Revdex.com:Where as I do not entirely agree with JNR`s interpretation of my complaint letter, I can agree with resulting outcome provided [redacted] chooses to accept the recomendation and write off the impending charges.Therefore, I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me
Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/09/17) */ JNR Adjustment Company, Inc(JNR) is a third-party claim investigation and recovery firm representing [redacted] ( [redacted] ) [redacted] assigned the subject case file to our offices on July 30, JNR mailed an initial demand letter to [redacted] on 8/5/On 8/11/2015, our representative (Angela ***) called [redacted] and spoke to '***' at 13: [redacted] refused to discuss the merits of the claim, and after several minutes, stated he was recording the conversationOur representative informed [redacted] JNR does not consent to call recording, and consent would be required in order to continueMr [redacted] refused to terminate the recordingSubsequently, our representative terminated the communication On 8/17/2015, we received a copy of our initial demand letter returned by mail, with hand-written notationsOur representative made one additional follcall on 8/@ 11:02A and left a message on voice mailOn 9/4/2015, [redacted] returned that voice mail message; but again, refused to discuss the merits of the claimWe have documented records to prove these contacts and we have not attempted any contact sinceTwo attempted contacts over a two week period, along with one return call, hardly seems to fit the description of aggressiveness and/or harassment Mr [redacted] describes First and foremost, the subject case is a tort claim for negligent damage to propertyIt is not "debt" or "bill" by definition [redacted] issued a Claim for Damages to [redacted] on July 14, This claim resulted from the cost to restore services to an AT&T customer, after [redacted] cut the service line to that customer through the course of their work at [redacted] As stated, when Mr [redacted] received the claim from [redacted] , he wrote a letter to refuse payment of the demandWe've included a copy of that letter AT&T simply does not have the manpower or resources to personally respond to every letter they receive in tort claim mattersIn many cases, AT&T refers such matters to a third-party for additional investigation and response There will always be differences of opinion in matters of negligence and liabilityThe documented facts of the case must always be our guide in any attempt to recover our client's repair costs; when incurred through no-fault of their ownThe facts of this case leave little doubt as to responsibility for this damage You'll note, Mr [redacted] does not deny causing damage to AT&T's propertyIn his 7/22/letter to AT&T, he refers to that damage as "a consequence of the job"In his follletter dated 8/5/2015, again he acknowledges causing the damage but called it "unavoidable"AT&T does not install buried telephone cables by wrapping them around tree rootsUndoubtedly, the honeysuckle roots grew around the existing cable, during however long it was buried in the ground It is a requirement clearly defined in Ohio State Law; any person(s) performing excavation must provide advance notice of intent to excavateOnce the excavator provides that notice, utility companies must identify the horizontal route of buried utility lines in conflict with the proposed excavation (by temporary markings, color coordinated by utility type) with reasonable accuracyIn this case, orange for communications as prescribed by the American Public Works Association Among many other requirements, excavator's must dig safely in and around the location of marked utilities, without damaging themDespite Mr [redacted] 's opinions, Ohio State Law clearly defines the excavators duty of due care to work safely near marked utilities in Ohio §The placement of a line within or out of a prescribed utility easement, and the buried depth are immaterial to these requirements [redacted] landscape served notice of intent to excavate through the Ohio One-call service on June 4, AT&T marked their lines in conflict on June 5, We have included color photographs of the job-site taken after AT&T marked the line and before any of the landscape work beganThe route of the damaged telephone line was clearly marked with orange paint and flags For comparison, we also included a few photos of the jobsite taken well after the damage occurredIt seems quite evident the landscape contractor performed their work indiscriminately, and without regard for existing utilities Based on the facts, we believe Mr [redacted] 's refusal to reimburse AT&T's repair costs, and subsequent complaints are without meritThere are many things [redacted] landscape could have done differently to prevent this occurrenceAT&T has no culpability here, and they are no more than the innocent victim of the careless actions of anotherThat is; by definition, negligence While AT&T maintains [redacted] remains 100% at fault for this damage, AT&T is not unreasonableThe relatively small amount of this claim is hardly worth additional time and energy to continue on a path of righteousnessThe facts of the case should speak for themselves In an effort to resolve this dispute, AT&T agrees to compromise this claim by 50% and proposes to accept $as full and final settlement in this matter Should Mr [redacted] find this proposal amiable, he should contact the assigned claims representative Angela [redacted] at [redacted] , Ext ***to arrange payment JNR Adjustment Company, Incmaintains an A+ rating with the Revdex.com, and these unfounded complaints should not impact that rating negatively Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 7, 2015/09/18) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) We are being harrassed.....my records show phone calls from JNR, I have talked to some rude lady twice, the other times they have spoken to our staffWe have received two lettersWe filed an objection to AT&T's claim immediately and followed it to a 'T' and have never heard a responseJNR is clearly well versed in collecting moneyWe have now faxed JNR twice our complaint and they continue to call We aren't paying anythingJNR was not at the site, they have not seen what was doneThe phone line was a year old black phone line that was wrapped about bushes that had to be removed to solve a drainage problemThe phone line was not in an easement and was just put where they felt it should goWe don't bill AT & T for damaging our plants they tear up all over Dayton, Ohio placing phone lines ....again, the line was not in an easementThere was NO WAY to avoid damaging the lineIn fact, upon further investigation, the repair man that came out commented, 'this isn't your fault' verbally to our crew that was there If we were wrong, we would pay the bill, we're not wrong and JNR is lucky I don't bill them for all the time we wasted being harrassedMy guess is they have all sorts of claims again them that are settled like thisThey back off when pushedIf A,T, & T is big enough to bill us, then they are big enough to respond to the complaint we sent them according to their requestWhy was this matter turned over to the collection agency within one week of us being billed? We're not paying this and I respectfully ask that you invest their antics further My original complaint states my position clearly as well I am also in the process of talking to the Ohio Attorney General, what they are doing here isn't right and is unfair to say the leastStrong arming small business owners to pay bills they don't owe and pressuring them to settle to make it go awayI'm not going away Thank youMG Final Business Response / [redacted] (4000, 9, 2015/09/21) */ Despite Mr [redacted] 's comments, threats and allegations, AT&T's position in this matter remains unchangedNothing presented in this second response changes the facts as presented to dateWith the exception of more unsupported generalizations regarding AT&T's careless installation of cabling throughout Dayton, OH As previously stated, JNR attempted contact [redacted] twice by telephone, and accepted a third by return callWe acknowledge speaking to [redacted] twice, and it would seem he agreesWe already explained why AT&T did not respond to his communications directly and it seems redundant to respond to that yet again In addition to these telephone contacts, JNR also mailed two demand letters on behalf of AT&TSince JNR was initially notified of this complaint on 9/4/2015, there have been no further attempts to contact [redacted] JNR's second demand letter, while also dated 9/4/2015, was mailed from an off-site, bulk mail vendor, prior to receipt of this notice from the Revdex.com The FACTS of this case again in summary: AT&T marked a buried utility line in conflict with [redacted] 's proposed excavationJNR provided photographic evidence to prove this fact [redacted] conducted their excavation work without exercising the due care described in Ohio State LawJNR Provided reference to the Ohio State Statute clearly defining an excavator's duty of due care to work safely near marked utilities [redacted] admitted damaging the AT&T line in writing; twice, in spite of the documented markings JNR offered to compromise the matter in an effort to resolve the claim and dispute amicably Mr [redacted] offers nothing but excuses and accusations in his effort to contradict these facts As previously stated, the subject line was an AT&T service line providing service to an AT&T customerAgain, Mr [redacted] refers to the lack of an easement in his responseFrankly, it is simply impossible for a service line to service the home of an AT&T customer, and not leave the designated utility easementEven if a line were trespassing on private property without an easement, only the owner of that property has any right to make a claim of trespass In or out of the utility easement, the line was very clearly identified by orange paint and flags prior to damage Mr [redacted] is certainly entitled to his opinionsNotwithstanding, neither JNR nor AT&T share that opinion and differences of opinion in matters of negligence and liability are commonplace AT&T has a legal right to demand reimbursement of cost to repair damages, from the party responsible for that damage, when the damage occurred through no fault of their ownJust because AT&T receives a refusal to pay, they are not required to accept that without rebuttal, and they did not wrong in assigning this claim to JNR JNR investigates and resolves thousands of disputed tort liability/property damage claims every yearWe would be the first to acknowledge our clients do make mistakes in issuing demands from time to time and not every claim we receive is always 100% accurateWhen we believe a claim is not accurate, we advise our client the sameThat is not the case here Despite the facts clearly indicating liability, AT&T offered to compromise in an effort to resolve the dispute in good faithHowever, it would seem there can be no reasoning with the unreasonable, and the only solution Mr [redacted] would find acceptable is AT&T to simply forget this incident ever occurred Since Mr [redacted] is unwilling to accept any culpability for the actions of [redacted] , we've noted his comments and complaints in the permanent record, closed the file and returned it to AT&T with a write off recommendationThat being said, JNR does not own the subject claim and AT&T will make the final determination as to how they should proceed
Revdex.com:Where as I do not entirely agree with JNR`s interpretation of my complaint letter, I can agree with resulting outcome provided [redacted] chooses to accept the recomendation and write off the impending charges.Therefore, I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me
Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/09/17) */ JNR Adjustment Company, Inc(JNR) is a third-party claim investigation and recovery firm representing [redacted] ( [redacted] ) [redacted] assigned the subject case file to our offices on July 30, JNR mailed an initial demand letter to [redacted] on 8/5/On 8/11/2015, our representative (Angela ***) called [redacted] and spoke to '***' at 13: [redacted] refused to discuss the merits of the claim, and after several minutes, stated he was recording the conversationOur representative informed [redacted] JNR does not consent to call recording, and consent would be required in order to continueMr [redacted] refused to terminate the recordingSubsequently, our representative terminated the communication On 8/17/2015, we received a copy of our initial demand letter returned by mail, with hand-written notationsOur representative made one additional follcall on 8/@ 11:02A and left a message on voice mailOn 9/4/2015, [redacted] returned that voice mail message; but again, refused to discuss the merits of the claimWe have documented records to prove these contacts and we have not attempted any contact sinceTwo attempted contacts over a two week period, along with one return call, hardly seems to fit the description of aggressiveness and/or harassment Mr [redacted] describes First and foremost, the subject case is a tort claim for negligent damage to propertyIt is not "debt" or "bill" by definition [redacted] issued a Claim for Damages to [redacted] on July 14, This claim resulted from the cost to restore services to an AT&T customer, after [redacted] cut the service line to that customer through the course of their work at [redacted] As stated, when Mr [redacted] received the claim from [redacted] , he wrote a letter to refuse payment of the demandWe've included a copy of that letter AT&T simply does not have the manpower or resources to personally respond to every letter they receive in tort claim mattersIn many cases, AT&T refers such matters to a third-party for additional investigation and response There will always be differences of opinion in matters of negligence and liabilityThe documented facts of the case must always be our guide in any attempt to recover our client's repair costs; when incurred through no-fault of their ownThe facts of this case leave little doubt as to responsibility for this damage You'll note, Mr [redacted] does not deny causing damage to AT&T's propertyIn his 7/22/letter to AT&T, he refers to that damage as "a consequence of the job"In his follletter dated 8/5/2015, again he acknowledges causing the damage but called it "unavoidable"AT&T does not install buried telephone cables by wrapping them around tree rootsUndoubtedly, the honeysuckle roots grew around the existing cable, during however long it was buried in the ground It is a requirement clearly defined in Ohio State Law; any person(s) performing excavation must provide advance notice of intent to excavateOnce the excavator provides that notice, utility companies must identify the horizontal route of buried utility lines in conflict with the proposed excavation (by temporary markings, color coordinated by utility type) with reasonable accuracyIn this case, orange for communications as prescribed by the American Public Works Association Among many other requirements, excavator's must dig safely in and around the location of marked utilities, without damaging themDespite Mr [redacted] 's opinions, Ohio State Law clearly defines the excavators duty of due care to work safely near marked utilities in Ohio §The placement of a line within or out of a prescribed utility easement, and the buried depth are immaterial to these requirements [redacted] landscape served notice of intent to excavate through the Ohio One-call service on June 4, AT&T marked their lines in conflict on June 5, We have included color photographs of the job-site taken after AT&T marked the line and before any of the landscape work beganThe route of the damaged telephone line was clearly marked with orange paint and flags For comparison, we also included a few photos of the jobsite taken well after the damage occurredIt seems quite evident the landscape contractor performed their work indiscriminately, and without regard for existing utilities Based on the facts, we believe Mr [redacted] 's refusal to reimburse AT&T's repair costs, and subsequent complaints are without meritThere are many things [redacted] landscape could have done differently to prevent this occurrenceAT&T has no culpability here, and they are no more than the innocent victim of the careless actions of anotherThat is; by definition, negligence While AT&T maintains [redacted] remains 100% at fault for this damage, AT&T is not unreasonableThe relatively small amount of this claim is hardly worth additional time and energy to continue on a path of righteousnessThe facts of the case should speak for themselves In an effort to resolve this dispute, AT&T agrees to compromise this claim by 50% and proposes to accept $as full and final settlement in this matter Should Mr [redacted] find this proposal amiable, he should contact the assigned claims representative Angela [redacted] at [redacted] , Ext ***to arrange payment JNR Adjustment Company, Incmaintains an A+ rating with the Revdex.com, and these unfounded complaints should not impact that rating negatively Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 7, 2015/09/18) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) We are being harrassed.....my records show phone calls from JNR, I have talked to some rude lady twice, the other times they have spoken to our staffWe have received two lettersWe filed an objection to AT&T's claim immediately and followed it to a 'T' and have never heard a responseJNR is clearly well versed in collecting moneyWe have now faxed JNR twice our complaint and they continue to call We aren't paying anythingJNR was not at the site, they have not seen what was doneThe phone line was a year old black phone line that was wrapped about bushes that had to be removed to solve a drainage problemThe phone line was not in an easement and was just put where they felt it should goWe don't bill AT & T for damaging our plants they tear up all over Dayton, Ohio placing phone lines ....again, the line was not in an easementThere was NO WAY to avoid damaging the lineIn fact, upon further investigation, the repair man that came out commented, 'this isn't your fault' verbally to our crew that was there If we were wrong, we would pay the bill, we're not wrong and JNR is lucky I don't bill them for all the time we wasted being harrassedMy guess is they have all sorts of claims again them that are settled like thisThey back off when pushedIf A,T, & T is big enough to bill us, then they are big enough to respond to the complaint we sent them according to their requestWhy was this matter turned over to the collection agency within one week of us being billed? We're not paying this and I respectfully ask that you invest their antics further My original complaint states my position clearly as well I am also in the process of talking to the Ohio Attorney General, what they are doing here isn't right and is unfair to say the leastStrong arming small business owners to pay bills they don't owe and pressuring them to settle to make it go awayI'm not going away Thank youMG Final Business Response / [redacted] (4000, 9, 2015/09/21) */ Despite Mr [redacted] 's comments, threats and allegations, AT&T's position in this matter remains unchangedNothing presented in this second response changes the facts as presented to dateWith the exception of more unsupported generalizations regarding AT&T's careless installation of cabling throughout Dayton, OH As previously stated, JNR attempted contact [redacted] twice by telephone, and accepted a third by return callWe acknowledge speaking to [redacted] twice, and it would seem he agreesWe already explained why AT&T did not respond to his communications directly and it seems redundant to respond to that yet again In addition to these telephone contacts, JNR also mailed two demand letters on behalf of AT&TSince JNR was initially notified of this complaint on 9/4/2015, there have been no further attempts to contact [redacted] JNR's second demand letter, while also dated 9/4/2015, was mailed from an off-site, bulk mail vendor, prior to receipt of this notice from the Revdex.com The FACTS of this case again in summary: AT&T marked a buried utility line in conflict with [redacted] 's proposed excavationJNR provided photographic evidence to prove this fact [redacted] conducted their excavation work without exercising the due care described in Ohio State LawJNR Provided reference to the Ohio State Statute clearly defining an excavator's duty of due care to work safely near marked utilities [redacted] admitted damaging the AT&T line in writing; twice, in spite of the documented markings JNR offered to compromise the matter in an effort to resolve the claim and dispute amicably Mr [redacted] offers nothing but excuses and accusations in his effort to contradict these facts As previously stated, the subject line was an AT&T service line providing service to an AT&T customerAgain, Mr [redacted] refers to the lack of an easement in his responseFrankly, it is simply impossible for a service line to service the home of an AT&T customer, and not leave the designated utility easementEven if a line were trespassing on private property without an easement, only the owner of that property has any right to make a claim of trespass In or out of the utility easement, the line was very clearly identified by orange paint and flags prior to damage Mr [redacted] is certainly entitled to his opinionsNotwithstanding, neither JNR nor AT&T share that opinion and differences of opinion in matters of negligence and liability are commonplace AT&T has a legal right to demand reimbursement of cost to repair damages, from the party responsible for that damage, when the damage occurred through no fault of their ownJust because AT&T receives a refusal to pay, they are not required to accept that without rebuttal, and they did not wrong in assigning this claim to JNR JNR investigates and resolves thousands of disputed tort liability/property damage claims every yearWe would be the first to acknowledge our clients do make mistakes in issuing demands from time to time and not every claim we receive is always 100% accurateWhen we believe a claim is not accurate, we advise our client the sameThat is not the case here Despite the facts clearly indicating liability, AT&T offered to compromise in an effort to resolve the dispute in good faithHowever, it would seem there can be no reasoning with the unreasonable, and the only solution Mr [redacted] would find acceptable is AT&T to simply forget this incident ever occurred Since Mr [redacted] is unwilling to accept any culpability for the actions of [redacted] , we've noted his comments and complaints in the permanent record, closed the file and returned it to AT&T with a write off recommendationThat being said, JNR does not own the subject claim and AT&T will make the final determination as to how they should proceed