Complaint Review: Supra Telecom - 3637 Meadow Lake Ln Florida

The customer states that he paid a $60 activation fee, but unless there is another account, and not the one he references in his complaint, this is not correct. The customer was invoiced for service, that even though he claims they did not work, obviously did, for there is usage on the bills. If the service did not work, there would be no usage. Mr. Cooper called in to upgrade his plan at one point, and to ask about paying his bill online, without a comment about his line not working. And, while he says he was sent to collections for a large amount, he fails to mention that this fee included the installation charge for the new line, which we had to process as a new installation because the customer technically still had working service from Bell South/AT&T. As to the customer's claim that the name on the bill was not his, so the account was not his, this in also incorrect. The representative who spoke to him to initiate service thought the customer said his name was Arie. But, as it was noted on the order when Mr. Cooper called back in that his name was Harry, there is no "forgery". The customer may not use this as an excuse not to pay his bill. Mr. Cooper had working service and paid absolutely nothing on his account, nor did he pay for the installation of the new number so the only means we had left at our disposal was to submit his account for collections attempts with the agency. The balance is correct, and unless the customer has some proof of payment of the $60 he claims to have paid in advance on this account, there is nothing further to investigate.

The customer states that he paid a $60 activation fee, but unless there is another account, and not the one he references in his complaint, this is not correct. The customer was invoiced for service, that even though he claims they did not work, obviously did, for there is usage on the bills. If the service did not work, there would be no usage. Mr. Cooper called in to upgrade his plan at one point, and to ask about paying his bill online, without a comment about his line not working. And, while he says he was sent to collections for a large amount, he fails to mention that this fee included the installation charge for the new line, which we had to process as a new installation because the customer technically still had working service from Bell South/AT&T. As to the customer's claim that the name on the bill was not his, so the account was not his, this in also incorrect. The representative who spoke to him to initiate service thought the customer said his name was Arie. But, as it was noted on the order when Mr. Cooper called back in that his name was Harry, there is no "forgery". The customer may not use this as an excuse not to pay his bill. Mr. Cooper had working service and paid absolutely nothing on his account, nor did he pay for the installation of the new number so the only means we had left at our disposal was to submit his account for collections attempts with the agency. The balance is correct, and unless the customer has some proof of payment of the $60 he claims to have paid in advance on this account, there is nothing further to investigate.

The customer states that he paid a $60 activation fee, but unless there is another account, and not the one he references in his complaint, this is not correct. The customer was invoiced for service, that even though he claims they did not work, obviously did, for there is usage on the bills. If the service did not work, there would be no usage. Mr. Cooper called in to upgrade his plan at one point, and to ask about paying his bill online, without a comment about his line not working. And, while he says he was sent to collections for a large amount, he fails to mention that this fee included the installation charge for the new line, which we had to process as a new installation because the customer technically still had working service from Bell South/AT&T. As to the customer's claim that the name on the bill was not his, so the account was not his, this in also incorrect. The representative who spoke to him to initiate service thought the customer said his name was Arie. But, as it was noted on the order when Mr. Cooper called back in that his name was Harry, there is no "forgery". The customer may not use this as an excuse not to pay his bill. Mr. Cooper had working service and paid absolutely nothing on his account, nor did he pay for the installation of the new number so the only means we had left at our disposal was to submit his account for collections attempts with the agency. The balance is correct, and unless the customer has some proof of payment of the $60 he claims to have paid in advance on this account, there is nothing further to investigate.

The customer states that he paid a $60 activation fee, but unless there is another account, and not the one he references in his complaint, this is not correct. The customer was invoiced for service, that even though he claims they did not work, obviously did, for there is usage on the bills. If the service did not work, there would be no usage. Mr. Cooper called in to upgrade his plan at one point, and to ask about paying his bill online, without a comment about his line not working. And, while he says he was sent to collections for a large amount, he fails to mention that this fee included the installation charge for the new line, which we had to process as a new installation because the customer technically still had working service from Bell South/AT&T. As to the customer's claim that the name on the bill was not his, so the account was not his, this in also incorrect. The representative who spoke to him to initiate service thought the customer said his name was Arie. But, as it was noted on the order when Mr. Cooper called back in that his name was Harry, there is no "forgery". The customer may not use this as an excuse not to pay his bill. Mr. Cooper had working service and paid absolutely nothing on his account, nor did he pay for the installation of the new number so the only means we had left at our disposal was to submit his account for collections attempts with the agency. The balance is correct, and unless the customer has some proof of payment of the $60 he claims to have paid in advance on this account, there is nothing further to investigate.