First Communications, LLC.

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2016/03/23) */ We only credit back days, but now have generously violated our own policy and credited more to the total of $(that will show up on two invoices)Invoices are deemed correct after daysWe have a clear policy for such seemingly long and extreme neglected reading and understanding of one's bill, for which the customer would then now create a large short term burden for usWe will not credit further

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/05/20) */ The billing is correct and the account will not be deemed paid in fullWe are sorry the customer is dissatisfied, but the customer makes little mention of and downplays the fact that their contract and the incorporated terms and conditions in fact addressed the agreed-upon disconnection processOur record does not support their claims of what they claim they were told, but regardless, the contract and the incorporated terms and conditions contained all the information they needed and were actually bound byThis is no unfair tacticMost customers comply with their contract and terms and conditionsWhen the customer signed both of their contracts, they acknowledged their review and receipt of the terms and acknowledged they agreed to be bound by those terms Our Customer Financial Services department ( [redacted] ) might possibly still work with the customer some regarding the outstanding balances, but the balances are valid and due Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 7, 2015/05/26) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) I understand that there is a contract that binds our arrangement with First Comm; however, a First Comm employee expressly told me that my account was cancelled in JanuaryWhile the responder states that their records do not support this allegation, before I reached the level of management that I am currently interacting with, I was told by two employees that their records reflected exactly what I was told in January I maintain that the approach taken by First Comm is an unfair tactic designed to trap customers who are terminating service with them into paying additional fees for two reasons: An employee told me my account was cancelled and did not tell me that I needed to write a letter to cancel it againCustomers should be able to rely upon the word of an employee All customer service staff with whom I worked regard this issue were helpful until I spoke to the person who actually had the authority to help me with this problemThis supports the fact that this is a corporate tactic that even the staff at First Comm do not like to enforce Final Business Response / [redacted] (4000, 9, 2015/06/01) */ We have no record indicating customer communicated with us in November 2014, December 2014, or January We see a call from a "***" on 10/10/asking questions about the account and the new carrier CSR request in October 2014, and the new carrier LSR request in Feb And that's itAnd no record of the "two employees said that their records reflected exactly what I was told in January" either Customer seems to deem someone as unhelpful if they do not give them exactly what they seek (which in this matter would be to set aside valid contract terms)This is no unfair tacticMost customers comply with their contract and terms and conditions Again, our Customer Financial Services department ( [redacted] ) might possibly still work with the customer some regarding the outstanding balances, but the balances are valid and due

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 8, 2015/05/08) */ There was nothing improper or fraudulent hereThough this complaint is vague, it seems the customer does not understand the final billing processWe complete out disconnections in daysWhen the customer signed the contract, the contract stated: "By placing Customer's signature in the space provided, Customer hereby acknowledges its review and receipt of the T&Cs and hereby acknowledges its agreement to be bound by said terms, including all terms incorporated therein by reference, including, but not limited to, all applicable tariffs and rate guides and all terms set forth at www.firstcomm.com which may be amended from time to time." Under those T&Cs section Disconnect, Cancellation and Notice Thereof, it states: "When a business Customer requests a disconnection or cancellation of Service primarily, but not exclusively, involving a circuit or any other service that is not POTS, you must notify First Communications in writing at least days in advance of the date you wish Service to cease, see Notices Section below." After some disconnect/reconnect confusion, customer started the disconnection process in August and we billed accordingly for days per aboveWe know the customer had voicemail and circuit service issues with us earlier in 2014, and we are sorry, but we billed correctly here Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 10, 2015/05/12) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Re: Accounts with First Communications, LLC Note that we have added another account to our complaintMay 1, First Communications LLC sent us a Final Demand Notice for and additional Account (Fourth Account) demanding that we pay an additional $for services and late feesThis is the first that we have been notified of having a balance due on this account The individual that responded to the complaint is misinformed about how long we had service issuesThey claim that service issues were brought to their attention in early That may be when they finally acknowledged the problemsWe entered in to year contracts with First Communications LLC for entities in After the service was in place we immediately had telephone and internet service issues I made several phone calls relative to the service issues, which were unansweredOn April 5, I wrote a letter to First Communications outlining the numerous issues and requested to be released from contracts because of the telephone downtime we were experiencingI was then contacted by a First Communication representative who informed me that they would not release us from the contracts and that First Communications needed the opportunity to correct the issues before they would consider cancelling the agreementsThe issues were never resolvedWe continued to complain about the service and to be released from the contracts The service issues increased in Because of my constant complaints our First Communications contact person/representative agreed to set up a conference call between me, himself and the managers of the entitiesThe First Communications representative sent out an invite to connect on a conference call scheduled for November 5, at 8:amWe all called in to the number that was sent by the First Communications representative on the scheduled time and date, however, the representative never joined the conference call meetingWe all sat on hold for over minutes before we gave up and disconnectedThis is another example of the typical treatment that we receive from First Communications Over the year term I emailed First Communications times and I made numerous phone calls and mailed correspondences all relative to the telephone services issues and outagesThe phone service issues were never resolved as we continued to experience constant telephone downtime We paid the monthly invoices to First Communications on time every monthWe finished out the contracts as agreedOn April 29, we informed First Communications in writing that we would not renew the contractsThe services were disconnected by First Communications in July and all invoices were paid in fullIn January we were charged an additional $I made several phone calls to two of the First Communications contacts requesting the reason for the charges, which they never gave me, instead they made threats that these charges must be paid or they will put us in collection We are in the business of renting apartments and servicing our residentsBecause of the frequent phone service downtime, we have lost countless prospective renters due to the inability to contact our leasing offices, not to mention the harm it has done to our reputationAdditionally, our management offices received numerous complaints from residents with emergencies that they were not able to reach our offices because of no telephone service Between of the accounts First Communications improperly and fraudulently charged an additional $3297.61, which we paid only because their employees threatened me with turning the accounts over to collectionNow they are demanding another $858.57? We expect a full refund from First Communications immediately and we will not be paying the additional amount that they are demanding for the Fourth Account Final Business Response / [redacted] (4000, 12, 2015/05/21) */ This is a final billing dispute over allegedly improper chargesWe will not address prior service issues or let this final billing dispute be an opportunity to discuss or redress them againThis customer has not discussed why they did not comply with or seem to consult the contracts and the terms and conditions they acknowledged their review and receipt of and acknowledged they agreed to be bound byNor has this customer established that we have not complied with them in this final billing processWritten notification is required to opt of automatic renewal AND required for disconnection of service; that is two distinct written notifications that are requiredWe have complied with the contract and terms and conditions in the final billing process Our Customer Financial Services department ( [redacted] ) might possibly still work with the customer some regarding the outstanding balances, but the balances are valid and dueOur record indicates that our Customer Financial Services department has already generously attempted to work with the customer on the balances as far as alleviating the situation

Tell us why here...This customer did not provide complete accurate information and we could not find the related account, but the billing is likely accurate and we stand by it. We follow common industry practices. The common policy of days protection from disconnection protects
both companies and customers as disconnection is not a unilateral process but involves many steps from both the new and old carrier and the customer. New customers repeatedly acknowledge having read the terms and conditions and being aware of their location and how they are subject to changes. The industry practices help to bring competitive prices to the market. We hope customers can understand and we are proud of the technology solutions we provide

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/06/18) */
The business customer does not seem to understand their contract and terms and conditions. And they do not understand they used our services past Jan and Feb 2015. Firstly, merely porting away is not sufficient to close their account under...

their contract and terms and conditions. When the customer signed the contract, the contract stated: "By placing Customer's signature in the space provided, Customer hereby acknowledges its review and receipt of the T&Cs and hereby acknowledges its agreement to be bound by said terms, including all terms incorporated therein by reference, including, but not limited to, all applicable tariffs and rate guides and all terms set forth at www.firstcomm.com which may be amended from time to time." Under those T&Cs section Disconnect, Cancellation and Notice Thereof, it states: "When a business Customer requests a disconnection or cancellation of Service primarily, but not exclusively, involving a circuit or any other service that is not POTS, you must notify First Communications in writing at least 60 days in advance of the date you wish Service to cease, see Notices Section below." So we require written disconnection notice and we complete out disconnections in 60 days.
We billed correctly here. We don't have their alleged notices and have never been provided evidence of them. We have phone calls in our system well past Jan and Feb, so already such claims don't comport with what we see. Services were clearly used and available past Jan and Feb. Customer gave sufficient notice of cancel on 6/3/15 and we started that process then.
We have record that the customer is pursuing some slamming (?) ticket with [redacted], so we don't know what that means. Our Customer Financial Services department ([redacted]) might possibly still work with the customer some regarding the outstanding balances, but the balances are valid and due.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/05/20) */
The billing is correct and the account will not be deemed paid in full. We are sorry the customer is dissatisfied, but the customer makes little mention of and downplays the fact that their contract and the incorporated terms and conditions in...

fact addressed the agreed-upon disconnection process. Our record does not support their claims of what they claim they were told, but regardless, the contract and the incorporated terms and conditions contained all the information they needed and were actually bound by. This is no unfair tactic. Most customers comply with their contract and terms and conditions. When the customer signed both of their contracts, they acknowledged their review and receipt of the terms and acknowledged they agreed to be bound by those terms.
Our Customer Financial Services department ([redacted]) might possibly still work with the customer some regarding the outstanding balances, but the balances are valid and due.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/05/26) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I understand that there is a contract that binds our arrangement with First Comm; however, a First Comm employee expressly told me that my account was cancelled in January. While the responder states that their records do not support this allegation, before I reached the level of management that I am currently interacting with, I was told by two employees that their records reflected exactly what I was told in January.
I maintain that the approach taken by First Comm is an unfair tactic designed to trap customers who are terminating service with them into paying additional fees for two reasons:
1. An employee told me my account was cancelled and did not tell me that I needed to write a letter to cancel it again. Customers should be able to rely upon the word of an employee.
2. All customer service staff with whom I worked regard this issue were helpful until I spoke to the person who actually had the authority to help me with this problem. This supports the fact that this is a corporate tactic that even the staff at First Comm do not like to enforce.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/06/01) */
We have no record indicating customer communicated with us in November 2014, December 2014, or January 2015. We see a call from a "[redacted]" on 10/10/14 asking questions about the account and the new carrier CSR request in October 2014, and the new carrier LSR request in Feb 2015. And that's it. And no record of the "two employees said that their records reflected exactly what I was told in January" either.
Customer seems to deem someone as unhelpful if they do not give them exactly what they seek (which in this matter would be to set aside valid contract terms). This is no unfair tactic. Most customers comply with their contract and terms and conditions.
Again, our Customer Financial Services department ([redacted]) might possibly still work with the customer some regarding the outstanding balances, but the balances are valid and due.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/03/23) */
We only credit back 90 days, but now have generously violated our own policy and credited more to the total of $85.95 (that will show up on two invoices). Invoices are deemed correct after 60 days. We have a clear policy for such seemingly...

long and extreme neglected reading and understanding of one's bill, for which the customer would then now create a large short term burden for us. We will not credit further.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2015/05/08) */
There was nothing improper or fraudulent here. Though this complaint is vague, it seems the customer does not understand the final billing process. We complete out disconnections in 60 days. When the customer signed the contract, the contract...

stated: "By placing Customer's signature in the space provided, Customer hereby acknowledges its review and receipt of the T&Cs and hereby acknowledges its agreement to be bound by said terms, including all terms incorporated therein by reference, including, but not limited to, all applicable tariffs and rate guides and all terms set forth at www.firstcomm.com which may be amended from time to time." Under those T&Cs section Disconnect, Cancellation and Notice Thereof, it states: "When a business Customer requests a disconnection or cancellation of Service primarily, but not exclusively, involving a circuit or any other service that is not POTS, you must notify First Communications in writing at least 60 days in advance of the date you wish Service to cease, see Notices Section below."
After some disconnect/reconnect confusion, customer started the disconnection process in August and we billed accordingly for 60 days per above. We know the customer had voicemail and circuit service issues with us earlier in 2014, and we are sorry, but we billed correctly here.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 10, 2015/05/12) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Re: 4 Accounts with First Communications, LLC
Note that we have added another account to our complaint. May 1, 2015 First Communications LLC sent us a Final Demand Notice for and additional Account (Fourth Account) demanding that we pay an additional $858.57 for services and late fees. This is the first that we have been notified of having a balance due on this account.
The individual that responded to the complaint is misinformed about how long we had service issues. They claim that service issues were brought to their attention in early 2014. That may be when they finally acknowledged the problems. We entered in to 3 year contracts with First Communications LLC for 4 entities in 2012. After the service was in place we immediately had telephone and internet service issues.
I made several phone calls relative to the service issues, which were unanswered. On April 5, 2012 I wrote a letter to First Communications outlining the numerous issues and requested to be released from contracts because of the telephone downtime we were experiencing. I was then contacted by a First Communication representative who informed me that they would not release us from the contracts and that First Communications needed the opportunity to correct the issues before they would consider cancelling the agreements. The issues were never resolved. We continued to complain about the service and to be released from the contracts.
The service issues increased in 2013. Because of my constant complaints our First Communications contact person/representative agreed to set up a conference call between me, himself and the managers of the entities. The First Communications representative sent out an invite to connect on a conference call scheduled for November 5, 2013 at 8:30 am. We all called in to the number that was sent by the First Communications representative on the scheduled time and date, however, the representative never joined the conference call meeting. We all sat on hold for over 20 minutes before we gave up and disconnected. This is another example of the typical treatment that we receive from First Communications.
Over the 3 year term I emailed First Communications 53 times and I made numerous phone calls and mailed correspondences all relative to the telephone services issues and outages. The phone service issues were never resolved as we continued to experience constant telephone downtime.
We paid the monthly invoices to First Communications on time every month. We finished out the contracts as agreed. On April 29, 2014 we informed First Communications in writing that we would not renew the contracts. The services were disconnected by First Communications in July 2014 and all invoices were paid in full. In January 2015 we were charged an additional $3297.61. I made several phone calls to two of the First Communications contacts requesting the reason for the charges, which they never gave me, instead they made threats that these charges must be paid or they will put us in collection.
We are in the business of renting apartments and servicing our residents. Because of the frequent phone service downtime, we have lost countless prospective renters due to the inability to contact our leasing offices, not to mention the harm it has done to our reputation. Additionally, our management offices received numerous complaints from residents with emergencies that they were not able to reach our offices because of no telephone service.
Between 3 of the accounts First Communications improperly and fraudulently charged an additional $3297.61, which we paid only because their employees threatened me with turning the accounts over to collection. Now they are demanding another $858.57? We expect a full refund from First Communications immediately and we will not be paying the additional amount that they are demanding for the Fourth Account.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 12, 2015/05/21) */
This is a final billing dispute over allegedly improper charges. We will not address prior service issues or let this final billing dispute be an opportunity to discuss or redress them again. This customer has not discussed why they did not comply with or seem to consult the contracts and the terms and conditions they acknowledged their review and receipt of and acknowledged they agreed to be bound by. Nor has this customer established that we have not complied with them in this final billing process. Written notification is required to opt of automatic renewal AND required for disconnection of service; that is two distinct written notifications that are required. We have complied with the contract and terms and conditions in the final billing process.
Our Customer Financial Services department ([redacted]) might possibly still work with the customer some regarding the outstanding balances, but the balances are valid and due. Our record indicates that our Customer Financial Services department has already generously attempted to work with the customer on the balances as far as alleviating the situation.