dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
11
share rss forum feed


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to yyzlhr

Re: Rogers secretely removes $50 Max Charge on Rocket Hub

said by yyzlhr:

said by hm :

said by yyzlhr:

You cannot file a joint complaint to the CCTS.

Well that isn't exactly right.

I believe the rules changed a little over a year ago where an entity can file on a group behalf.

An entity such as PIAC.ca or the Quebec consumers Union (who will also take Ontario requests for help), or CIPPIC.ca

So this one entity (like a consumer group, or other) can file on behalf of a whole bunch of people.

So, in a way yes, they can collaborate on a complaint, and some one can file for them (if they take the time to find someone).

The CCTS is there to help consumers resolve disputes that are specific to their account. Why would it make sense to allow people to file joint complaints when it is not regarding the same account?

Seriously. If you are going to pretend to know what you are talking about, at least have the balls to say that you aren't sure, or don't really know before trying to discourage people from filing as a group, or to seek help from a consumer group to have it all consolidated.

6.16 The Commissioner may consolidate, and take action with respect to, two or more complaints filed by or on behalf of two or more Customers relating to the same Participating Service Provider and arising from the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences

6.17 Subject to Section 6.18, the Commissioner shall not consider and shall take no action with respect to a single complaint filed by or on behalf of more than one Customer.

6.18 Notwithstanding Section 6.17, the Commissioner may take action with respect to a complaint filed by or on behalf of one or more Customers, provided that:
(a) each Customer to which the complaint relates is specifically identified and has authorized that the complaint be filed on behalf of such Customer;
(b) the complaint relates to the same Participating Service Provider and arises from the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences; and
(c) the Commissioner considers that it is appropriate and efficient to do so.


I don't see your purpose in discouraging people to trying to pretend things aren't true.

yyzlhr

join:2012-09-03
Scarborough, ON
kudos:4
said by hm :

Seriously. If you are going to pretend to know what you are talking about, at least have the balls to say that you aren't sure, or don't really know before trying to discourage people from filing as a group, or to seek help from a consumer group to have it all consolidated.

6.16 The Commissioner may consolidate, and take action with respect to, two or more complaints filed by or on behalf of two or more Customers relating to the same Participating Service Provider and arising from the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences

6.17 Subject to Section 6.18, the Commissioner shall not consider and shall take no action with respect to a single complaint filed by or on behalf of more than one Customer.

6.18 Notwithstanding Section 6.17, the Commissioner may take action with respect to a complaint filed by or on behalf of one or more Customers, provided that:
(a) each Customer to which the complaint relates is specifically identified and has authorized that the complaint be filed on behalf of such Customer;
(b) the complaint relates to the same Participating Service Provider and arises from the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences; and
(c) the Commissioner considers that it is appropriate and efficient to do so.


I don't see your purpose in discouraging people to trying to pretend things aren't true.

I'm not trying to pretend anything. That's great that their procedural code allows it, but if you look at their complaint form, there is no option to file a complaint with someone else. Also, the CCTS has to approve of the complaints being filed together so IMO, you'd just be wasting more time waiting for them to approve the complaints to be consolidated together when the time can be spent reviewing the arguments and evidence presented by both sides.

serpico06

join:2012-10-30
reply to hm
Just spent 4 hours trying to resolve this, with no progress. Basically had the girl picking her words carefully to say that overages have been reflected on this month's bill without admitting that as of this month there has been a change to my contract so that I now actually get charged for sed overages. Going to contact the CCTS tommorow and see what they have to say. Apparently its not written down anywhere but i have 2 and a 1/2 years of bills that show the 50$ cap in place. If anyone has suggestions for wireless isp providers near caledon, that would be appreciated. Looking into ica and xplornet atm.

yyzlhr

join:2012-09-03
Scarborough, ON
kudos:4
said by serpico06:

Tbh all his post on this page sounds like he's a rogers employee using scare tactics... Just spent 4 hours trying to resolve this, with no progress. Basically had the girl picking her words carefully to say that overages have been reflected on this month's bill without admitting that as of this month there has been a change to my contract so that I now actually get charged for sed overages. Going to contact the CCTS tommorow and see what they have to say. Apparently its not written down anywhere but i have 2 and a 1/2 years of bills that show the 50$ cap in place. If anyone has suggestions for wireless isp providers near caledon, that would be appreciated. Looking into ica and xplornet atm.

I'm not a rogers employee. I have worked with them in the past in various capacities and simply providing my knowledge and experience so that people have a better understanding of why things are the way they are. I could care less whether people file complaints against Rogers, I do not have any stake in the company, I do not own any shares so it really does not matter to me.

@serpico06, there is no change to your contract. No where in the service agreement, terms of service, or in their marketing collateral does it indicate that there is a $50 cap on overage charges. This is not a feature of the service you signed up for nor was it every written into your contract.

You're free to argue that by not charging you more than $50 for such an extended period of time infers that this is an actual feature of the product or that it is the same as actually having it in your service agreement. That's what the CCTS is there for. I did not intend to discourage people from filing with the CCTS, in fact I've provided advice earlier in this thread on how one can bolster their case with the CCTS. I was simply indicating that Rogers is well within their rights to change this cap without notice under these circumstances and that generally speaking, this is not a CCTS complaint. I changed my opinion when I was informed that the OP was told on multiple occasions that an overage cap did in fact exist.

My ultimate goal is that consumers understand every aspect of the services that they sign up for. The stuff I post in these forums are simply my analysis of the situation based on what I know from my industry experience. They are not necessarily my personal opinions, nor do I expect people to like what I have to say or agree with any of my analyses. My intent is simply to provide an explanation as to why something is happening the way it is and to provide realistic advice when possible.


hm

@videotron.ca
It is in fact a material change in service. In addition, a material change in service requires Rogers to notify you (and you should state these two little sentences in your complaint as you fight the additional charges).

serpico06

join:2012-10-30
reply to yyzlhr
While I appreciate you trying to inform me, trying to tell me what I was told when I signed up for the service and throughout the use of said service is simply ridiculous. They may not have it written down anywhere, but throughout my contract I have been told by them that I did in fact have a cap, both through my bills and through phone conversations. My bill never indicated that I would be charged for overages, nor did it mention that overages might at some point be applied. Just a month ago they called about an upgrade, at which point they told me not to bother because the overage fees without the cap that I had in place would be extremely high. The fact of the matter is that they decided to remove a feature that they offered, both without any notice AND denying that it even ever existed. If they said, "ok from this point forth you will no longer have this cap" then I could have cancelled my service ahead of time and avoided a $300 bill for service that doesnt even deserve a $20 monthly payment tbh. $300.00 with less than 1Mbit/s and a 10gb cap for a residential internet service in 2012 is simply absurd. Its like they dont want me to use the internet...

yyzlhr

join:2012-09-03
Scarborough, ON
kudos:4
All I said is that there is nothing written or advertised about this cap which is completely true. I never said anything about what you were told verbally. As I suggested to the OP, you should write to the privacy office to obtain account notes or call transcripts where you were told about the $50 cap and present them to the CCTS. Without that evidence, there is no CCTS case IMO.


sheez

@videotron.ca
reply to serpico06
serpico06, ignore yyzlhr. Your bills for the past 2.5-years are proof enough you had it. File your complaint and make note that call records should also contain this as you stated.