- Report: #327121
Complaint Review: Supra Telecom
Related Reports
Featured Ripoff Reports
Ripoff Reports
Ripoff Report on CBS 19
Ripoff Report on CBS 19 - Global Marketing Alliance
Ripoff Report on ABC 15 - Smart Shopper
Ripoff Report - Girls Gone Wild
Ripoff Report on Fox 11 - Car Repair
Special Features
-
Doctored Reviews is designed to help patients, doctors, and websites understand the problems created by Medical Justice, a company trying to restrict online patient reviews, and to offer some ways that let patients freely talk about their healthcare experiences. -
The government should serve voters, not corporate special interests. Public Citizen works to empower ordinary citizens, reduce the influence of big corporations on government, open the government to public scrutiny, and hold public officials accountable for their misdeeds. -
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE BBB: NOT a government agency as listed in your local phone book. Instead the BBB is a private non-profit / franchise operation. 20/20 exposes the BBB, Hamas Terror Group Gets 'A' Rating - BBB is running a "pay for play" scheme.
| Supra Telecom 3637 Meadow Lake Ln, Orlando, FL 32808
3637 Meadow Lake Ln, Florida U.S.A. |
|
Supra Telecom Mail me a Falsified Bill when there were no service Establishment completed Orlando 3637 Meadow Lake Ln Orlando, FL 328083637 Meadow Lake Ln Florida
*UPDATE Employee: Customer received service and did not pay for it.
*UPDATE Employee: Customer received service and did not pay for it.
*UPDATE Employee: Customer received service and did not pay for it.
*UPDATE Employee: Customer received service and did not pay for it.
Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™
I've Registered for Service with Supra Telecom: on December 10,2007 after paying the $60 activation fee,during this time the phone line was not working they way I expected my incoming calls were being drop so I've Disconnect the service due incomplete and poor service they promise me were never completed so on December 20,2007 I've canceled the service via lan line With one of Supra Telecom Representative .That's 10 days of un established service which they have in there records. There after.. Now I get a Bill from a agency Called Account Services for Account# F1243160 File# 01081045517 Balancing Amount $108.86 on April 18,2008 and The First name they have on File is not even My Name so I decided to take action against them. for a Falsified Bill and forgery..
Harry cooper
Deltona, Florida
U.S.A.
Harry cooper
Deltona, Florida
U.S.A.
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 04/18/2008 03:20 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Supra-Telecom/3637-Meadow-Lake-Ln-Florida-32808/Supra-Telecom-Mail-me-a-Falsified-Bill-when-there-were-no-service-Establishment-completed-327121. 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 Supra Telecom
Search for additional reports
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:
Search Tips#1 UPDATE Employee
Customer received service and did not pay for it.
AUTHOR: Rebuttal Response - (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, June 17, 2008
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.
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.
Respond to this report!
What's this? #2 UPDATE Employee
Customer received service and did not pay for it.
AUTHOR: Rebuttal Response - (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, June 17, 2008
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.
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.
Respond to this report!
What's this? #3 UPDATE Employee
Customer received service and did not pay for it.
AUTHOR: Rebuttal Response - (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, June 17, 2008
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.
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.
Respond to this report!
What's this? #4 UPDATE Employee
Customer received service and did not pay for it.
AUTHOR: Rebuttal Response - (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, June 17, 2008
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.
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.
Respond to this report!
What's this? 
