SkyCable Legal Demand Letter (Ire)
11 June 2007 saw the receipt of a legal missive from L. S. Gonzalez & Associates — the Legal Counsel for Active Collection & Management Specialists as duly authorized by Central CATV, Inc. - SkyCable
FORMAL/LEGAL DEMAND The letter identifies itself “as a FORMAL/LEGAL DEMAND to settle the above- long overdue account.”
Furthermore, the letter states, the “new law allows (Central CATV, Inc. – SkyCable) to seek relief for the immediate ATTACHMENT of properties and monies held by EMPLOYERS, FRIENDS AND/OR RELATIVES of delinquent debtors to satisfy unpaid obligation even before a court hearing is held.”
(Note: Capitalization is copied from the letter.)
Offensive As I told Customer Care personnel Mr. Brando Cortez (through SkyCable Customer Service hotline 631.0000), I found the letter offensive.
Get The Facts Straight First, I was unable to pay SkyCable due to the simple reason that NO SkyCable bill was ever sent after the disconnection done on 08 March 2007.
Second, as ascertained by Mr. Brando Cortez, my debt is Php 520.12, and not Php 650.15, as printed on Mr. Leopoldo S. Gonzalez’s letter.
Related Posts
Shifting from Home Cable to SkyCable to Destiny Cable (Eye)
SkyCable Subscription Rebate Due to Typhoon Milenyo (Eye)
Skycable Christmas High 2006
Chuckles — Fashion TV and the Filipino Male
Fitness First Instructor’s Non-Dismissal for Sexual Harassment (Ire)
No billing? I call it alibi! O ayaw mong magbayad? Its just so easy to claim to be agrieved when it is your responsibility to know your own billing schedules! My goodness get a diary a PDA or a calendar and use ‘em!
Dont bother responding to me. Im a ghost and I will never pass this site again.
Hirap sa mga delinquent accounts, sari saring palusot at drama pang nalalaman ayaw lang magbayad!
Kahit na ba piso lang yan eh! Ang utang ay utang! Magbayad ka on time wala kang matatanggap na letter kahit kanino!
I find the letter offensive. They could have worded it differently.
Employers, friends, and relatives are now liable? Immediate attachment of properties and monies? Just because we’re friends?
I wonder what law that is. It certainly doesn’t sound constitutional. At least not to a non-lawyer like me.