Topics and Trends
Annual Report
August 1, 2021 – July 31, 2022
In 2021-22, Canadians filed 12,790 in-mandate complaints about their service providers, down 25% from last year.
Overview
This year’s data captures a second full year of Canadians living through the COVID-19 pandemic, which began midway through the CCTS’ 2019-20 Annual Report period.
The CCTS maintained a resolution rate of 88% for customer complaints in 2021-22. We resolve most complaints within 30 days at the earliest stage of our process; this year we resolved 75% of all complaints within 30 days.
For consumers, we are a neutral dispute resolution provider that can help level the playing field and provide binding outcomes. For providers, we provide information, data, and insights to help repair relationships and improve their customer relations. We are a third party that can facilitate resolutions to get the customer-provider relationship back on track in disputes that cannot be resolved. Sometimes, with the benefit of the information and evidence about the complaint details, we can confirm that the provider acted reasonably and fairly to the customer. Other times, as demonstrated by the below case summaries, customers involve us to hold the provider accountable where it should have been obvious to the provider that it needed to address or fix the issue.
Device locked to provider’s network
A customer filed a complaint in March of 2022 about their provider’s refusal to unlock their wireless device. The customer had purchased the device from the provider in December of 2019 and paid for the device in full at that time.
When the customer learned, in April of 2021, that their device was locked to their provider’s cellular network, they asked the provider to unlock their device, but the provider refused. The customer told us that the provider asked for proof of purchase for the device, which the customer promptly provided, but then received no response. The customer noted the CRTC requirement that providers offer unlocked devices after 2017.
After multiple requests that the provider unlock their device over the course of a year, the customer filed a complaint to the CCTS, expressing great frustration with their provider. The first step of our process is to send the complaint to the provider to try to resolve the issue. When we sent the complaint details to the provider, it unlocked the device within 30 days, resolving the complaint to the customer’s satisfaction.
Promised refund not honoured
A customer experienced ongoing wireless quality of service issues that impeded their ability to work from home over several months. The customer told us that they had been promised a refund for six months of service fees and a credit for monthly service fees going forward until their quality of service issue was resolved. The refund amount for six months of service, in the customer’s view, should have been over $672 plus tax. However, two months later, their provider still had not applied the six-month credit or future monthly credits while the quality of service issue persisted. The customer had made multiple calls to customer service explaining the promise of the refund without any result, at which point the customer submitted a complaint to the CCTS.
When we sent the complaint to the provider, the provider offered the customer a $100 credit. The provider’s position was that its service was not guaranteed, pursuant to its Terms of Service; therefore, the customer was not entitled to a credit. The customer did not accept this offer, insisting that they had previously been promised a refund for six months of service and an ongoing credit until the issue was resolved.
During our investigation, we reviewed a call recording of discussions between the customer and the provider about the service issues. We confirmed that the agent in the call offered a credit for six months of service and for three future months of service, totalling just over $925 plus tax. We determined that the provider failed to meet its obligations to the customer because it clearly failed to apply the promised credit amount. When we pointed this out to the provider, the provider agreed to refund the amounts promised. The customer accepted this resolution but pointed out that the provider processed the amount as a credit to their account, not a refund. The customer was unhappy with the credit as they were planning to leave their service provider. We followed up with the provider to ensure that the amount was refunded as promised.
“I found the CCTS to be a very well-run organization. They took my complaint seriously, went over all relevant information and were very helpful… Thank you for all your help.”
Issues raised in complaints
These 12,790 complaints raised 29,374 issues that fell within the CCTS mandate. A single complaint can contain multiple issues. For example, a customer may submit one complaint about both the billing of their internet service and that their wireless service is not working properly, which would be reported as two issues.
Wireless issues continue to be raised most often, representing 51% of all issues raised. Internet issues continue to be in second place, accounting for 27% of issues. The number of internet issues decreased by 40% since last year, which may reflect customers’ return to in-person work and learning.
NOTE: TV complaints were not in the CCTS mandate until September 1, 2017.
Spotlight on wireless
- Wireless remains the most complained-about service even though the number of wireless issues declined by 19%.
- Wireless issues account for 51% of all issues raised, up from 44% last year.
- Wireless customers raised disclosure issues 18% less often than last year. However, disclosure continues to be the leading issue among wireless customers, accounting for 15% of all wireless issues. These disclosure issues are about customer concerns that information is not being fully or clearly provided.
- Incorrect charge relating to monthly price plan remains the number two issue for wireless customers, accounting for 13% of all wireless issues raised.
- Issues relating to wireless roaming charges are up by 130% from last year, returning to approximately the same level as before the pandemic.
- Wireless device financing plan issues increased by a significant 142%. We discuss this issue and concerning trends below in a case summary and in Statistical Reports.
- Issues relating to chargeable messages, which encompass both nationwide and international long-distance calls, increased by 39%.
| Issue | Number | Proportion | YoY (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disclosure issues | 2,252 | 15% | -30% |
| Monthly price plan – Incorrect charge | 1,873 | 13% | -25% |
| Quality of service | 1,068 | 7% | -11% |
| Breach of contract | 888 | 6% | -34% |
| Credit/refund not received | 779 | 5% | -27% |
| Credit reporting | 722 | 5% | -7% |
| Data charges | 470 | 3% | -26% |
| Roaming charges | 430 | 3% | 130% |
| Chargeable messages (long distance calls) | 376 | 3% | 39% |
| Device or equipment financing plan | 343 | 2% | 142% |
Spotlight on internet
- Internet issues account for 27% of all issues raised.
- The number of internet issues declined by 40% from last year. This is a significant decrease when compared to the 31% decrease in overall issues across all service types. Internet issues were raised 7,939 times, which is the lowest in the last five years.
- Quality of service remains the top issue for internet customers, accounting for 17% of internet issues. However, the number of quality of service issues decreased by 46% from last year, which represents the most significant decline in internet issues.
- Incorrect charge relating to monthly price plan is the number two issue, down 31% from last year and accounting for 13% of all internet issues.
- Disclosure issues are in third place. Disclosure issues are down by 39% and account for 11% of all internet issues.
| Issue | Number | Proportion | YoY (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality of service | 1,367 | 17% | -46% |
| Monthly price plan – Incorrect charge | 1,023 | 13% | -31% |
| Disclosure issues | 861 | 11% | -39% |
| Credit/refund not received | 407 | 5% | -48% |
| Complete loss of service | 374 | 5% | -28% |
| Breach of contract | 370 | 5% | -56% |
| Legitimacy of early termination fee (ETF) | 326 | 4% | -35% |
| Credit reporting | 287 | 4% | -30% |
| Equipment charges | 283 | 4% | -36% |
| Customer cancellation due date not kept/delayed | 237 | 3% | -32% |
Spotlight on TV
- TV issues account for 11% of all issues raised.
- The number of TV issues is down 35% from last year, decreasing for the third time in the last five years.
- Incorrect charge relating to monthly price plan remains the leading issue raised by TV customers, accounting for 15% of all TV issues. The number of incorrect charge issues is down by 39% from last year.
- Disclosure issues remain in second place, accounting for 14% of all issues. The number of disclosure issues decreased by 41% from last year.
- Complete loss of service increased by 11% and accounts for 4% of all TV issues.
| Issue | Number | Proportion | YoY (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly price plan – Incorrect charge | 504 | 16% | -39% |
| Disclosure issues | 460 | 14% | -41% |
| Quality of service | 378 | 11% | -19% |
| Credit/refund not received | 181 | 5% | -41% |
| Equipment charges | 156 | 5% | -35% |
| Complete loss of service | 130 | 4% | 11% |
|
Credit reporting
|
123 | 4% | -39% |
| Breach of contract | 122 | 4% | -52% |
| Customer cancellation due date not kept/delayed | 105 | 3% | -34% |
| Legitimacy of early termination fee (ETF) | 104 | 3% | -9% |
Spotlight on phone
- Local phone service (landlines) accounts for 10% of all issues.
- The number of phone issues is down 39% from last year and decreasing for the third time in the last five years.
- Incorrect charge relating to monthly price plan remains the number one local phone issue, accounting for 13% of all local phone issues and down 41% from last year.
- Quality of service is the number two local phone issue, accounting for 10% of all local phone issues and down 28%.
| Issue | Number | Proportion | YoY (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly price plan – Incorrect charge | 401 | 13% | -41% |
| Quality of service | 313 | 10% | -28% |
| Disclosure issues | 283 | 9% | -46% |
| Complete loss of service | 192 | 6% | -21% |
| Legitimacy of early termination fee (ETF) | 154 | 5% | -46% |
| Unable to port | 138 | 5% | -24% |
|
Credit/refund not received
|
130 | 4% | -41% |
| Breach of contract | 113 | 4% | -53% |
| Credit reporting | 99 | 3% | -17% |
| Customer cancellation due date not kept/delayed | 91 | 3% | -49% |
Breakdown of issues across all service types
Just like last year, disclosure issues continue to be the top issues raised by all customers, followed by complaints about incorrect billing of their monthly price plans.
“I am quite certain my complaint would not have been resolved without the involvement of the CCTS. Thanks!”
Disclosure issues
Customers often have concerns about information not being fully or clearly provided. Disclosure continues to be the leading issue raised (3,865 times this year).
Disclosure issues account for 13% of all issues raised across all service types.
The lack of clear disclosure is the top issue raised by wireless customers and is either the number two or number three issue for internet, TV and phone customers. Disclosure issues are raised disproportionately by wireless customers. Although wireless customers account for 51% of all issues raised, they account for a disproportionate 58% of disclosure issues.
Of the top 10 service providers for disclosure issues, most saw a decrease in these issues from last year. Bell saw a significant 49% reduction in the number of disclosure issues but still accounts for the highest proportion: 20% of all disclosure issues, down from 25% last year. TELUS saw an increase in disclosure issues (4% increase).
* The disclosure resolution rate was 91%.
The number one disclosure issue is contract conflicts with agreement, which concerns a conflict or mismatch between what a customer has agreed to purchase and what their contract indicates. This type of disclosure issue accounts for 77% of disclosure issues, up from 75% last year.
The number two disclosure issue is a lack of full disclosure about promotions; for example, when a customer is not advised that a promotional discount on their monthly price plan will only be applied for the first three months of their 12-month contract. Lack of full disclosure about promotions accounts for 10% of all disclosure issues, down from 12% last year.
Contract conflicts with agreement
Of all disclosure issues raised, 77% are the result of a conflict or mismatch between what the customer believes they agreed to purchase (often orally) and what is indicated in their contract, which is sent to them after the transaction occurred. This type of disclosure issue was raised 2,988 times – 57% of the time by wireless customers, 23% by internet customers.
Of the 2,988 times this issue was raised, 92% was after the customer had entered into an agreement at a distance, either over the phone or online. The remaining 8% of this issue occurred when the customer agreed to their contract in store.
The top three service providers with this type of disclosure issue are Bell (20%), Rogers (17%) and Fido (11%).
| Service provider | Number of times issue was raised | Proportion of issue |
|---|---|---|
| Bell | 602 | 20% |
| Rogers | 516 | 17% |
| Fido | 339 | 11% |
Monthly service charge does not match agreement
A customer submitted a complaint to the CCTS about a mismatch of the monthly service fee they agreed to and the price they were being charged. The customer also said there was a mismatch in the amount of data included in their month-to-month wireless plan. The customer told us that they had agreed, during a phone call, to a $25 per month plan with 25 GB of data at 4G LTE speeds, after which the customer could continue to use data at a reduced speed. Instead, the provider billed $40 per month and reduced the speed after 2 GB of monthly data usage. The provider told us it did not have a $25 per month plan that included 25 GB; its plan was $40 per month for 25 GB of data.
During our investigation, we discovered that the provider had not sent the customer a copy of the contract or Fair Use Policy, which was a breach of the Wireless Code. We requested a copy of the call recording for the sales transaction to confirm what was agreed to, but the provider was not able to produce it. The customer, however, provided a recording of the sales call when the agreement was reached. We found that during the call, the customer and the provider agreed to a wireless plan for $25 per month with a monthly data allotment of 25 GB. The provider did not inform the customer that the 25 GB allotted to the account was only for data used within the provider’s network coverage area, and that data use on its extended nationwide network would be subject to a 2 GB cap.
After we sent a copy of the call recording to the provider, it offered to honour the $25 per month plan going forward and apply credits for the difference that was previously billed. To address its non-disclosure that the 25 GB was only for data used within the provider’s coverage area, it also offered to apply a credit of $150 to the customer’s account, the equivalent of six months of service fees at the $25 rate. The customer was not satisfied by this offer as they wanted the provider to remove the 2 GB limit for the extended nationwide network data usage at 4G LTE speeds. However, we found the resolution presented by the provider to be fair and reasonable.
Mismatch between webchat agreement and contract
A customer submitted a complaint alleging that their service provider billed them more than they had agreed to for wireless services. The customer stated that, through a webchat, they had agreed to a voice, text and data wireless plan for $55 per month. They also said they were assured by the provider that the plan would remain at the $55 price forever.
However, when the customer received the first invoice, they noticed they had been charged $70 for the plan. They also stated that their contract reflected the monthly price plan of $70, which was not consistent with the chat discussion. The provider maintained that the customer was on a $70 per month plan.
During our investigation, we reviewed the chat transcript and found that the customer had agreed to a $55 per month wireless plan. We also found that the agent stated the rate would stay the same forever unless the customer changed their plan. When we pointed this out, the provider acknowledged that the agent made a mistake in saying the cost would stay the same forever and that the rate was $55 rather than $70. We found that the provider supplied inaccurate information to the customer, which is a breach of Section A.1(i) of the Wireless Code.
To resolve the complaint, we suggested that the provider honour the $55 rate for 24 months and refund the billed price difference to the customer. The provider agreed to do so, the customer was satisfied, and the complaint was resolved.
Lack of disclosure about promotions
Another common disclosure issue occurs when the provider neglects to provide the customer with necessary information about promotions. This accounts for 10% of all disclosure issues down from 12% last year. Wireless customers disproportionately raised this issue 66% of the time, up from 56% last year.
Bell recorded the largest number of these issues the previous two years but has now been surpassed by Rogers and Fido. Rogers accounts for 19% of these issues, while Fido now accounts for 17%, up from 12% last year. Bell customers raised this issue less often this year, accounting for 16% of issues arising from lack of disclosure about promotions, down from 20% last year and 40% the year before.
| Service provider | Number of times issue was raised | Proportion of issue |
|---|---|---|
| Rogers | 77 | 19% |
| Fido | 66 | 17% |
| Bell | 65 | 16% |
“Amazing service from the CCTS, and amazing results. Thank you so much for being there to support customers!”
Breach of contract
In the course of providing service to customers, providers are required to follow their own terms of service, agreements with customers and any specific offers they have made to a customer. We classify any alleged failure by a provider to do so as a “breach of contract”.
Breach of contract is the number two contract dispute issue, accounting for 17% of all contract dispute issues, down from 21% last year.
Like last year, wireless customers account for a disproportionate number of breach of contract issues. While wireless services account for 51% of all issues raised, they account for 59% of breach of contract issues. Despite a decline of 45% in breach of contract issues across all service types, there was only a 34% decrease in breach of contract issues for wireless services. This is the smallest decrease for this issue across all service types, highlighting that breach of contract issues continue to be an issue faced by wireless consumers.
Complaints about internet account for 25% of all breach of contract issues, down from 31% last year.
Bell has the most breach of contract issues, accounting for 20% of all breach of contract issues, down from 22% last year. While most providers saw a decline in this issue, TELUS experienced an increase and now accounts for 11% of this issue, up from 6% last year.
| Service provider | Number of times issue was raised | Proportion of issue |
|---|---|---|
| Bell | 301 | 20% |
| Rogers | 208 | 14% |
| TELUS | 161 | 11% |
Customer unclear about early termination fees
In May of 2021, a customer obtained a new wireless device from their service provider. The device cost was $2,200, which was split into a “device discount” of $715 and a “device bonus” of $1,485. The service agreement stated that the customer was to pay $29.79 per month toward their device discount for 24 months (total of $715, after which the device balance would be reduced to $0). While the device discount appeared on each invoice, the device bonus did not. The customer believed that if they chose to move to another provider, they would be required to pay off only the remaining device discount.
Based on this understanding, after 6 months the customer decided to transfer their service to a new provider, effectively terminating the 24-month agreement. The customer did not discuss the fee implications of early cancellation with their provider before cancelling. The customer was then surprised to receive an invoice that included early termination device charges of $1,577.06, which was the remaining balance of the device discount and device bonus. After attempts to resolve the dispute with their service provider were unsuccessful, the customer contacted the CCTS.
We reviewed the service agreement that was provided to the customer and noted that the device discount and device bonus were clearly outlined on the first page of the agreement. The agreement showed that the device discount of $715 would be payable by the customer in 24 monthly installments of $29.79. It also showed that the device bonus of $1,485 would be reduced by $61.88 per month over 24 months, but it would not be invoiced to the customer. Rather, this device bonus would reduce the high cost of the device for the customer over 24 months. The agreement explained that upon early cancellation, any remaining device discount and remaining device bonus become payable immediately.
We determined that the provider had met its obligations by explaining in the agreement how early cancellation charges would be calculated and when they would apply. We explained our findings to the customer, and they agreed to close their complaint although they did not like the provider’s device financing plan.
Billing issues
Billing issues account for 39% of all issues raised and decreased for the third straight year.
Consumers are feeling the impacts of global inflation, particularly through the rising cost of living. In many complaints about billing issues, customers told us about their struggles to make ends meet and to make every dollar count. Some customers tell us about particularly challenging and vulnerable situations, such as living on a fixed income or bankruptcy. This context may factor into their complaints and may contribute to their request for compensation or a credit as part of their desired resolution.
This year, there was a significant shift in the proportion of billing complaints about wireless services. Wireless services now account for 54% of billing issues, up from 46% last year. There was also a disproportionate decline in billing issues for wireless customers. While overall billing issues decreased by 30%, billing issues for wireless customers decreased by only 17%.
Internet services account for 24% of billing issues, down from 27% last year, and TV accounts for 12% of billing issues, down from 14% last year.
Bell accounts for the highest proportion of all billing issues (20%, down from 23% last year). The number of billing issues raised by Bell’s customers decreased by 38%. Of the top 10 service providers for billing issues, only Koodo saw an increase in billing issues.
* The billing resolution rate was 88%.
Incorrect charge relating to monthly price plan is the number one billing issue, accounting for 33% of all billing issues. Credit/refund not received is at number two, accounting for 13%.
It’s noteworthy that issues relating to chargeable messages (long distance charges) increased by 26% and entered the list of top 10 billing issues for the first time in at last four years.
| Issue | Number |
|---|---|
| Monthly price plan – Incorrect charge | 3,832 |
| Credit/refund not received | 1,499 |
| Equipment charges | 726 |
| Regular price increase of monthly price plans | 525 |
| Final bill charges after cancellation | 500 |
| Data charges | 470 |
| Chargeable messages (long distance) | 445 |
| Roaming charges | 430 |
| Late-payment fees | 423 |
| Invoices not received | 423 |
Incorrect charge relating to monthly price plan
Thirty-three percent of all billing issues are about customers being charged incorrectly for their monthly price plans. This issue was raised 3,832 times, making it the top billing issue, accounting for 33% of billing issues. It is also the number two issue overall, accounting for 13% of all issues raised across all types of service.
Wireless services account for 49% of incorrect charge issues, up from 45% last year. Internet remains at 27%, and TV accounts for 13%, down from 15% from last year.
The top three service providers with billing issues related to incorrect charges to monthly price plans are the same as last year: Bell, Rogers and Videotron.
| Service provider | Number of times issue was raised | Proportion of issue |
|---|---|---|
| Bell | 825 | 22% |
| Rogers | 657 | 17% |
| Videotron | 413 | 11% |
Device paid off but monthly fee remains the same
In November of 2019, a customer agreed to a 24-month term for wireless services with a device financing plan for a new wireless device. Under the agreement, the monthly service fee was $115, with $40.21 of this amount going toward the device balance each month.
In April 2022 the customer noticed that their monthly fee had not been reduced by the amount of the device payment even though the device had been paid in full as of October 2021. The customer requested reimbursement of the portion of their monthly fee that they considered to be an overcharge for the previous five months: approximately $200 plus tax. When the service provider refused, the customer contacted the CCTS.
We reviewed the original service agreement, which stated that at the end of the term, the service would continue on a month-to-month basis, meaning the price would remain the same until the customer requested a change. On the invoice dated August 21, 2021, the customer was notified that the term would end on November 18, 2021, and that after the end of the term, service and billing would continue on a month-to-month basis until the customer made changes to their plan, switched providers or cancelled. According to these terms, the provider was not obligated to automatically reduce the monthly service fee by the device subsidy amount after the expiry of the fixed-term contract.
Based on the documentation provided, it was the customer’s responsibility to contact the provider at the end of the fixed-term contract to make changes to their monthly service fees. This is also permissible under the Wireless Code. The customer did not request a change until April 2022, five months after the expiry of the 24-month term.
After we explained that the provider had met its obligations, the customer agreed to close the complaint.
Credit/refund not received
Concerns about not receiving a promised credit or refund are the number two billing issue. This issue accounts for 13% of all billing issues, down from 15% last year.
Wireless services account for the highest proportion of this issue with 52%, up from 45% last year. Wireless services also had a disproportionate decrease in this issue: despite a 37% decrease in credit/refund not received issues across all types of service, there was only a 27% decrease for wireless services.
Internet services account for 27%, down from 33% last year.
The top three providers for this issue are Bell, Rogers and Virgin Plus.
| Service provider | Number of times issue was raised | Proportion of issue | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bell | 328 | 22% | |
| Rogers | 260 | 17% | |
| Virgin Plus | 148 | 10% |
Credit balance on account not returned to customer
In November of 2021, a customer submitted a complaint stating they had been waiting for the refund of a credit balance on their cancelled account in the amount of $111 since February of 2021. The customer told us they contacted the service provider in April to update their address when they moved. The customer also said that they followed up with the provider several times afterwards and that the refund amount was not processed until November. The customer submitted a complaint to the CCTS on November 23, 2021 asking for additional compensation of $400 for the delay in receiving the refund, since they had spent several hours over several months contacting the provider with promises for follow up unanswered.
The provider told us that the refund cheque had been processed on November 22, 2021 after a significant delay due to an error updating the customer’s address. The customer confirmed that they received the refund cheque in December of 2021.
We reviewed the account notes, which showed the cancellation of service in early March of 2021 and the customer’s contact to update their address in April. We reviewed the call recording when the customer cancelled service. The provider’s account notes showed that the customer also called in September to inquire about the status of the refund and called again in November to inquire about the refund. At this point, the provider updated the customer’s address, processed the refund and apologized for the delay.
Our Procedural Code allows us to award appropriate compensation to a customer for any loss, damage or inconvenience. The provider offered to send an additional cheque for the equivalent of one month of service ($133) as a goodwill gesture in light of the significant delay in processing the original refund. The customer accepted this offer, and the complaint was resolved.
Service delivery issues
Service delivery issues account for 27% of all issues this year.
Wireless and internet services each account for 37% of service delivery issues. This is a disproportionately high amount of internet quality of service issues given that internet issues make up 31% of all issues raised. Wireless quality of service issues are up from 32% last year while internet quality of service issues are down from 43% last year.
The top 10 service providers for service delivery issues all saw a decrease in complaints about this issue this year. Bell accounts for the most service delivery issues, with 20% of all service delivery issues; this is the same as last year.
* The service delivery resolution rate was 85%.
The quality of service issue is the number one service delivery issue, accounting for 40% of all service delivery issues, down from 42% last year.
Complete loss of service is the number two service delivery issue, accounting for 12% of all service delivery issues, up from 11% last year.
| Issue | Number |
|---|---|
| Quality of service | 3,134 |
| Complete loss of service | 960 |
| Customer cancellation due date not kept/delayed | 667 |
| Install/activate due date not kept/delayed | 575 |
| Unable to cancel | 538 |
| Non-payment/collections | 511 |
| Unable to port | 416 |
| Service repair/loss due date not kept/delayed | 366 |
| Installation error | 240 |
| Seasonal suspension | 89 |
“The CCTS representative was very professional, and the complaint was rectified in a timely manner.”
Service delivery issues
Quality of service
Customers raised concerns about the quality of their service over 3,100 times across all service types. It is the number one service delivery issue, accounting for 40% of all service delivery issues (down from 42% last year). The number of quality of service issues decreased by 33% this year.
Bell and Rogers account for the highest proportion of this issue among service providers at18% each (up from 17% and 15% respectively last year).
| Service provider | Number of times issue was raised | Proportion of issue |
|---|---|---|
| Bell | 570 | 18% |
| Rogers | 557 | 18% |
| TELUS | 276 | 9% |
Forty-four percent (44%) of all quality of service issues are raised by internet customers. Although this is down from 55% last year, it continues to be the leading issue for internet customers.
Wireless services now account for 34% of quality of service issues, up from 26% last year.
The proportion of quality of service issues reported by TV and phone customers (12% and 10% respectively) is largely unchanged from last year.
Service provider unable to demonstrate troubleshooting
A customer called their provider to report slow internet speeds. The customer had a package with speeds up to 8 Mbps. The customer stated that since the service was installed, several technicians came to their home and attempted to fix the issues but they continued to experience very slow speeds under 1 Mbps and noted similar issues for others in their neighbourhood. The customer asked to pay lower monthly service fees because they weren’t receiving the full speed offered by their current rate plan.
During our investigation, we asked the provider for its internal process for responding to customer service delivery issues. We also asked the provider to demonstrate it followed this process each time the customer reported a speed issue. While the provider demonstrated that a technician was sent to the customer’s home on each occasion, it was unable to provide account and technician notes. Therefore, the provider couldn’t demonstrate that the troubleshooting steps were completed.
We explored with the provider whether a lower-speed plan was appropriate for the customer. The provider confirmed that its 5 Mbps plan was the same price as the 8 Mbps plan to which the customer was subscribed, so the customer could not get a lower monthly service fee. When we pointed out that the provider could not demonstrate that it had followed its troubleshooting steps, the provider offered the customer a credit for two months of service ($58 per month). The customer accepted the offer of a credit for two months of service, and the complaint was resolved.
Customer experiencing slow internet speeds
A customer subscribed to internet service at speeds of up to 75 Mbps. However, they claimed to be receiving speeds of about 5 Mbps. The customer told us that they sent emails to their provider daily to dispute the speeds of service, but their provider did not respond to their emails and did not correct the speed issues. The customer then submitted a complaint to the CCTS asking for $5,000 in compensation.
When we sent a copy of the complaint to the provider, the provider reached out to the customer to troubleshoot their issue. The provider dispatched a technician and replaced the customer’s modem, but the customer decided to cancel their service.
During our investigation, we reviewed emails and screenshots of speed test results provided by the customer. We discovered that the customer’s emails to the provider were not reflected in the provider’s account notes because the customer was sending emails to unmonitored email addresses not intended for incoming messages for customer support.
The provider’s service agreement also stated that the services were not guaranteed and that the service speed was offered on an “up to” basis to signal that advertised speeds may not be reached. The provider’s Terms of Service also did not guarantee the service to be error free.
Since the customer had already cancelled their service with the provider, we were unable to determine whether changing the customer’s modem would have resolved the issue or whether the provider should explore if another plan was better suited for this customer. Since the customer never officially reported their issue to the provider, we found that the provider did not fail to meet its obligations to the customer since it was not aware that there was a problem to be fixed. We then explained our investigation steps and findings to the customer and closed the complaint.
Customer not informed of planned outage
A customer was experiencing intermittent service and complete outages of their internet service. When they called their provider, they received an automated message advising that upgrades were happening in the area and service interruption was expected. The customer’s service continued to be impacted regularly for two months.
The customer submitted a complaint to the CCTS because the upgrade work occurred during business hours, resulting in lost productivity for the customer, who worked from home and was unable to go into the office without hardship due to a disability. Furthermore, the customer said they did not receive prior notice of the upgrade work and were not given a timeline for when the work would start or finish.
We asked the provider for copies of its policies for upgrades and maintenance, and how customers are notified about planned service interruptions. The provider’s policy was to put door hangers on impacted customers’ doors, which provides notice and details about the planned interruption. The provider explained that work usually happens during business hours due to staff availability, city permits and for safety reasons. The customer claimed they did not receive a door hanger, their neighbours using the provider also did not receive a door hanger, and the provider was unable to demonstrate that the customer received a door hanger in accordance with its policy.
In our discussions with the provider, it offered a credit for one month of service ($250) which the customer accepted, and the complaint was resolved.
Credit reporting issues
Credit management issues account for 5% of all issues and were raised 1,344 times this year. Although this represents a decrease of 20% from last year, the decrease is disproportionately lower than the overall 31% decline in issues, signalling that credit reporting issues continue to be a problem faced by many consumers.
Concerns about credit reporting are the leading type of credit management issue, representing 92% of all credit management issues reported.
Wireless customers account for 59% of all credit reporting issues, up from 51% last year. Even though wireless services experienced a decline in credit reporting issues, the decline is significantly lower than the decline for credit reporting issues across all service types. The decline for overall credit reporting issue was 19% while wireless service-related credit reporting issues declined by only 7% compared to last year.
Bell accounts for the highest proportion of credit reporting issues, accounting for 20% of all credit reporting issues and down from 21% last year. Rogers and TELUS remain second and third in credit reporting issues.
| Service provider | Number of times issue was raised | Proportion of issue |
|---|---|---|
| Bell | 241 | 20% |
| Rogers | 197 | 16% |
| TELUS | 162 | 13% |
Credit report related to an activation fee for service not activated
A customer sought to transfer their wireless service to a new service provider. Despite several attempts, the transfer process could not be completed due to technical issues. The customer decided to cancel their activation with the new provider on September 20, 2020 and return to their original provider. The customer told the CCTS they cancelled the activation request over the phone and also went in-store to ensure there would be no fees billed. However, on September 29, 2020, an activation fee of $99.99 was billed to the customer’s credit card by the new provider.
The customer complained to the provider, which then processed a refund to the credit card in two instalments: October of 2020 and January of 2021. In March of 2021, the provider re-billed the activation fee to the customer and the customer received communications from the provider’s collections agency threatening the customer’s credit status. The customer did not pay the fee because they did not want to activate service and had cancelled the activation. However, the customer was concerned about negative remarks on their credit report because they did not pay the fee.
After being unable to resolve the issue with the provider, the customer submitted a complaint to the CCTS in April of 2021. The customer was seeking to have the re-billed amount of $99.99 credited in full and any negative credit reporting corrected. The customer also wanted assurance that there would not be negative remarks on their credit report in the future due to this issue. The provider claimed the fee was legitimate and an overdue balance.
We explained the customer’s position that the charge was not legitimate and showed the provider documentation that the customer received in-store to confirm that the activation was not completed. The provider then agreed to credit the disputed activation fee as it should not have been billed. We also asked the provider to demonstrate that that it instructed the collections agency to stop contacting the customer and to remove negative credit remarks from the customer’s profile, which it did. The customer was very satisfied with this outcome, and we concluded the complaint.
Expiration of credit card on file leads to credit reports
A customer submitted a complaint about the credit report made by their service provider against them. The customer explained that in July of 2021, their pre-authorized credit card expired and their provider did not notify them of the credit card expiry. The customer was unaware of the credit card expiry, which resulted in unpaid invoices. The provider reported to the credit bureau that the customer’s bills were not paid on time.
Our investigation confirmed that the customer’s credit card expired in July of 2021. As a result, invoices for August and September of 2021 were not paid until the customer updated their credit card in October of 2021.
We reviewed the provider’s credit reporting policies and procedures, which confirmed that it is not obligated to inform customers that their credit cards have expired. The provider had notified the customer by text message about unpaid invoices in August and September. These notices advised the customer that the account required attention.
The provider confirmed that the customer paid all outstanding amounts in October of 2021, which brought the account back into good standing. However, the provider had already reported late payments to the credit bureau. The provider explained that regardless of the circumstance that leads to late payment, late payments must be reported to the credit bureau according to its policies. The provider cannot correct reports for late payments after outstanding amounts are paid because the fact that the payment was late remains true.
We reviewed the credit reporting history going back 12 months and confirmed that the credit reporting that was completed by the provider was an accurate reflection of the payment history on the account. As a result, the service provider met its obligations to the customer. The customer accepted our explanation and concluded the complaint.