Investigation Finding Report

After analyzing the information and evidence from both parties, we determined that the service provider reasonably performed its obligations towards the customer and found no error in its handling of the issues brought forth.

Issue 1: The customer’s complaint is that the service provider incorrectly billed them for a recurring monthly service plan or feature.

• The customer’s complaint is that the service provider incorrectly billed them for a recurring monthly service plan or feature.
• Specifically, they are claiming that since February 2024, the service provider has been charging them approximately $115.00 per month for their wireless services. The customer is disputing the charges because the charges were billed while the customer’s account was suspended and the customer did not make use of the services. Additionally, the customer claims that they could not make payments because the service provider had restricted access to the customer’s online account.
• The Terms of Service explain that the service provider may suspend or cancel the customer’s service if they have not complied with the terms of the agreement. The terms also explain that by entering into an agreement, the customer remains responsible for all regularly recurring charges.
• We reviewed the contract, which indicates that on December 14, 2022, the customer agreed to a wireless service plan billed at a monthly rate of $124.00, before taxes or discounts. We note that the contract also included a device financed over a term of 24 months, set to expire on December 14, 2024.
• We reviewed the service provider’s policy relating to acceptable payment methods, which explains that the customer may submit a payment via the following methods:
  • Pre-authorized credit card payments
  • Telephone banking, which requires the customer to contact their financial institution
  • Internet banking, by which the customer may submit a payment through their financial institution’s website
• We reviewed account notes and system screenshots, which indicate that the customer’s account underwent a suspension on January 26, 2024, for non-payment, but services were restored because the customer made a payment on the same day. We also note that from March 4, 2024, to June 1, 2024, the customer’s account underwent three other suspensions for non-payment and was cancelled on August 1, 2024, for non-payment.
• We further reviewed account notes, but we could not locate an interaction in which the customer reported to the service provider that they were unable to access their account. As such, the service provider would have had no reasonable way of knowing that the customer could not make payments through its website. Additionally, the service provider shared evidence with us indicating that as of January 23, 2024, emails sent to the customer were blocked.
• We reviewed invoices dating January 2024 to August 2024 and confirm that the customer was billed for services in accordance with their service plan and Terms of Service.
• As such, and in light of the above analysis, we find that the service provider made no error pertaining to the customer’s claim of wrongdoing. Therefore, the charges billed to the customer are legitimate.

Issue 2: The customer’s complaint is that the service provider incorrectly reported their account’s non-payment status to creditors or a credit bureau.

• The customer’s complaint is that the service provider incorrectly reported their account’s non-payment status to creditors or a credit bureau.
• Specifically, they are claiming that in December 2024, the service provider negatively reported their wireless account’s balance of approximately $1,132.00. They disagree with the reporting because it relates to the disputed charges described in Issue 1.
• The terms explain that by entering into an agreement, the customer consents to the service provider sharing their payment history with credit bureaus.
• We reviewed the contract, which indicates that on December 14, 2022, the customer agreed to a wireless service plan billed at a monthly rate of $124.00, before taxes or discounts. We note that the contract also included a device financed over a term of 24 months, set to expire on December 14, 2024.
• We reviewed the service provider’s credit reporting policy, which explains that a customer’s monthly payment behaviour is reported to a credit bureau in the form of a tradeline.
• While we have determined that the charges described in Issue 1 are legitimate, we nonetheless reviewed the customer’s payment history, which indicates that from January to November 2024,
• the customer made payments during two billing cycles: one on March 6, 2024, and three other payments from April 8 to April 11, 2024.
• We reviewed the customer’s credit reporting history, which indicates that from December 2023 to July 2024, their account was reported as 30, 60 or 90 days past due. While the customer’s account was not reported for July and August 2024, it was reported as 90 days past due for September 2024 and assigned to a collection agency.
• We reviewed screenshots indicating that on September 21, 2024, the customer was sent a notice explaining that should they fail to pay their account balance within three days, their account would be assigned to a collection agency, which we confirm took place as of October 2024.
• While we understand the customer’s position, the evidence indicates that the collections activity is legitimate because the customer maintained an outstanding account balance and the terms of service allow the service provider to assign such balances to a collection agency.
• As a result, and in light of the above analysis, we find that the service provider made no error pertaining to the customer’s claim of wrongdoing.