Case Summary

Monthly service charges do not match contract or agreement

A customer contacted the CCTS after attempts to resolve a dispute with his service provider were unsuccessful. The customer told us that he was offered a new wireless plan via text message, which he accepted. He said he was assured the plan would include 6 GB of data for $40 and that he would not need to pay the $45 fee to move his existing number over to the provider. However, he told the CCTS that, after receiving the first invoice, he was charged $55 for the plan and $45 for the number change fee, contrary to what he was promised.

During our investigation, we found that the agreement sent to the customer indicated a monthly price plan of $45 rather than the $55 the customer was billed. Because the customer indicated he was to be billed $40 per month, we also obtained a copy of the call recording. After reviewing the call recording, we found that the customer was indeed advised he would be billed $40 per month.

Section C.1(iii)(a) of the Wireless Code requires that the Critical Information Summary (CIS) provide a complete description of all key contract terms and conditions, including the minimum monthly charge. Because the price in the customer’s CIS was different than what was agreed, we found that the provider was in breach of its requirements.

After further review of the account notes, we were unable to find a promise to the customer to waive the $45 number change fee. However, during our investigation the provider advised that this fee did not apply to the customer and should not have been billed.

The provider corrected the customer’s plan, credited the difference for the incorrectly billed months, and provided a $45 credit for the improper number change fee. The provider also applied a $50 credit as compensation.

We found the resolution presented by the provider to be fair and reasonable.

Case Summary

Mismatch between customer oral agreement and contract received

A customer told us that in January of 2020, she agreed to a 24-month term for TV and internet services for $187 per month in a sales call with her service provider. When she later received a copy of the service agreement, it listed only TV services for $187 per month although she was receiving both services. The customer reached out to the provider requesting a correction to the agreement to include the missing internet service because the written contract did not match their oral agreement. They were unable to reach a resolution, so the customer submitted a complaint to the CCTS.

During our investigation, we listened to the call recording of the sales call and confirmed that the customer was indeed promised both TV and internet services for $187 per month for 24 months. We confirmed that the service agreement did not match the oral agreement that was made with the customer because internet services were not listed.

When we discussed our findings with the provider, it advised that the deficient service agreement had been generated as a result of a system error. The provider confirmed that the customer was receiving both TV and internet services since January of 2020, and provided the customer’s invoices that showed both services listed for the agreed-upon price. The provider stated that it would continue to provide both services for $187 per month until the end of the 24-month term to honour the agreement.

To correct its system error, the provider reprinted the customer’s service agreement to show both services for $187 per month, provided a credit for one month of service, and provided the option for the customer to cancel the agreement without penalty should she choose to do so. We concluded the complaint because we found the remedies offered to be reasonable given the circumstances.

Case Summary

Disclosure issue with early cancellation fees related to device financing

A customer agreed to a 24-month contract for wireless service and a new device but decided to cancel his contract early. The service provider sent the customer a final invoice with two early cancellation fees: $866 and $904. The customer disputed the $904 cancellation charge. When the parties were unable to resolve the matter, the customer contacted the CCTS.

During our investigation, the provider explained that the contract included an “Agreement Credit” and a reduced device price (the retail device price minus the Agreement Credit). Both the Agreement Credit and the reduced device price were device financing plans. The customer was billed two early cancellation fees: one fee for each of these items.

NOTE: Device financing plans enable customers to pay for a new mobile device in monthly installments until the device is fully paid for, usually over 24 months.

We reviewed the agreement and found it outlined that the early cancellation fee was the remaining device balance. However, the agreement failed to clearly indicate that “Agreement Credit” is another term used to describe the device balance. In effect, the contract had created two separate device balances, which resulted in two early cancellation fees.

We determined that the term “Agreement Credit” as used in the Critical Information Summary (CIS) does not satisfy the Wireless Code’s plain language requirement because it is ambiguous, lacks clarity, and could lead to confusion regarding customers’ obligations in the event of an early cancellation. The term could easily be misinterpreted to mean an amount that does not need to be repaid, as happened in this situation — the customer did not understand that there were two early cancellation fees.

As a remedy to this failure, the provider agreed to waive the early cancellation fee related to the “Agreement Credit” ($904) and credited the customer for late payment fees. The customer was satisfied, and the complaint was resolved.

Case Summary

Customer unclear about details of promotion

A customer noticed that the price of his internet service had increased by $15 per month. After being unable to resolve his dispute with his service provider, the customer filed a complaint with the CCTS.

The customer told us he was advised that his promotional discounts had ended. However, he was completely unaware that he had been receiving a promotional discounted rate.

We reached out to the provider for documentation and an explanation of the customer’s service pricing. The provider demonstrated in its account notes that the customer had been provided with two different monthly discounts: one for $15 per month lasting 24 months, and one for $5 per month lasting 6 months.

In our investigation, we found that the expiration dates for each discount were listed on each of the customer’s invoices. The provider’s terms of service also stated that a minimum of 30 days’ notice was required for any account changes or price increases. We found that because the provider clearly disclosed the duration of the promotions that were offered, it had the right to cease applying those promotions on the dates disclosed.

Even though it had no obligation to do so, the provider offered to apply the $15 per month discount for another 24 months and to extend the $5 per month discount for another 12 months. The customer acknowledged our assessment that the provider offered a reasonable resolution to the matter and opted to decline the offer. The customer indicated that he wanted to continue negotiating with the provider independently, and agreed to close his complaint.

Case Summary

Customer unaware of eligibility requirements to maintain promotion

A customer went in store prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and upgraded his device. The customer accepted a special offer to receive a $20 discount on his two wireless lines.

On completion of the 24-month contract for the device upgrade, the customer decided to move one of his lines to a competitor, which caused the loss of the $20 discount. The customer contacted the first service provider and was informed the discount was contingent on maintaining two wireless lines, which the customer told us had not been disclosed in store during sign-up. The customer then requested that his bill be reduced to a more manageable amount because he was struggling to pay rent and other bills through the pandemic. The customer was unable to resolve the matter independently, so submitted a complaint to the CCTS.

In discussion with the customer, we advised that we would review documentation, including the service agreement, account notes and invoices. The customer told us that he did not review the agreement prior to signing in store. We confirmed that the customer’s contract did in fact disclose the condition that the $20 discount required maintaining two wireless lines and that the provider had the right to remove the promotional discount when that condition was no longer met. The customer then consented to conclude the complaint based on this information.

Case Summary

Failure to gain customer consent

A customer submitted a complaint to the CCTS stating that her wireless service was changed from post-paid to pre-paid in error, which generated a new service agreement. The customer told the CCTS that a $45 suspension fee was billed to her account as a result of this plan change, which confused the customer because her service was not suspended and she had not requested a service suspension. The customer was unable to resolve the matter with her provider independently.

During our investigation, the service provider acknowledged that it had erroneously made changes to the customer’s plan without her knowledge or consent. As a reasonable remedy, the provider immediately credited the $45 suspension fee and voided the service agreement that was created in error on the customer’s account. This resolution satisfied the customer.

Case Summary

Incorrect charge for service after service change

A wireless customer contacted the CCTS because he claimed he was being billed incorrectly for monthly services. The customer had requested the removal of a $10 per month roaming feature add-on to his wireless service plan because he no longer needed roaming minutes. The customer stated the service provider agreed that he would continue to receive the same phone plan (minus the roaming feature) for $35 per month. The customer said that after he removed the $10 per month roaming feature, his monthly invoice was $43 instead of the expected $35. The customer was unable to resolve the matter with his provider directly.

In our investigation, we requested an explanation from the provider of what occurred along with the account notes, invoices and any applicable service agreements. After reviewing the documentation and receiving the provider’s response, we found that the provider changed the customer to a different monthly plan for $35 per month with a voicemail add-on for $8. The provider was unable to demonstrate that either of these plan changes were disclosed to or agreed to by the customer.

To fix the issue, the provider credited the $8 per month voicemail charges. In addition, the provider offered one month of free service ($35 plus tax) and a $10 per month credit for six months, which appeared reasonable given the circumstances. The customer accepted the resolution, and the complaint was resolved.

Case Summary

Customer charged for router that he never had

A long-time customer of an internet service provider cancelled service prior to moving. Shortly after, he received a letter from the provider advising that he had an outstanding balance for an internet router, which the customer told us he never had. The customer opted to make the payment but continued to dispute the charges. The provider maintained that the charges were valid in full, so the customer brought his complaint to the CCTS.

In our investigation, we requested documentation to demonstrate that the charges were valid and the customer possessed the router. The provider did not submit the requested documentation and instead responded by issuing a credit for the disputed charges and correcting the customer’s credit report. The resolution appeared reasonable, and the customer was satisfied.

Case Summary

Customer requires refund for cancellation during trial period

A wireless customer, who self-identified as a person with a disability, decided to cancel her services and return her device during the extended 30-day trial period provided to persons with disabilities under the Wireless Code (section G.4(iv)). The customer told us she expected a refund for the amounts she had paid prior to cancelling, but the service provider had instead processed a credit to her account. The customer wanted a refund so she could move to a new provider. She filed a complaint with the CCTS.

During our investigation, we considered the provider’s terms of service. We found that the terms of service did not require the provider to issue a refund rather than a credit. We spoke to the provider and asked if it would be willing to refund the credited amount to the customer. To resolve the complaint, the provider agreed to refund the credit balance to the credit card on file. The customer was satisfied with the resolution and concluded her complaint.

Case Summary

Missing credits for roaming charges

A customer was travelling overseas and using an $8 per day service that allowed her to use her domestic wireless plan while abroad. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, she was required to lengthen her stay, so she contacted her service provider regarding the roaming charges being incurred during this time. The customer later told the CCTS that the provider agreed to waive all roaming fees from March through June of 2020. However, she continued to receive monthly invoices that included the daily roaming service fees, which she disputed. The parties were unable to resolve the dispute, leading the customer to contact the CCTS.

In our investigation, we asked whether the provider promised to waive all roaming charges from March through June. The provider supplied its account notes for our review, which demonstrated that it had offered to waive roaming fees from March 18 to April 30 for all customers. The provider also demonstrated that the customer had received some adjustments to her roaming charges during this period; however, some charges remained.

To remedy this error, the provider confirmed it would apply the missing credits for roaming charges incurred between March 18 and April 30. In addition, the provider credited the late payment fees incurred on the account as part of the resolution to the complaint. The customer accepted the resolution.

Case Summary

Ongoing internet service issues

A customer in a rural area told us that she switched home internet service providers because she required a stable connection to work from home and conduct online meetings. The customer stated that her new provider had assured her that the new service would meet her needs. However, two weeks into the new service, the customer was receiving download speeds of only 1 Mbps for most of her work although she had a 10 Mbps plan. After spending hours troubleshooting the issue with the provider with no resolution, the customer brought her dispute to the CCTS.

During our investigation, we reviewed the provider’s terms of service. We explained to the customer that the provider’s terms of service do not guarantee internet speeds and that there are many factors that could affect internet speed and performance.

During discussions with the customer, we were able to clarify her goal, which was to reduce the cost of the service to better match the speeds she was receiving and remove the cancelation penalty should she decide to cancel the service at any time.

We brought this request to the provider, which offered the customer a $40 per month discount for six months. As a goodwill gesture, the provider also agreed to remove the cancelation penalty if the customer decided to cancel service at any time. The customer was content with the resolution and concluded the complaint.

Case Summary

Troubleshooting issues with internet and TV outages

A customer submitted a complaint to the CCTS after experiencing numerous internet and TV service outages from February through August of 2020 that his service provider was unable to address to his satisfaction. The customer specifically disputed over 50 days of service delivery issues. The customer asked for compensation for half of the cost of his services from February through August.

In our investigation of the complaint, we reviewed the provider’s terms of service, which stated that it does not guarantee uninterrupted performance of its internet and TV services, and that the customer’s internet speed was provided on an “up to” basis, to signal to customers that advertised speeds might not be reached. The provider’s terms of service also direct customers to contact the provider for technical support when experiencing technical issues.

We then requested the provider’s policies and processes for troubleshooting to ensure that the service provider followed its own processes. In review of the account and technician notes, we identified nine incidents where the customer reported either intermittent service delivery or complete loss of service issues to his service provider. The reviewed notes showed that the provider followed its troubleshooting process except in two of the customer’s reported incidents. We found that the provider could not demonstrate that it had followed its own troubleshooting processes in these instances.

We also requested the customer’s internet usage records, which confirmed that the customer had reasonable access to his internet services during the time period because his average usage volume was over 400 GB per month. Our review of the provider’s available internet plans suggested that the customer was on the best plan for his needs, based on the customer’s usage and pricing.

As a resolution to the complaint, the provider offered the customer a credit of $234.50, which the CCTS determined was a reasonable remedy given the provider’s failure to demonstrate that it had followed its own troubleshooting processes for two of nine reported instances of service delivery issues.

Case Summary

Incorrect negative credit report damages customer’s credit rating

A wireless customer noticed that a missed payment was negatively reported to the credit reporting agency. The customer told us he had made the payment via credit card on time, but the provider said the payment was reversed. The customer’s credit card statements did not show any payment reversal, so the customer requested proof of reversal from the provider and correction to the negative credit report. The customer filed a complaint with the CCTS when he was unable to resolve this with his service provider.

At the pre-investigation stage, the provider clarified to the customer which payments were made and reversed, confirmed that the customer had made the payment on time, and scheduled a follow-up to confirm that the customer’s account balance was zero. The provider reported the complaint as resolved, but the customer disputed this because the issue of the negative credit report correction was outstanding. The customer said that the incorrect report of an unpaid bill dramatically affected his credit score, and his loan applications were rejected because of this issue.

During our investigation, the provider said it would check if a negative report was sent regarding any late payment notices. The customer provided a copy of his credit report demonstrating that the provider had indeed reported negative information regarding late payments to the credit bureau.

We then requested evidence from the service provider that it had taken steps to correct the negative credit reporting. The provider provided us its account notes, which showed that the correction was issued to the credit bureau. The provider also advised that the customer should check his credit report later in the month or the next month. Given the details of the complaint, the correction of the negative information appeared to be a reasonable resolution. The customer accepted the explanation and concluded the complaint.

Case Summary

Customer unaware of provider’s credit reporting policy

A small business wireless customer contacted their service provider during the COVID-19 pandemic advising that due to substantial losses to their business during this time, they were having great difficultly settling their business expenses. The customer came to a payment arrangement with the provider and later told the CCTS that they were reassured this would avoid any negative remarks to their credit report. The customer stated they met the payment arrangements made with their provider but months later discovered delinquency on their credit report due to these same payments. The customer was unable to come to a resolution with the provider independently, so brought the complaint to the CCTS.

In our investigation we reviewed all available documentation, including the call recording from the date the arrangement was made. Our investigation found that the provider’s usual procedure, per its terms of service, is to continue to report payments as late even with a payment arrangement. Its payment arrangement policies stipulate that the arrangement will suspend collection calls and/or service suspensions when an account has a past due balance but does not prevent credit reporting from occurring.

After listening to the call recording with the customer and reviewing the account notes, we did not find evidence that the provider agreed to suspend the credit reporting. We explained to the customer that the provider appeared to have met its obligations, and concluded the complaint.

Case Summary

Provider accurately reports payment history

A customer made a complaint to the CCTS about negative information on her credit report. The customer had cancelled her wireless service and received a final bill of $250. She said she made regular payments to her account, finally paying off the final bill exactly 90 days after she received it. She also stated that her service provider was aware she had every intention of paying off her balance because she was making regular payments to the account.

During our investigation, we reviewed the provider’s terms of service, which stated it has the right to report any late payment activity on the account to credit reporting agencies. We also reviewed the provider’s internal policies and procedures for credit reporting. We then reviewed the customer’s invoices and payment history, month by month. We found that the customer had made irregular payments to her final invoice well past the due date stated on the invoice. The provider had the right to report late payments to the credit reporting agency, in accordance with its terms of service. Based on our analysis, it appeared as though the provider met its obligations. The customer accepted our explanation and concluded the complaint.