April 26, 2024

The Haggler: Tracking a Child Support Mix-Up In New York

There are surveys that cover just about every aspect of air travel: rates of on-time departures, rankings of frequent-flier programs, and on and on. But the Haggler has never seen a study that shows which airlines regard fliers as the biggest idiots.

Huge omission, right? And until a thorough inquiry is undertaken, the Haggler contends that US Airways takes the dimmest view of its customers’ intelligence. On what evidence is that conclusion based? When you call the airline’s reservation number, the first utterance you hear after you shimmy up the phone tree and await a representative is this:

“Note that under federal law, passengers are prohibited from bringing hazardous materials on the aircraft.”

Is there a sentient human on this planet who is unaware that bringing hazmat on a jet is verboten? Is it not self-evident that loading up your baggage with potentially lethal, flammable and/or toxic chemicals is uncool, not to mention illegal?

The most charitable explanation here is that US Airways is just trying to kill some time by filling your ears with factoids, as you stew on hold. But being called a dummy, by implication, doesn’t make the stewing more pleasant. Quite the opposite. Why not just remind us to wear clothing to the airport? Or to walk upright?

The Haggler posed these questions to US Airways, mostly because he can. A spokesman, John McDonald, wrote back and noted that a lot of passengers have no idea how many everyday items are considered hazmat by the Federal Aviation Administration. He listed some: spare curling-iron gas cartridges, dry ice in an airtight container, a can of aerosol spray starch, loaded firearms.

The loaded firearms — not really a surprise. But the others are.

“Our friendly little reminder on the start of the call,” Mr. McDonald wrote, “is just to pique interest, as it did with you, to ask the question: What is hazmat?”

Respectfully, as an interest piquer, the “little reminder” stinks. So here’s some free advice: Bag the little reminder and give callers a list of the surprising items that are banned. Or list eight items that might be hazmat and challenge callers to pick out the one that isn’t.

“Great idea,” wrote Mr. McDonald, effectively neutralizing the Haggler with cheap praise. “I’ll pass it along to our reservations team.”

Problem all but solved.

Question: Is there any way to improve the world that is too trivial for the Haggler?

Apparently not!

Enough of this folderol. It’s question time.

Q. I am a single mother, and my case does not involve bad corporate customer service but rather the seemingly impenetrable New York City Office of Child Support Enforcement that has for months now miscalculated the child support arrears owed by my daughter’s father.

An order was issued by family court on Nov. 30, 2012, specifying that the support collection unit of the O.C.S.E. was to assess the father’s arrears at $12,568 plus the previously calculated arrears, which were $7,439. Instead of adding the new arrears to the old, as instructed by the court order, the O.C.S.E. substituted the new arrears of $12,568 for the previously calculated arrears of $7,439. An amended order was issued on Jan. 8, 2013, in an attempt to be clearer for the O.C.S.E.’s employees.

The amended order came only after I spent five hours speaking with eight different people in two different buildings.

But the new order didn’t help. Yet again, the O.C.S.E. simply substituted the new arrears of $12,568 for the previously calculated arrears of $7,439.

I have spent the past four months doing everything within my power to rectify this situation, and I have failed. If I were to seek legal counsel to help me, I’d be spending thousands of dollars to try to get a state bureaucracy to do its job enforcing a court order. The $7,439 that I am trying to get would be spent in legal fees.

If you would consider trying to intervene on my behalf, I would be more grateful than you could know.

L.G.

New York

A. The Haggler has spent little time dealing with the public sector, so he sent an e-mail to Bill de Blasio, the city’s public advocate. Mr. de Blasio, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for mayor, runs an office that mediates between the electorate and the city government. He handed off this matter to a staff member, Phil Walzak, who brought in the office’s director of constituent services, America Canas.

The pair went at this for several weeks. On April 23, Mr. Walzak wrote to say, “Still gathering the details on this case, but my constituent services person says the case outcome is actually positive.”

The Haggler spoke to Mr. Walzak and Ms. Canas a few days later, and they were low on details about what exactly went wrong at the Human Resources Administration, home of the O.C.S.E.

“Why it got screwed up at the front end, we don’t know,” Mr. Walzak said.

“A little bit of a missed communication,” Ms. Canas speculated, “and a lot of emotion.”

The leaders at the Human Resources Administration did not offer much more illumination. A spokeswoman, Carmen Boon, initially suggested that this entire matter was fed to the Haggler by the public advocate’s office, presumably to make that office seem like heroes. (Untrue.) Then she e-mailed a statement.

“This is a very rare instance in which an unconventional court order lacking proper terminology and not identifying a specific dollar amount to add back to the arrears balance caused confusion among our staff,” Ms. Boon wrote. “Once the issues with the order were detected, H.R.A. worked as quickly as possible to update the amounts owed and fix this unfortunate situation.”

It would nice to file this entire affair under the category of “learning experience.” But nobody here seems to have learned anything. Other than the Haggler, who learned that he much prefers dealing with the private sector, where blame-pinning is invariably far easier.

E-mail: haggler@nytimes.com. Keep it brief and family-friendly, include your hometown and go easy on the caps-lock key. Letters may be edited for clarity and length.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/your-money/tracking-a-child-support-mix-up-in-new-york.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Speak Your Mind