|
CONSUMER NEWS RECALLS COMPLAINT FORM SCAM ALERTS |
| Small Claims Guide | Class Actions | Lemon Law | FAQ | Resources | Newsletters | Spanish | |
|
|
![]() |
Pennsylvania Fines Hearing Aid Company $190,000 |
|||||
|
September 19, 2005
Pannette is a hearing aid fitter and business manager of M.E. Jones Hearing Instruments. He is also the president and sole owner of Marketing Specialists Inc., which managed customer accounts for M.E. Jones Hearing Instruments and manufactured the hearing aids that were sold to consumers. Corbett said in July 2001, the Clearfield Court of Common Pleas entered a Preliminary Injunction Order against the three defendants prohibiting them from violating Pennsylvania's Hearing Aid Sales Registration Law and Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. The court ruled that the defendants violated its order by failing to comply with the 30-day money back guarantee required by the Hearing Aid Sales Registration Law and the three-day right to cancel provision under the Consumer Protection Law. The Petition for Contempt was filed in November 2003 after the Attorney General's Office received new complaints claiming that the defendants continued to illegally deny consumers their refunds or honor their requests to cancel the sales contracts. Many consumers said the defendants falsely told them that they were not eligible for a refund. Others claimed that they were forced to wait months to get their money back. The consumers said that they paid the defendant between $1,200 and $2,000 for a single hearing aid device that either did not fit properly or failed to improve their ability to hear. During the contempt hearing, the daughter of a 98-year-old Bedford County man said that her father paid the defendants $4,000 for two hearing aids that never worked properly. Despite the defendants' repeated claims that they would correct the problems, the devices failed to improve the consumer's hearing as promised and he was denied a refund. The daughter said her father's inability to hear not only made him feel alienated, but created a safety issue because she could no longer communicate with him over the telephone. "This case was particularly egregious because the victims were mostly older Pennsylvanians who were defrauded out of significant sums of money as they tried to improve their quality of life," Corbett said. "The court's prior order put the defendants on notice that they were barred from engaging in illegal business practices and they chose to ignore the ruling," said Corbett. "It's appropriate that the defendants face stiff penalties and the ultimate consequence which is forever forfeiting their right to conduct business in this field in the Commonwealth." Under the court order, the defendants are required to:
Report Your Experience
|
|||||
Back to the top | |
||||||
Advertisement
|
Home |
Rogues Gallery |
Good Guys |
Complaint Form |
News |
Recalls |
Search |
Video |
FAQ |
|
Terms of Use Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use
Copyright © 2003-2008 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. All Rights Reserved. |