39 ms·

So I took a corporation to arbitration

• sudden_dystopia 4y ago
  This is interesting, thanks for sharing and good work!
• not2b 4y ago
  The "don't get a home warranty" advice doesn't always apply. When buying a house that you know has issues, a warranty that covers issues found in the first year almost always pays for itself, it has the last two times we bought a house. I wouldn't get a longer-term deal though.
• unknownus3r 4y ago
  How come you never show them the evidence? Is it because it lets the lawyers concoct a story?
  • beachy 4y ago
    In many legal confrontations you're best not to put all your cards on the table up front. Apart from anything else, it creates information asymmetry - your opponent certainly won't tip their hand to you until they feel the time is right. And you leave yourself open to bluffing. If you blab everything, and then the other side steps it up and comes after you harder, you'll be left wondering - they know everything, but they're doubling down - am I missing something? Gee, they must have a stronger case than I thought.
    • doctor_eval 4y ago
      Yeah I agree with this. I think it’s important to put the necessary facts on the table, along with your claim or gambit, but to hold back on the detail until you work out which way the wind is blowing. I’ve had people tell me outright lies, which puts them in a difficult negotiating position when you can prove it. But the lies would not have been told (and my negotiating position not strengthened) if all the evidence was laid out up front. Hiding information from an adversary has few downsides, as long as you keep your goals clear. You can always provide more information later. But you can never take information back.
    • snapetom 4y ago
      This was basically my line of thinking when I filed. I felt I had good evidence, and I felt it all attacked very specific clauses in the contract. I didn't want to give them an opportunity to plan against it. In hindsight, it may not have mattered. After all, I was going up against lawyers. thathndude, who has the top comment and is a lawyer, has a different perspective.
• maccard 4y ago
  > In the end of my response, I counter-offered 80% plus arbitration filing fee reimbursement. The next day, they responded back with an acceptance and sent over a release form. Case pretty much closed. This is so depressing - it cost him $200 to get to the point of arbitration in the first place (lucky for him that he had $200 to file it in the first place), _and_ he didn't even get the total amount back, he get less than $1500 rather than the $200 he likely should have got. For anyone who claims "just take them to court" or "just sue them for breach of contract" - this is what you're looking at, getting back 75% of what you expected after paying for their complaints procedure.
  • tomcam 4y ago
    Judging from the article negotiating was fast, indicating that OP probably could have concluded on more advantageous terms. I enjoy these negotiations but OP’s process was swift and relatively painless. Probably a more economical use of time.
    • maccard 4y ago
      I disagree. FTA: > After about five calls of runarounds, I realized that customer service channels would not help me and I had use the legal system. > I filed a case online for $200 > Two days later, I received a response <..> I respectfully declined. > A day later, I requested a 3rd party pre-auth to find an outside plumber. > I counter-offered 80% plus arbitration filing fee reimbursement. The next day By my count, he called them 5 times, threatened (and followed up with) legal action, and took 4 rounds of negotiation all to receive less than he was entitled too. Also, I don't blame OP at all here - they did a fantastic job of handling the situation they were in, but it's a shitty system that allows them to be caught like that in the first place.
      • cycomanic 4y ago
        As the lawyer above said, they could have hired a lawyer to do the work for him and the company would have had to pay the lawyer. Alternatively they likely could have claimed for their time based on their hourly rate, also they should likely have claimed for the inconvenience of being without water for several days. I think they really went to light on the claims and that's likely also why the settlement was so quick.
• tomcam 4y ago
  Damn, that was helpful and encouraging. Pound for pound the best value of any article I have read on HN.
• CPLX 4y ago
  By the way it’s basically never true that you have to start with arbitration. You can pretty much always just sue them in a regular local court. As a general rule courts are general jurisdiction venues that can hear all controversies. Then they would have to affirmatively file a “motion to compel arbitration” in which they appear in court and argue that the contract mandates it. Typically they’d win that motion but then you’d just start arbitration. Since that requires them to show up with a lawyer by that point you’d probably be able to just negotiate then. And if they fail to ask for arbitration in a timely way the case may proceed.
  • thathndude 4y ago
    In this case, OP almost definitely could have sued In court, and the company couldn’t stop them. AAA arbitration has a rule that says if your claim can be filed in small claims court (typically 5k or less) then you can force the company into small claims court, and they can’t force you to arbitrate.
    • projektfu 4y ago
      That's really good to know. It's certainly not made clear by the mandatory arbitration language.
  • gambiting 4y ago
    Filing an actual case might be more work and not even that much cheaper. If the arbitration process is $200 and easy to file online, then that sounds preferable.
• bmurray7jhu 4y ago
  For consumer arbitration, always try to choose JAMS instead of AAA. JAMS arbitrators tend to charge much more than AAA arbitrators. Many JAMS arbitrators have judicial experience, some even on the federal bench. In my case, all of the arbitrators proposed by JAMS would have charged over $1000 per hour to resolve my case. Per the contract, all arbitration costs would have been borne by the defendant, so the company was eager to settle and avoid a huge arbitration bill.
  • thathndude 4y ago
    This guy arbitrates. I’ve done something like 500+ consumer arbitrations in the last 5 years. JAMS tends to result in better outcomes for the consumers. There’s all sorts of reasons for this. If nothing else, JAMS arbitrators tend to be retired judges with experience in the adjudication role. More often than not, AAA arbitrators are just attorneys with 10+ years of experience. And, well, let’s just say 10 years of experience as an attorney does not automatically make a person competent.
    • jacquesm 4y ago
      "And, well, let’s just say 10 years of experience as an attorney does not automatically make a person competent." Everybody knows that what makes an attorney competent is their social media presence!
      • thathndude 4y ago
        Better Call Saul!
• goindeep 4y ago
  Haha I used to work for a hot water company and this type of thing was pretty common. Doesn't bring back fond memories. So glad to not be doing that shitty job.
• thathndude 4y ago
  Arbitration consumer protection attorney here! Nice work, and nice write up. If nothing else, I hope folks will run with your first point. Far too many people are scared of arbitration, and it can be a really powerful tool for situations like this. It’s fairly accessible and straightforward, especially for folks in the HN crowd. One pointer for other folks in the future is to make sure you look into your state’s specific consumer protection law. (Sometimes called UDAP law or deceptive practices act.) Often times, these laws will allow you to recover more than just your out of pocket damages to punish companies that are deceptive. One other way to “enlarge the pie” in situations like this is to hire an attorney. I know, it sounds like I’m shilling for my peers, but hear me out. This same UDAP consumer protection laws let you recover attorneys’ fees as part of a judgment/win. If you’re not an attorney, you simply can’t seek those. So let’s say your claim is $2,000. Under those laws, maybe you can “treble” (triple) your damages if you win. So now your best day is $6,000. And the company knows it. But if that same law says you can get attorneys’ fees too, the company knows that they could be facing a 50k+ judgment at the end (almost entirely comprising attorneys’ fees), and then that often incentivizes earlier, higher settlements. My involvement in cases, and the threat of attorneys’ fees often results in higher settlements than my client would get on their “best day,” and even after paying out my portion. (I typically do these on contingency — I don’t get paid unless you get paid). Lastly, let’s just say I’ve done an arbitration or two with a home warranty company. They don’t make money by paying out claims!
  • oneoff786 4y ago
    Do you not feel it’s a problem to be charging 48k to litigate a 2k issue regardless of the chance to recoup it?
    • jacquesm 4y ago
      Do you not feel it's a problem to be charging $50k for a piece of software on a $.20 medium?
      • oneoff786 4y ago
        I don’t understand this question. What’s a 20 cent medium?
• VBprogrammer 4y ago
  > 3) Keep records of phone conversations. Date, time, who, resolution. Keep screenshots. Keep emails. If you take nothing else away from this article this a great point. I once had an issue where two different electricity companies believed they were supplying our University flat. This turned out to be due to the mess of naming systems involved in Edinburgh flats where two apparently identical flats had meter numbers. Eventually I was able to extract this information from the call handlers but only after a ridiculous number of calls. This got far better when I started taking names and extension numbers so that I could skip the intro session on each call and speak directly to someone who knew the situation. Taking careful notes of who I spoke to and when. For about 2 years later I'd still get the hard sell from some debt collectors telling me that I could just pay the £2000 and it would all be over...
  • noir_lord 4y ago
    npower nearly drove me off the ledge (or more correctly came close to been the final push at what was the worst moment in my life) because they kept fucking up their billing for nearly a year over and over again, the same shit. In the end I got pissed and kept asking for more senior people til I got to some director of something or other, I explained what had happened, that I had all the evidence (bank statements showing I'd paid, their inability to meter coherently etc) and that my next call was going to be a solicitor and ofgem if it wasn't resolved. They zeroed the account (which worked in my favour somewhat since I had used some of it, came and got an accurate meter reading and apologised. Turned out later I was caught up in this shitshow on their side: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications/npower-pay-ps26m-failing-treat-customers-fairly https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications/npower-pay-ps26m-faili... So yes, keep everything is good advice.
  • thathndude 4y ago
    As an attorney, I love when I get a client like this who has tons and tons of records. I recently had a case where my client, who uses a service dog, was denied a hotel reservation because of the dog. The hotel’s attorney called me and said “I spoke with the other person, she said this never happened, and he never said it was a service animal.” Well, my client, due to his disability, uses a telephone system that records all of his calls. I sent over the recording, and it clearly showed that he identified a service animal, and the person just said “no.” Now that lawyer knows his client’s a liar.
• gambiting 4y ago
  >>and about two days later, got a Fed-Ex’ed check in the mail. I often wonder, how much time and fuel is wasted on this nonsense in the US. Couldn't they have just.....sent him the money directly? You know, like in literally every other country in the world?
  • puzzlingcaptcha 4y ago
    To be fair, the French tax office mailed me my tax refund as a physical cheque which I couldn't cash as I no longer lived there. I eventually got them to wire it by SEPA but it required explaining my situation in a letter.
  • thathndude 4y ago
    This. The number of companies still sending me checks (for client settlements) is asinine. And these are BIG companies (fortune 50). I have one of my regular companies now that ACH’s. The amount of money spent on overnight mailing in the legal profession is astonishing.
    • kaon123 4y ago
      Why is this?
      • thathndude 4y ago
        Large organizations are big, dumb, and slow. Only a tiny bit of that is hyperbole.
        • swores 4y ago
          Is it possible that even a small % of people losing and forgetting to actually use the cheques saves more money than a little added cost to each payment?
      • paulgb 4y ago
        I wonder if companies want to have an image of a cashed, endorsed check as proof that the funds were sent, given the antagonistic nature of the relationship. With ACH/wire you can prove that the money was sent, but it is harder to prove that it landed in the customer’s account. Kind of a TCP vs. UDP thing.
• giantg2 4y ago
  Did this actually go to arbitration? It sounds more like they filed an arbitration case but that the company settled before going to arbitration.
  • thathndude 4y ago
    This is what happened. The company probably got an invoice from the arbitration company for $2,000+ and paid it to the consumer instead. They save a headache and having to pay for attorneys.
• willyt 4y ago
  This is my experience in the UK. If you are party to a contract and due to the failure of the other party to adhere to the terms of the contract you are out of pocket the other party needs to put you back in the position you would have been in had the breach not happened. Hence, you can charge for your time in writing letters and submissions to small claims court etc because that is time spent which wouldn’t have been spent if they had performed thier contract. Therefore I always state my hourly rate and how much time I’ve spent so far when dealing with intransigence from companies. I had a fault in my electricty meter and was over charged by £2000. I spent hours on the phone and they didn’t do anything to resolve the problem until I threatened small claims court at which point they refunded me and offered £250 compensation. compesation for my time. Maybe justice doesn’t work like this in the US, but I reckon he probably could have got more from this company.
  • giantg2 4y ago
    "they refunded me and offered £250 compensation. compesation for my time." Yep, it doesn't work like that at all in the US. A threat of going to court might get you the refund. No way are are they paying for your time voluntarily.
  • cjg 4y ago
    I had a UK judge say exactly the opposite in court - you don't get to claim your time - that's just the joy of litigation.
• Aeolun 4y ago
  What I think is most surprising in this whole thing is that the company had a clause somewhere in the contract that they could break at all. Normally these things are written so that it’s impossible for the company to do anything wrong (at least all the ones I’ve ever read).
  • b112 4y ago
    We should also bear in mind, outside of what you're saying, the flip side. I have seen so many contracts with unenforceable clauses, made up gibberish, illegal demands. Then a fancy pants "if any part of this contract is unenforceable, the rest shall remain in effect" or some such. Two things here. First is? While I have seen courts toss the whole contract regardless, mostly because key invalidated clauses unbalanced the contract, I'd like to see this legislatively made illegal. Why? Because second thing is, I've seen companies write contracts knowing some clauses are unenforcable, but putting them there to scare, to intimidate. Literally, it is an attempt to play "their game". Especially with ridiculous terms of service, eg, not a real contract in most parts of the world. So don't play their game. Don't presume the contract is valid, or legal, especially when the balance of power is unequal.
    • maccard 4y ago
      > Because second thing is, I've seen companies write contracts knowing some clauses are unenforcable, but putting them there to scare, to intimidate. "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". We should _definitely_ err on the side of leniency on this. If my employment contract isn't watertight because of a law change, or a discrepency in an unrelated clause, should my employer be able to renege on my pay because the contract is invalid?
      • b112 4y ago
        This is why we have courts, and why a contract is never examined in isolation. An example, intent. If there is a 20 email long chain, discussing a clause in a contract, that counts too. What was the intent of both parties? And don't let clauses such as "this contract is in whole the agreement between all parties" deter, because courts don't care when establishing intent. So, what was the intent of the contract? Was an offer proffered, then follow by contract? What was the intent of the offer? Courts look at invalidated clauses, and then attempt to rebalance the contract. These clauses are just scare tactics, and have been happening since Rome, where most of our laws originate... I have seen so many lawyers argue "might as well put it in, can't hurt!". Sometimes the best contract is a one liner scribbled on a napkin. All this excess is counter to the public good.
• tiahura 4y ago
  As an attorney, I hope everyone reads this. Contrary to prevailing sentiment, arbitration is not de facto justice denied. In my experience, if you have a weak case, arbitration often results in a better outcome than a jury trial. Juries can be quite skeptical and judgmental. Arbitrators tend to be split-the-baby oriented.
  • thathndude 4y ago
    Attorney as well, and agreed. To be sure, it’s not the rainbows and butterflies solution that the businesses would like you to believe it is. But it’s also not the insane, unending trampling of rights that anti-arbitration folks claim it is.
• imglorp 4y ago
  Side rant: > 4) Don’t get a home warranty. Sellers are basically obligated to provide them, because it's what everybody does. They serve to lubricate a deal with a checkbox, while releasing the seller from some obligations. I'm pretty sure selling RE agents get a percentage on referrals (in US). I sold a house without an agent and phoned one of these companies to simply buy a warranty to hand to my house buyer. They were baffled how to do this without my agent id number until some manager said just sell it to him. The whole thing is a reception line of parasites waiting for some homebuyer blood.
  • chrisjc 4y ago
    And if you're on the other end as the buyer and actually need to use the warranty, good luck. One of the worst experiences I've ever had, and it was supposed to be "one of the best home warranty companies out there".
  • astura 4y ago
    This must be a highly regional thing because nobody offered to sell me a home warranty when I bought my house.
    • mherdeg 4y ago
      Yeah, I think home sale practices vary widely by market. A couple of years ago a family friend in Florida says "Oh yes, we never make an offer until the second showing." Ha ha ha.
    • zippergz 4y ago
      In my experience (in several US states) it has never been "offered to sell me." It has been "the seller is including a home warranty [whether you want it or not]." One time I tried turning it down, and was basically told "well, we'd have to go back to the drawing board on the offer if you do that. Just take it. Everyone takes it." And similarly when selling a house "I don't want to include a home warranty" was met with "all other sellers include it, so if you don't, you're going to look bad." For the cost of these warranties I can't imagine that the agents are getting that much of a kickback, especially compared to the commission they make on the sale, but something is clearly going on.
• jeffrallen 4y ago
  I love it. Contacts are awesome. I got humanitarian aid logistics training and the teacher taught us: always make a written contract, for any agreement. You don't need to be a lawyer to make a useful contact. The process of writing and signing it clarifies the situation to you and the counterparty. Most disagreements can be solved in informal arbitration, especially when one party can show, look we agreed to this and then I did this and you did that. Humans do better removing emotion and ego when there's some rules written down. I also faced a situation where the contract a former logistician had entered into had become wildly unfair to the vendor, not through his fault. He started giving me problems and I offered to break the contract and find a new compromise that met my needs and his. Happiness all around, for a small amount of reasonable, ethical cost to my organization.
• bjarneh 4y ago
  > Of course, they refused to pay. Trying to find someone at HWC who could show an iota of free-will and thinking was hilarious and impossible. This always annoys me; a 100 sellers for every person working in any type of customer care/support role seems to be the norm. If you can actually get in contact with someone in customer care/support their job always seem to be to brush you off nicely, not really help you.
• sylware 4y ago
  I am not in the same country, but indeed, I have to go legal to enforce noscript/basic (x)html for the online services of my administration. In my case, asking nicely, like in this case, was a huge fail.
• deepsun 4y ago
  > Keep records of phone conversations How do you record the phone conversations? I remember Android doesn't really allow you to record the other party audio, only your own. Unless you write your own caller app that processes the audio, but not sure how easy it is to send the audio to default phone caller after. Apple probably does it too.
  • ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    I used to have a call recorder app installed on android, but some update removed that ability
    • deepsun 4y ago
      Yep, I think there's no way to do that through API now, for security reasons. There needs to be a dedicated "caller" app, and that app must be visibly different from default caller app.
  • c0nsumer 4y ago
    For this purpose, even just having notes is sufficient. Eg: 2022-May-31 @ 11:09 AM: Spoke with X via phone, was informed their system was down and they could not accept my claim. Recordings of the calls themselves can get murky legally, and are technically challenging, but in my experience factual notes are sufficient.
    • snapetom 4y ago
      This. A detailed description of the call - what was discussed, who was discussed, what I said - reconciled with a record from the phone or phone company is more than enough. This is what many other professions, including medical, do. If you're involved in a multi-million dollar lawsuit, sure you'll nitpick with lawyers about the content of the call, but for a few grand, no one's going to argue with you. There's also too many headaches with recording calls. Dealing with one party vs. two party states, etc.
    • deepsun 4y ago
      Hmm, then in sounds I can just record my own voice only. Notes are easy to write down later from those. Legally all is fine, since I'm recording only my own voice, but it's good for the purposes you describe.
• andrew_ 4y ago
  Conversely, don't be afraid of aftermarket vehicle warranties (in the US, and after you've vetted them). Perhaps a YMMV moment, but I've had a very positive experience surprisingly.
• gtirloni 4y ago
  > a Fed-Ex’ed check in the mail. It's mind-blowing to me how the US still relies heavily on these.
  • inetknght 4y ago
    I would rather have a check than give bank account info to some corporation with questionable privacy practices and non-existent security practices.
    • oblio 4y ago
      What can they do with just your bank account number?
      • Karunamon 4y ago
        An account and routing number is all you need to make ACH deposits and withdrawls.
        • oblio 4y ago
          That's just crazy. Don't your banks have extra security measures?!?
          • inetknght 4y ago
            The extra security measures all boil down to "don't give anyone your account number"
      • altairprime 4y ago
        ACH withdrawals of your money, since they have your name and account number and can readily surmise it's a type:Checking account.
      • jimmydorry 4y ago
        Bank account number, name and address can be enough to setup a direct debit or initiate a withdrawl (in specific circumstances). Keep in mind that you are less worried about the company itself being evil, than the possibiliy of this data leaking and being seen by a less scrupolous entity.
• irrational 4y ago
  > 4) Don’t get a home warranty. But, what about an extended car warranty?
• SkeuomorphicBee 4y ago
  > It went pretty well. ... > [...] I counter-offered 80% plus arbitration filing fee reimbursement. The next day, they responded back with an acceptance and sent over a release form. Case pretty much closed. I didn’t get 100% back, [...] So author had to jump through hoops and in the end only got a percentage of what was owed. The text is written in the format of a feel-good success story, but the result is the oposite. What is described is a broken system, if the only punishment for the crime is to do what they should have done in the first place then there is no incentive for companies to do the right thing to begin with. Customer protection laws absolutely need a clause for double the reimbursement and I'm shocked that this person's country (I'm assuming it is the USA) doesn't have it. Without such a clause it is best for the company to just deny ALL claims and profit out of the people too lazy to go through arbitration.
  • shmageggy 4y ago
    This was my takeaway as well. So in order to not get screwed everytime I do business with any corporation (i.e. virtually constantly in the modern world), I have to go scrutinize contracts, meticulously log phone calls, initiate and follow up on arbitration procedures, etc, and still lose money in the process? How is that a win? Who has time for all of that? It's so ridiculously one-sided, yet we're so conditioned to it that we think we're doing alright when we're just getting screwed.
    • JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > in order to not get screwed everytime I do business with any corporation This has nothing to do with corporations. If you decided to only do business with natural persons you’d have the same burden of proof.
      • b3morales 4y ago
        Sure, but there's still a crucial difference: the one other natural person has the same order of magnitude of resources to spend on the issue as you, instead of a multiple.
• TrackerFF 4y ago
  In my experience, lots of companies have more or less automatic denial on requests. This is to filter out those that simply give up on step 1. Then the same companies will, like OP points out, offer some % in reimbursement / whatever to those that bother to appeal the initial denial. It's a disgusting practice, IMO - but what can you do? A bit OT: But ESPECIALLY the rental market - professional or private - is horrible on this. Before purchasing my home, I had rented 7 different apartments over the years. No mater how thorough I'd be on washing out apartment, or how careful I'd be with it, they would always find something - and claim deductions on the deposit. This worked for the first apartment I rented - after that I got wiser, and took pictures of everything before actually moving in. Better yet, with the landlord or representative as witness. Document everything. I even recorded the phone conversation - informing that the conversation would be recorded, and if that was a problem, we'd take everything in writing. This saved me lots of deposits. Like clockwork, I'd be informed that they found something - sending evidence. I'd reply back with my evidence, and suddenly everything's OK.
  • matsemann 4y ago
    > In my experience, lots of companies have more or less automatic denial on requests. Remember I read that in a novel as a teenager, and since then I've always complained if I get rejected. Almost always work, as they then finally actually look at your situation. And if it doesn't work, I keep going until they realize making me whole will be less costly than the time I make them spend. Had to look it up, the novel was "The Rainmaker" by John Grisham.
  • marssaxman 4y ago
    > It's a disgusting practice, IMO - but what can you do? Rate the expected value of all insurance services at $0, that's my approach. (I guess you could call that giving up on step zero!) Why bother doing business with people whose profit model consists of taking your money now so they can decline to return it later? The better they are at their jobs, the worse a deal it is for you.
    • mdavis6890 4y ago
      Of COURSE insurance has a negative expectation (not $0) in absolute terms - but this doesn't make it a bad idea! We don't live on expected value - we live on actual, highly variable outcomes. I'm happy to lose expected value to offset catastrophic losses for small-probability events, like early death, car accidents and fires. I will continue happily paying my insurance premiums, and ardently hope that I never get any of that money back. Of course, there may be specific types of insurance/warrantee programs that are a bad idea for one reason or another, but that's not an argument against insurance in general.
• reledi 4y ago
  Is there a term for these denial of service tactics that many organisations employ? E.g. not having the authority, being the wrong person and sending you in another direction, putting the onus on you to move things forward, not responding to emails and calls, ignoring questions and selectively answering, not making contact details or policies available, and so on.
  • lolpython 4y ago
    The terms that come to mind are stonewalling and kafkaesque.
• KingOfCoders 4y ago
  "Of course, they refused to pay. Trying to find someone at HWC who could show an iota of free-will and thinking was hilarious and impossible." Not sure if this was in the US, but whenever I was there, I was astonished by the little amount of free-will employees have. I wanted to see a different hotel room for our next stay. Here in Germany someone would take me to the room and show me. There (NYC, good hotel) the receptionist needed to ask a manager who needed to ask a manager - in the end it was not possible.
• jccalhoun 4y ago
  >hot water heater Why is the author heating hot water? (sorry. That's a pet peeve my dad drove into my head)
  • greenshackle2 4y ago
    What would you call it then? Water heater is ambiguous. Could be a pool heater, a central heat heater, etc. It's perfectly clear what they mean.
    • mig39 4y ago
      "Boiler"
  • Kerrick 4y ago
    To keep it hot. If you don't heat your hot water, it becomes room temperature water.
• thelittleprince 4y ago
  Just curious. What if you failed the claim? Let's say OP didn't hire an attorney, would he/she has to pay anything to the company for a false claim?
• jwmoz 4y ago
  What is the UK equivalent of this? Last year a phone company wrongfully added a credit to my account for 900gbp which I noticed had been there for a while, claiming I owed for a phone. It was actually an identity fraud issue. I had forgotten when it had happened and never checked my credit scores, but then during the year needed credit and was getting declined so noticed on checking. I contacted them and they flat out refused to remove it essentially implying I was lying. It happened with multiple phone companies at the time and I contacted them back then and they removed it apart from Three. I even contacted Vodafone for my records and they refused to help. I escalated it multiple avenues such as credit agencies and ombudsman and none could help so ultimately was stuck with this charge. I contacted Three, the managers and CEO and was ignored. So I had no other options (perhaps legal route which I know nothing about) and had to let the credit on the account close after 6 years. The time spent on it and frustration was awful.
  • ddeck 4y ago
    I mentioned the CEDR (Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution) elsewhere on this thread. I believe they are UK based and the company in question needs to be covered, but a quick glance shows Sky, Vodafone, Virgin etc. listed. Disclaimer: I have no experience with/knowledge of them aside from my one experience. https://www.cedr.com/consumer/cisas/ https://www.cedr.com/consumer/cisas/
• myskier 4y ago
  fairshake is an easy to use service that I have used that makes arbitration super simple.
• junon 4y ago
  Enjoyed the writeup! > The world doesn’t care about you feeling like you were wronged and how hurt your feelings were. It wants cold, hard facts. This has been somewhat of a guiding light for me for quite a long time, hammered into my by my attorney father, and it alone has saved me countless times.
• ddeck 4y ago
  Just in case it's helpful to anyone, I had a good experience using the CEDR Aviation Adjudication Scheme[1] to challenge Easyjet's refusal to pay up under the EU flight delay compensation scheme [2]. The EU has a mandatory compensation scheme for for passengers where flights are late, cancelled, denying boarding etc. This applies not only to EU citizens and airlines, but to all flights flying from or to the EU. I had an Easyjet flight that was delayed for hours, then cancelled overnight, requiring a hotel stay etc. After lodging the claim with the airline, they responded that the delay, then cancellation was due to extra ordinary reasons (weather) and as such they weren't responsible. The CEDR scheme requires a payment of about EUR30, which is not refundable if you lose and the airline needs to be a member of the scheme, but many are. Easyjet were required to provide evidence of the extraordinary circumstances, and they ended up submitting a long story about the plane being delayed due to severe storms on a prior flight in France, along with the associated documents. That turned out to be true, but the tail number on the plane that was delayed was a completely difference aircraft, and they were forced to pay the full compensation, which amounted to near EUR1k. The whole process took several weeks, but it didn't require me to be present in the EU and was done entirely via the CEDR website. [1] https://www.cedr.com/consumer/aviation/ https://www.cedr.com/consumer/aviation/ [2] https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/passenger-rights/air/index_en.htm https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/passenger-right...
• puffoflogic 4y ago
  This doesn't look like a win to me. When insurance companies (and equivalent products) pay a claim through legal action, even if it were 100% of the claim, they have won. That was all they were ever obliged to do and they got to put it through a filter first, where they benefit from filtering even a small fraction of claims (and in reality it's a large fraction). Sound legal principles demand double or treble damages for every litigated insurance claim to prevent this hazard.
• trey-jones 4y ago
  Regarding the salient point of "Don't buy a home warranty": I guess it should always have been obvious that the most profitable product to sell is "nothing", AKA most types of insurance and warranty. At this point it's optimized to the point of the computer telling customer service peons whether it's "worth" entertaining your claim. Ethics and actual customer service have gone out the window.
• bsedlm 4y ago
  > I was very impressed that this company so effectively neutered all staff that had any contact with customers. I'm fascinated by the separation of them who do something (the company's employees), them who run it (i.e. who tell said employees how to work), AND them who actually own the company. It's been mind-blowing to me how for all large-enough companies, the people who own it have no say at all in how it's run. and the people who run it (the managers or "executives"/bureaucrats who curiously do not actually peform the productivity-creating labor) cannot be really held liable for what the company does for it's only their job, the owners are liable, but they have no say (nor interest really) in how it's run, they just want them dividends/rent. in this scenario, the giant multinational corporations are essentially skynet; i.e. rogue, unaccountable/never liable group of autonomous entities made mostly out of money. Sometimes I like to imagine that on some level of companies who own other companies, there already exist groups of companies that own each other, such that if you followed the trail of ownership you'd go around a cycle.
  • quadrifoliate 4y ago
    > the people who own it have no say at all in how it's run. and the people who run it (the managers or "executives"/bureaucrats who curiously do not actually peform the productivity-creating labor) cannot be really held liable for what the company does for it's only their job I'm sure that's the case somewhere, but not really sure that it applies to this instance. In this case it sounds like the whole thing would have worked as intended if it had been a non-persistent user. 99% of people will just give up after hearing this sort of repetitive "no it's your problem" and settle for writing a bad review online. The owners ultimately can hire and fire the people necessary to implement their standards, so the company as a whole will mostly tend to reflect their overall preferences over time.
    • bsedlm 4y ago
      I disagree, I think even in this scenario the whole thing worked as intended. It's just rare for people to be this persistent. I'm supsect that when companies deal with other companies this kind of thing (this amount of persistence) is the norm; it's just rare when individual persons deal with companies.
• 1970-01-01 4y ago
  This was an excellent write-up! The TL;DR is perfect: 1) Don’t be afraid of arbitration. I did feel AAA was helpful in the process. In fact, heading straight to arbitration may be the best way to fight this system that corporations created. 2) READ. YOUR. CONTRACT. I swear, this got me like 90% there. It doesn’t matter that I don’t have a background in contract law. These customer contracts are designed to be (relatively) approachable. I felt being able to specifically point out what clauses were violated and how gave me a very strong cause of action. I also pointed out there was no out-clause in the contract for computer system failures. I suspect this had something to do with them accepting my counter-offer so quickly. Once the attorney saw that yes, there were breaches of contract, they probably knew my case was pretty strong. The world doesn’t care about you feeling like you were wronged and how hurt your feelings were. It wants cold, hard facts. 3) Keep records of phone conversations. Date, time, who, resolution. Keep screenshots. Keep emails. I didn’t have to present them to an arbiter, but I think if I had to, I had the evidence to point out exactly where HWC failed. 4) Don’t get a home warranty.
• pseingatl 4y ago
  I don't understand why so many people are afraid of arbitration either. Filing fees are lower. Documentation required to file is easier. Federal courts are drug courts. Wait in line. Motion practice is discretionary. State civil courts are backlogged. Lawyers will file delaying motions to wear you down. You must know what you are doing. The response to a complaint is not an answer, it's a motion to dismiss w/request for sanctions and fees. In roughly half the States, judges are elected and draw campaign funds from the attorneys who appear before them. You didn't contribute? Back to the end of the line. AAA arbitrators are often retired judges anyway. The process is easier. There are some negatives but these do not outweigh the pain of a state or federal civil case.
  • asciimov 4y ago
    > I don't understand why so many people are afraid of arbitration either. Two reasons: 1. People hear that arbitration favors the company not the individual, as such they think they are already set up to loose. 2. People aren't lawyers. Even highly educated (including those with doctorates) aren't likely to have had any classes on law. As such they don't know how to read contracts, don't know their rights, don't know the odds of them actually winning their case. To the layperson, the law is a mysterious construct best to be avoided.
    • pseingatl 4y ago
      1. To some extent this is true; but using an entity like the AAA avoids this problem. As long as arbitrators are appointed at random from a large enough panel, they don't have to worry about pleasing their employer. 2. Dickens had the same view: "Suffer any wrong that can be done to you rather than come here." Trials are a game, like chess. If you don't understand the rules, the chance of winning are not as good as those of someone who knows how to play. Also, keep this in mind: a judge can put you in jail. An arbitrator cannot.
• bgribble 4y ago
  > Remember, I purposely withheld detail and evidence in my filing, and yet I was offered a quick settlement. I would love to see the math that goes into this strategy. I've never done arbitration, but I did pursue legal action against a contractor that defrauded me and I think the logic is basically the same. Lawyers are constantly evaluating the cost (to their client) of further pursuing a claim vs the likelihood of succeeding. They know how much it will cost in time if it goes all the way to litigation/arbitration, and they have a fair idea what the outcome will be, but it's uncertain. They are always going to try to settle long before the end-game unless they are trying to make a point and it's worth wasting a bunch of money on. In my case, my lawyer was very convinced that they were likely to settle for an amount basically up to about 75% of the amount it would cost to litigate. My claim was solid (he DID defraud me) but there was some possibility that a trial would find otherwise, so it was better for them to settle up to the point that it became worthwhile to roll the dice. The emails between their lawyer and mine were about details of the dispute, not about the financial calculation I outline above, but that was just window dressing; the real decisions were made based on how much it would cost to litigate vs how much they would pay to settle. The only place the facts of the fraud even came into it were as part of the calculation of how likely we were to prevail in court, but it was not at all precise; more like "given the facts, we are pretty likely to win but not certain".
  • JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > I did pursue legal action against a contractor that defrauded me and I think the logic is basically the same For two infinitely-wealthy and virtually-sovereign parties, yes. The big difference is in litigation you can bleed your opponent dry, e.g. by piling on jurisdictions and deploying delay tactics. Thus, in addition to predicting outcomes, you're also judging the point at which the other party (a) runs out of money or (b) gets fired. In arbitration, this doesn't work. It's a vastly more even playing field for consumers, who tend to have less money than the companies they're suing and less downside in the case outcome (money damages versus e.g. having been sexually harassed). > emails between their lawyer and mine were about details of the dispute, not about the financial calculation I outline above, but that was just window dressing; the real decisions were made based on how much it would cost to litigate vs how much they would pay to settle Your lawyer wasn't communicating window dressing. Case details resolve to litigation outcomes.
• DeathArrow 4y ago
  Is arbitration used as a way to solve litigations between corporations and consumers, generally used just in US? In my European country, arbitration is scarcely used and when it is used it implies just businesses.
• DeathArrow 4y ago
  In my small Eastern European country the best way to solve litigations with companies as a consumer is to use Customer Protection, which is a state agency. To give an example, on Black Friday, some big online retailer had an offer on this site. I bought something with card and in two hours they called me to apologize that they didn't have it in stock, and they retired the product from the online store. But next morning, the product was back in the online store, with a greater price. I phoned, the retailer and demanded my purchased product at the payd price. They denied and offered a refund. I told I will appeal to Customer Protection and they said they still won't honor my order. I emailed Customer Protection with proofs, screnshots and they forced the retailer to send me the product for the payd price, and also gave them a big fine. The moral of the story is that a customer has to fight for his rights, by whatever means are legal in his country. If I had time, I would have made an interactive app for consumers to vote for good behaving companies, bad behaving companies, add proofs for everybody to be seen and try to pressure the companies to behave good.
• ewuhic 4y ago
  What would be the analogous process in EU (Germany, specifically)? And does it fall under Zivilrecht?
• jsjohns2 4y ago
  Lest anyone come away from this thinking that arbitration is good for the consumer, this story only has a happy ending because the business chose to settle. I also took a corporation to arbitration. A Big 4 bank destroyed my credit over a billing mistake that was their fault, relating to a credit card account with a $230 balance. Despite seeking nothing more than to have my credit fixed, the bank refused to settle. I contacted upwards of 100 attorneys with no luck, so decided to self-represent. 16 months, 25 hours under oath, and over 2,000 hours later, I "won" a judgement forcing the bank to fix my credit -- but no monetary recovery at all.
• guerrilla 4y ago
  > In the US, it’s not easy to sue a company as a customer. Maybe about thirty years ago, it became common for companies to put into contracts and terms of service, clauses that required binding arbitration to resolve disputes. This was cheaper for the company in many ways including a streamlined resolution process, cheaper lawyers, no sifting through frivolous lawsuits, and finality once a decision is made. It sucked for the consumer because it’s essentially a privatization of justice. It seems insane that people are just fine with this. There's not even a top comment here mentioning it at this time. Is there no movement to make this illegal at all?
  • timwis 4y ago
    Indeed. It’s frustrating that you can’t really object to it, as the company can just refuse to do business with you, and there aren’t viable alternatives who won’t do the same thing. Thus we have very unilateral contracts where the companies have all the power, and the consumers basically only have whatever consumer protections their state laws provide.
• patwolf 4y ago
  A home warranty was included with a home I purchased back when it was a buyers market. I did end up using it to replace an entire AC unit. Fortunately the process was surprisingly smooth. They required me to pay a few fees out of pocket, including a refrigerant disposal fee, which was funny because all the refrigerant had already leaked out. I tried to argue with them about that but gave up because it was a small price to pay for a new AC. Even though I had a good experience, I think it's better to save up an emergency fund for home repairs rather than rely on a warranty.
  • thathndude 4y ago
    If you're willing to jump through hoops and "play the game," lots of folks come out very well on home warranties.
• dlandis 4y ago
  Great write up, but I would also be interested to learn what the total number of hours was that the author devoted to this case, including all the phone calls, email, research, preparation, etc. His main takeaway was to not be afraid of the arbitration process, but unfortunately the time commitment itself does seem very significant, even in a relatively straightforward case like his.
  • guerrilla 4y ago
    Exactly. Not only that, but it also requires you to know about all this stuff and know to even be persistent.
• akudha 4y ago
  I just read some of the clauses in my contract for a new job that I am starting (I am a "sub-contractor" here). The amount of legalese, the amount of one sided items there ... it is insane. It left me wondering if the lawyers that write these contracts have an iota of empathy or conscience. If I were to summarize the contract in one line it would be "we owe you nothing, you owe us everything". And this is for a low level, software job. Software that doesn't touch (as far as I know) anything secretive like the military. Just some run of the mill web CRUD app. Maybe I am too sensitive, but why have we become so litigious? I understand people need to cover their ass, but some of the clauses are so egregious. Same with my lease agreement. Reminds me of this Carlin rant - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFl84lGveQs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFl84lGveQs
• kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  Just an FYI. You should check the terms for arbitration in service contracts. A fiber ISP in my area permits you to opt out if you notify them within 30 days of beginning service.
• b3morales 4y ago
  > I also pointed out there was no out-clause in the contract for computer system failures A good catch. I expect this oversight from the company's point of view has been remedied in the contract for new customers, going forward.
• Tabular-Iceberg 4y ago
  > Trying to find someone at HWC who could show an iota of free-will and thinking was hilarious and impossible. Since this is such a common pattern when interacting with any kind of customer support I'm interested in exploring why this is. The solution seems trivial enough. Write down the customer id, date, time and what was pre-approved on a piece of paper. Then when the computer comes back up, enter it into the system. Maybe the call handlers were just lazy and thought they could use the outage as a break. But you would think that bickering with customers on the phone is a lot more draining and annoying than just keeping business flowing. Maybe the software didn't allow recording events that had already happened, like the date and time field wasn't editable. Did the developers think that their system was infallible and would never go down? Or did they ask the domain experts if they should make this provision, and it was rejected? If so, what was the motivation of the domain experts? Did they think that their developers and IT infrastructure was infallible? Or did they not trust the call handlers enough to make the date and time field editable? Or do they take delight in finding loopholes where they can shirk their contractual obligations?
  • Arrath 4y ago
    I bet it boils down to an intersection of a number of issues. > The solution seems trivial enough. Maybe so, but that is the usual trap, isn't it? Us armchair experts can expound to no end from the outside. > Write down the customer id, date, time and what was pre-approved on a piece of paper. Then when the computer comes back up, enter it into the system. I imagine that the typical phone-drone has no authority to provide such an authorization, and with the system down they have no avenue to pursue one. No trail through the system, no audits, etc. > Did the developers think that their system was infallible and would never go down? Surely not, but the developers knowing their system is fallible is a long way from management acknowledging that reality, and drafting policy to account for outages. Allowing, e.g., for manual pre-auth procedures. > If so, what was the motivation of the domain experts? [...] Or do they take delight in finding loopholes where they can shirk their contractual obligations? Or do they get tired of dealing with bureaucratic red tape, scope changes, approval processes, etc. etc. and just ship the product the customer asked for, despite shortcomings in the spec, and call it a day so they can gtfo?
  • 4y ago
• cosmotic 4y ago
  Forced arbitration can be a double edged sward for the corporations too. A while back, a company filed a motion to dismiss a class-action case because everyone signed arbitration agreements. The judge denied the request and forced the company to start an arbitration process with each member of a class, which was MUCH more expensive for the company to deal with than treating the class as a single entity.
• AlbertCory 4y ago
  Great job. Counter-example (missing nearly all the details, unfortunately, to protect privacy): a friend filed a wrongful termination claim, which went to arbitration. The defendant stretched it out for two years, which I consider a transparent attempt to bankrupt him with legal fees. Finally they settled, but even after the agreement to settle, it still dragged on. Eventually it ended.
  • toppings 4y ago
    An option to consider is to get a referral from your local bar association and let them know you are looking to pay on a flat fee basis.
• gnicholas 4y ago
  For anyone else dealing with home warranty companies, you should also try contacting your state's regulators. In CA, this is the Dept. of Insurance. They helped me immensely with a situation where the repair person actually broke something but was unwilling to come back and fix it. The home warranty company refused to call me back and it was impossible for me to get through inbound. But the DOI employee was able to contact them, and that was all it took. She followed up several times to make sure the situation was completely resolved.
• rascul 4y ago
  Is it just me or do others also find "hot water heater" to be a strange term? To me it's just a "water heater".
  • timwis 4y ago
    But once the water becomes hot, you need to continue to heat it intermittently to keep it hot. So it’s only a water heater for a few minutes, after which point it becomes a hot water heater.
• sequoia 4y ago
  @snapetom (author): what caused you to counter-offer 80% rather than sticking with 100%? Presumably expediency, but it seems with arbitrator on the line you were well on your way to a 100% payout.
• michaelcampbell 4y ago
  FWIW, we've had a home warrantee for... 17 years, and it has been a positive ROI every year. We're dropping it now because the service has gone to shit being no longer maintained in my country and all they do is read scripts to you.
• mig39 4y ago
  > In the US, it’s not easy to sue a company as a customer. My experience in Canada: - I successfully sued a large retailer (something mart) over a $60 mistake, that ended up costing them a lot more in small claims court. Just dealing with the company was insane. Literally yelling at me on the phone that they were never going to pay for a simple mistake. I literally said "well, if you're going to yell at me, let's at least do it in front of a judge." It was really easy to file the papers, and even serve them myself. The court people helped. The company denied, denied, denied. Day of the case, literally 5 minutes before it was set to start, they agreed to pay everything I asked for (including 2 days of my time), but wanted me to sign a non-disclosure agreement. Which I did. - Second case, it was one of Canada's largest banks. Error on their part, cost me $1000+ in extra expenses. Fought me the whole way, didn't want to pay anything at all. Went through their internal ombudsman process, but never got anywhere. A few days after filing a claim in small claims court, they gave me everything I asked for. Again, wanted me to sign a non-disclosure agreement. So I tell everyone I know, that in Canada, the big corporations are more afraid of courts than anything else. Last thing they want is a public record of wrongdoing.
  • Beltalowda 4y ago
    These kind of NDAs are frustrating because it prevents systemic problems from being aired and addressed. I don't blame you for accepting it – I would have done the same – because it's not your problem to fix; you just want your $1000 back, but I wish they would be restricted by law.
• andjd 4y ago
  So, since the author was only asking for a few thousand dollars, it's probably not worth the company fighting it -- it's just a matter of them quickly finding out how much money they have to give you to make you go away. The exact series of events would probably have occurred if he had filed in small claims court. Even though the company could likely win a motion to compel arbitration, it's not worth it to them. Arbitration may be cheaper and more informal than the courts, but that doesn't mean that defending against this type of claim economical. On the whole, courts aren't that expensive, it's the cost of lawyers and their time where the costs pile up. Small-claims courts also often have simpler and more streamlined procedures just like arbitration does. And the Judge's salary is footed by the taxpayer. The author's conclusion is that arbitration isn't all that bad because it worked out OK for him this time. But this ignores how arbitration puts the thumb on the scale in favor of the company when real money is on the table. Just to name a few: * Arbitration usually requires secrecy regardless of the outcome. This guarantees that the company will not face a repetitional hit even if they lose, and it also means that your case has no precedental value for others who were similarly wronged. * The process often places strict limitations on discovery, which can make it impossible for a prove your case. * The agreements usually prohibit class-actions, which prevents redress for widespread but low value abuses. Sometimes, the less-formal nature of arbitration can be a good thing. But if it's truly balanced and better for both parties, it should be something that can be opted into after the dispute arises. The fact that there have been so many high-profile disputes about arbitration that have been taken to the Supreme Court is pretty solid evidence that companies see the ability to compel their customers into arbitration as exceptionally important to their bottom line.
• ncmncm 4y ago
  Their gross negligence and subsequent stonewalling should have earned them a penalty, not a 20% bonus.
• soorya3 4y ago
  Also there may be other ways to recover the money for example local and federal law related to your problem (simply google them). In my case, Travel company customer service failed to cancel my flight and after months of following up (although slowly because most of us don't have time and energy to spend) finally I filed a case with DOT (federal law) and I got my money within few weeks. Another great resource is consumer protection bureau (https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ https://www.consumerfinance.gov/).
• NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
  >a privatization of justice. More and more I'm starting to think that anything that isn't just "justice" is injustice.
• prakhar897 4y ago
  IMO the author could've elaborated in the email on how the company is deliberately trying to deny their responsibility for the actions and how the arbitration clause is added in bad faith and has created a dark pattern which harms the consumers nationwide. This means (I'm not a lawyer) the person on the other side might get scared about a class action suit.
• baryphonic 4y ago
  I loved the thrust of this overall post, but I had thoughts about this paragraph: > In the US, it’s not easy to sue a company as a customer. Maybe about thirty years ago, it became common for companies to put into contracts and terms of service, clauses that required binding arbitration to resolve disputes. This was cheaper for the company in many ways including a streamlined resolution process, cheaper lawyers, no sifting through frivolous lawsuits, and finality once a decision is made. It sucked for the consumer because it’s essentially a privatization of justice. The anti-arbitration vie of so many people has always struck me as odd. Wouldn't a "streamlined resolution process, cheaper lawyers, no sifting through frivolous lawsuits, and finality once a decision is made" benefit consumers at least as much as large corporations? The biggest downside seems to be lack of an appeals process, even though very few court decisions are overturned on appeal anyway, and in any case, the small claims type of actions would never be appealed due to cost. From what I can tell, the poster filed his claim online, provided very little evidence beyond alleging the specific contract sections that were violated (though I'm certain he had copious evidence if asked), and recovered almost all of his damages. The arbitration association even provided someone to follow up throughout the settlement process. IANAL, but I doubt any process in the entire country is so easy, and from what I've seen in class actions, the arbitration damage award was much, much higher. The difference between how easy the process was and the author's expectations is so stark that I almost wonder if the corporations themselves started the rumor about arbitration being terrible, if not the trial lawyers themselves.
• neycoda 4y ago
  A computer system being down is no excuse to refuse a pre-auth. They can write the details down on paper for later computer entry. They 100% broke the contract by refusing to process pre-auth details with or without a computer. How did we get along without computers? Paper and phones. If this company can't operate without computers, they shouldn't exist.