Case Summary

Billing case summary: Incorrect charges for suspended monthly service plan

A customer filed a complaint with the CCTS stating they were incorrectly billed by their provider for their recurring monthly internet service plan.

We worked with the customer and the service provider to clarify the facts and help resolve the issue. The customer supplied copies of their invoices and explained that their internet service, which was on a month-to-month plan, had been suspended for non-payment but that the provider continued to bill them for service for an additional six months. The additional payments totaled $254.

We worked with the provider to review account billing records and supporting evidence. The service provider was unable to produce any supporting documentation, such as a copy of the agreement, call notes, or invoices showing how the $254 charge was calculated. Our review of the provider’s Terms of Service found no provision allowing it to continue charging a customer during a service suspension, leading us to conclude that these charges were improper.

After reviewing all the evidence and correspondence from both parties, we determined that the service provider failed to meet its obligations to the customer regarding billing practices. Therefore, we required the provider refund $254 to the customer for the improper service charges.

Case Summary

Contract dispute case summary: Contract changed without consent

A customer complained to the CCTS that their internet contract was changed several times over a five-month period without consent, leading to higher costs. The customer contacted the CCTS after their attempts to resolve the contract dispute with their provider were unsuccessful.

When there’s a dispute about what the customer agreed to, we ask the provider to show evidence of the agreement and that it was delivering the agreed-upon services. If the agreement was changed, the provider must also show that it had the right to make those changes and that it followed all necessary steps, such as obtaining consent or providing proper notice to make the change effective.

As part of our complaint investigation, we analyzed billing records, copies of the contract, the provider’s internal system and its account notes for evidence of consent. We also reviewed the customer’s invoices to confirm how charges and credits were applied.

We found that the customer had initially agreed to a 2-year fixed-term contract. The agreed-upon price for the 2-year contract was $66 per month. The provider is subject to the Internet Code, and it does not allow the provider to change terms of the fixed-term contract without the customer’s consent. The provider gave the CCTS a copy of a month-to-month contract, but could not demonstrate that the customer had agreed to change from a fixed-term agreement to a month-to-month agreement. The customer’s invoices showed that the provider had increased the monthly price by $5 per month. Account notes showed no record that the customer was informed of these changes, and the provider could not supply call recordings to prove that the customer had consented.

The CCTS determined that the provider failed to meet its obligations because it failed to notify the customer about the contract change, and failed to get the customer’s consent for the changes. Therefore, the provider was not permitted to change the customer’s monthly service price. The CCTS required the provider to restore the customer’s internet plan to the terms originally agreed upon and to issue a credit for amount the customer was overcharged. In addition, we required the provider to compensate the customer for the inconvenience caused.

Case Summary

Service delivery case summary: Ongoing internet quality of service on a five-year contract

A small business customer signed a five-year contract with a provider for internet service with download speeds up to 50 Mbps. The customer filed a complaint with the CCTS claiming ongoing intermittent quality of service issues since the start of service.

We reviewed the details of the complaint, the evidence provided by the customer, and the response from the service provider. We worked with the customer to better understand the consistent connectivity problems from the start of the service. We learned through conversations with the customer that their main concern was being locked into a five-year contract despite poor service.

The customer wanted to cancel their services with the provider without incurring a penalty; however, the customer and provider were unable to reach an agreement during our Conciliation process. The CCTS investigated the complaint to formally assess whether the provider met its obligations to the customer.

During the Investigation stage, we reviewed all evidence thoroughly and requested additional documentation to examine the matter in detail. In this case, internet speed test reports revealed that the customer’s download speeds were less than half of the promised level. The customer provided us with evidence of multiple unresolved service tickets. Despite this, only one service ticket was found in the PSP’s system, and the service ticket was closed, despite the problem not having been resolved. We found that the provider’s internal troubleshooting documentation was incomplete.

Our investigation found that the provider could not demonstrate that it had followed its troubleshooting policy to correct the service issue. As such, the customer had not received the level of service promised by the service provider. We issued an Investigation Finding explaining our analysis and required the provider to release the customer from the five-year contract without penalty, as the provider failed to deliver the contracted service quality and fulfill its troubleshooting obligations.

Case Summary

Credit management case summary: Improper credit report on closed account

A customer filed a complaint with the CCTS, stating that their wireless provider had reported their unpaid account to a credit agency, but the customer believed their payments were up to date. The customer contended that this action negatively affected their credit score.

The CCTS contacted the customer to ensure they understood our neutral role and to explain our process. We also reached out to the service provider to clarify its position and gather necessary evidence.

The customer told us that they had requested to port their number to another provider. The customer said that several representatives from their previous provider had confirmed they owed nothing for the closed account, but the provider’s records did not support that claim.

We reviewed the monthly invoices for the period in question, noting that an email was sent to the customer outlining what they should expect on the final bill, including any prorated recurring monthly charges remaining for the account. After the account was adjusted for the remaining service period, a small balance remained, which the customer did not originally pay.

We also reviewed the Customer Service Agreement, which states that the customer permits the provider to share credit information, including payment history, with consumer reporting agencies at any time. The CCTS found that the provider had acted in accordance with these terms and met its contractual obligations. The provider was within its rights to report the unpaid balance to credit bureaus once the account became delinquent. However, in this case the provider demonstrated that they did not refer the customer to a third-party collection agency or to a credit bureau.

Therefore, we found that the provider met its obligations to the customer. We further noted in our Investigation Finding that the customer had since paid the final balance owed to the provider.