Locus Telecommunications

We thank all concerned parties for allowing us to readdress this unique, prior situation and we extend our since apologies to our former H2O customer for any mutually undesired experiences. I assure him that neither were consistent with our commitment to satisfaction.

In conjunction with the latter, and having internally reviewed the matter, I confirm that this issue appears to have been previously resolved as the relevant, former H2O Wireless GSM prepaid mobile numbers were PORTED OUT on or about 08/05/18. *Note: The same records support that our "Live" support staff repeatedly attempted to assist our former customer throughout his brief time under H2O as numerous attempts to "release" said numbers (to the former/new service provider) were recorded since on or about 08/02/18; unfortunately, said attempts repeatedly failed to no fault of our own.

The above being said and while these former H2O Wireless GSM prepaid mobile numbers wouldn't have normally qualified for refunds per our concise terms at ***=Tc as "usage" was recorded under all four numbers, particularly one of them which boasted a $7.75 balance upon porting out (meaning that $2.25 of the original $10 was used via H2O-service related activity, e.g. voice, text, etc.) we've opted to make a "Good Faith" exception in this case and have now issued the four individual $10 refunds on the original method of payment(s). I ask that our former customer allow 3-5 business days for said individual refunds to appear on their respective bank's end.

In light of the above summarized, we'll understandably proceed to consider this matter to be effectively closed and close by hoping that we may be of service to our former customer in the future.

Regards,

*. *** Sr. Manager | Customer Relations

We thank all parties for allowing us to review and address this issue and reassure everyone that such alleged scenario is not indicative of our actions, business practices, nor our commitment to satisfaction.

That being said and having thoroughly reviewed all internal (H2O) records pertaining to or involving the H2O prepaid mobile number stipulated as I'm compelled to point out that from our vantage point it simply appears that there's a grave misunderstanding as "H2O" (the actual service provider), i.e. "we", haven't collected a payment involving, nor benefiting said number in the entire year of 2018 (to date).

In light of the latter and based on the dollar amount equally stipulated (i.e. $33) we have no choice but to suspect that our valued customer may have inadvertently been making payments to/through an outside, 3rd party entity/site that simply resells our H2O service.

Whereby and as there unfortunately exists no in-house transaction to essentially reverse, I strongly and respectfully implore our valued customer to carefully review the referenced bank statements once again to determine the true identity of the merchant that "collected" or "has been collecting" said payment(s) and thereafter reach out to them directly in an effort to discuss the available options as we regrettably, yet understandably have no access to 3rd party billing records, nor do we have any authority, nor influence over them to feasibly assist with their handling of such. Note: Legitimate H2O Wireless GSM payments appear on bank statements as "H2O WIRELESS", not any other variation, nor any other name. Additionally, they boast our *** contact number and New Jersey address, not any other number, nor address.

I close by thanking everyone for taking notice of the fact that Locus Telecommunications (dba H2O Wireless GSM) hasn't collected any payments in 2018 (YTD) for said mobile number, nor "does" or "has" (in 2018) any autorecharge account been established with us (directly) in 2018 where said mobile number is concerned. All of which supporting that Locus/H2O isn't behind the root cause of this complaint, and that this complaint should be effectively closed in our favor as this matter doesn't involve Locus/H2O, at least not aside from general service-related (for which I respectfully note that the H2O service under said number is actively available and set to expire on 08/20/18).

If we may be of any service-related assistance, I respectfully insist that our "Live" support staff at be consulted.

Sincere Regards,

R. Barreras, Sr. Manager

Customer Relations

Tell us why here...
I thank all parties for allowing us to readdress this isolated scenario and I extend our sincere apologies to our valued customer for any previous inadvertent inconvenience(s) or mutually undesired frustration(s). I humbly reassure him that we remain committed to customer satisfaction.

In conjunction with our aforementioned commitment, and per our internal notes I hereby attempt to update everyone by stating that our records support that this matter was previously resolved, and that a replacement order was shipped to him via FedEx (tracking number ***). Per FedEx’s site, at *** said shipment was delivered at our valued customer’s Houston, TX address this morning.

In light of the latter and unless our valued customer states otherwise going forward we’ll proceed to consider this matter to have been previously resolved.

Note: If our valued customer should require any service-related assistance going forward, I implore him to consult our “Live” support staff at .

Regards,

R. Barreras, Sr. Manager

Customer Relations Department

I thank all parties for allowing us to readdress this isolated scenario and I extend our sincere apologies to our valued customer for any inadvertent confusion or misunderstanding which may have contributed to the opening of this case. I humbly reassure her/him that we remain committed to customer satisfaction.

In conjunction with our aforementioned commitment, I hereby attempt to clarify our position by respectfully noting that as is stated within the TERMS of our H2O Wireless GSM prepaid service at https://www.h2owirelessnow.com/mainControl.php?page=Tc , as well as within our online RETURN & EXCHANGE POLICY at https://www.h2owirelessnow.com/mainControl.php?page=Tc#return account balances are unfortunately not refundable, transferable or redeemable for cash or credit.

I also note that it is within said “TERMS” where any reference to any “known” service-related limitations is listed for all to publicly review and consider prior to making a service-provider choice.

Beyond the above and consistent with our commitment, I respectfully note that as history has proven, we would have gladly considered making an exception “if” our service was altogether unavailable to our customer, meaning, that our relevant valued customer was unable to use the H2O service in its entirety for whatever reason. However, such is not the case in this scenario, as our “H2O” service under [the presumably associated] mobile number *** continues to be used through the time of this response. Elaborating on the latter, voice calls, SMS messages and internet surfing (aka DATA/GPRS) usage continues to actively recording under said number, further deeming it ineligible for a refund as such clearly supports “services rendered”.

Based on the above-summarized, I express my sincere hopes that our valued customer has since located an alternate [perhaps 3rd party APP] resolution for whatever caused him/her to file this complaint in the first place, as I otherwise respectfully reiterate that this particular purchase/scenario doesn’t qualify for a refund.

I close by noting that while we’d hate losing our valued customer, we remain at his/her disposal to release the corresponding H2O Wireless GSM-service related account number and PIN/PW “if” he/she should subsequently opt to port/transfer out to a new service provider before the current H2O plan-corresponding expiration date of 08/07/18. I simply ask that he/she contact our “Live” support staff at (800) 643-4926 to obtain such information as it may not be shared via this forum due to its sensitive nature.

Regards,

***

Customer Relations Department

The relevant $40 refund has now been issued on the original method of payment (see below image):

We thank our valued customer for allowing us to re-address this unique, mutually undesired and isolated scenario. We respectfully assure him/her that such is not indicative of our commitment to satisfaction, whereby we hope to be afforded the opportunity to service them again.

The above being said and in response to the complaint-related specifics I note that we've now: (a) opened a case with the United States Postal Service, so that we may hopefully recover the lost H2O merchandise, (b) we've issued a full $105 refund on the order-corresponding debit/credit card [*we ask that our valued customer kindly allow 3-7 business days for said refund to appear on his/her bank account's end], (c) we've shared our valued customer's feedback regarding their online shopping cart experience [re: reference to USPS PRIORITY MAIL] for their consideration.

We sincerely hope that our above-summarized actions not only reaffirm that we're committed to satisfaction, but that we're worthy of re-consideration (as a viable service-provider.

Unless advised otherwise, we'll consider this matter to have been effectively addressed, resolved and closed, yet remain available by way of our toll-free number if deemed otherwise, or if we may be of any future H2O Wireless GSM service-related support.

Sincere Regards,

R. B | Sr. Manager | Customer Relations

We thank all parties for allowing us to look into this and apologize for any inadvertent and mutually undesired confusion.

Having looked into matters based solely on the information provided within the complaint (no specific dates referenced) I advise of the following three findings and or items: (1) Locus is "H2O", meaning, Locus is the parent company behind the prepaid wireless service that is "H2O" (a DBA), (2) Only ONE recent debit/credit card payment benefitting the therein stipulated H2O Wireless GSM prepaid mobile number was collected by our autorecharge system on 03/07/18, and lastly, as is stipulated within both, our online TERMS *** and as well as within our expanded online REFUND POLICY area (*** recharges (aka "account balances") are non-refundable. *Note: The latter is emphasized simply as a general condition.

When it's all said and done and any and all policies aside, Customer Satisfaction is paramount to "us", and while rules and policies guide our typical approaches, "we" collectively review every individual situation and every individual request on it's own and in conjunction with it's respective variables in order to ascertain "if" exceptions need be made. However, in this particular case and unless additional information or records could be provided to support that "we" Locus/H2O actually collected two payments (at some point in recent history), we remain unable to offer any credits/refunds at this time based on my herein initially summarized findings, i.e. no duplicate payment (to us) was found; recently.

In conclusion and in recognition of the above and as we regrettably cannot assist with any payments made to 3rd party entities ("if" that is in fact what has taken place), and unless we hear otherwise, we'll understandably continue to consider this matter to be effectively clarified and closed and emphasize that the aforementioned autorecharge option under the herein-discussed H2O prepaid mobile number remains active with the next payment scheduled to be systematically collected on 04/05/18; said date is when our H2O service is scheduled to expire under such number unless a payment is successfully collected.

Regards,

*** | Customer Relations

We thank everyone for allowing us to readdress this matter and I hope to clarify any lingering, inadvertent confusion or misunderstanding, as I humbly reassure everyone that we remain committed to satisfaction.
Despite our aforementioned commitment, there unfortunately exist those rare, unique scenarios where we’re simply unable to satisfy specific requests due to valid reasons.
Having reviewed this isolated situation, “this” is one of those scenarios. In short, I hereby concur that we’re unable to provide a refund due to the following:
Any and all purchased H2O Wireless GSM prepaid service is in fact being actively provided and remains available under the H2O SIM currently associated with the complaint-relevant H2O Wireless GSM prepaid Pay-As-You-Go mobile number. Said H2O prepaid service may be enjoyed by way of said SIM via any H2O compatible and unrestricted mobile phone. *Note: The old service provider or the handset manufacturer should be consulted if this mutually undesired predicament derives from a device/phone issue, e.g. incompatibility, locked to a specific carrier/network/country, etc. Said service doesn’t expire until 06/20/18 or the current balance fully depleted; whichever should come first. Meaning, there exists ample time for the SIM to be inserted into an alternate (compatible) device, etc.

As is clearly stipulated within our online RETURN & EXCHANGE POLICY area at https://www.h2owirelessnow.com/mainControl.php?page=Tc#return [within the RESTRICTIONS & FEES sub-area, numbered as #4]… “Prepaid account balances and original shipping and handling fees are not refundable.”

As is also clearly stipulated within our general TERMS & CONDITIONS at https://www.h2owirelessnow.com/mainControl.php?page=Tc#general
[therein-represented as bullet point #9]… “Account balances are not refundable, transferable or redeemable for cash or credit.”

The latter two points are concisely displayed within our publicly available website so that all existing customers, prospective customers and the general public alike may be duly familiar with and educated on our refund policy “prior to” making any purchases/financial investments. *Note: The herein-discussed $10 payment/recharge was made by way of the very website I reference.

In light of the above, we’re unable to issue the herein-sought refund and nevertheless remind our valued customer that our “Live” Support Staff remain available to extend any alternately feasible, H2O service-related assistance by way of our *** toll free number 7 days a week.

Regards,

*** Manager | Customer Relations

We’re genuinely sorry to hear that our position on this matter potentially remains unclear and thus, humbly reassure all concerned parties that such is based solely on policy and principal, not any callous or unsympathetic agenda.

Elaborating, we respectfully reiterate that none of our findings, nor efforts to date support that the referenced H2O SIM is “defective” (as implied by the complainant), but instead that it was simply inserted within a non-compatible device, non-H2O provided phone or outright “locked” (to another carrier) device that needs to be more extensively configured in order to properly operate on our underlying carriers LTE GSM network and subsequently enjoy all that our humble prepaid service has to offer. *Note: Said SIM was/is properly activated, has had an H2O prepaid mobile number assigned to it and has the payment-corresponding H2O prepaid plan/service available to it ever since with a current plan-expiration date of 06/20/18.

With the above being said, we remain confident that “if” said SIM was to be alternately inserted in an alternate [H2O compatible] and unlocked device, our service would be enjoyed through the aforementioned H2O-plan expiration date. In fact, to further support that we remain committed to our valued customer, I advise that “if” the herein-discussed SIM were to be placed within an alternate device and our valued customer were to make us aware of such [and that he/she was subsequently enjoying our H2O service], we’d most certainly be willing to extend the current H2O plan-corresponding expiration date accordingly [free of charge].

We do however, regrettably remain unable to issue the $10 refund being sought as this isolated scenario doesn’t qualify for such per our previously cited TERMS & CONDITIONS [*because the SIM in question has been properly activated, etc.] thus, rendering it “used” and ineligible for return/refund.

We thank all parties in advance once again and we close be expressing our sincere regret that we remain unable to accommodate our valued customers specific request.

Regards,

*** | Sr. Manager – Customer Relations

We apologize for any inadvertent confusion, particularly that related to our business practices, policies or comparable, as we strive for transparency and satisfaction. That said, I humbly attempt to clarify matters as follows:
The relevant autorecharge payment collection (ARC) systematically transpired at approximately 6:30am EDT on 02/08/18 in accordance with all applicable ARC program TERMS (*** ) and as agreed upon by our former valued customer when he/she previously enrolled in such cost-savings program. *Note: Actual payment posting times on the banks end may understandably vary and may have unfortunately added to the mutually undesired confusion.

The relevant PORT OUT of the herein-discussed, former H2O Wireless GSM prepaid mobile number didn’t take place until later that same calendar day, i.e. AFTER the ARC payment was collected and H2O service effectively extended (for a new billing cycle).

The timing in which the aforementioned occurred dictated that a refund NOT be approved, as is further stipulated within our H2O service’s overall TERMS at *** (#9) wherein the following is clearly stated… “Account balances are not refundable, transferable or redeemable for cash or credit”.
The above aside and so that our former, valued H2O customer may enjoy his/her new service having left us with a closing experience that is more consistent with our commitment to satisfaction, I’ve hereby manually refunded the herein-discussed $40 payment from 02/08/18 and now ask that he/she kindly allow the natural back end bank processes for said refund to post on his/her bank account.
In light of the latter, I’ll understandably proceed to consider this matter to be effectively closed and resolved and wish our former customer all the best with his new service provider. We remain at his/her disposal if we may be of service going forward.

Regards,
Ricardo B., Sr. Manager | Customer Relations

I thank all parties for allowing us to re-address this mutually undesired matter and for the complainants time earlier today.

As briefly elaborated during our telephone call, his, was an unfortunate, isolated experience, as while we're understandably committed to safeguarding the numbers under our service (i.e. protecting them from unauthorized porting/transferring), the process of obtaining the required ACCT # and PW combo is not devised to be as complex as it was in his instance, whereby, I apologize that we "dropped the ball" in his case and reassure him that such will be properly addressed with the concerned staff member as to prevent the same from recurring. *Note: It simply appears that said staff member was unclear about the feasible contingency plans, etc.

The above said, I hereby confirm that said information combination has now been individually provided to the complainant (aka "our valued customer") as he requested and we've also taken the liberty of reversing his most recent $40 online payment as a good faith gesture, recognizing that his experience was not in alignment with our commitment to satisfaction, as well as for the temporary inconvenience endured. *I ask that he kindly allow 3-7 business days for said $40 refund to appear on his banks end.

In light of the above and unless we hear otherwise, we'll proceed to consider this matter to be effectively resolved and closed.

Regards,

R. B Sr. Manager | Customer Relations

We thank all parties for allowing us to readdress this issue and extend our sincere apologies to our valued customer for any inadvertent misunderstanding surrounding "returned goods" and respectfully note that as is clearly stated within our official ecommerce site's RETURN & EXCHANGE POLICY at *** 4-6 weeks is the expected turnaround time for returned items.

The above said and as our internal records support that the returned goods were received at our warehouse during the 2nd half (if not the tail end) of January 2018 without the originally provided return label (aka RMA) or alternate courier-corresponding tracking, the processing of his/her return is directly in-line with said, publicly advertised RETURN POLICY of 4-6 week processing time. Meaning, that even if this matter had not been externally escalated to the Revdex.com, the desired refund would've naturally been processed over the course of the next few days.

However, as a gesture of good faith, we've now expedited the process a bit and have issued the applicable a full (as S/H costs aren't normally refunded, as is equally stipulated within the aforementioned return policy) $35 full refund today.

We simply ask that the complainant allow the natural 3-5 business day bank(s) processing period for such to appear on his/her banks end, citing that we simply cannot expedite that aspect of the return.

In recognition of the herein summarized, we'll understandably proceed to consider this matter to be effectively resolved and closed.

Regards,

R. *** Sr. Manager | Customer Relations

We thank all parties for bringing this matter to our attention and thus, extend our apologies for any inadvertent confusion or misunderstanding that may have suggested that we're anything other than committed to satisfaction.

That said and as the information offered within this complaint is very limited and fails to provide any truly specific or otherwise helpful [to us] details, we understandably ask that said complainant kindly respond with a more elaborated summarization of his/her experience(s), as well as explain why he/she is seeking $50, so that we may consider our realistic options, example: what's the order number?, what's the relevant mobile number? Why he/she claims "I didn't get what I ordered from H2O"?, etc.

While we await his/her kind response, we also note that if this matter involves an online purchase, any and all [shippable] merchandise purchased by way of our official ecommerce site of *** is subject to the return policy of said site, as found at *** .

We hope to receive the information we're seeking soon, so that we may respond and potential "act" in a timely manner, as otherwise, we're regrettably unable to take any action as the required information simply wasn't made available to us within the complaint.

Regards,

R. B Sr. Manager / Customer Relations Dept.

We apologize for any inadvertent confusion or mutually undesired experience. I humbly reassure you that we remain at your disposal and thus, implore you to reach out to us at *** at your earliest convenience between the hours of 9am-11pm EST so that we may discuss your individual situation in greater detail, because per my findings [based solely on the very limited information offered herein]: (1) our H2O service was and continues to be actively used, and (2) despite our prior, genuine efforts, we were regrettably unable to be of feasible assistance with said numbers porting out because there appears to have [then] existed two conflicting requests for the same H2O number. *Note: When conflicting requests exist, the old-service provider (OSP) unfortunately has no recourse, as it's up to the new carrier(s) to act, i.e. cancel their requests and resubmit ONE, unique request, for us (the OSP) to review and confirm (if applicable) accordingly. We look forward to hearing from you soon and otherwise thank you for your prior business and hope that this brief response has shed a positive light on any prior, inaccurate negativity and is more aligned with our commitment to customer satisfaction.

Despite what the to-date experience(s) and or confusion may lead "anyone" to believe, H2O remains committed to customer satisfaction, even if it entails our helping a valued customer migrate to another carrier. However, despite our genuine, good intentions, our hands are very much tied and our recourse factually limited "if" in fact a conflict (during the port out [from H2O] request) exists, as such unfortunately can only be modified or rectified by the new service provider(s) who is requesting said number from us. Our part is quite simple thereafter, we simply need to confirm that the verifiable information being offered matches what exists on our end and "viola", we confirm the request, thus releasing the number. That said and whiled I'd love to be of real-time assistance, the relevant H2O number hasn't (understandably) been offered via this potentially public forum, so I can't intervene. In the end, this mutually unfortunate and mutually undesired scenario is going to yield different opinions from each involved party based on their respective vantage points, and there's little that we can do about that. I do however reiterate that we remain available, eager and willing to assist however reasonably possible and thank our valued customer(s) for their current and or prior business and overall kind understanding of our unfortunate position(s) in this isolated incident.

We thank all parties for bringing this matter to our attention and extend our sincere apologies to our valued former H2O Wireless GSM customer for any prior, inadvertent confusion or mutually undesired misunderstanding.

We assure all parties that we remain committed to satisfaction.

In conjunction with said commitment and in an effort to clarify any potentially lingering misconception, I respectfully open by stating that all remaining billing records for the relevant, former H2O number support that billing executed properly and in accordance with all advertisements and or TERMs, i.e. for “billable” activity, meaning that no actions are warranted.

The above said, I proceed to note that H2O’s courtesy, post-call (aka “post activity”) notifications under our Pay-As-You-Go (formerly “Minute Plan”, aka “PayGo”) are in fact FREE of charge to our valued customers, as they are systematically delivered by our underlying carriers billing partner’s billing application which uses the GSM industry standard USSD (not FLASH SMS, FLASH “0” SMS, nor Class “0” SMS) session-based technology to deliver said FREE messages.

As such FREE messages are inherent of said underlying partner’s billing application, and as a well-intended convenience to our valued H2O Wireless GSM Pay-As-You-Go plan customers, they are enabled (i.e. “ON”) by default upon plan activation. However, they may be disabled upon individual customer’s request.

In conclusion: (a) no billing-discrepancies were found, (b) the referenced messages are in fact FREE, and (c) said messages can be disabled per individual customer request(s), whereby we’ll understandably proceed to consider this isolated matter to be effectively clarified and closed.

Regards,
R. B, Sr. Manager
Customer Relations

We're sorry to hear that our response was deemed unclear, insufficient or altogether unsatisfactory.

Unfortunately, our response was based on our internal findings pertaining to the relevant, former H2O mobile number (e.g. remaining billing records, internal database notation archives, etc.), none of which support our former customer's allegations, nor warrant any actions (on our part).

The above said and despite the fact that our position on this individual complaint has not changed, I nevertheless respond to the rebuttal as follows in conjunction with our commitment to service/support excellence:

(1). Internal database notations support that in mid-August 2015 the presumed H2O subscriber was then-informed that our ability to change "message types" (no additional specifics on what "message types" was then-recorded) wasn't/isn't possible as such was/is dictated by the underlying carrier and/or their billing partners API/system.

I apologize for any inadvertent confusion and respectfully note that our 2015 interaction/response appears to speak to a presumed query then-surrounding our ability to then-change default "message types", while my opening 2018 response submitted by way of this Revdex.com online forum speaks to our [current] ability to disable/enable post-call [free/courtesy] balance notification USSD messages, i.e. turn them "ON" or "OFF" on a case by case basis, per individual customer request(s). *Note: If my memory serves me correctly, our ability to disable/enable such free/courtesy USSD messages wasn't available to our staff back in 2015.

(2). Again; no record nor comparable evidence supporting "inaccurate billing" was internally found, nor any semblance of billing incidents like those described by the complainant (i.e. being billed for free/courtesy post-call balance notification USSD messages). In addition, we've "never", not then nor now received anything from the complainant supporting otherwise.

In conclusion, I unfortunately reiterate that we've not found anything to warrant action(s) and thus, will continue to consider this individual complaint to be effectively closed.

Regards,

R. B, Sr. Manager

Customer Relations

We thank everyone for allowing us to readdress this isolated matter and thus seize the opportunity to express our sincerest of apologies for any inadvertent misunderstanding or confusion, as we certainly remain committed to satisfaction.

In conjunction with the latter and in an effort to support such, I note that our internal records support that an $80 refund was recently issued on 11/15/17. We imagine that such refund should have since posted on the relevant credit card issuer's end.

Elaborating on the refunded amount, as well as to attempt to clarify the overall "process" and or applicable "policies", I respectfully refer everyone to our online RETURN & EXCHANGE POLICY located at *** wherein it clearly states that: (a) Returns/Refunds will encompass a 4-6 week processing period, and (b) Original shipping and handling fee's are not refundable, hence the $80 refund issuance, as opposed to the originally paid $85 (I.e. $5 was S/H costs).

As the related product merchandise return and applicable refund has since been fulfilled, we'll understandably consider this matter to be effectively closed.

Regards,

R. B Sr. Manager

Customer Relations

We thank everyone for allowing us to re-address this individual complaint and extend our sincere apologies for any inadvertent misunderstanding or frustration(s), as we reassure everyone that we remain committed to satisfaction.
The above said, I open by respectfully noting that virtually every carrier/service-provider in the industry (be it prepaid or post-paid) boasts separate departments to handle different areas of their respective businesses to include PORT DEPARTMENTS.
With the best of intentions, we too recently launched a new department and dedicated team to assist with port-related matters. Unfortunately, as is common with new initiatives, we've experienced some challenges which we continue to internally tackle for the sake of optimizing the end user experience. We continue to express our sincere apologies for any mutually desired experiences in the interim and reassure everyone that we expect a viable resolution in the near future.
In the interim, we'll attempt to contact the complainant at his/her herein-provided daytime contact number with the hopes of facilitating an amicable resolution to this individual matter, citing that "if" in the event that he/she is unavailable, or "if" he/she should happen to attempt to contact us first, our "Live" staff remain and willing (by way of the appropriate department) to assist.
In light of the above summarized and latter statements, we'll understandably proceed to consider this matter to be effectively closed.

Regards,
R. B, Sr. Manager
Customer Relations

We thank everyone for allowing us to re-address this individual complaint and extend our sincere apologies for any inadvertent misunderstanding or frustration(s), as we reassure everyone that we remain committed to satisfaction.
The above said, I open by respectfully noting that virtually every carrier/service-provider in the industry (be it prepaid or post-paid) boasts separate departments to handle different areas of their respective businesses to include PORT DEPARTMENTS.
With the best of intentions, we too recently launched a new department and dedicated team to assist with port-related matters. Unfortunately, as is common with new initiatives, we've experienced some challenges which we continue to internally tackle for the sake of optimizing the end user experience. We continue to express our sincere apologies for any mutually desired experiences in the interim and reassure everyone that we expect a viable resolution in the near future.
In the interim, we'll attempt to contact the complainant at his/her herein-provided daytime contact number with the hopes of facilitating an amicable resolution to this individual matter, citing that "if" in the event that he/she is unavailable, or "if" he/she should happen to attempt to contact us first, our "Live" staff remain and willing (by way of the appropriate department) to assist.
In light of the above summarized and latter statements, we'll understandably proceed to consider this matter to be effectively closed.

Regards,
R. B Sr. Manager
Customer Relations

We thank all parties for allowing us to readdress this issue and we extend our sincere apologies to all for any inadvertent confusion and or misunderstandings. I humbly reassure everyone that we remain committed to satisfaction.
The above said, I proceed to note that per our internal database notations and or records where this valued customer is concerned, we’ve simply been unable to neither confirm nor replicate this valued customers individual experiences, nor are we fielding similar feedback from other equally valued customers in the same geo-area. In fact, all individual troubleshooting efforts intermittently exhausted by our staff to date suggests that hers is an unfortunate “device-related” issue, as opposed to a “service” related issue.
Considering the latter, in addition to the continuously recorded usage under such (e.g. inbound/outbound voice, text and data) which clearly supports that H2O service “has been” and “continues to be” rendered to the relevant SIM (mobile number), we're understandably unable to accommodate any refunds whatsoever.
With regards to the porting out matter and while we hate losing any valued customer, we remain equally available to assist our valued customer with such despite what recent experiences (i.e. mutually undesired hold times) may suggest. To further support such, we'll be attempting to contact this valued customer at her herein-stipulated daytime contact number in hopes of facilitating an amicable resolution to her isolated scenario.
In light of the latter and as no refunds are due, I close by noting that we’ll proceed to consider this matter to be effectively closed.

Sincere Regards,
R. B, Sr. Manager
Customer Relations

We thank our valued, former customer(s) for allowing us to re-address this matter and extend our sincere apologies for any prior inadvertent confusion, misunderstandings and or other, mutually undesired experience(s). We humbly reassure all concerned parties that we remain committed to satisfaction despite what his/her/their individual experience may have led him/her/them to temporarily believe.
In an effort to clarify matters, I respectfully refer all to our websites online shopping Return & Exchange Policy at *** that clearly states that while we accept merchandise returns within 14-days of the original delivery date, merchandise must be in “like new”, unused/unredeemed condition. This, meaning, that once a “plan” or “hard-card” is redeemed, loaded and or scratched, it no longer qualifies for a refund. Instead and as equally stated therein, any merchandise returns deemed to be ineligible for refunds will be returned to the customer/sender (despite what may have been requested on the accompanying Return & Exchange Form). *Note: As the related Return & Exchange form stipulated that a return be processed, the merchandise was understandably returned to the sender/customer.

Respectfully expanding on what other variables may have factored into our Sales Teams decision, I note that our internal records support that both SIMs were not only activated with H2O Wireless GSM prepaid mobile numbers and respectively on 10/18/17 (an action that in itself disqualifies the SIMs/Plans from being refund-eligible), said records also support that our H2O service under each number was used, be it for inbound and our outbound activity.

Beyond the latter, I respectfully note that all H2O SIMs are 4G LTE data capable. However, as is stipulated within our overall “TERMS”, individual customer experiences may vary based on a host of reasons, to especially include geographical location (i.e. lack of underlying carrier coverage), handset/device issues and or compatibility (i.e. defects within an individual handset, the devices incompatible specifications, the devices inability to accept our over-the-air (OTA) data service profile, etc.), etc.

Despite the herein-summarized which unfortunately dictates that no refunds be issued, I’ll now nevertheless proceed to request [from my aforementioned Sales Team colleagues] that they consider making a good-faith exception. Of course, the final decision will be at their discretion, whereby and in recognition of the long holiday weekend virtually upon us and the natural processing period typically associated with refund issuances, I ask that our former valued customer kindly allow 7-14 days to see a refund on his/her credit card.

I close by also emphasizing that as is equally stated within the aforementioned Return & Exchange Policy; the eventual refund (if granted and issued) may or may not include original shipping and handling costs.

In light of all which was summarized herein, we’ll proceed to consider this matter to be effectively closed.

Regards,
R. B, Sr. Manager
Customer Relations Department

We thank everyone for allowing us to re-address this individual complaint and extend our sincere apologies for any inadvertent misunderstanding or frustration(s), as we reassure everyone that we remain committed to satisfaction.

The above said, I open by respectfully noting that virtually every carrier/service-provider in the industry (be it prepaid or post-paid) boasts separate departments to handle different areas of their respective businesses to include PORT DEPARTMENTS.

With the best of intentions, we too recently launched a new department and dedicated team to assist with port-related matters. Unfortunately, as is common with new initiatives, we've experienced some challenges which we continue to internally tackle for the sake of optimizing the end user experience. We continue to express our sincere apologies for any mutually desired experiences in the interim and reassure everyone that we expect a viable resolution in the near future.

In the interim, we'll attempt to contact the complainant at his/her herein-provided daytime contact number with the hopes of facilitating an amicable resolution to this individual matter, citing that "if" in the event that he/she is unavailable, or "if" he/she should happen to attempt to contact us first, our "Live" staff remain and willing (by way of the appropriate department) to assist.

In light of the above summarized and latter statements, we'll understandably proceed to consider this matter to be effectively closed.

Regards,

R. B, Sr. Manager

Customer Relations

We thank all parties for allowing us to review this matter and hereby extend our sincere apologies to all for any inadvertent confusion or misunderstanding as we remain committed to satisfaction.
In conjunction with said commitment we recently implemented a dedicated team and corresponding [toll-free] hotline to support those valued customers whom are looking to transfer their business elsewhere (aka "port out"). Unfortunately, as is common with any new process or transitional period, we have experienced a few challenges that have resulted in some mutually undesired delays, I.e. call wait times... we equally extend our apologies for such. We continue to monitor this new process in order to actively consider our options where additional improvements are concerned to further enhance the customer experience, we thank everyone for their kind patience and understanding in the interim.
To further support our commitment to "overall support" we'll be making an effort to reach this particular customer by way of the complaint-related daytime contact number in hopes of bringing an amicable conclusion to such. Whereas, if we fail to make contact, we implore him/her to reattempt his/her effort at his/her earliest convenience, as our aforementioned, dedicated team remain available between the hours of 9am-5pm EST (Mon-Fri).
In recognition of our steadfast availability and our forthcoming effort to reach out to this valued customer, we'll hereby consider this isolated matter to be effectively closed.

Regards,
R. B, Sr. Manager
Customer Relations Department