Ripoff Report Needs Your Help!
X  |  CLOSE
Report: #330852

Complaint Review: Guardian Security Tulsa - Tulsa Oklahoma

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: Newkirk Oklahoma
  • Author Confirmed What's this?
  • Why?
  • Guardian Security Tulsa Tulsa Oklahoma Tulsa, Oklahoma U.S.A.

Guardian Security Tulsa Deceptive Phone Call Tulsa Oklahoma

*Consumer Comment: Original Complaint Still Valid

*Consumer Comment: FCC Digital Transition

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Report about YOU
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
content.
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
How to fix
Ripoff Report
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

I too was contacted by Guardian, explaining the govn was requiring they upgrade their equipment. They asked if I wanted to continue their service and if so, they would need to upgrade their equipment. I have two locations - one business and one home. After they upgraded their equipment, I received a call that I would have to sign another three year contract or pay $500. I told them absolutely NO as their office personnal never explained their requirements.

I turned off the credit card they were using for payment and have explained to them that if I see on my credit report one notice, I will then contact my attorney.

A gentleman from the company called after a month and ask why I would not pay and I told him because if their company used this deceptive approach to business, I doubted their integrity in handling anyone's security.

Florist
Newkirk, Oklahoma
U.S.A.

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 05/06/2008 09:26 AM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/guardian-security-tulsa/tulsa-oklahoma/guardian-security-tulsa-deceptive-phone-call-tulsa-oklahoma-330852. 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. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

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

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Updates & Rebuttals

REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
0Author
2Consumer
0Employee/Owner

#2 Consumer Comment

Original Complaint Still Valid

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

POSTED: Tuesday, July 14, 2009

I too received a letter referring to the Guardian upgrade related to the FCC sunset clause. I think it should be clearly understood that Guardian WAS deceptive with regards to how they handled this change. Securitydudes comments are misleading. Here are the facts: the FCC did allow cellular carriers to shut down analog systems just as Securitydude stated. This did mean that any cellular carriers Guardian was relying on that switched to digital would cause Guardian to incur a cost. However there is an important distinction here that is lost on many -- the government did not FORCE a conversion to digital systems, any cell provider that wished to maintain analog carriers COULD continue to do so. What the government did was QUIT FORCING carriers to support analog. So really securitydudes comments implying the government was mandating a switch are misleading. quite the contrary - the government was using regulation to SLOW down a conversion to digital and when they released those regulations all the businesses made a decision to switch to digital. The governement wasn't imposing a change - they were actually giving businesses more choices. Why is this important?? Because Guardian wasn't forced to switch to digital by the government, but by the fact that their carrier made a decision to switch to digital. Their carrier COULD have decided to stay with analog, however they didn't. Its a business decision, not government mandate that caused this change in service - THEREFORE any customer who wanted to opt out of their contract should have been allowed. Instead Guardian would refer (wrongly) to the contract where it stated that any costs incurred by changes mandated by government regulation would be passed on to the customer. It was a very deceptive tactic, and at best guardian was miseducated, but I think it more likely that they knew no customers would understand the issue enough to really complain and/or go through the mess that getting your credit dinged can provide. In my case, after several escalations, which ended up in a review (together) of the actual legislation, Guardian finally admitted their mistake and resolved my complaint.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#1 Consumer Comment

FCC Digital Transition

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

POSTED: Monday, March 02, 2009

I am sorry to see your unhappiness with a security company. I myself am a security professional and had to face what Guardian was faced with.

The FCC division of the federal government enacted what was called the "Sunset Clause" This clause in short was allowing all cellular carriers to shut down their analog cellular towers on February 18, 2008. With this happening ALL security systems having a cellular communicators that sent signals via the analog cell network would cease to exist as everything was having to transition to GSM better known as digital.

So as it may have appeared they were lying they were not and were really doing everyone a service. The government was forcing the hand because they forced the transition from analog to digital just as they are with television transmissions this year.

Respond to this report!
What's this?
Featured Reports

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

X
What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

WATCH News
Segment Now