Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/06/08) */
This complaint was filed with the Revdex.com-Minnesota/North DakotaJNR Adjustment Company, Inc(JNR) is headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota, but JNR also has a subsidiary office in Orlando, FloridaThe Florida office is handling the subject
case file
The complainant, *** *** rented a vehicle from our client *** Rent A Car (***) in August Upon returning the vehicle, *** discovered damage ti the vehicle not previously reported*** has no record of any prior damage reported on the subject vehicle (Nissan Altima)
Mr*** suggests the reported damage was pre-existing, and occurred prior to him taking possession of the vehicleHowever, Mr*** made no record any pre-existing damages prior to accepting the vehicle from the *** rental lotBy virtue of the rental agreement Mr*** signed, he assumed responsibility for any damage discovered when the vehicle was checked back in upon it's returnAbsent any facts to the contrary, our client has to conclude the reported damage occurred while in the care, custody and control of Mr***
JNR representative *** *** received an inbound call from Mr*** on 6/2/Mr*** attempted to explain *** holds Mr*** responsible for these damages, given the facts stated above, and the rental agreement Mr*** signedHowever, Mr*** insisted the damages were pre-existing; but also acknowledged he had not inspected the rental vehicle for any pre-existing damage prior to accepting itIn fact, Mr*** stated he filled out the pre-rental inspection form noting no pre-existing damage on the vehicle; before even seeing the vehicle, while he was still at the rental counter inside the airport
Mr*** asked Mr*** why he would fill out a pre-rental inspection form stating there was no damage on the vehicle prior to even seeing it and inspecting itMr*** stated it was early in the morning and the airport had just opened, and there were no *** employees available to walk him out to the vehicle and inspect it with himMr*** advised Mr*** it is the renter's responsibility to inspect the vehicle for pre-existing damages prior to accepting it; *** already cleared the vehicle for additional rentals with no pre-existing damage notedNevertheless, Mr*** kept insisting he was not at fault for these damages
Mr*** continued to explain the contractual responsibility Mr*** accepted; since all of the documentation our client has on file points to the damage occurring while the vehicle was in the care, custody and control of Mr***Mr*** refused to accept any responsibility
Mr*** informed Mr*** that he would mark the file as a "refusal to pay" and subsequently terminated the call
Collections Manager; ***, attempted to contact Mr*** at the number he called from on 6/2/2015, but got no answer at that numberIf Mr*** would like to try and resolve this he may contact *** in our Florida offices at: ***, EXT*** or toll free***, EXT ***
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.
JNR Adjustment Company, Inc. (JNR) is a third-party firm assigned by [redacted]) in matters of property damage claim investigation and recovery. JNR did not create this invoice, and we are the second company retained to handle the matter. This will acknowledge Revdex.com complaint ID #[redacted] filed...
by [redacted]. On or about March 15, 2015 the [redacted] customer residing at [redacted]. contacted [redacted] to report trouble with their telephone services. Upon arrival, the responding [redacted] technician detected a signal-loss in the service drop coming off [redacted]’s service distribution pedestal located in the public utility easement behind the property. Unfortunately, the [redacted] technician neglected to take photographs of the scene or interview Mr. [redacted] at the time of the repair. As reported, the area of the signal loss showed evidence of recent excavation. Neighboring residents reported witnessing the resident at [redacted]. excavating in the general area of the signal loss. In the complaint, Mr. [redacted] acknowledges excavation in the general area of the reported signal loss, and suggests [redacted] bears responsibility for any damage he might have caused due to shallow depth. In prior correspondence, Mr. [redacted] also submitted several photographs clearly documenting evidence of marked buried utility lines in the area of the reported signal loss; albeit, it is unclear as to exactly when these photographs were taken. To date, [redacted] finds no record of a valid request to identify buried utility lines; encompassing the damage location and date (3/15/2015), filed in recent history. Under North Dakota State Statute ND §49-23-04, excavators must contact the Statewide Notification Center: “at least fort eight hours before beginning any excavation, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, unless otherwise agreed to between the excavator and operator”. Additionally, each request filed by an excavator is valid for only Twenty-One (21) Calendar days. Any information ascertained from a request to locate utility lines filed in 2008, simply has no bearing on this case. Further, ND §49-23-06(1b) clearly defines an excavators liability for the cost to repair any damage when there is a failure to comply with ND state law. As stated: “If an excavator fails to comply with this chapter or damages an underground facility, the excavator is liable for all damages caused by the failure to comply with this chapter and for all damages to the facilities and must reimburse the operator for the cost of repair and restoration, loss of product, and interruption of service occurring because of the damage or injury to the facilities, together with reasonable costs and expenses of suit, including reasonable attorney's fees” The preponderance of evidence indicates Mr. [redacted] excavated in the general area of [redacted]’s buried utility lines without a valid utility line locate request on file; in direct violation of North Dakota State Law. Buried utility lines don’t cut themselves and it would seem highly likely this excavation caused the service outage at [redacted]. Notwithstanding, [redacted] also acknowledges the damage was likely unintentional. Unfortunately; [redacted] did not have the foresight to anticipate the excavation and set-up video surveillance in the area. Since the complainant did not provide notice prior to excavation, no one will ever know what lines [redacted] would or would not have marked accurately, and/or the location of markings in relation to damage on the date of the loss. Under these circumstances, we will close the subject demand for re-imbursement of repair expenses in the interest of preserving customer relations, and return the file to [redacted] with a write-off recommendation; along with issuing a friendly reminder to always provide advance notice before conducting any excavation. The complainant should not receive any further communication from JNR and we consider this matter closed.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/02/01) */
JNR Adjustment Company, Inc. (JNR) is a third-party debt collection agency. JNR is not a debt buyer and JNR does not assign account to collections; as the consumer states.
The Corinthian Distribution Trust (the "Trust") has; by order of the...
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, in the matter of Corinthian Colleges, Inc., case number 15-10952 in confirming the Chapter 11 Plan of Liquidation, succeeded to certain interests of Corinthian Colleges and was transferred certain causes of action, including the right to collect debts, accounts receivable and other sums of money.
To that end, the Trust retained JNR Adjustment Company, Inc. of Orlando, Florida ("JNR") to assist it in the collection of certain accounts receivable and sums due the Trust. JNR has the authority to collect for the Trust and has authority to settle accounts on behalf of the Trust in order to satisfy any debts or sums of money due. In this case, a past due student account.
The Trust assigned this account for collection with a balance due in the amount of $156.42. The total original amount cost of attendance was $14,938.42; that amount breaks down as follows: $12,917.00 for Tuition, $2013.92 for Books and $7.50 for Non-Deferred Payments. The total of all payments received from the consumer/student was $14,782.00 leaving a remaining balance of $156.42. While the consumer claims they were unaware of the past due amount, that in and of itself does not make our attempts to recover the amount due the Trust, erroneous or invalid.
If the consumer has questions regarding the amount due, the consumer may contact JNR Collection Manager, Bill [redacted], at [redacted] X [redacted] to resolve this matter.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2016/02/02) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
WHEN I GAVE JNR COMPANY A CALLED TO ASK ABOUT THE DUE AMOUNT OF $156.42, THEY WERE UNABLE TO PROVIDE ME WITH DETAILS ON HOW THIS AMOUNT WAS CONCLUDE. IN WHICH MADE ME DOUBT THEIR SYSTEM.
THEY STATED I GAVE A PAYMENT ON JANUARY 23,WHICH I HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF.THEY NOW MENTION THAT THE THAT TOTAL PAYMENTS I GAVE THEM WAS FOR $14,782.00.I HAD NEVER GIVEN A PAYMENT OF SUCH THING. WAS IT MONTHLY PAYMENTS OR FULL PAYMENT ? AS IN PAYING, FOR MY UNDERSTANDING CORINTHIAN COLLEGES WAS DEFUNCT AS OF APRIL 27,2015. THE TOTAL LOAN AMOUNT WAS $14,938.42 ATTENDING SCHOOL AND FEDERAL LOANS WERE GOING TO HELP OUT IN PAYING THE REST.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2016/02/05) */
When we first spoke with the consumer/student, we informed her of the $156.42 balance owed and that it was for a past due student account with Corinthian. The consumer/student advised us that she would check her records and contact us back.
The date of last payment on the accounts receivable ledger provided to us by the Trustee shows as 1/23/15. The total amount of payments received was $14,782.00. This amount includes any and all payments made towards this student account, whether by Federal Loans, Private Loans, the student directly or any other means.
While Corinthian College did file for Chapter 11 Plan of Liquidation in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, this does not release the consumer/student from her obligation to pay this past due student account balance of $156.42.
If the consumer/student has questions regarding the amount due, the consumer/student may contact JNR Collection Manager, Bill [redacted], at [redacted] X [redacted] to resolve this matter.
Initial Business Response /* (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, 2015.
JNR mailed an initial...
demand letter to [redacted] on 8/5/2015. On 8/11/2015, our representative (Angela [redacted]) called [redacted] and spoke to '[redacted]' at 13:58. [redacted] refused to discuss the merits of the claim, and after several minutes, stated he was recording the conversation. Our representative informed [redacted] JNR does not consent to call recording, and consent would be required in order to continue. Mr. [redacted] refused to terminate the recording. Subsequently, our representative terminated the communication.
On 8/17/2015, we received a copy of our initial demand letter returned by mail, with hand-written notations. Our representative made one additional follow-up call on 8/28 @ 11:02A and left a message on voice mail. On 9/4/2015, [redacted] returned that voice mail message; but again, refused to discuss the merits of the claim. We have documented records to prove these contacts and we have not attempted any contact since. Two 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 property. It is not "debt" or "bill" by definition.
[redacted] issued a Claim for Damages to [redacted] on July 14, 2015. 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 demand. We'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 matters. In 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 liability. The 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 own. The 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 property. In his 7/22/2015 letter to AT&T, he refers to that damage as "a consequence of the job". In his follow-up letter 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 roots. Undoubtedly, 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 excavate. Once 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 accuracy. In 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 them. Despite Mr. [redacted]'s opinions, Ohio State Law clearly defines the excavators duty of due care to work safely near marked utilities in Ohio §3781.30. 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, 2015. AT&T marked their lines in conflict on June 5, 2015. We have included color photographs of the job-site taken after AT&T marked the line and before any of the landscape work began. The 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 occurred. It 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 merit. There are many things [redacted] landscape could have done differently to prevent this occurrence. AT&T has no culpability here, and they are no more than the innocent victim of the careless actions of another. That is; by definition, negligence.
While AT&T maintains [redacted] remains 100% at fault for this damage, AT&T is not unreasonable. The relatively small amount of this claim is hardly worth additional time and energy to continue on a path of righteousness. The 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 $87.52 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 [redacted]. to arrange payment.
JNR Adjustment Company, Inc. maintains an A+ rating with the Revdex.com, and these unfounded complaints should not impact that rating negatively.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (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 5 phone calls from JNR, I have talked to some rude lady twice, the other times they have spoken to our staff. We have received two letters. We filed an objection to AT&T's claim immediately and followed it to a 'T' and have never heard a response. JNR is clearly well versed in collecting money. We have now faxed JNR twice our complaint and they continue to call.
We aren't paying anything. JNR was not at the site, they have not seen what was done. The phone line was a 30 year old black phone line that was wrapped about bushes that had to be removed to solve a drainage problem. The phone line was not in an easement and was just put where they felt it should go. We 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 easement. There was NO WAY to avoid damaging the line. In 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 harrassed. My guess is they have all sorts of claims again them that are settled like this. They back off when pushed. If 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 request. Why 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 least. Strong arming small business owners to pay bills they don't owe and pressuring them to settle to make it go away. I'm not going away.
Thank you. MG
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/09/21) */
Despite Mr. [redacted]'s comments, threats and allegations, AT&T's position in this matter remains unchanged. Nothing presented in this second response changes the facts as presented to date. With 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 call. We acknowledge speaking to [redacted] twice, and it would seem he agrees. We 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&T. Since 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:
1. AT&T marked a buried utility line in conflict with [redacted]'s proposed excavation. JNR provided photographic evidence to prove this fact.
2. [redacted] conducted their excavation work without exercising the due care described in Ohio State Law. JNR Provided reference to the Ohio State Statute clearly defining an excavator's duty of due care to work safely near marked utilities.
3. [redacted] admitted damaging the AT&T line in writing; twice, in spite of the documented markings.
4. JNR offered to compromise the matter in an effort to resolve the claim and dispute amicably.
5. 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 customer. Again, Mr. [redacted] refers to the lack of an easement in his response. Frankly, it is simply impossible for a service line to service the home of an AT&T customer, and not leave the designated utility easement. Even 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 opinions. Notwithstanding, 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 own. Just 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 year. We 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% accurate. When we believe a claim is not accurate, we advise our client the same. That 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 faith. However, 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 recommendation. That being said, JNR does not own the subject claim and AT&T will make the final determination as to how they should proceed.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/06/11) */
While we received this complaint was through the Minneapolis, MN Revdex.com, this claim is being handled by out Orlando, FL branch office.
Since receiving this complaint, we have communicated with the consumer directly, resolved the claim, and...
forwarded the requested release documentation.
This should satisfy the complainants desired resolution.
We consider this matter closed.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/06/08) */
This complaint was filed with the Revdex.com-Minnesota/North DakotaJNR Adjustment Company, Inc(JNR) is headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota, but JNR also has a subsidiary office in Orlando, FloridaThe Florida office is handling the subject
case file
The complainant, *** *** rented a vehicle from our client *** Rent A Car (***) in August Upon returning the vehicle, *** discovered damage ti the vehicle not previously reported*** has no record of any prior damage reported on the subject vehicle (Nissan Altima)
Mr*** suggests the reported damage was pre-existing, and occurred prior to him taking possession of the vehicleHowever, Mr*** made no record any pre-existing damages prior to accepting the vehicle from the *** rental lotBy virtue of the rental agreement Mr*** signed, he assumed responsibility for any damage discovered when the vehicle was checked back in upon it's returnAbsent any facts to the contrary, our client has to conclude the reported damage occurred while in the care, custody and control of Mr***
JNR representative *** *** received an inbound call from Mr*** on 6/2/Mr*** attempted to explain *** holds Mr*** responsible for these damages, given the facts stated above, and the rental agreement Mr*** signedHowever, Mr*** insisted the damages were pre-existing; but also acknowledged he had not inspected the rental vehicle for any pre-existing damage prior to accepting itIn fact, Mr*** stated he filled out the pre-rental inspection form noting no pre-existing damage on the vehicle; before even seeing the vehicle, while he was still at the rental counter inside the airport
Mr*** asked Mr*** why he would fill out a pre-rental inspection form stating there was no damage on the vehicle prior to even seeing it and inspecting itMr*** stated it was early in the morning and the airport had just opened, and there were no *** employees available to walk him out to the vehicle and inspect it with himMr*** advised Mr*** it is the renter's responsibility to inspect the vehicle for pre-existing damages prior to accepting it; *** already cleared the vehicle for additional rentals with no pre-existing damage notedNevertheless, Mr*** kept insisting he was not at fault for these damages
Mr*** continued to explain the contractual responsibility Mr*** accepted; since all of the documentation our client has on file points to the damage occurring while the vehicle was in the care, custody and control of Mr***Mr*** refused to accept any responsibility
Mr*** informed Mr*** that he would mark the file as a "refusal to pay" and subsequently terminated the call
Collections Manager; ***, attempted to contact Mr*** at the number he called from on 6/2/2015, but got no answer at that numberIf Mr*** would like to try and resolve this he may contact *** in our Florida offices at: ***, EXT*** or toll free***, EXT ***
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.
JNR Adjustment Company, Inc. (JNR) is a third-party firm assigned by [redacted]) in matters of property damage claim investigation and recovery. JNR did not create this invoice, and we are the second company retained to handle the matter. This will acknowledge Revdex.com complaint ID #[redacted] filed...
by [redacted]. On or about March 15, 2015 the [redacted] customer residing at [redacted]. contacted [redacted] to report trouble with their telephone services. Upon arrival, the responding [redacted] technician detected a signal-loss in the service drop coming off [redacted]’s service distribution pedestal located in the public utility easement behind the property. Unfortunately, the [redacted] technician neglected to take photographs of the scene or interview Mr. [redacted] at the time of the repair. As reported, the area of the signal loss showed evidence of recent excavation. Neighboring residents reported witnessing the resident at [redacted]. excavating in the general area of the signal loss. In the complaint, Mr. [redacted] acknowledges excavation in the general area of the reported signal loss, and suggests [redacted] bears responsibility for any damage he might have caused due to shallow depth. In prior correspondence, Mr. [redacted] also submitted several photographs clearly documenting evidence of marked buried utility lines in the area of the reported signal loss; albeit, it is unclear as to exactly when these photographs were taken. To date, [redacted] finds no record of a valid request to identify buried utility lines; encompassing the damage location and date (3/15/2015), filed in recent history. Under North Dakota State Statute ND §49-23-04, excavators must contact the Statewide Notification Center: “at least fort eight hours before beginning any excavation, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, unless otherwise agreed to between the excavator and operator”. Additionally, each request filed by an excavator is valid for only Twenty-One (21) Calendar days. Any information ascertained from a request to locate utility lines filed in 2008, simply has no bearing on this case. Further, ND §49-23-06(1b) clearly defines an excavators liability for the cost to repair any damage when there is a failure to comply with ND state law. As stated: “If an excavator fails to comply with this chapter or damages an underground facility, the excavator is liable for all damages caused by the failure to comply with this chapter and for all damages to the facilities and must reimburse the operator for the cost of repair and restoration, loss of product, and interruption of service occurring because of the damage or injury to the facilities, together with reasonable costs and expenses of suit, including reasonable attorney's fees” The preponderance of evidence indicates Mr. [redacted] excavated in the general area of [redacted]’s buried utility lines without a valid utility line locate request on file; in direct violation of North Dakota State Law. Buried utility lines don’t cut themselves and it would seem highly likely this excavation caused the service outage at [redacted]. Notwithstanding, [redacted] also acknowledges the damage was likely unintentional. Unfortunately; [redacted] did not have the foresight to anticipate the excavation and set-up video surveillance in the area. Since the complainant did not provide notice prior to excavation, no one will ever know what lines [redacted] would or would not have marked accurately, and/or the location of markings in relation to damage on the date of the loss. Under these circumstances, we will close the subject demand for re-imbursement of repair expenses in the interest of preserving customer relations, and return the file to [redacted] with a write-off recommendation; along with issuing a friendly reminder to always provide advance notice before conducting any excavation. The complainant should not receive any further communication from JNR and we consider this matter closed.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/02/01) */
JNR Adjustment Company, Inc. (JNR) is a third-party debt collection agency. JNR is not a debt buyer and JNR does not assign account to collections; as the consumer states.
The Corinthian Distribution Trust (the "Trust") has; by order of the...
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, in the matter of Corinthian Colleges, Inc., case number 15-10952 in confirming the Chapter 11 Plan of Liquidation, succeeded to certain interests of Corinthian Colleges and was transferred certain causes of action, including the right to collect debts, accounts receivable and other sums of money.
To that end, the Trust retained JNR Adjustment Company, Inc. of Orlando, Florida ("JNR") to assist it in the collection of certain accounts receivable and sums due the Trust. JNR has the authority to collect for the Trust and has authority to settle accounts on behalf of the Trust in order to satisfy any debts or sums of money due. In this case, a past due student account.
The Trust assigned this account for collection with a balance due in the amount of $156.42. The total original amount cost of attendance was $14,938.42; that amount breaks down as follows: $12,917.00 for Tuition, $2013.92 for Books and $7.50 for Non-Deferred Payments. The total of all payments received from the consumer/student was $14,782.00 leaving a remaining balance of $156.42. While the consumer claims they were unaware of the past due amount, that in and of itself does not make our attempts to recover the amount due the Trust, erroneous or invalid.
If the consumer has questions regarding the amount due, the consumer may contact JNR Collection Manager, Bill [redacted], at [redacted] X [redacted] to resolve this matter.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2016/02/02) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
WHEN I GAVE JNR COMPANY A CALLED TO ASK ABOUT THE DUE AMOUNT OF $156.42, THEY WERE UNABLE TO PROVIDE ME WITH DETAILS ON HOW THIS AMOUNT WAS CONCLUDE. IN WHICH MADE ME DOUBT THEIR SYSTEM.
THEY STATED I GAVE A PAYMENT ON JANUARY 23,WHICH I HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF.THEY NOW MENTION THAT THE THAT TOTAL PAYMENTS I GAVE THEM WAS FOR $14,782.00.I HAD NEVER GIVEN A PAYMENT OF SUCH THING. WAS IT MONTHLY PAYMENTS OR FULL PAYMENT ? AS IN PAYING, FOR MY UNDERSTANDING CORINTHIAN COLLEGES WAS DEFUNCT AS OF APRIL 27,2015. THE TOTAL LOAN AMOUNT WAS $14,938.42 ATTENDING SCHOOL AND FEDERAL LOANS WERE GOING TO HELP OUT IN PAYING THE REST.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2016/02/05) */
When we first spoke with the consumer/student, we informed her of the $156.42 balance owed and that it was for a past due student account with Corinthian. The consumer/student advised us that she would check her records and contact us back.
The date of last payment on the accounts receivable ledger provided to us by the Trustee shows as 1/23/15. The total amount of payments received was $14,782.00. This amount includes any and all payments made towards this student account, whether by Federal Loans, Private Loans, the student directly or any other means.
While Corinthian College did file for Chapter 11 Plan of Liquidation in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, this does not release the consumer/student from her obligation to pay this past due student account balance of $156.42.
If the consumer/student has questions regarding the amount due, the consumer/student may contact JNR Collection Manager, Bill [redacted], at [redacted] X [redacted] to resolve this matter.
Initial Business Response /* (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, 2015.
JNR mailed an initial...
demand letter to [redacted] on 8/5/2015. On 8/11/2015, our representative (Angela [redacted]) called [redacted] and spoke to '[redacted]' at 13:58. [redacted] refused to discuss the merits of the claim, and after several minutes, stated he was recording the conversation. Our representative informed [redacted] JNR does not consent to call recording, and consent would be required in order to continue. Mr. [redacted] refused to terminate the recording. Subsequently, our representative terminated the communication.
On 8/17/2015, we received a copy of our initial demand letter returned by mail, with hand-written notations. Our representative made one additional follow-up call on 8/28 @ 11:02A and left a message on voice mail. On 9/4/2015, [redacted] returned that voice mail message; but again, refused to discuss the merits of the claim. We have documented records to prove these contacts and we have not attempted any contact since. Two 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 property. It is not "debt" or "bill" by definition.
[redacted] issued a Claim for Damages to [redacted] on July 14, 2015. 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 demand. We'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 matters. In 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 liability. The 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 own. The 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 property. In his 7/22/2015 letter to AT&T, he refers to that damage as "a consequence of the job". In his follow-up letter 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 roots. Undoubtedly, 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 excavate. Once 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 accuracy. In 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 them. Despite Mr. [redacted]'s opinions, Ohio State Law clearly defines the excavators duty of due care to work safely near marked utilities in Ohio §3781.30. 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, 2015. AT&T marked their lines in conflict on June 5, 2015. We have included color photographs of the job-site taken after AT&T marked the line and before any of the landscape work began. The 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 occurred. It 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 merit. There are many things [redacted] landscape could have done differently to prevent this occurrence. AT&T has no culpability here, and they are no more than the innocent victim of the careless actions of another. That is; by definition, negligence.
While AT&T maintains [redacted] remains 100% at fault for this damage, AT&T is not unreasonable. The relatively small amount of this claim is hardly worth additional time and energy to continue on a path of righteousness. The 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 $87.52 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 [redacted]. to arrange payment.
JNR Adjustment Company, Inc. maintains an A+ rating with the Revdex.com, and these unfounded complaints should not impact that rating negatively.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (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 5 phone calls from JNR, I have talked to some rude lady twice, the other times they have spoken to our staff. We have received two letters. We filed an objection to AT&T's claim immediately and followed it to a 'T' and have never heard a response. JNR is clearly well versed in collecting money. We have now faxed JNR twice our complaint and they continue to call.
We aren't paying anything. JNR was not at the site, they have not seen what was done. The phone line was a 30 year old black phone line that was wrapped about bushes that had to be removed to solve a drainage problem. The phone line was not in an easement and was just put where they felt it should go. We 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 easement. There was NO WAY to avoid damaging the line. In 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 harrassed. My guess is they have all sorts of claims again them that are settled like this. They back off when pushed. If 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 request. Why 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 least. Strong arming small business owners to pay bills they don't owe and pressuring them to settle to make it go away. I'm not going away.
Thank you. MG
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/09/21) */
Despite Mr. [redacted]'s comments, threats and allegations, AT&T's position in this matter remains unchanged. Nothing presented in this second response changes the facts as presented to date. With 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 call. We acknowledge speaking to [redacted] twice, and it would seem he agrees. We 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&T. Since 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:
1. AT&T marked a buried utility line in conflict with [redacted]'s proposed excavation. JNR provided photographic evidence to prove this fact.
2. [redacted] conducted their excavation work without exercising the due care described in Ohio State Law. JNR Provided reference to the Ohio State Statute clearly defining an excavator's duty of due care to work safely near marked utilities.
3. [redacted] admitted damaging the AT&T line in writing; twice, in spite of the documented markings.
4. JNR offered to compromise the matter in an effort to resolve the claim and dispute amicably.
5. 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 customer. Again, Mr. [redacted] refers to the lack of an easement in his response. Frankly, it is simply impossible for a service line to service the home of an AT&T customer, and not leave the designated utility easement. Even 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 opinions. Notwithstanding, 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 own. Just 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 year. We 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% accurate. When we believe a claim is not accurate, we advise our client the same. That 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 faith. However, 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 recommendation. That being said, JNR does not own the subject claim and AT&T will make the final determination as to how they should proceed.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/06/11) */
While we received this complaint was through the Minneapolis, MN Revdex.com, this claim is being handled by out Orlando, FL branch office.
Since receiving this complaint, we have communicated with the consumer directly, resolved the claim, and...
forwarded the requested release documentation.
This should satisfy the complainants desired resolution.
We consider this matter closed.