Vacation Hold cannot be turned off early?

Is it because the minimum time is two months? If your schedule was three months you could return up to one month early & call for turn-up???

Put your service on Vacation Hold

What part of: "minimum period of 2 months" is unclear?

I spent 45 minutes on hold, finally got through to "Hope" who claimed the info I was given is wrong.

She apologized profusely, put a note in my account, and promised to straighten out the first (foreign) agent.

I was told that any days of service needed if I return home early would be pro-rated by the day.

I'm all set.

P.S. I got the first agent by requesting "Billing" at the computerized voice prompts. I got sent back into the general queue and stated "Vacation Hold" as my topic the second time around.

@skeeterintexas -- The part that is unclear is that the ATT website says one thing, while the first agent said something completely different. It turns out he was dead wrong. His ignorance is what caused my posting in the first place.

I simply wanted to either have the website statement corrected or get the correct answer.

Thank you for your concern.

So the "minimum of 2 months" as stated on the website is incorrect? 

And the statement (in fine print):  :Return date must be at least 60 days but not more than 270 days from your start date." is also incorrect.

Duly noted for future reference.

---

@HughJazscheens wrote:

I spent 45 minutes on hold, finally got through to "Hope" who claimed the info I was given is wrong.

 

She apologized profusely, put a note in my account, and promised to straighten out the first (foreign) agent.

 

I was told that any days of service needed if I return home early would be pro-rated by the day.

 

I'm all set.

 

P.S. I got the first agent by requesting "Billing" at the computerized voice prompts. I got sent back into the general queue and stated "Vacation Hold" as my topic the second time around.

---

It's been over 2 years since I worked at AT&T, but I was there when the vacation hold was first introduced, and I'd be surprised if it's changed wildly since then. 

From my recollection (again, it's been 2 years, but I was darn good at know procedures), both reps were mistaken. 

Vacation hold is for a minimum of 2 months. If you would like your service turned on before 2 months have elapsed, AT&T will happily oblige; however, you would no longer be eligible for vacation hold and will be billed full price for the entire period. 

If you originally schedule 3 months of vacation (for example), you can call to have service turned back on after 2 1/2 months and the vacation hold billing will be prorated. 

Nothing on the website is incorrect. Vacation hold can be from 60 to 270 days. If you schedule a vacation hold, you may call and end it early; it will still be a vacation hold provided it's been at least 60 days. 

It would make sense that, yes, you can cancel a vacation hold prior to the 60 day minimum but instead of paying $5 per month per service, you'll get charged the full price of services.

Everything can be 'taken care of'...there will just be a price to pay.  Hope someone isn't in for a rude awakening.

We've returned after 7 weeks of vacation. I called the 800- number and they turned on all my service within just a few minutes. My monthly bills for the time we were gone were $22 ($5 per service, plus $7 modem rental fee).

Bottom line? It took some work to get what I wanted. I remained calm and friendly about what I felt was a modestly reasonable request, and an AT&T agent did exactly what I asked, regardless of whatever variety of interpretations might be gleaned from the website. I believe that's the way an intercontinental, complicated, unwieldy, wealthy organization should run -- with a personal touch.

I'm completely satisfied. Thank you for your efforts and replies.

I appreciate your point but under the FAQs for Vacation Hold, it clearly states:

What is the minimum length of time that I can put my U-verse services on hold?

We recommend you put your services on hold for a minimum of two months.

"Recommend" is quite different from "require". If AT&T is going to require a 2 month minimum, it should not "recommend" a 2 month hold in the FAQs. It should answer the question with certainty. eg. "A vacation hold MUST be a minimum of 2 months."

This is verbatium from the above link:

AT&T customers may also elect to temporarily place U-verse TV, U-verse High Speed Internet and U-verse Voice services on Vacation Hold if you plan to be away from your residence for an extended period of time.

Vacation Hold can be activated for a minimum period of two months and a maximum period of nine months. Service must be active for 30 days to be eligible. Service functionality will be limited during the length of time your Vacation Hold Service package. The following provides details of the vacation service by product:

I don't see the word "recommend" anywhere on the page.

---

@uselessverse wrote:

I appreciate your point but under the FAQs for Vacation Hold, it clearly states:

 

What is the minimum length of time that I can put my U-verse services on hold?

We recommend you put your services on hold for a minimum of two months.

 

"Recommend" is quite different from "require". If AT&T is going to require a 2 month minimum, it should not "recommend" a 2 month hold in the FAQs. It should answer the question with certainty. eg. "A vacation hold MUST be a minimum of 2 months."

---

I understand that some people have difficulty with reading comprehension and following instructions, so I will try to be even more clear. On the Vacation Hold page, click on the link for FAQs. Read those Q&A and you will see the language I cited.

In fact, to help you out a little I will insert an image of the page in question. I have drawn a box around the exact question and answer. Does that help?

How do you reconcile the "recommend" comment in the FAQ section with the statement on both the page in the link above and on the Vacation Hold page itself which clearly state that the minimum vacation hold period is 2 months?

You can argue and post all the screenshots you like, but none of it changes the fact that the AT&T policy is that the vacation hold period must be a minimum of 2 months.

This is an editing issue.  

The only problem here is that ATT needs to square up their statements so they all reflect the same requirements and not the more flexible recommendations.

Spoken like lawyers. Inconsistency and/or indefiniteness is borne by the drafter. ATT in this instance. It appears they tell customers one thing in the easy to understand FAQ sections and then use the contract's wall of words to impose something else. Pretty routine conduct for a big operation.

Certainly it is an inconsistency and in all likelihood most customers will give in rather than go toe-to-toe with a huge corporation. But it says something about how customers are treated. It sounds reminiscent of bait-and-switch tactics and doesn't help ATT with its considerable image problem. Especially when even its experts were unaware of the inconsistency and refused to admit it even existed. Has that changed at all?

I have gotten fed up with ATT's ever-increasing fees and shady practices. I never thought I'd say this but after 30+ years with ATT, I'm going shopping for a new provider for my internet, TV and phone services.

---

@skeeterintexas wrote:

This is an editing issue.  

 

The only problem here is that ATT needs to square up their statements so they all reflect the same requirements and not the more flexible recommendations.

---

All I can say is that if I had this conflict with AT&T over this issue, my gut tells me that I would prevail by the time my complaint was addressed by the Public Utilities Commission. I doubt the PUC would be inclined to view such inconsistent language as simply "an editing issue."

I'm not much of a gambler but I would feel pretty comfortable betting that the PUC would side with the consumer ("David") against the giant corporate AT&T ("Goliath"). After all, if the consumer relied on AT&T's statements and can demonstrate AT&T's own support for the consumer's position, who do you think will prevail?

[Legal discussions are not permitted per the Guidelines]