Mr [redacted] started service with the company at [redacted] ***? 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 [redacted] The total for that invoice was $We received payment for these two invoices on April 18, 2017, and restarted services for Mr [redacted] ? He was invoiced on July 1, 2017, via invoice [redacted] 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,
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 pion the box, alleging damage done during the pick-upThe 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 clophotos 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 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 clearanceHe 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
Mr [redacted] started service with the company at [redacted] ***? 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 [redacted] The total for that invoice was $We received payment for these two invoices on April 18, 2017, and restarted services for Mr [redacted] ? He was invoiced on July 1, 2017, via invoice [redacted] 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,
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 pion the box, alleging damage done during the pick-upThe 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 clophotos 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 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 clearanceHe 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