Compliance with the complaint-handling process and the CCTS Procedural Code

2022 Compliance Monitoring Report

All PSPs are required to adhere to the complaint-handling process outlined in the Procedural Code. PSP compliance with these requirements is integral to the CCTS’ ability to carry out our role effectively and efficiently. In May 2023, the CCTS launched our updated complaint-handling process to enhance our service delivery to customers and providers. These process changes streamline and simplify the complaints process, allow us to resolve complaints more quickly and increase transparency about how we make determinations about complaints. PSPs’ obligations under our updated process remain largely the same: PSPs must continue to implement all resolutions and CCTS findings (which replace the CCTS’ Recommendations and Decisions), PSPs must respond to CCTS after receiving a complaint (now with shorter deadlines), and PSPs must submit all relevant documents when a complaint remains unresolved. This report discusses compliance in 2022 with the Procedural Code requirements in effect at the time, before it was amended in May 2023 (see Appendix G).^[6]

This section provides data on some of the Procedural Code requirements to which PSPs must adhere, with trends and further analyses provided on the following issues:

implementing resolutions agreed to by the customer and the PSP following the filing of a CCTS complaint, as well as implementing Recommendations and Decisions issued by the CCTS (Procedural Code sections 6.12, 12 and 13);
not threatening legal action, additional fees or disconnection of service because the customer has filed a CCTS complaint;
not asking customers to withdraw their CCTS complaint; and,
responding to an accepted complaint to identify a resolution, lack of resolution or objection to the acceptance of the complaint, as well as providing to CCTS a full and complete response to the complaint, which includes all relevant information and documentation (Procedural Code section 6.6).

When a PSP fails to comply with the Procedural Code requirements, this can hamper the CCTS’ complaint-handling process through unnecessary delay or worse, deprive a customer of their right to recourse. The CCTS monitors and tracks compliance with the Procedural Code by flagging non-compliance breaches^[7] and then works with non-compliant PSPs to ensure the issues are rectified. Full breach reviews and one-on-one engagement with PSPs are prioritized for “major” compliance breaches.

In order to determine the priority level of each compliance breach, the CCTS considers the following criteria:

the type of non-compliance;
the effect of non-compliance on customers;
the effect of non-compliance on CCTS;
the scale of the non-compliance (how many issues and duration of non-compliance);
the conduct of the PSP and whether or not it attempts to resolve the non-compliance;
the PSP’s state of compliance with other CCTS participation requirements; and
any other aggravating or mitigating factors.

From January 1 to December 31, 2022, the CCTS accepted about 13,000 complaints and we flagged approximately 2,406 alleged compliance breaches of the Procedural Code.^[8]

This section describes the Procedural Code breaches observed most frequently this year and identifies trends observed in the past few years.

PSPs must implement resolutions, Recommendations and Decisions (section 6.12, 12, 13)

Mutually accepted resolutions^[9], and Recommendations^[10] and Decisions^[11] issued by the CCTS are binding on PSPs and must be implemented. The CCTS considers a PSP’s failure to implement them as an issue of major non-compliance because of the impact it has on the customer. When the customer notifies the CCTS that a PSP has not implemented the resolution, Recommendation or Decision, the Compliance team treats these cases with high priority and works swiftly with the PSP to ensure implementation.

In 2022, the CCTS identified 20 confirmed breaches of this requirement, a 25% increase from last year.^[12]

Figure 4.1: Confirmed breaches for non-implementation of resolutions, Recommendations and Decisions, year over year

Eighteen confirmed breaches related to the PSP failing to implement a resolution agreed to by the PSP and the customer. Most of these breaches were confirmed because the PSP failed to properly apply a credit on the customer’s account in a timely manner. After bringing these 18 instances of non-compliance to the attention of the PSP, in each case the PSP implemented the resolution to rectify its non-compliance.

We consider PSP failure to implement a Recommendation or Decision as the most serious instance of non-compliance. When a complaint is concluded at the Recommendation or Decision level, we have fully investigated the complaint and determined that the PSP needs to take specific actions to remedy the matter. A PSP that fails to implement a Recommendation or Decision deprives the customer of the remedy to which the customer is entitled and undermines our complaints resolution process.

In 2022, two complaints involving a Recommendation and a Decision required considerable compliance engagement.

Connexio Inc. initially refused to implement a Recommendation. After speaking with our Compliance team to better understand its obligations, the PSP eventually complied with the Recommendation and provided a refund to the customer, in accordance with our Recommendation.
ICA Microsystems Inc. (“ICA”) failed to implement a Decision issued in December 2022. Despite many attempts at engagement to explain to ICA that it was required to implement the Decision, it refused to do so. Consequently, the CCTS Members terminated its participation in April 2023 and referred the matter to the CRTC for further action. Since then, ICA is working with the CCTS to rectify its non-compliance and to rejoin the CCTS as a participating service provider.

Overall, the CCTS Compliance team was required to intervene in two out of five complaints after we issued our findings in a Recommendation or Decision because the PSP refused to provide the customer with the remedy required to rectify the issue. With changes to our complaint-handling process starting in May 2023, we will continue to closely monitor and intervene in cases where a PSP does not promptly implement our Investigation Findings that tell the provider how to fix the problem where the provider has not acted appropriately.

Case Summary

PSP fails to implement a mutually acceptable resolution

The customer complained to us about an activation fee charged for their bundled services (wireless, internet and home phone). The customer stated that the PSP had promised to waive the activation fee when the customer upgraded service, but the customer was charged the activation fee. After the customer submitted a complaint to the CCTS, the PSP confirmed it would apply a credit of $88 on the account, resolving the complaint. After waiting for several weeks, the customer advised us that the PSP had not applied the credit on the account. Once we contacted the PSP, it explained the credit had not been properly applied on the account and promptly applied the credit.

PSPs must not threaten customers with legal action, fees or disconnection of the customer’s service because of a CCTS complaint

Customers should not be threatened by a PSP for complaining to the CCTS – it is the customer’s right to seek recourse and they should not be penalized for simply exercising their right. Occasionally, the CCTS hears from a customer that their PSP is threatening them with legal action (i.e. take the customer to court) or additional fees for the CCTS complaint. The CCTS tracks these allegations and considers them to be instances of major non-compliance when we can reasonably conclude that the PSP did engage in this unacceptable behaviour. The CCTS treats these cases with high priority – we inform the PSP that it is not allowed to make such threats and seek confirmation that the offending conduct will stop immediately.

In 2022, we issued a Decision against ICA after a customer complained that ICA failed to cancel the customer’s service. During our investigation, the customer informed us that ICA charged the customer $1,299 for filing a complaint with a third-party complaint-handling agency. While ICA’s Terms of Service say that it will bill the customer “up to $450” if a customer requests an investigation or disputes ICA’s Terms of Service, we concluded that any charge that penalizes customers for seeking recourse to the CCTS is not permitted. We previously brought this issue to ICA’s attention in a 2020 Decision about this very issue. These charges are punitive and deprive customers of their right to a free and fair review of their complaints. Consequently, we required ICA to cancel the $1,299 fee for the complaint and confirm that it has ceased and corrected any collections and credit reporting activities for this charge. As mentioned above, ICA refused to implement the Decision, the CCTS Members terminated its participation in April 2023, and we referred the matter to the CRTC for further action. In 2023, ICA is working with the CCTS to rectify its non-compliance and to rejoin the CCTS as a participating service provider.

PSPs must not ask customers to withdraw their CCTS complaints

PSPs asking a customer to withdraw their complaint at the CCTS is an issue of major non-compliance. When a PSP engages in this behaviour, the PSP is not participating in good faith as it is trying to circumvent the requirement to respond to complaints. This type of situation can create problems later, as the customer will be unable to benefit from the protection of the CCTS Procedural Code if the PSP fails to implement an agreed-upon resolution after the customer withdraws their complaint.

When the CCTS finds out that a PSP has asked a customer to withdraw their complaint, the CCTS informs the customer of their right to continue with the complaint-handling process and explains the risks of withdrawing their complaint. In particular, the CCTS informs the customer that if a complaint is withdrawn, then the CCTS will likely be unable to help ensure that the PSP implements the resolution it promised the customer as the enticement for withdrawing the complaint.

In 2022, we flagged 10 allegations that the PSP asked a customer to withdraw their complaint and after reviewing, we did not have sufficient information to confirm any breaches. This is the lowest rate of both alleged and confirmed breaches since we began monitoring this behaviour.

Figure 4.2: Breaches for PSP asking customers to withdraw complaints, year over year

* In 2022, there were 0 confirmed breaches for PSPs asking customers to withdraw complaints.

PSPs that indicate to the CCTS that a complaint is resolved must have actually obtained a mutually accepted resolution (section 6.6(b))

If a PSP and customer mutually agree to resolve a complaint at the pre-investigation stage,^[13] then the PSP must provide a written response to the CCTS and to the customer indicating the complaint is resolved, as required by section 6.6(b) of the Procedural Code. After a PSP indicates to the CCTS that a complaint is resolved, the complaint is closed and the customer has twenty days to dispute the response submitted by the PSP.

PSPs should only inform us that a complaint is resolved when the PSP has confirmed with the customer that it has reached a mutually accepted resolution, or when it is providing the full resolution that the customer requested.

In 2022, we flagged 171 allegations of this behaviour and after reviewing the allegations in detail, we confirmed 96 breaches in which the PSP incorrectly reported that a complaint was mutually resolved with the customer, when it had not been. This is a significant increase in confirmed breaches.

Figure 4.3: Breaches for PSP incorrectly notifying CCTS of mutually acceptable resolution

In reviewing the confirmed breaches, we noticed a few common problems in which the PSP:

failed to contact the customer;
unilaterally determined the issue was resolved based on its own investigation of the customer’s complaint, without confirming its proposed resolution with the customer;
disagreed with the customer’s position that the complaint is unresolved.

One PSP was responsible for almost 30% of the confirmed breaches. We intend to address this matter directly with the PSP and will monitor this situation in the coming year.

Case Summary

PSP inappropriately tells the CCTS a complaint is resolved despite the customer’s disagreement

A customer complained to us about a billing dispute with their wireless provider. When we informed the customer that the PSP reported to us that it had resolved the customer’s issues, the customer disputed this. The customer explained that the PSP did not answer the customer’s questions or allow the customer to explain why they felt their issues remained unresolved. The customer stated the PSP said it would advise the CCTS that the complaint is resolved even though it was clear the customer did not feel it was resolved. We therefore continued to process the complaint at the Investigation stage.

PSPs must respond to unresolved complaints at pre-investigation with all required information (section 6.6(c))

If a PSP and customer cannot agree to a resolution at the pre-investigation stage, the PSP is required to provide a written response to the CCTS and indicate that the complaint remains “unresolved”. The complaint moves to the next stage, at which we review the documents and either attempt to informally resolve the complaint or investigate in order to determine whether the PSP met its obligations to the customer.

The CCTS tracks and monitors two compliance issues for PSP unresolved complaint responses:

when the PSP provides no response at all to the CCTS; and
when the PSP responds that a complaint is unresolved but provides insufficient or no supporting documentation.

We require information and documents from PSPs and if they do not provide these at the initial stage it increases complaint-handling time, often frustrating the customer and delaying a resolution. In 2022, we observed a continued increase in PSPs failing to respond to the complaint or provide us with relevant documents, with 1,305 alleged breaches in 3,058 complaints that were escalated to the next stage of our process, Investigations.

Figure 4.4: Breaches for improper PSP responses to unresolved complaints, year over year

Figure 4.5: Types of unresolved responses, year over year

The number of PSPs failing to respond to us at all (“no response”) has remained consistent from last year. However, the rate of PSPs not providing all required documents has doubled since 2020.

The CCTS’ updated complaint-handling process, effective May 2023, was streamlined to address this issue by offering an opportunity to have the CCTS informally mediate or explore possible solutions where a PSP provides information and documentation to respond to the complaint. With timely information and documents from the PSP, the CCTS can help conclude complaints earlier in the process, which increases the effectiveness and cost efficiency of the CCTS’ services. If PSPs do not provide documentation, the CCTS may proceed directly to an investigation to determine whether the provider met its obligations. The CCTS will seek information from the PSP, and Investigation Findings are issued. While we expect that more PSPs will provide the CCTS with all relevant documents with their unresolved response in the future to get the full benefit of the CCTS’ conciliation processes, we will continue to monitor this in 2023.

PSPs must follow the rules when objecting to complaints (section 6.6(a))

The CCTS Procedural Code authorizes the CCTS to accept telecom and television-related complaints, with certain exceptions. Our process allows PSPs to object to the eligibility of a complaint, within 15 days after CCTS accepts the complaint. In filing an objection, a PSP must explain why the complaint falls into one of the enumerated exceptions. The PSP must explain the reason for its objection and provide supporting documentation so that the CCTS can assess the merits of the objection.

We identify an objection breach^[14] under section 6.6(a) of the Procedural Code when the PSP submits:

a late objection, submitted after the objection deadline;
an incomplete objection, which is missing an explanation or supporting documentation; or
a “merit-based” objection, where the PSP objects to the CCTS accepting the complaint not due to any procedural or jurisdictional reason identified in the Procedural Code, but rather because it believes that there is no merit to the customer’s complaint. Objections to complaints based on their merit will be rejected as the merits of the complaint can only be assessed during an investigation, should the complaint get to that stage of the process. The CCTS does not and will not accept merit-based objections to a complaint, which is standard practice for ombuds organizations, and flags this as non-compliance.

In 2022, PSPs objected to a total of 955 complaints. In those 955 complaints, the CCTS found 220 alleged objections breaches. The CCTS is pleased to see a decrease in objection breaches compared to previous years, although the number of such breaches remains unacceptably high.

Figure 4.6: Objections breaches, year over year

Figure 4.7: Types of objections breaches in 2022

Footnotes

All references to the Procedural Code are to the previous version in force at the time of these complaints (amended and restated in 2017).
Each compliance breach references an individual section of the Procedural Code. There can also be multiple compliance breaches in an individual complaint.
Each compliance breach references an individual section of the Procedural Code. There can be multiple compliance breaches in an individual complaint. Alleged breaches are when complaints raise questions about whether a provider has complied with the Procedural Code. Confirmed breaches are when the CCTS investigates and determines whether there has been a violation of the Procedural Code.
Mutually acceptable resolutions are when the PSP and Customer agree to a specific outcome to resolve a complaint filed with the CCTS.
The CCTS will issue a Recommendation where the complaint was fully investigated, and the service provider has not made an offer to informally resolve the complaint or the offer is not found to be reasonable based on the specific circumstances of the complaint. The Recommendation requires that the provider take specific actions to resolve the matter.
The CCTS issues a Decision if either the customer or the service provider rejects a CCTS Recommendation. The party rejecting the Recommendation must set out its reasons and the Commissioner will reconsider the Recommendation and issue a Decision. The Commissioner may confirm the original Recommendation or, if the Commissioner concludes that there is substantial doubt as to the correctness of the Recommendation, the Commissioner may modify the Recommendation as appropriate. A Decision is binding on the service provider but not on the customer. The customer may reject it and pursue other remedies, in which case the PSP is released from the requirement to implement the Decision.
PSPs confirmed as non-compliant for section 6.12 (failure to implement resolution): Rogers (4 instances), Fido (3), Bell Canada (2), TELUS (2), Cogeco (1), Distributel (1), Public Mobile (1), Tamaani Internet (1), Sasktel (1), Freedom Mobile Inc (1), and Koodo (1). Connexio was confirmed as non-compliant for section 12 (failure to implement Recommendation). ICA Canada On-Line was confirmed as non-compliant for section 13 (failure to implement Decision).
Pre-investigation is the stage of the CCTS’ process following referral of the complaint to the PSP by CCTS, in which the parties have 30 days to resolve the complaint, failing which the CCTS will begin an investigation to assess whether the service provider reasonably performed its obligations to the customer.
Each objection can raise more than one compliance issue (e.g. breach for response submitted past the 15-day deadline and merit-based objection).