Has anyone else had similar problems?
I made a written billing dispute in December 2003. Someone from their office called to say it was received--great. But then it all goes to heck. Not only did Saks *never* acknowledge or respond in writing (forget the 30 days within which they have to respond) but Saks racks up big interest, big late fees, and major derogatory credit reporting on my personal credit report.

Telephone conversations are worth the paper their written on.

This harm is probably systemic, happening to many Saks account holders.

An exerpt below is from a recent lawsuit in Michigan--the account holder is called *many* times but no written response is ever made to her dispute according to the law and her credit and health is destroyed. I guess you should just hope there is never an error on your Saks account because it will never be fixed--there is no point in trying to fix it--you just have to pay or have your credit ruined, suffer tons of phone calls, mail, and stress all while you and your legal rights are snubbed. I guess Saks Fifth Avenue is above honoring your rights or the law. Or maybe they think their card holders should be infinately wealthy and say: "oh they made an error. Well, oh no, it is *my* fault. Really, I insist, it's *my* fault." I would rather donate that money (my money) to the Church or a soup kitchen than give it away to Saks Fifth Avenue credit card company because they are incompetent and can't fix their errors.

Plaintiff contacted Defendant's customer service department on December 29, 1999, and spoke to an individual [**6] named "Shelby." This individual reportedly responded that Defendant had been experiencing computer problems due to the impending "Y2K" situation and a transition to a new computer system, and that it was possible that Plaintiff had been the victim of double-billing dating back to 1996, when she had opened her married-name account. Accordingly, Plaintiff was advised that her maiden-name account would be closed, n6 that the other account would be placed in "disputed" status, and that a supervisor would contact her to further address the situation. One of Defendant's customer service representatives called Plaintiff within the next day or two, and told her that a supervisor would follow up on the matter after the "Y2K" transition was complete.

When Plaintiff did not hear from anyone over the next two weeks, she sent a letter to Defendant's customer service department on January 15, 2000, outlining the nature of her complaint.

Plaintiff's next contact with Defendant occurred on March 13, 2000, when she received [**9] a telephone call from Tom Kelly in Defendant's collections department. Kelly advised Plaintiff that her account had been placed into collections as a result of her failure to make her required payments. n7 Plaintiff protested that her account should not have been placed into collections, in light of its disputed status, and she sent a copy of her January 15 letter to Kelly as confirmation of this unresolved dispute. This letter apparently was accompanied by a handwritten note in which Plaintiff stated that she was still waiting to be contacted by a supervisor, as promised during her conversations in December of 1999 with Defendant's customer service representatives.

TRACEY BURNSTEIN, Plaintiff, v. SAKS FIFTH AVENUE & CO. and McRAE'S, INC., Defendants.
Case No. 01-72079
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, SOUTHERN DIVISION
208 F. Supp. 2d 765; 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11778