State consumer officials slow on handling complaints: audit

The audit of the Department of Commerce and Insurance, which covered July 2001 through June 2004, also cites serious database problems — the main culprit delaying action on consumer complaints.

“The database was really bad,” said Mary Clement, director of the department’s Division of Consumer Affairs, which protects consumers from deceptive business practices. “It was crashing on us all the time. That’s been partially corrected, and in the next few months we’re moving to a whole new system.”

The division’s database system tracks complaints, but it fails about every 10 days causing a day’s worth of information to be lost. Once the system is restored all information for that day must be re-entered, says the audit conducted by the state comptroller’s office.

The division had not been able to keep up with updating the “Buyer Beware List” because “it’s such an arduous task. It’s an incredible job. But we now have someone handling that. We’re updating it,” said Clement, adding that the list will now be updated on a quarterly basis. Previously, it was updated once a year.

“Although the division would like to update the database more frequently than quarterly, current resources do not make this a realistic goal,” according to the audit.

The division receives about 20,000 inquires each year. About 8,000 to 9,000 are complaints against businesses or agencies, Clement said. Currently, there are five division employees to handle that workload.

“Certainly we could use more staff,” Clement said. “But the state government budget is tight. I wish we had more money to go around.”

Representatives with Tennessee’s branches of the Better Business Bureau, which serves as a consumer advocate, could not be reached for comment about the audit on Friday.

The problems are hardly new for the division — occurring under the administrations of former Gov. Don Sundquist and current Gov. Phil Bredesen, both self-described big boosters of Tennessee business.

Two previous audits covering the period July 1, 1997 through June 30, 2001 noted the division had not followed-up on complaints in a timely manner.

Officials revised their procedures, yet in 17 of 25 complaint files tested, the division did not comply with their own rules, the latest audit says.

Under the revised procedures, once the division receives a complaint, it’s supposed to mail a postcard to the consumer the next day to acknowledge the complaint. In three of 25 instances, it could not be determined if a postcard was sent.

Following that initial correspondence, division employees are required to send a letter to the consumer no more than 15 days after the complaint file is created. In four of 25 complaint files, the first letter was sent one to 84 days late, according to the audit.

“These are not gross errors when you consider the volume we’re dealing with,” said Clement, adding that most of the letters were only a few days late.

———

On the Net:

Tennessee Division of Consumer Affairs: http://www.state.tn.us/consumer/