Contract Dispute – Non-disclosure (Hardware Upgrade Fee)

A wireless customer agreed to a device upgrade online. The following month she was unexpectedly billed a $300 “early upgrade” charge. The customer says that this charge was not disclosed to her at the time of the upgrade. The PSP argues that not only was the charge disclosed during the electronic transaction, but it was also included in the contract that the customer had agreed to a year prior.

What did the PSP include in its response? The PSP explained that the complaint was unresolved and provided a copy of the electronic transaction records, the contract and related documents, and screenshots of the account notes from the date the of the agreement leading up to the date that the CCTS complaint was received.

Was the response complete? No. However, the PSP failed to respond to any of the customer’s allegations or explain the relevance of the documentation provided.

Key Message

PSPs have to respond to each of the allegations raised in the complaint and explain the relevance of the supporting documentation provided. Although the PSP appears to have provided copies of all of the relevant documentation, the PSP is still required to explain its position in a written response to the customer and the CCTS. When a PSP fails to comply with section 6.6 (c) of the CCTS Procedural Code the consequences can include unnecessary delays and the expenditure of additional resources during the in the investigation, and it often leads to customer frustration.