Schulz sues Mediacom over ice storm billing dispute

Schulz claims
Mediacom charged
him for services
not rendered after
January’s ice storm

By Misti Drew
Tribune-Courier Reporter
mdrew@tribunecourier.com


BENTON – More than five months after weathering the worst ice storm in Kentucky’s history, Mediacom representatives were in court two weeks ago defending their actions following the disaster.

Litigation between the media conglomerate and local resident Tom Schulz began as a billing dispute.

Schulz, the plaintiff in the case, alleged Mediacom “charged him for services not rendered and not received, were guilty of “misrepresentation” and that their unfounded actions had “damaged his credit” through collection efforts.

Schulz, who owns S&S Muffler, represented himself in the litigation, and asked the court to consider a $1,500 judgement to compensate him for expenses incurred and damage done to his credit.

Director of Operations for Mediacom, Dale Haney, was present in court for the hearing, as was Mediacom’s Commercial Sales Manager for Western Kentucky, David Evans. They were represented by local attorney Charlie Brien.

Brien stated Mediacom denied the allegations set forth in the complaint.

Testimony by Schulz indicated that he had been a long-time and current paying customer of Mediacom until Feb. 12, when after being without service for 17 days, he turned in Mediacom’s cable equipment and switched to another service provider.

Schulz said he believed in good faith that he owed nothing, as it was his understanding his billing cycle ran from the 29th of the month through the 28th and that payments were collected one month in advance.

Schulz also cited conflict with Mediacom’s current policy of charging customers seven days beyond their disconnect date.

Haney confirmed that payments are collected one month in advance, however, he testified Schulz had an outstanding bill in the month of January, leading the company to send a final bill after service was terminated.

Haney stated the seven-day disconnect term was a standard part of Mediacom’s procedural policy.

Neither Schulz nor Haney were able to provide documentation to the court to support their statements of the account having been currrent or past due.

At the heart of the dispute was the amount of money Mediacom credited customers affected by the ice storm.

Haney testified Mediacom gave a “blanket credit” of $15 to every customer, regardless of time without service.

“Our first discussions after the storm were about how to best take care of our customers,” Haney said.

“There are no provisions for customer credits in our franchise agreement when it comes to acts of God or Mother Nature,” he continued. “But we wanted to be responsible and proactive. It was hard to find a one -size-fits-all credit.”

Haney made mention of other companies in areas affected buy the storm which operated under similar regulations who offered no credits to their customers whatsoever.

Schulz argued that a blanket credit should not have been applied, rather, residents should have been credited for the number of days they were without service.

During his line of questioning to Haney, Schulz asked Haney about the number of complaints received relating to customer service issues in the wake of the storm.

Haney replied, “We had some.”

Schulz then asked if the company had been contacted by county officials regarding numerous resident complaints.
Haney said company representatives did meet with county officials, but stated it was not solely related to dealing with customer complaints.

Haney said the meeting was related more to discussing preventative measures. While he admitted “customer credits were a part of it,” discussion was not limited to this topic.

Schulz continued, “Sir, you had no service to provide to customers (during the ice storm), yet you expected payment for those services?”

Haney’s reply was, “We were looking for appropriate means to care for customers. It was complicated...but, no, I did not expect you to pay for those services.”

But regardless of the credit amount issued, Schulz insisted he should not have had a bill due. With a disconnect date of Feb. 19 and storm damage that left Schulz without service from the 27th through the 21st of Feb., the plaintiff attempted to make a case for why he felt he owed nothing.

Another item of dispute between the two concerned the time-frame in which the account was turned over to collections.

Schulz said he began trying to negotiate with Mediacom when he was first made aware that his account was in fact not “at a zero balance” as he testified an account representative claimed, but had been turned over to collections.

Schulz testified he had spoken with a customer service representative who advised him his “account was taken care of.”

Mediacom representatives could neither confirm nor deny Schulz’ claims.

Schulz eventually paid a total of $17.30 to keep the account from going into further collections.

Mediacom presented evidence that in the past few months, the company has credited back all of Schulz’ funds and asked that the collection company forward a letter of apology to their former customer.

Schulz insists this is not sufficient to prove that his credit score wasn’t damaged in the process.

Schulz was questioned as to why he chose to sue Mediacom for $1,500 when his expenses had been refunded.

Schulz stated he not only hoped to recover the money he felt he was owed, but more importantly, hoped to “encourage” Mediacom to reconsider their customer service policies.

District Court Judge Jack Telle is taking the matter under consideration and is expected to return a verdict soon.