Trafalgar

Good afternoon,In reference to [redacted] Revdex.com complaint, ID [redacted] I am disputing the claim that she was unaware of charges applied to her credit Ms [redacted] was mailed a letter from the collection company Rent Recovery in August She called Rent Recovery on 8/29/to make payment arrangements From then on, she made payments, which included her final one bringing her account balance to $in December She stated that management informed her that as long as she paid her move out balance in a few months, it would not be reported to the collection agency We looked in her file for a payment arrangement, and informed her that we were unable to locate one, and she stated that the arrangement was made with someone who is no longer with the company verbally Ms [redacted] moved out 5/31/16, and did not attempt to make any payment until August If the verbal arrangement she said was in fact made, that is "a few months" after her move out, so I am not clear on why she would not understand that she would be sent to collections for her balance at that timeShe was given months to settle her debt, or make payments, before it was turned over to Rent Recovery Please feel free to contact me with any questions.Thank you, [redacted] Property ManagerTrafalgar Rentals [redacted] Tx ***Phone ***-***- [redacted] (***)Fax ***-***-***

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below It truly is a pity that a company is willing to abandon any consideration of ethics, over $ To think that a company is willing to mischaracterize and refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, over such a paltry sum, really gives you great insight into what the management team of this organization stands for To attempt to portray my detail of the facts surrounding this issue, as inaccurate, is preposterous On numerous occasions, Dent management has agreed, that my assessment of the facts is correct, but irrespective of those facts, have maintained that the responsibility for these charges is mine The following assertions have been verified by Dent, and are 100% true:-Dent informed me, in advance, of "patient responsibility" of $ Dent informed me that this information was obtained from my insurance carrier Subsequent to that, Dent and my insurance carrier have informed me that the patient responsibility was never determined, and that the $co-pay, was provided erroneously The following is directly from Dent's compliance document "Kristen informed Morgan that she recalled that the Blue's website was down that day and she remembers informing the patient at the time of service that he owes $Kristen does not recall why she informed the patient that he owed $60." Further, Dent informed me that they agree, that conceptually, if a co-pay is charged, the patient should not expect that further costs would be incurred This concept was supported further by my insurer, who maintained that Dent had no right to charge a co-pay in advance, if they expected to collect further amounts Dent verified this assertion in their compliance notes as well "The patient and I both discussed that a co-pay would not have been taken at TOS if there was a deductible that needed to be met" All of these facts support my assertion that Dent did not take due care in providing me with information Dent should not be holding me accountable for their lack of front end diligence in providing information to their patient-Dent's response includes a quote from their billing policy, which on it's own establishes patient responsibility, but it lacks a sentence that provides much more important context:"Please contact our billing office or call your insurance carrier should you have questions." I did exactly what they instructed their patients to do, when presented with the choice to contact their billing office or my insurance carrier, I chose to contact and rely on Dent As they offered in their own policy Dent's out of context use of their policy, in their response, is entirely misleading.This world needs more accountability, more honestly and a stricter adherence to uncompromised principles It seems as though, like society, Dent has taken the self-serving route, and is looking to me to pay for their own internal errors They seem to content to deceive in order to reach a satisfactory end result, and have no qualms about attempting to create an untrue backstory, taken out of context to accomplish that goal Shame on you Dent Regards, [redacted] ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID *** and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
Please see attached for my response, additionally pasted below
Complaint: ***
Dear Revdex.com:
Thank you for sending along your letter and the
response from the Dent Neurologic Institute (“Dent”). There are a few items that represent
half-truths or un-truths that I believe are worth following up with Dent. It should be noted that these inaccuracies
are based upon information provided to me by Dent, and in good faith they
should have provided the same information to you, an independent arbiter.
Within Dent’s response, there are three bullet
points. In the first bullet point, Dent
notes that when asked, they will contact a patient’s insurance carrier, as a
courtesy. There are two factual
inaccuracies in this statement as it relates to my claim:
I never asked Dent
to contact my insurance carrier, they offered to do so, as they told me that I
would not be able to receive an MRI without advance payment, in full. Further, as
verified by Tara H*** to me (documented in the pdf compliance file that Dent
provided you) and additionally verified by my insurance company, Anthem, Dent
never actually contacted my insurance company regarding the cost of MRI/MRA. The associated working with me was unable to
log on to the Anthem website, and as opposed to calling to verify cost, assumed
that an MRI/MRA would carry the same co-pay as an office visit. Tara Hacknowledged this, and reprimanded
the employee
Also
on Page of Dent’s response, in the third bullet point, Dent notes that the
instruct patients to verify costs with their insurance. In my case Dent never instructed me to perform
a secondary verification of cost on my own.
Additionally, up until I pointed it out to Lee W*** at Dent, Dent’s
own website (copy attached) informed patients to call billing OR their
insurance carrier with questions
I
must further add that Dent’s characterization of abusive toward their employees
is a little farfetched. Abusive is how
they characterize pressing their employees for straight answers, which they
were unwilling to provide. Tara H***,
who I believe alleges that I was abusive, was unwilling to respond to my specific
questions and hung up on me. Lee
W***, who points out in her email, as well as to me on the phone, was
generous enough to spend minutes of her valuable time talking to me, should
be willing to attest to my demeanor being relatively pleasant, going so far as
to apologize to her, and commending her for being a “good sport” throughout the
process with me. Attempting to characterize
me as abusive, after Dent has held me accountable for their $error is quite
a disingenuous discretion.
While
I hope that these inaccuracies are just honest oversights and not an attempt to
cover up for a lack of good faith efforts on the part of Dent, I can’t help but
wonder if they realize that they provided sub-par service, but are just
unwilling to accept responsibility for their error. Dent can’t support their lack of flexibility
in mediating this claim with inaccurate information, nor can these practices
continue going forward. There is a
material risk to consumers that if Dent provides similarly inaccurate
information to their customers, that multiple patients, not just me would be at
risk of accepting a service believing it would cost one amount, only to have
Dent turn around and charge a substantially different amount. Enticing customers by offering a lower price
than what they will actually pay, is both unethical, and potentially
illegal. While I am not accusing Dent of
such business practices, given my circumstances, the risk of these actions
occurring exists.
Regards,
Patrick ***

The patient's denial of our response contains information that is simply untrueThe $bill for the services provided to this patient is not an error, but the true cost for an expensive MRI scan (these are contractually set fees, available online)For these specialty services, we make a phone call to the insurance company for permission to perform the scan, a process called "prior authorization" before even scheduling the procedure. This must take place before performing an MRI on each and every patient. The $is representative of the portion of the fee that Dent collects up front to offset the total costs of the service. It is applied toward the cost of the service, as can be seen with the amount reduced in the original fee for this patient. As the Billing & Insurance policy states, "it is your responsibility to understand whether your insurance has limits onthe services you can receive." Our response stated that the patient is responsible for knowing what his coverage entails and we cannot and will not deviate from that common and long-held policy

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
It truly is a pity that a company is willing to abandon any consideration of ethics, over $700.  To think that a company is willing to mischaracterize and refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, over such a paltry sum, really gives you great insight into what the management  team of this organization stands for.  To attempt to portray my detail of the facts surrounding this issue, as inaccurate, is preposterous.  On numerous occasions, Dent management has agreed, that my assessment of the facts is correct, but irrespective of those  facts, have maintained that the responsibility for these charges is mine.  The following assertions have been verified by Dent, and are 100% true:-Dent informed me, in advance, of "patient responsibility" of $60.  Dent informed me that this information was obtained from my insurance carrier.  Subsequent to that, Dent and my insurance carrier have informed me that the patient responsibility was never determined, and that the $60 co-pay, was provided erroneously.  The following is directly from Dent's compliance document "Kristen informed Morgan that she recalled that the Blue's website was down that  day and she remembers informing the patient at the time of service that he owes $60. Kristen does not recall why she informed the patient that he owed $60."  Further, Dent informed me that they agree, that conceptually, if a co-pay is charged, the patient should not expect that further costs would be incurred.  This concept was supported further by my insurer, who maintained that Dent had no right to charge a co-pay in advance, if they expected to collect further amounts.  Dent verified this assertion in their compliance notes as well "The patient and I both discussed that a co-pay would not have been taken at TOS if there was a deductible that needed to be met".  All of these facts support my assertion that Dent did not take due care in providing me with information.  Dent should not be holding me accountable for their lack of front end diligence in providing information to their patient. -Dent's response includes a quote from their billing policy, which on it's own establishes patient responsibility, but it lacks a sentence that provides much more important context:"Please contact our billing office or call your insurance carrier should you have questions."  I did exactly what they instructed their patients to do, when presented with the choice to contact their billing office or my insurance carrier, I chose to contact and rely on Dent.  As they offered in their own policy.  Dent's out of context use of their policy, in their response, is entirely misleading.This world needs more accountability, more honestly and a stricter adherence to uncompromised principles.  It seems as though, like society, Dent has taken the self-serving route, and is looking to me to pay for their own internal errors.  They seem to content to deceive in order to reach a satisfactory end result, and have no qualms about attempting to create an untrue backstory, taken out of context to accomplish that goal.  Shame on you Dent.    
Regards,
[redacted]  [redacted]

Good afternoon,In reference to [redacted] Revdex.com complaint, ID [redacted] I am disputing the claim that she was unaware of charges applied to her credit.  Ms. [redacted] was mailed a letter from the collection company Rent Recovery in August 2016.  She called Rent Recovery on...

8/29/16 to make payment arrangements.  From then on, she made payments, which included her final one bringing her account balance to $0 in December 2016.  She stated that management informed her that as long as she paid her move out balance in a few months, it would not be reported to the collection agency.  We looked in her file for a payment arrangement, and informed her that we were unable to locate one, and she stated that the arrangement was made with someone who is no longer with the company verbally.  Ms. [redacted] moved out 5/31/16, and did not attempt to make any payment until August 2016.  If the verbal arrangement she said was in fact made, that is "a few months" after her move out, so I am not clear on why she would not understand that she would be sent to collections for her balance at that time.. She was given 3 months to settle her debt, or make payments, before it was turned over to Rent Recovery.   Please feel free to contact me with any questions.Thank you,[redacted]Property ManagerTrafalgar Rentals[redacted] Tx [redacted]Phone [redacted] ([redacted])Fax [redacted]