Conclusion d’enquête

After analyzing the information and evidence from both parties, we determined that the service provider failed to meet its obligations toward the customer and is required to take the following action(s):

1. Refund the $33.93 it incorrectly charged the customer from March 2025 to May 2025.
2. Close the customer’s account, zero the balance, and ensure that there is no further billing on the account.
3. Compensate the customer for the inconvenience arising directly from the circumstances of the complaint.

The service provider has already completed remedy 1 and 2. We expect the service provider to complete remedy 3 should both parties accept these Investigation Findings.

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

• The customer’s complaint is about incorrect charges on their internet account.
• Specifically, the customer claims that, in January 2025, they contacted the service provider to cancel their internet services. However, the service provider continued to charge the customer internet service fees from March 2025 to May 2025, despite their cancellation request.
• To determine the service provider’s obligations, we reviewed Section G.3 (ii) of the Internet Code, which provides that a service provider must cancel service on the day requested by the
  customer or by another party acting on behalf of the customer. Furthermore, Section G.4(i), provides that a service provider must not charge for a service that is not, and cannot be, provided following cancellation.
• We reviewed the internet service agreement dated January 30, 2024, and confirmed that it includes a 24-month commitment term. We note that the agreement explains that the customer will be charged $360 if they cancel their internet services before the end of the commitment period, or $15 for every month of internet service remaining in the customer’s commitment.
• We reviewed the customer’s account notes and confirmed that on January 19, 2025, the customer contacted the service provider to cancel their services. During the interaction, following the customer’s request, the service provider indicated that the cancellation would take effect on January 31, 2025, and advised the customer of the applicable $180 early cancellation fee.
• We reviewed the customer’s invoices from February 2025 to September 2025, and confirmed that:
  • On the March 2025 invoice, the service provider charged the customer $11.20.
  • On the April 2025 invoice, the service provider charged the customer $11.53.
  • On the May 2025 invoice, the service provider adjusted erroneous charges on the two previous invoices by applying a $22.73 credit toward the balance. However, the service provider then included another on the customer’s May 2025 invoice.
  • On the June 2025 invoice, the service provider adjusted the erroneous charge on the May 2025 invoice by applying a $11.20 credit toward the balance.
  • We note that the customer’s account was closed in June 2025, and no further charges have accrued on that account.
• We reviewed the account notes and confirmed that on April 20, 2025, when the customer contacted the service provider to dispute the incorrect charges that had accrued up to that point, the service provider discovered that the internet subscription on the account was still active.
• The account note confirmed that the customer requested cancellation of their internet services in January 2025, but the cancellation process was not completed by the service provider due to a system glitch.
• Based on our review of the Internet Code, the service provider’s Terms of Service, the customer’s invoices from March 2025 to June 2025, and the account notes, we find that the service provider failed to meet its obligation, as it failed to cancel the service when the customer requested and, as a result, continued to charge the customer until June 2025.

• In deciding whether to award compensation and, if so, the amount, we consider several factors, including the severity of the issue and related costs, the responsiveness of the service provider, the reasonableness of the complainant in communicating with the CCTS and the service provider, and the total number of hours spent by the complainant in pursuing a resolution.
• The customer requested that the service provider compensate them for the inconvenience and time spent trying to rectify the billing issue.
• We note that it is our expectation that customers will spend a certain amount of time corresponding directly with the service provider to report issues and provide the service provider with the opportunity to resolve them.
• That said, a review of the account notes shows that the customer contacted the service provider on two occasions to dispute the incorrect charges, that is, on the following dates: April 20, 2025 and May 19, 2025.
• Although the customer brought the incorrect charges to the attention of the service provider on April 20, 2025, and they were assured that they would not be charged again, the service provider still charged them service fees in May 2025. We note that it took approximately six months for the matter to be fully corrected.
• In light of the analysis, we find that the customer suffered inconvenience in resolving the issue, given the time frame it took to correct the issue and the fact that the customer had to call back despite being told the issue was fixed. We therefore determine that the customer should be compensated for the inconvenience and time spent.