• Report: #15706

Complaint Review: SPRINT PCS

  • Submitted: Sun, March 03, 2002
  • Updated: Mon, April 21, 2003

  • Reported By:san diego ca
SPRINT PCS
SAN DIEGO, California U.S.A.

SPRINT PCS, SPRINT& SAMSUNG PARTNERS IN CRIME

*Consumer Suggestion: It is hard to believe that a company with this much promise and capability can profit off of losses of the "we" the consumer

*Consumer Suggestion: It is hard to believe that a company with this much promise and capability can profit off of losses of the "we" the consumer

*Consumer Suggestion: It is hard to believe that a company with this much promise and capability can profit off of losses of the "we" the consumer

*Consumer Suggestion: It is hard to believe that a company with this much promise and capability can profit off of losses of the "we" the consumer

*Consumer Comment: Why did you return to the same service center?

What's this?
What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

Here is my complaint:

12/01 - I purchased a Samsung phone at the Sprint PCS store in San Diego (the Rosecrans store). I began having problems with the phone on 1/30/02.

On 2/1/02 I telephoned customer service for assistance. After about 20 minutes on the line, the representative advised me to take the phone to the service center in San Diego.

On 2/2/02 I did just that! At the service center, a test was performed on the handset and the phone passed the test. They also updated the software. I was assured that I wouldn't have any more problems with the phone. When I arrived at my home shortly thereafter, I attempted to make a call but was unsuccessful. I telephoned myself to see if the phone would ring and it did not. I even went as far as calling myself and leaving a message / page. Still nothing!

On 2/3/02 I returned to the Sprint PCS Service Center to inform them that the telephone was still not operating properly. I was still unable to place calls or receive calls or messages. . I requested that the customer service representative assisting me, place a call with my telephone so that he would see for himself that the phone was defective. He refused my request. It was at that time that I inquired about the phone warranty and I was told that the customer service network was down and that they could not look up my account . At that time I produced all of my paperwork, including my purchase receipt pointing out that the phone was less than 2 months old . This still was not enough! I was told to return the following day when the customer service network would be back up.

On 2/4/02 I returned to the service center and at that time was told that the customer service network was still not up. I expressed to the representative that this was becoming a huge inconvenience for me to keep running to the service center every day. This particular representative was rude, with a bad attitude and when I gave him a little attitude back, he went and got another representative. I believe this person was a manager of some type. This guy was even worse. I was told that since the phone did pass the test it was not covered under the warranty and that I may file a claim since I had purchased insurance when I purchased the phone, and after paying a $35.00 deductible I would receive a new refurbished telephone. I paid $179.00 for this phone less than 2 months ago and they are offering to replacing it with a refurbished phone!. No, thank you! Why should I have to take a $144.00 loss because the equipment that was sold to me by Sprint PCS is defective? It was at that time the representative informed me that there was no way I would EVER get a "NEW" phone from Sprint. That is the policy Period! I asked to see this policy in writing and the customer service representative would not produce it. At this point I was so furious that I had to leave the store.

On 2/8/02 I returned to the service center to have the phone retested and to ask
to see the test results this time. The phone failed the test this time. I was then told that I could return the phone and Sprint would replace it with a "refurbished" phone but they couldn't do anything at that time because the customer service network was still not up and running. I can't believe that the insurance coverage that I purchased and the terms of the warranty are exactly identical.
What about the manufacturers warranty? Or did Sprint PCS mislead once again?

I'm surprised , and do you know why? I've never expected that I would be treated so badly by your company. Please remember that out of all the wireless phone companies to choose from, I chose Sprint. Not MCI, not Verizon, not ATT, nor anyone else. I chose Sprint. Now I am regretting my choice. Unfortunately, at the present moment, it would appear that I am I'm stuck for the next 12 months or more.

As mentioned above, I have three phones on my account with your company. I know for a large company like Sprint, I'm pretty insignificant but I've done my research and I can tell you that there are thousands of unhappy Sprint customers out there. This leaves me wondering what, if anything, Sprint is willing to do to improve its service and its customer relations?

Here is what I'd like to see happen: I would like my telephone replaced with a brand new telephone, identical to the telephone I originally purchased. If that phone is not available at that time, it will be replaced with one of equal or greater value or I will be refunded the full purchase price of the phone. This phone was purchased at a price of $179.00, less than 2 months ago. I would like any and all fees required in the activation of any new telephone waived.

On 2/09/02 I received a telephone call from a Sprint PCS representative responding to a letter I had written earlier on regarding this issue. I was informed by her that I would be receiving a "NEW" telephone in the mail very soon, along with the necessary packaging
materials to return my defective phone.

On 2/14/02 I received a phone in the mail. On that very evening I made three attempts to get the phone activated (once on the web and twice by phone) and was not successful in doing so. On that same evening I inspected the and noticed that the ear piece (the part of the phone that flips up) was loose and did not close properly. After that I made no other attempts to have the phone activated. . I was under the impression that I would be receiving a "NEW" phone, not a "REFURBISHED" " phone. It appeared to me that Sprint was trying to pass refurbished equipment off as new equipment. The only other conclusion that I can come to is that it was a new but was not assembled properly. Either way I still have no working phone!

On 2/20/02 I sent back the "replacement" phone back to Sprint PCS via UPS overnight express and have verified that it was received by Sprint.

I contacted Sprint PCS on 2/26/02 to discuss the issues and inform it that I disputed the amount owed for telephone number 619-846-3801. At that point, I was still being charged for services by for 619-846-3801 even though I still did not have a working phone. Along with the monthly services amount there was also an additional charge of $149.00, for the replacement phone sent to me. After a rather lengthy conversation, I was able to resolve the billing part of this issue but not the equipment part of the issue. The customer service person I was dealing with offered to replace my defective phone with a refurbished phone and I declined. As stated earlier in my letter "why should I have to take a $144.00 loss for equipment less than 2 months old?" At that time the account was put into a temporary status and the number was temporarily deactivated.

So now I am back exactly where I started at 29 service-less days ago!

It appears clear that under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the "implied warranty of merchantability" and the "implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose" have both been breached. Federal law prohibits you from disclaiming implied warranties on any consumer product if you offer a written warranty for that product

I would also like to point out some relevant points in this Act - Section 2302 (a), USC 15 requires "full and conspicuous disclosure of terms and conditions..." I did not receive nor was I ever informed of the terms of the warranty until after I purchased the phone.

The Federal Trade Commission Rule on Pre-Sale Availability of Written Warranty Terms requires that written warranties on consumer products costing more that $15.00 be available to consumers BEFORE they buy (emphasis added.) The warranty for this particular phone is on the very last page of the owner's manual and was not made available to me until after I purchased the phone. As a matter of fact, the warranty is printed on the last page of the owner's manual, a manual that is included in the packaging box of the phone. I neither saw nor received this box until after I signed a 1 year service agreement, had the phone programed by the salesman, and was on my way out the door. Had I known the terms of the warranty prior to purchasing it, I would have not purchased the phone.

I was also like to include that at no point was I informed that the SAMSUNG phone that I was purchasing would only work with SPRINT PCS as the service provider. This means that if I were to switch to a different service provider, I would not be able to use the phone that I had purchased @$179.00! Although it is not SPRINT equipment and the manufacturer was SAMSUNG, the phone would only work with SPRINT PCS as the service provider. How deceptive is that? This information was found in very small print on the bottom of the phone's packing box. Had I know the terms of the "Limited Warranty, I would not have purchased this particular phone. Additionally, the Magnuson -Moss Warranty Act also states as follows: "In order to disclaim implied warranties, (you) must inform consumers in a conspicuous manner, and generally in writing, that (you) will not be responsible if the product malfunctions or is defective. It must be clear to consumers that the entire product risk falls on them. (You) must specifically indicate that (you) do not warrant "merchantability," or you must use a phrase such as "with all faults," or "as is." (Emphasis added). This clearly was not done. The warranty is printed on the very last page of the owner's manual; a manual that is not given to the purchaser until after the purchaser has already purchased the equipment, signed a long term (1 year) service agreement and are ready to take the purchase home. I did not once see this box nor its contents until after I purchased the phone, walked out the door and arrived home. It is in a inconspicious place, not in a conspicuous place as required by federal law.

I would appreciate any assistance that you may be able to provide in this matter in an effort to amicably resolve the dispute that the present level.

Thank you for your courtesies and cooperation in this matter.

Very truly yours,

ALICE L. C
San Diego, California

ALC/dm
Enc.

Click here to read other Rip-off Reports on Sprint

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 03/03/2002 12:00 AM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/SPRINT-PCS/SAN-DIEGO-California-92110/SPRINT-PCS-SPRINT-SAMSUNG-PARTNERS-IN-CRIME-15706. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on SPRINT PCS

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
0Author 5Consumer 0Employee/Owner
Updates & Rebuttals

#1 Consumer Suggestion

It is hard to believe that a company with this much promise and capability can profit off of losses of the "we" the consumer

AUTHOR: Chelle' - (U.S.A.)

Alice, I feel the same as you and so many others do now. It is hard to believe that a company with this much promise and capability can profit off of losses of the "we" the consumer. I beleive this is just cause for an enormous class action lawsuit against Sprint and it's affiliates. Just because it is written on paper, doesn't mean the salesperson, or CSR should not review or go over the terms of a contract. That should be a requirement in all states! In any closing of a sale, both the creditor and or servicer should make all contractural information available to the consumer before all documents are signed. UPFRONT! **** SERVICE IS AFTER THE SALE **** A consumer's comprehension level and the ability to read a contract should also be taken into consideration. And, it should not matter what store you go to for help in dealing with your service. It doesn't matter that you went to the same store 3-4 times, their #1 goal should be "Customer Satisfaction" There aren't any stores locally that have the equipment to run diagnostics testing on our phones in here Elkhart. If there is a Class Action Lawsuit filed, count me in!! I'm sure you will have others to follow. Good luck to you!!
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 Consumer Suggestion

It is hard to believe that a company with this much promise and capability can profit off of losses of the "we" the consumer

AUTHOR: Chelle' - (U.S.A.)

Alice, I feel the same as you and so many others do now. It is hard to believe that a company with this much promise and capability can profit off of losses of the "we" the consumer. I beleive this is just cause for an enormous class action lawsuit against Sprint and it's affiliates. Just because it is written on paper, doesn't mean the salesperson, or CSR should not review or go over the terms of a contract. That should be a requirement in all states! In any closing of a sale, both the creditor and or servicer should make all contractural information available to the consumer before all documents are signed. UPFRONT! **** SERVICE IS AFTER THE SALE **** A consumer's comprehension level and the ability to read a contract should also be taken into consideration. And, it should not matter what store you go to for help in dealing with your service. It doesn't matter that you went to the same store 3-4 times, their #1 goal should be "Customer Satisfaction" There aren't any stores locally that have the equipment to run diagnostics testing on our phones in here Elkhart. If there is a Class Action Lawsuit filed, count me in!! I'm sure you will have others to follow. Good luck to you!!
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 Consumer Suggestion

It is hard to believe that a company with this much promise and capability can profit off of losses of the "we" the consumer

AUTHOR: Chelle' - (U.S.A.)

Alice, I feel the same as you and so many others do now. It is hard to believe that a company with this much promise and capability can profit off of losses of the "we" the consumer. I beleive this is just cause for an enormous class action lawsuit against Sprint and it's affiliates. Just because it is written on paper, doesn't mean the salesperson, or CSR should not review or go over the terms of a contract. That should be a requirement in all states! In any closing of a sale, both the creditor and or servicer should make all contractural information available to the consumer before all documents are signed. UPFRONT! **** SERVICE IS AFTER THE SALE **** A consumer's comprehension level and the ability to read a contract should also be taken into consideration. And, it should not matter what store you go to for help in dealing with your service. It doesn't matter that you went to the same store 3-4 times, their #1 goal should be "Customer Satisfaction" There aren't any stores locally that have the equipment to run diagnostics testing on our phones in here Elkhart. If there is a Class Action Lawsuit filed, count me in!! I'm sure you will have others to follow. Good luck to you!!
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#4 Consumer Suggestion

It is hard to believe that a company with this much promise and capability can profit off of losses of the "we" the consumer

AUTHOR: Chelle' - (U.S.A.)

Alice, I feel the same as you and so many others do now. It is hard to believe that a company with this much promise and capability can profit off of losses of the "we" the consumer. I beleive this is just cause for an enormous class action lawsuit against Sprint and it's affiliates. Just because it is written on paper, doesn't mean the salesperson, or CSR should not review or go over the terms of a contract. That should be a requirement in all states! In any closing of a sale, both the creditor and or servicer should make all contractural information available to the consumer before all documents are signed. UPFRONT! **** SERVICE IS AFTER THE SALE **** A consumer's comprehension level and the ability to read a contract should also be taken into consideration. And, it should not matter what store you go to for help in dealing with your service. It doesn't matter that you went to the same store 3-4 times, their #1 goal should be "Customer Satisfaction" There aren't any stores locally that have the equipment to run diagnostics testing on our phones in here Elkhart. If there is a Class Action Lawsuit filed, count me in!! I'm sure you will have others to follow. Good luck to you!!
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#5 Consumer Comment

Why did you return to the same service center?

AUTHOR: B - (U.S.A.)

I would imagine a different opinion, new ideas or at least a change of scenery would have helped this situation.

In your opinion, there are a lot of unhappy customers but in other people's opinions there are a lot of Happy Customers involved.

You cannot complain about not being able to use your phone with another service provider as this is in your contract with Sprint. You should have read and understood this when you bought the phone. This is why you SELECT the service provider.

Just because you had a week of inconvienence with this phone doesn't mean that you are to be treated like royalty with fees waived and money refunded. I do, however, agree that you should receive a NEW phone, I'm not sure why you were told you would not be receiving one, as I've had mine replaced due to my nephew dropping mine into the toilet.

Unfortunetly, as I do sympathize on your position with your phone (and I do understand how annoying it can get when there is a problem) there are terms to the agreement that explains everything about your phone and what to do if it is not working properly or if you need it replaced. Most cellular companies, without phone insurance, will NOT replace your cell phone, regardless of price.

I would go to a different service center and/or find out what you have to do to get your phone repaired/replaced. The one you continued to go to sounds very shady, and that's not the Sprints fault entirely. People can be very lazy, rude and uncooperative when it comes to employment and they never seem to realize (or perhaps they do) that they are a reflection of the company. If Sprint could monitor all of it's employees then so could Verizon, Cricket, Wal-Mart and every other company on this planet who seems to upset one customer or another.

One question: Did the cell phone work fine before January 30th? Was there any "glitches"? What type of phone did you purchase?
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
X