Sanitary Service Company Inc

In order to resolve this issue we will credit off the balance for the service the customer received on October 3, 2018.

Mr*** started service with the company at *** * *** ***? in December of He was invoiced for services through February 28, 2017, via invoice on January 1, The total for that invoice was $We did not receive payment on this invoice and services were terminated in
March for non-paymentServices provided in March, through the 10th, were invoiced on April 1, 2017, via invoice ***The total for that invoice was $We received payment for these two invoices on April 18, 2017, and restarted services for Mr***? He was invoiced on July 1, 2017, via invoice *** for services provided through August 31, The total for that invoice was $We did not receive payment on this invoice and services were terminated in September for non-paymentAdditional late fees were invoiced on October 1, 2017, totaling $We received payment for these two invoices on October 3, We restarted the account for a final pickup on October 3, 2017, at the customer’s request ? The cost for the final pickup on October 3, 2017, was invoiced on November 1, The total for that final pickup was $after credits were applied for a billing discrepancyAdditional late fees have applied bringing the balance on the account to $ ? We are more than happy to waive the late fees upon receipt of the final payment due of $for the last pickup received on October 3,

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:
Sincerely,
*** ***? I? was told when I paid the bill it was always month to month and would never need to worry about the billing since I was gone in Alaska most of the time ,? at anytime , again month to month .past bills have nothing to do with it and wonder why the response?? I asked for the final bill at time of? call? and paid in full with a card over the phone and for the sanitary service to pick up there garbage? can in which it took them? almost three weeks to pick up since I drove by the house every day matter of fact I called them twice stating are you going to pick up your garbage can , and made sure that I was not getting charged for it sitting at a residence I didnt not own ? ,, I also was told at time of final payment over the? phone that it would be my final payment which I made in full no further charges ,,? I will not be forced to pay a bill for service not rendered ,,So? My bill is Zero? as stated ..?

There are several discrepancies in the statement presented on behalf of SSC. Their representative needs to get some facts straight in order to appropriately address the accident. A distraction being used is the implication that the owner of the vehicle is being represented by anyone other than herself. The other witnesses include the family member and customer who ordered SSC service to the private property where the vehicle was parked. There has never been claim by myself or any family member that this accident did not occur during removal of the dumpster. The focus on disputing whether the accident occurred does not resolve customer complaint over service, wasting time and expense of all involved.To reiterate, the dumpster was dropped in a location that the driver at time of pickup stated was improper. It was so close that the driver stated these concerns to the customer, prior to deciding to proceed. She brought these concerns to myself and our family out of fear that the corporation responsible for damage would retaliate. She is obligated as a continuing SSC customer to rely upon regular refuse removal and wants to avoid further service issues. At this time, my family began communication on our behalf, to prevent her further distress after witnessing the accident. SSC continues to deny evidence that she and her family have supplied, which resulted from delivery.A common defensive strategy is to distract from the issue. The argument that the corporation was supplied with photographic evidence of some of the damages resultant from the accident, does not warrant denial of damages which were not photographed. Nor does the vehicle having been relocated from the homeowner property after the accident, eliminate precedent of delivery policy. These tactics, used to incapacitate customer requests, demonstrate an adversarial approach of a public utility.It is a faulty assumption that a state regulated corporation, such as SSC, complies with such policy any more than another multi-million dollar business. A billion-dollar brokerage, [redacted], was assigned the customer complaint one day after SSC President, Paul R[redacted], was contacted requesting resolution. The risk management services contracted include the heavy-handed campaign against consumer complaint, to which the family of an SSC customer is attempting response.To imply a slippery slope based on customer complaint or repair order, presumes that customers making requests damage corporate reputation and share holder returns, leading more customers to request correction of service. The implication being corporate interests will be unable to correct service without undercutting bottom line. A resolution is to designate more corporate earnings for compliance with policy and remediation of failures at service, however this may conflict with business interests.SSC, a multi-million dollar corporation, is presenting the conflicting interests of customer (tax payer) and the private business interests of a publicly subsidized utility. Claiming a low cost repair will lead to the abuses of subsidies, to which the customer is already directing attention, appears to be a circular argument. While damages have limits of expenditure, time does not. The relationship between the time spent by employees of a state funded utility in a public relations campaign to cover up a valid customer complaint are being questioned. Is this an appropriate use for public utility expense, after an SSC employee already asserted the improper delivery using a company vehicle?It is industry standard, to charge a customer fee when a 'dry run' requires the delivery driver reschedule the drop off or pick up. Cars blocking access to the pickup or drop off of the dumpster, rendering the driveway inaccessible, warrant that the delivery driver return after rerouting in accordance with policy.The drivers are experienced as to whether a particular placement could be problematic, however a senior citizen homeowner may not have driven a work truck, nor hauled a dumpster, and is unlikely to demonstrate spatial understanding consistent with an experienced professional. Blaming the customer for corporate error colludes with the just-worldhypothesis. It is comforting to believe the world to be fair and predictable. Evidence to the contrary requires that we persuade ourselves no injustice has occurred or if impossible to deny, that the customer somehow deserved it.Please refer to the original complaint, to address facts of the accident. The response by representatives of SSC, demonstrates the customer service with which a captive audience, city residents, are expected to accept. Continuing avoidance prevents resolution and further demonstrates a need for complaint.

The facts, as communicated by the driver and the owner of the vehicle, have been ignored and misrepresented by SSC Inc., and the representing corporation, [redacted]. The vehicle was parked in the driveway on Tuesday, May 26th, where it remained until Monday, June 15th. The Recycling Manager is not correct in his claim that the driver suggested ownership of my vehicle.The homeowner notified the driver of the vehicle about the accident on her property. The driver notified the owner of the vehicle after SSC refused to address the accident. The owner of the vehicle notified the President of SSC to complete the investigation properly due to several misrepresentations made by the Recycling Manager. [redacted], the risk management brokerage contracted by SSC Inc., has not investigated this claim. These misrepresentations have yet to be investigated, while the poor customer service that has transpired is persisting through retaliation and stonewalling.Interestingly, this is the first time SSC acknowledges that there was a separate driver who delivered the dumpster in a position that was not where the customer had requested. How unfortunate SSC made the decision on site, to change the customer placement request, positioning the dumpster at an unsafe distance from my already parked vehicle. This was brought to the attention of the Recycling Manager when the investigation was alleged to have been conducted, almost 45 days ago.

Placement of an SSC container on private property is alwaysat the customer's direction – when the customer ordered the box, the customerdirected us to place the container on the driveway, and so we did.  Thevehicle owner and homeowner agree there was no property damage done duringdelivery of...

the SSC container.The customer called to have the box picked up and brought inall done, which SSC did on June 9th.The owner of the vehicle parked on the property (a friend ofthe homeowner) called SSC on June 12th at 2:53pm, four days afterthe pick-up on the box, alleging damage done during the pick-up. The SSCmanager asked for photos of the damage and the scene.  This is standardprocedure when damaged is alleged by SSC actions - the SSC Recycling Managerdid not pressure the customer about anything.  The vehicle owner sent close-up photos of the insidesof the mirror.  The wiring is clearly covered in dirt, indicating themirror has been open to the elements for some time, not four sunny days inJune.  No shots of the alleged bumper damage were provided.  A followup request from the SSC manager, for shots of the scene showing placement ofthe car relative to the driveway, were responded to by the vehicle ownerstating photos were not possible because the car had been moved for repair.The owner of the home stated to the SSC Recycling Manager onthe phone on June 17th that she neither saw or heard any damage occur whilestanding close by the truck as the box was picked up.The driver who picked up the container on June 9 stated thatbecause there was a car parked adjacent to the container, he took extra care,getting out of his truck multiple times to be sure he had safe clearance. He stated categorically that he did not hit anything on the property.These steps constitute our standard investigation, whichconcluded there was no evidence that SSC had or has any responsibility orliability for the alleged damage to the car parked on the property.  TheRecycling Manager conveyed this conclusion to the owner of the vehicle, andsuggested he submit the claims to his own insurance carrier for vandalismcoverage.SSC is diligent in responding promptly to valid claims wherewe are responsible, but we are under no obligation to pay damages when acomplete lack of evidence shows we are not at fault, simply becausethe complainant believes we are.  The owner’s representative complainsthat it is such a small dollar amount to repair a mirror, why are we evenhesitating?  We are saying no because we will not admit damaging a vehiclewe did not touch.  It is about principle and integrity.  It is unbelievable that the complainant expects SSC to payfor something we did not do, under the threat of reprisal by complainantspreading libelous statements as to SSC’sintegrity.

SSC is not trying to distract or impute ownership of the damaged vehicle other than in alignment with the facts with which we were presented.  The ONLY contact for the first week following the pick-up was from a man who said he was the owner of a gold Camry whose mirror and bumper were damaged at this address, and with whom the Recycling Manager spoke personally on the telephone on June 12th, 2015. The woman who filed this complaint (who asserts she is, and may in fact be) owner of the vehicle, never contacted the SSC Recycling Manager about her vehicle.  It is not clear how SSC was to divine the actual owner of the vehicle was a woman, not the man who called claiming ownership.  SSC was contacted via email by the woman owner only after the Recycling Manager contacted the man who said he was the owner, to inform him SSC was not responsible for the damage which he alleged.The Recycling Manager contacted the female customer of record at the address, who ordered the SSC container.  This is standard procedure and did not represent some alleged effort to misrepresent or pressure anyone.  The complainant is apparently under a misapprehension that every customer allegation of damage or wrongdoing by any company or entity will be met with “We are sorry, here’s the check for your damages.” That is simply not how it works. Claims are investigated thoroughly and a determination of responsibility is made based on the facts and evidence available. Conversely, any resistance by the company to accept responsibility for damage,in the absence of clear evidence, is taken by the complainant to be evidence of corporate malfeasance and callous disregard for the customer.  That, in fact, is the circular reasoning the customer references.  The mere fact that our container and the owner’s car were in proximity at this address does not prove responsibility for damage.Regarding the delivery, upon his arrival with the empty container for placement, the SSC delivery driver noticed power lines overhead, and a narrow street cross-section where he had to maneuver forward and backward without dropping the front axle of his truck into the ditch across the road.  He mentioned this to the customer, and indicated the box would need to be carefully placed in a somewhat different location from what the customer originally requested.  He also stated to the Recycling Manager that in keeping with company policy, he attempted to do his best to place the box so the customer could get the job done that they had before them.  Heis cognizant of the fact the customer cannot hire another company to do the work, therefor he strives to provide excellent customer service while being mindful of safety and the care of private property.Dealing with power lines is a regular task for our drivers, and modifying placement a typical response to this hazard.  The driver frequently cautions the customer that where they want the container is not the best place in his professional opinion, but can be accommodated with care. In some cases, the box may have to sit partially onlawn or landscaping, where damage can occur due to the weight of the box and/or truck.  Customers are cautioned that if they request placement where the driver has concerns, it is with the understanding that any property damage resulting is the responsibility of the customer.  The customer may have assumed the driver disapproved completely of the actual placement or felt it was dangerous (based largely on the alleged comments of the subsequent driver who picked up the box 4 days later).  Our delivery driver told me he had concerns which he expressed to the customer, but that if he thought even the modified placement was dangerous, he would have aborted the delivery.  He was merely explaining to the customer why he had to modify their placement request.  The pick-up driver also noticed this hazard, as well as the parked vehicle next to the box – he of course did not know if the vehicle had been there when the box was delivered.  The delivery driver did not recall a vehicle parked so close when he delivered the box – it is possible the car was parked there AFTER the box was dropped off, in which case a hazard was introduced without our knowledge.After attempting to resolve the situation with the complainant, and receiving continuing disagreement from the complainant, SSC asked our insurance carrier to proceed with the matter. This is standard procedure for our company when allegations of property damage cannot be resolved in house.