I have been a loyal ten-year customer with Sprint. I have never lost or damaged a device, and have kept each device for an average of 2+ years at a time. Recently, I've run into a couple of serious problems with Sprint, and NO ONE has been willing to take responsibility for adequately addressing these issues and/or retaining me as a customer.
On February 17, 2010, I purchased a Palm Pro phone at a Sprint store in Chicago/Clybourn (I selected a device that was not subject to the $10 "advanced smartphone fee") as well as the Total Replacement Coverage. Within three weeks, this phone broke, and a tech at the store re-installed the software. Two weeks later, the phone experienced hardware and software issues. I asked for a new phone, and was upset to hear they would only replace it with a "comparable" refurbished replacement device. I got the replacement device, and it would develop software and/or hardware issues within weeks/months, and needed replacement.
This sequence of events has occurred several times.
Sprint has refused to provide service credits/refunds for service charges assessed to my account during times my Sprint-provided device did not function.
On March 15, 2011, a Palm Pixi was provided by the Sprint store (Chicago/Clybourn) as the replacement device for the Treo Pro. Although very similar to the originally-purchased/replaced Treo Pro, this Palm Pixi phone was apparently subject to the $10 fee. I was forced upon this device due to my device/subsequent replacements being defective. On November 4, 2011, Susan Mansfield denied my request for a refund. She said she needed to determine "whether or not Sprint provided that device as replacement for Treo Pro." She said the records/notes indicate I did not get this Palm Pixi from Sprint, and that the store manager (who was NOT at this location when the transaction occurred) said there was no reason to believe the records were inaccurate. I was obviously upset by this "finding" as it is 100% inaccurate. There is no logical reason why I would do otherwise. I was absolutely given a Palm Pixi by the Chicago/Clybourn Sprint store as a replacement phone, and I'm quite sure Sprint could use the Serial Number to verify this. I'm willing to testify/sign an affidavit to this point. This is just the latest example of terrible customer service, incorrect records, dishonest/fraudulent business practice.
Dishonesty/Poor Records and Information/Lack of Accountability:
This is not the first time a representative from Sprint has made a statement that is untrue (but the first time it can be verified). Sprint representatives have, on several occasions, misled me as to plan details, credits provided, and even an opportunity to break the contract (April from Customer Care, case#xxx, stated I could cancel the account if I had problems with my 3rd phone). I reference calls/employee names and id numbers, and am told that what I claim is not corroborated with Sprint records. Moreover, I've been told, by Sandra Crenshaw, that I cannot record conversations to prove otherwise, and thus hold Sprint accountable myself. On 11-4-11, Susan Mansfield stated I was not eligible for an upgrade, while the website (due to Sprint Premier Gold status) says I am.
I have tried to work with Sprint representatives at all levels to resolve this. I just want a non-defective phone that works, and the agreed-upon wireless service plan. I was willing to upgrade to a different/good phone at one time. If not possible, I asked out of the contract; this was refused (although previously offered as a possibility). I refuse to pay for charges to which I did not consent, and demand that they be removed immediately.
Since I depend on a phone and cannot wait months for this to bear itself out, I demand immediate, fair action on my behalf. If this demand is ignored, and due to my determination that Sprint has breached our contract, I will take unilateral action to both sever the business relationship, fight any collections attempts, and aggressively pursue monies owed. Regardless, I will work to ensure that other consumers are spared this systemic ignorance (best case), or fraud (likely case). It's clear that Sprint needs to be better regulated to ensure that customers are not deceived and treated poorly.
David, Chicago, Illinois