorney, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night!
1st This is a story from England not the US. Second the mother is the one who took out the phone contract not the dead daughter.
The mother transfered the phone to her daughter but is still responsible for the original contract. RTA.
Could the phone company handled this better yes. But I bet the get people saying the die all the time to get out of contracts.
Sounds like this is the least of her worries. She needs experienced local legal advice on quite a few issues. This issue would be taken care of among the many. Issues like this almost always crop up and are handled by an estate attorney.
I would not assume that the first customer service rep had any experience in this issue, follow it on up the ladder. Perhaps the company has a reasonable policy unknown to the collection department.
#5 – Do you really expect cell phone companies to just eat their costs of the phone?
Yes.
#12 – Issues like this almost always crop up and are handled by an estate attorney.
I’m not sure how this applies to the woman in England… But “estate attorneys” are luxuries for the wealthy and upper middle class. If you believe Lou Dobbs, the middle class is nearly extinct. (I don’t necessarily believe Lou Dobbs)
So a single 25 year old man with no kids, making $30K annually from an entry level position, and living in a rented 1 bedroom apartment, has $600 in a checking account. He gets killed a traffic accident.
He’s carrying $1200 in debt between a Visa and a Best Buy Card. He has a cell phone with a three year agreement which charges $300 to cancel. He has 7 months left on his lease. He has DSL with a 2 year contract that costs $125 to cancel. His now totaled 2002 Honda Accord has $1800 left to pay. His parents are dead and he’s only 25, so he carries no life insurance and his auto insurance is liability only. He’s up to date on all his other bills and utilities.
Now… What do these companies do? And what good would an estate attorney do?
I just went through this. A relative died without a will and no assets. I called verizon cell co. and informed them of her death. They canceled the service immediately. Received a letter of condolence and a bill for $14, amount of service used that month. I paid it. End of story!!
Must be a slow news day. This story is total BS. The contract is the mom’s (or mum’s as they say in the UK), not the dead daughter’s. It doesn’t matter who mom let the use the phone.
If it was the daughter’s contract, then her estate is responsible. The executor of the estate could then have asked that the estate be released from the contract and the company may have done so upon proof of death (death certificate).
But it is mom’s phone. So mom is on the hook for it.
Now that being said… my mom has never had, nor wants a mobile phone. When my father died, he had a phone with PacBell. PacBell refused to allow my dead father out of the contract and hounded my mother for two years to try to get her to pay his cell phone bill. She finally ended up getting a hold of the president of PacBell and it took him to get PacBell to stop it. Pretty bad that no one at PacBell at any level lower than the president had the brains to let a dead man’s contract go.
I agree. If the contract is in the mother’s name, she should be responsible. Just because she bought it to be used by a third party shouldn’t be a reason to get out of the contract.
#17 – I agree… and I think we all figured out that the mother actually holds the contract, but the hypothetical is interesting enough to comment on if you have an opinion to share.
What I can’t stand is the contract itself.
These contracts (and I have a contract with AT&T) are bullshit.
Essentially they are written to prevent competition. I find it odd when a bunch of self-styled free market capitalist types defend the telco’s practice of using these contracts, when obviously they are protectionist rackets.
Essentially, I have no beef with the telco saying that they want me to commit to X number of years at X price. But I want them to give me something in return, which is a promise to hold up their end of the bargain and provide me with X level of quality service, and should they fail to do so, I should be able to cancel the contract.
AT&T (previously Cingular) has served me well and I’ll likely renew when the time comes. But Sprint (I used them a few years ago), who pretty much screwed me numerous times, just stole my money and gave me nothing but hassles.
These contracts (and DSL service is the same scam) is just a way of saying, you’ll pay us for X years, regardless of whether we provide you with a usable service or not. They are also saying that by locking the consumer into a contract that they have no intention of earning our business with good service, prefering instead to create a little forced monopoly in exchange for the amazingly overpriced phone.
Often it is explained to me that the contract is to cover the cost of the phone that is usually sold with a “generous” rebate. Well, if that is the case, I say, I’ll pay full price for the phone. To which they say, well, there is also a significant cost to turning on the account. To that I say, they are lying.
Why don’t we all call that company collect, especially those of us in the US!
My point about the estate attorney was that there are experts that do make sure all the details are accounted for. In this case there are relatives left to deal with lots of details that have to be handled in very specific ways and it appears with aggravating people and companies. The mother should at least get experienced help.
This is why you should interview your attorney as you would a nanny or dentist.
Oh for the love of:
They do give you something: the phone. Either free or at a significant discount.
You can avoid the contract, but you’ll shudder at how much your crappy “free” phone really costs.
OFTLO – sorry, I didn’t see the last bit at the bottom.
Though its been my experience that they charge you the “setup fee” even if you’re under contract.
This is the kind of thing that could be quietly handled at little cost, getting them no press and recognition. Conversely, doing it the way they are is costing them plenty. McDonald’s used to tell us managers years (and I mean YEARS) that a dissatisfied customer who told their friends of a bad experience could cost a store $10,000. That’s no press, no internet, just word-of-mouth. How much has this mention on Dvorak cost them today? The phone did not cost them $320. At most, they put $50 into the phone. Other than equipment cost, they have nothing to recoup on the account.
Her monthly bill covered the company’s expenses, with a profit and an amortized equipment charge, plus taxes. Ending it today costs them only what’s left on the amortized equipment. That’s the cost of doing business. If you don’t want the risk, don’t discount equipment on a long term contract. Sell it outright.
Some contracts make you money, some lose. This is one of hundreds of thousands of contracts. At least three brits read this blog and have decided not to use Planet 3, losing them more than $320. Big companies are constantly hurt by short-sighted middle managers who fail to see the big picture.
#23–Vinny==funny you give legal advice and then ignore it yourself.
Yes there is a contract. The company shifted the risk of loss to the customer. This type of decision is made by the CEO, not middle managers. The scope of middle manager discretion to waive or not waive settlement fees is also set by the CEO.
Most such bills get settled by the “estate” of the dead person not paying and the telco writing it off==but call up to complain==and you get a legal response.
I assume the mother here is actually the one with the contract? She can still use the phone or collect on the fire insurance or suffer not being insured?
Love it when false empathy gets thrown around.
I’d tell them to stop by, I have a leather check wrapped around my fist.
#24 – Yes there is a contract. The company shifted the risk of loss to the customer. This type of decision is made by the CEO, not middle managers. The scope of middle manager discretion to waive or not waive settlement fees is also set by the CEO.
Do you work for Planet 3, or do you just imagine that real companies work like the hypothetical companies in a community college Business 101 textbook?
Vince is absolutely right. Like all companies, the one I work for gets its share of issues with unsatisfied customers. Occasionally it might be an emotionally charged issue like this one involving the death of a daughter, but the typical issue is an idiocy charged one involving the asshattedness of some jerk who can’t read a warranty card, or who failed to understand that contracts are binding.
Still we, usually begrudgingly, go out of our way to satisfy all but the most egregious of customers because the simple economics of it is exactly as Vince described.
As you know about me, when it comes to politics, civil liberties, surveillance, or any of my many pet issues, being right is more important than any other consideration. But when business and money are concerned, being right can take a back seat to ensuring a reputation for customer satisfaction that helps bolster a long term profitability. It’s a pragmatic view that ensures long term viability.
The best companies are the ones who think beyond short gains. Technically the woman is wrong and Planet 3 can enforce the contract. If smart, Planet 3 cancels the contract and quietly sends a letter of condolence, and makes no more issue of it.
“you know, when Betty died, Planet 3 just canceled the phone contract and sent me a nice letter. I really appreciate not having to deal with that while I made the funeral arrangements”
“Really? It’s wonderful when you can do business with companies that treat you like a human being. My cell contract is up next month. Maybe I’ll switch to Planet 3.”
It’s just good business.