IF YOU’RE MAD AS HELL, YOU DON’T HAVE TO TAKE IT ANYMORE.

According to a survey conducted by Ralph Nader’s Center for the Study of Responsive Law, only one out of every 27 dissatisfied customers takes his problem to a third party. The ratio here appears to be much higher than that. Dallas consumer advocates and agencies reported that a total of 66,583 complaints were referred to them last year. Local consumer representation experts, including those with experience in other parts of the country, attribute our situation to a greater awareness of our rights, and to the fact that Dallas consumers aren’t inclined to turn the other cheek. Perhaps it’s our frontier ancestry, blended with a little cosmopolitan expertise.

But consumer advocacy has become so “in” that everybody’s getting into the act. Which agencies are really on the consumer’s side? Which are merely fronting for the business establishment, or hawking headlines? This rundown on the local agencies will enable you to direct your complaint to where it will do you the most good, and will alert you to those “advocates” who will merely waste your time.

The volume dealer in local complaints is the Office of Consumer Affairs, City of Dallas. To be exact, 17,780 were received last fiscal year. Dallas has the finest arsenal of consumer protection weapons of all Texas cities. In addition to a general consumer protection ordinance, there are specific ordinances dealing with TV repair, door-to-door salesmen, home repair, firewood, charitable solicitations, and weights and measures. Of Consumer Affairs’ staff of 48, 15 are investigators, including a master mechanic and an electronics expert.

The availability of technical experts on the investigative staff offers interesting possibilities. The city received a number of complaints against an auto transmission shop, but couldn’t prove anything illegal. So resident mechanic Ed Meeks surreptitiously marked all of the internal parts of the transmission of an old clunker, set it to malfunction slightly, and took it to the shop. When he went back for it he was told that it had been necessary to install a rebuilt transmission and torque converter, at a cost of $345. Then upon returning to the city garage, Meeks discovered that the original．marked transmission and torque converter were still in place – although the converter now wore a thick new coat of blue paint.

So Bill Terry Peirson, who at the time of the incident was manager of Dallas Motor and Transmission Company, was convicted of theft and given a five-year suspended sentence. “We’ve had to change cars since then,” says Jamie West. Consumer Affairs’ public information representative. “Word travels fast.”

Consumer Affairs has also stung Levitz Furniture twice with $200 municipal court fines. The first was in 1975 for advertising a three-unit bookcase for $29, then advising customers upon arrival at the store that the three units were $29 each. Subsequently, Levitz was fined for advertising a credenza as “rich oak” when in fact it was oak-finished particle board with molded plastic doors.

Consumer Affairs can intervene on your behalf only if the contract was made within the Dallas city limits. This means if you live in Richardson and call a repairman out to your house to fix your TV. Consumer Affairs has no jurisdiction: if you live in Richardson and bring your auto into a Dallas shop, they can champion your cause. But remember, they deal only in criminal matters. “We can’t help you if you’ve had a repairman out but your washing machine still doesn’t work quite right,” says Ms. West. “Call us if you feel you’ve been cheated or had the wool pulled over your eyes, but not when you’re just dissatisfied with the quality of the work.”

Then there’s the Better Business Bureau. This operation is owned lock, stock and file cabinets by business, not by the consumer. Benjamin Rosenthal, a New York Congressman and consumer advocate, conducted a six-month study of the BBB in 1971, and came to this conclusion: “BBB services are of little value to the buying public. In some instances, their efforts actually have a counterproductive impact on the consumer. Local Bureaus are trapped in an almost insurmountable conflict-of-interest between service to the consumers on one hand, and financial dependence on business, on the other. By every objective standard, BBB’s serve as the agents of the business community and reflect all the biases of that community against the consumer movement and government regulation of anti-consumer practices in the marketplace.”

In response to this stinging report, which took 14 pages of small print in the Congressional Record to relate, the BBB has improved to some extent. But on a national level, the basic structure and philosophy remain the same. A Changing Times study in December, 1977 indicates that, as far as individual offices are concerned, there is a wide variance in performance, finding that “some Better Business Bureaus are effective in getting problems resolved; the performance of others ranges from fair to poor.”

The Rosenthal study faults the makeup of BBB boards of directors for having no consumer representatives. The board of the Dallas BBB has 60 members, all businessmen. Local manager James Kolter says that these people are consumers too, every time they go to the grocery or the drug store. Maybe, but that’s probably not what the Congressman had in mind.

The study criticizes the BBB’s statistical success stories. Kolter reports that out of 4,083 complaints received last year, 3,020 were “resolved.” Our BBB counts a complaint as resolved, however, when the business writes and says it is, and the consumer doesn’t write back to say it isn’t. No doubt many of the 3,020 are actual resolutions, those involving reputable businesses who adjusted the complaints voluntarily. But just how many, we don’t know.

The Rosenthal study claims that the BBB almost never expels members. The Dallas BBB has expelled 14 members in the last two years. Still, out of 1,600 members, that’s less than 0.5 percent a year. (Kolter adds that 38 were denied membership when they applied, and that five have been suspended temporarily.) The BBB puts out an informative bulletin warning of problem practices in the area, even naming names, but it goes only to member businesses. (Kolter says that many of them post the bulletins so that employees can see them.)

Now to the most serious problem of all: the telephone reports. The study alleges that the telephone reports given to consumers who call in are, with few exceptions, “misleading, inaccurate, incomplete and couched in vague generalities.” I called and asked for a report on Dallas Motor and Transmission – remember the blue torque converter? – and here’s what I got:

“Our records show that this company has been the subject of some complaints, most of which have been adjusted when brought to the attention of the company by the Bureau.”

Okay. The Consumer Affairs press release said that by the time of the conviction, Bill Terry Peirson had gone to A and A American Co. Maybe the BBB doesn’t think it would be fair to hold Dallas Motor and Transmission responsible for the actions of an ex-employee. So I called back and received this report which was filed under American Company, 2804 Canton, the address given in the press release for A and A American Co.:

“Our records show that we have written to this company on two or more occasions asking for background information on them. However, since we have received no reply from the company, we are unable to issue a report on them at the present time.”

That’s strike two. I’ll try Levitz.

“Our information on this company is in the form of a written report. If you will give me your name and address. I will be glad to put it in the mail to you today.”

Sure enough, the next day it came. No mention of the two municipal court fines, one of which the BBB itself referred to Consumer Affairs for action. But there was a report of a 1976 agreement between Levitz and the Federal Trade Commission containing a consent order “prohibiting the company from making false and misleading representations concerning price savings, comparable value and prior use of its merchandise, warranties and furniture composition, and from failing to make refunds to customers whose defective or damaged furniture cannot be promptly repaired.” (The BBB report went on to advise that “the company’s current customer relations record indicates a willingness on the part of management to deal with any problems brought to its attention.”)

The BBB problems cannot all be attributed to the business connection. This operation has a heavy workload for a staff of 13 people. “We finally had to put a recorded message on the complaint line,” says Kolter. “People were calling and getting busy signals and just getting madder and madder.” The message suggests that the complainer should first try to work out his problem with top management, and send in his complaint in writing if that fails. Kolter seems conscientious, and is respected by other consumer advocates. He even came out in favor of the establishment of the city’s Consumer Affairs Department, heresy in some BBB circles. Unfortunately, though, he just has more to do than he can handle: cards on 30,000 businesses and full written reports on 2,000, all in constant need of updating – all the while the phone keeps ringing, at the rate of 46 times an hour.

Across town from the BBB is the Dallas office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas. The Dallas office was set up in 1973 to help administer the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act. “We get 300 to 500 complaints a month.” reports Assistant Attorney General Joe Chumlea, who heads the Dallas operation. The office returns $20,000 to $30,000 per month to local consumers in cash or benefits through its efforts.

The Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act contains little grabbers like restraining orders, $10,000 fines, injunctions, revocation of licenses, subpoenas, and confinement in the county jail. The A. G. wields these powers, however, with considerable restraint: The Dallas office has only ten court cases pending. They’d really prefer to work something out.

Out of respect for John Hill, who would rather be Governor than Attorney General, all press releases emanate from Austin (about 50 a week), regardless of which of the six sub-offices did the work.

The loudest shot fired to date by the Dallas branch was the February 10, 1978 Agreed Judgment with Nautilus Fitness Centers. As with most Agreed Judgments, this one contained the usual statement to the effect that Nautilus admitted nothing and really didn’t do all those things. But the Dallas A. G. garnered a nice settlement for local complainers. (Assistant Attorney General Mark Mc-Quality did most of the work. Just think what Nader could do with that name.) Nautilus put $40,000 into a bank account to satisfy unhappy customers who had complained that they had been deceived as to “limited time only” specials, that they had been promised centers would be completed which weren’t, and that they had been told that their memberships entitled them to more than they really did. Nautilus was even gracious enough to agree not to enter into any future contracts promising new facilities until they had tended to such details as securing building permits and lining up contractors. (The BBB had warned Nautilus months before the entry of the Agreed Judgment that their sales practices were in need of revision, but their warning lacked the Attorney General’s clout.)

A problem doesn’t have to be big to get the Attorney General’s attention. The Dallas office has recovered a $325 deposit from a travel agency, $55 from a landlord, $75 for a crummy home repair job, and $200 for damage to an automobile caused by a bad batch of car wax. “We have a liberal policy of accepting complaints,” says Chumlea. “That’s what we’re here for. We won’t promise you the world, but we’ll do our best.”

The most visible local consumer advocate is Channel 4’s Glenn Loyd. Recruited from a television station in Green Bay, Wisconsin, Loyd makes a living out of newsworthy consumer problems. Unfortunately, by the time most abuses become newsworthy, the horse is already out of the barn.

Loyd receives about 60 letters a day, most of which, he says, he can tell at a glance are not going to be newsworthy. Loyd says he works on all of them anyway. Once he even recovered $400 from a fortune teller who had promised to return a customer’s wife from the grave in return for the purchase of a new freezer. Unquestionably, though, it’s the big stories that pay his salary.

That still leaves the newspapers: the Herald’s “Action Line” and “Line One” at the News. The former, edited now by Lew Harris, is an old-timer. The latter, with former Scene editor Dennis Hoover at the helm, is a Johnny-come-lately, less than a year old. “Action Line” is getting a little terse. In response to a consumer who complained that the mattress she bought at Levitz was making terrible noises, Action Line merely advised her that she should give Levitz “another chance at deciding what is needed to solve the problem.” Perhaps after 100 complaints a day for ten years, “Action Line” is getting tired.

“Line One” goes into much more detail, but often seems to go out of its way to present the business’ side, especially if it has an established reputation. In another mattress case, “Line One” quotes a Sanger Harris spokesman as advising that not only is the complainer way off base, but in reality the mattress in question gives “a luxurious feeling while still providing firm support.” Both columns report a remarkable number of business responses attributing the “error” to a “foul-up” in the accounting department. (What has happened to the nation’s business schools?)

Even with all the overlap, Dallas consumer agencies actually cooperate. The last time the “Primrose Dream” cook-ware hawkers set up shop in the parking lot at Commerce and Akard, the BBB’s Kolter stood across the street and kept an eye on them till Consumer Affairs could get there to issue a citation. By the time the Attorney General had his papers typed, the harried hawkers were gone, probably never to return.

Every one of these operations handlescomplaints with the same procedure:They send a form letter to the business asking for its side of the story. Thedifference lies in what happens next.Businesses know that if they are in thewrong, Consumer Affairs won’t hesitateto sting them in municipal court, as theydid 241 times last year. They know thatthe powers of the Attorney General areawesome. They know that the BBB hasno powers. They know which stories willmake the Channel 4 news and whichwon’t. They know that “Line One” ismore persistent than “Action Line,” butif their reputation is clean and their storyplausible, they’ll be all right.

WIN YOUR CASE WITHOUT GOING TO COURT



It’s so expensive and time-consuming to file a lawsuit that in the typical consumer’s case, it’s not worth it. Even the justice court (small claims) is a hassle. After all is said and done, you’re likely to lose anyway because companies have more money than you do, and they hire lawyers who know how to word key phrases in fine print. But don’t despair, there’s still plenty you can do this side of the courthouse:

1. Never discard a receipt until afteryou have used the merchandise for itsnormal life expectancy. A year file is agood idea. It’s becoming almost impossible to pursue refund or exchangeclaims effectively without receipts.

2. Start with the salesperson. If hemade promises or claims that he shouldn’thave, remind him. He won’t want thisfact known up the ladder. But don’t benasty. Satisfying complaints is not hisjob.

3. If this fails, zero in on the consumer service specialist. This will usuallybe a bright young potential executivewho has a “way” with people. Be polite, firm, and let it be known that youintend to pursue it to a satisfactory conclusion. If your complaint is in fact valid, and if he has the authority to adjustit, chances are he will. He cannot affordto let matters escalate when he’s paid toresolve them.

4. Try a letter to the president of the company. This is the final shot within the walls of the offending establishment. Once again, firm but polite. If a copy of this letter is needed later, you want it clearly evidenced that you are a good guy, not a hot head. This is your best shot if morality is on your side – even if the law or the company handbook isn’t. Make it clear that you don’t look upon his answer as a decision of the Supreme Court. Something like “In order to afford you ample opportunity to look into this matter. I will not pursue the problem further before [date]. “

5. Take your problem to a consumeradvocate. If the contract was made within the Dallas city limits, Consumer Affairs is a good place to start. If theydon’t have jurisdiction, they’ll referyou to someone who does. If you’vebeen deceived by a practice that’s widespread and has affected other customersalso, the Attorney General would loveto hear about it.

6. Make your advocate’s job easy.Give him all the details – names, places,dates. Send two copies of everything(photocopies, not originals). Be cooland professional. And follow up. If youhaven’t heard anything in 30 days, writeagain. The business may have connedthem into closing their file with an empty promise.