Class Action Law Suit against Bell ExpressVu
- Thread starter Gentleman
- Start date
T
Toolatecrew
Guest
And that would not prompt a class acation lawsuit. The TOS service says we can deactivate you 30 days late. $50 fee to cover deactivation (there is real work involved) A reactivation fee would be charged if they sign back on. They are charging for an actualy service (how much they carge is up to them and not regulated by usary laws).
The $25 chared for being 60 late is not a fee for any service. They don't come to your house and pick up the check. They don't do anything.
I have no issue with cutting off people who don't pay. But you can't get away wuth charging people who DO pay (although late) sky high interest rates. I'd hardly call someone who was 60 days late once (for example) on a bill for TV a deadbeat.
The $25 chared for being 60 late is not a fee for any service. They don't come to your house and pick up the check. They don't do anything.
I have no issue with cutting off people who don't pay. But you can't get away wuth charging people who DO pay (although late) sky high interest rates. I'd hardly call someone who was 60 days late once (for example) on a bill for TV a deadbeat.
E
early_adopter
Guest
To those who argue that you shouldn't have ExpressVu if you can't always pay your bill within 60 days (I always do but I know well-paid professionals who have organizational issues with their personal affairs), isn't it also the case that ExpressVu shouldn't be in a service provider business if they can't accurately bill their customers (i.e., provide credits for services not rendered) in 60 days? 
Q
Q
Guest
On my last bill:
LEGAL NOTICE: A class action has been certified on behalf of Bell ExpressVu customers who paid one or more $19 or $25 Administration Fees between January 1, 2003 and February 11, 2008.
It goes on to list the website www.legaladvocates.ca/classactions.html
here is direct link to BEV class action lawsuit
Here is an old thread which was started on the issue.
If you ever got charged this admin fee for a late payment then you are part of this.
LEGAL NOTICE: A class action has been certified on behalf of Bell ExpressVu customers who paid one or more $19 or $25 Administration Fees between January 1, 2003 and February 11, 2008.
It goes on to list the website www.legaladvocates.ca/classactions.html
here is direct link to BEV class action lawsuit
Here is an old thread which was started on the issue.
If you ever got charged this admin fee for a late payment then you are part of this.
I
i hate tv
Guest
I think he is suggesting that if Bell loses, they will need to find a way to pay, and it may result in price increases. The guy who started this whole thing should use the same energy he uses to start class action suits, as he does in paying his bills.
N
Nemnoch
Guest
The things is, they don't always charge it and they definately do not charge it every month.
The person who is filing the claim and started the whole thing has carried large balances forward month after month.
One of the reason this is going forward is that the $25 is more than 60% of this person's monthly service.
So really, this person doesn't pay his $35-$40 bill for six months at a time.
During that time, BELL TV not only has to pay people to call him, but also has to pay to mail out late notices etc.
I don't feel that in his specific case, there would be anything wrong with charging the $25 charge. The fact that he's been charged it like 6 tims in six years, tells me the guy just doesn't want to pay his bill.
If you can't pay a bill for $35 every month (and I mean repeatedly note pay it) maybe you better look at just cancelling your service or finding something to do besides watching TV.
Nem, who thinks that there's something to be said for paying your bill on time and not whining when when you get charged for not paying. I think it's called 'personal responsibility'
The person who is filing the claim and started the whole thing has carried large balances forward month after month.
One of the reason this is going forward is that the $25 is more than 60% of this person's monthly service.
So really, this person doesn't pay his $35-$40 bill for six months at a time.
During that time, BELL TV not only has to pay people to call him, but also has to pay to mail out late notices etc.
I don't feel that in his specific case, there would be anything wrong with charging the $25 charge. The fact that he's been charged it like 6 tims in six years, tells me the guy just doesn't want to pay his bill.
If you can't pay a bill for $35 every month (and I mean repeatedly note pay it) maybe you better look at just cancelling your service or finding something to do besides watching TV.
Nem, who thinks that there's something to be said for paying your bill on time and not whining when when you get charged for not paying. I think it's called 'personal responsibility'
L
Leaf Fan
Guest
I agree with you that you should have credits applied within a reasonable time frame (shorter than 60 days)
I also think that if you can't pay your bill on time, there will be a penalty, monetary or otherwise
I think this whole situation could be avoided, if they simply cut off people like the gentleman who started this campaign, until they can get their affairs in order, and stop blaming others for their problems (Bell, Canada Post, etc)
I also think that if you can't pay your bill on time, there will be a penalty, monetary or otherwise
I think this whole situation could be avoided, if they simply cut off people like the gentleman who started this campaign, until they can get their affairs in order, and stop blaming others for their problems (Bell, Canada Post, etc)
N
Nemnoch
Guest
I still dont' understand how it's been deemd illegal. Maybe I need to do more reading...
Personal responsibility and accountability seems to have disappeared from this country.
Nem, who wishes people would just 'man-up'. It's this kind of individual fiscal irresponsibility that leaves a country in debt.
Personal responsibility and accountability seems to have disappeared from this country.
Nem, who wishes people would just 'man-up'. It's this kind of individual fiscal irresponsibility that leaves a country in debt.
N
Nemnoch
Guest
The TOS for Express-Vu has always contained the following: (obviously somewhat changed dependant on the amount being charged at the time)
Under the Criminal Code, "interest" means the aggregate of all charges and expenses, whether in the form of a fee, fine, penalty or commission payable in exchange for the advancing of credit.
This is charge is cleary defined in the TOS as an administration fee for processing costs and has noting to do with an 'exchange for the advancing of credit'
It's the same thing as an NSF charge for bouncing a cheque.
As far as I'm concerned, if you can't pay your bill after 60 days, you probably should look for a different form of entertainment.
Some more information available here
Nem, who thinks you shouldn't get it if you can't afford to pay for it.
Under the Criminal Code, "interest" means the aggregate of all charges and expenses, whether in the form of a fee, fine, penalty or commission payable in exchange for the advancing of credit.
This is charge is cleary defined in the TOS as an administration fee for processing costs and has noting to do with an 'exchange for the advancing of credit'
It's the same thing as an NSF charge for bouncing a cheque.
As far as I'm concerned, if you can't pay your bill after 60 days, you probably should look for a different form of entertainment.
Some more information available here
Nem, who thinks you shouldn't get it if you can't afford to pay for it.
N
Nemnoch
Guest
From the Bell Canada site.
Just because you can file a Class Action Suit, doesn't mean that it has any merit, or that it's going to actually go anywhere.
Nem, who prefers to pay his bill rather than make excuses, saves time that way
Just because you can file a Class Action Suit, doesn't mean that it has any merit, or that it's going to actually go anywhere.
Nem, who prefers to pay his bill rather than make excuses, saves time that way
T
Toolatecrew
Guest
The problem is that while people may question the one guy who started this there are a lot of people involved in this suit. That's why its called class action. Maybe people who for whatever reason were 61 days yet still got stung with interest and a 25$ charge. Just becuase one person is a habitual late payer doesn't mean it give Bell the right to break the law reagrding interest charges.
T
Toolatecrew
Guest
Its illegal becuase its equivialnt to charging a 60% interest rate. Bell already charges 2% a month (which is 24% per year) and that is up near the limit of interest you can legally charge.
It wouldn't be legal to make payroll loans at 25% interest + a monthly admin fee of $60 a month for every 100 you borrow so why is it so hard to understand why this is not legal?
As for this specific case according to your theory this guy did not pay his bill for months at a time but Bell continued to give him service. They didn't cut him off. They simply allowed him to get service and pay his bill late and charged him a 60% interest rate for late payment. They didn't close his account and send him to collections. All the people in the class action were not habitual late payers. It extended to anyone who had the charge ever which includes many people who may have paid their bil on timne for years only to slip once and miss the bill and be slapped by the charge.
That's largley irrelevant becuase its not about who deserves it or not. Its the law and whther Bell tried to avoid the intent of the law (avoiding sky high interest) by these charges.
It wouldn't be legal to make payroll loans at 25% interest + a monthly admin fee of $60 a month for every 100 you borrow so why is it so hard to understand why this is not legal?
As for this specific case according to your theory this guy did not pay his bill for months at a time but Bell continued to give him service. They didn't cut him off. They simply allowed him to get service and pay his bill late and charged him a 60% interest rate for late payment. They didn't close his account and send him to collections. All the people in the class action were not habitual late payers. It extended to anyone who had the charge ever which includes many people who may have paid their bil on timne for years only to slip once and miss the bill and be slapped by the charge.
That's largley irrelevant becuase its not about who deserves it or not. Its the law and whther Bell tried to avoid the intent of the law (avoiding sky high interest) by these charges.
G
granduncle
Guest
I don't think I've seen any more stupid statement regarding the judicial system.
Of course, the court hasn't taken a position since the case hasn't been heard yet!
True, it doesn't. Did I say it does?
Suing McDonalds for hot coffee had hardly any, either. The old lady was ready to settle for $20K. But McD lawyers didn't like it.
In the end the jury awarded her almost $3 million, the judge reduced it to $600K+...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case
Wrong. Since CA status was granted, it is going to go to court. Unless settled.
The outcome of the court proceedings can be complete exoneration of either party, but not both.
Of course, the court hasn't taken a position since the case hasn't been heard yet!
True, it doesn't. Did I say it does?
Suing McDonalds for hot coffee had hardly any, either. The old lady was ready to settle for $20K. But McD lawyers didn't like it.
In the end the jury awarded her almost $3 million, the judge reduced it to $600K+...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case
Wrong. Since CA status was granted, it is going to go to court. Unless settled.
The outcome of the court proceedings can be complete exoneration of either party, but not both.
L
Leaf Fan
Guest
I have no problem with this lawsuit, however, I think to qualify, you must have paid your bill , at least 60% of the time on time.....
This guy needs to learn to pay his bills on time, as his track record of being late 80% of the time (for ExpressVu) is embarrassing
This guy needs to learn to pay his bills on time, as his track record of being late 80% of the time (for ExpressVu) is embarrassing
M
mickk
Guest
i don't get how penalty fees like this can be illegal. so what the court is saying that if I pay my bills late i should not be punished?
L
Lurker
Guest
To state that all paying customers will pick up the tab for the late payers is only a part of the story here - this notion is a bit of an over simplification of the concept of the behaviour of clients in arrears and the actual costs of collection efforts. Especially given that their TOS already put their late interest fee at 2% per month compounded (annual equivalent of 26.82%).
The reality is that there is a spectrum of behaviours that run from:
--> Clients who are so obsessed about being late that in the weekend web payment issue described earlier by Toolatecrew, they will actually try to call in before being late to "pre-explain" the matter. They actually pro-actively "self-cure" their arrears.
--> Then there are those that aren't as paranoid about it, but they are still very conscientious about it. They will self-cure within a few weeks as soon as they see that a bill was missed or their bank didn't clear something. No action is needed from the company/creditor.
Given that the above scenarios actually represents more clients than you would think, most companies/creditors actually take no action for such cases. Further, with on-line payments the arrears payments are pushed from the client on pretty much a straight thru manner to cure the account with little to no manual touches. Therefore, costs are pretty much nil, and, the late interest charges should be fair compensation. Even if a CSR has to handle a call and set up a debit to pull the money from the client's bank account, it shouldn't cost anywhere near $25 to handle such a call.
--> The next tranche of clients will self-cure when they see the next bill come in showing the missing payment, ie more than 30 days late but less than 60. The jolt of the next bill is all that is needed. No real additional costs and interest is charged/collected.
--> The final tranche is a little more habitual and a little more costly to deal with. Some will cure with cheap touches such as a letter or e-mail or an automatic dialler leaving a voice-mail. The rest though, will require high degrees of handling by CSRs and other methods. Again though, interest is accruing and should be proximate to the costs to collect. In the end though, this is typically a small number of clients.
Any shortfall after all that is either due to too low of a late interest charge, or bad decisions to apply too many costly methods to collect, or poor results from collection efforts, or overly liberal customer acquisition strategies (or some combination). It's easier for a complacent and do no wrong management to "address" their arrears issue with the fee card instead of facing up to the fact that they have made less than ideal decisions or they have put less than ideal people in place.
IMHO, management took what they perceived to be the easiest way (and what they thought would be the lowest profile way) to bring in more revenue without adding costs and without addressing the underlying issues in the business wrt their various arrears policies and procedures. They probably also could have done more to vet clients before taking them on and a heavy handed collection policy covers up somewhat for an overly aggressive new customer acquisition policy.
Their own TOS (the one that was challenged) points out that they can suspend service and charge a $50 termination fee if a client goes 30 days late (plus a re-connection fee too). However, this probably looks bad in subscriber counts and is more costly to administer, so instead - they ignored this hard-stop measure and milked clients past 60 days with the fees. Either way, they made the mess themselves and good on the courts for sticking up against usurious charges.
If they're serious about the drag on costs from these clients, then follow the TOS and cut them off at 30 days late - otherwise they should suck it up as the cost of business. If the industry is as competitive as they make it out to be, then rates won't rise. If they do, then there's other (albeit limited) solutions to turn to.
mickk - the courts aren't saying that at all. If you're late you can certainly be charged. What they are saying is that there are limits to what can fairly be charged.
The reality is that there is a spectrum of behaviours that run from:
--> Clients who are so obsessed about being late that in the weekend web payment issue described earlier by Toolatecrew, they will actually try to call in before being late to "pre-explain" the matter. They actually pro-actively "self-cure" their arrears.
--> Then there are those that aren't as paranoid about it, but they are still very conscientious about it. They will self-cure within a few weeks as soon as they see that a bill was missed or their bank didn't clear something. No action is needed from the company/creditor.
Given that the above scenarios actually represents more clients than you would think, most companies/creditors actually take no action for such cases. Further, with on-line payments the arrears payments are pushed from the client on pretty much a straight thru manner to cure the account with little to no manual touches. Therefore, costs are pretty much nil, and, the late interest charges should be fair compensation. Even if a CSR has to handle a call and set up a debit to pull the money from the client's bank account, it shouldn't cost anywhere near $25 to handle such a call.
--> The next tranche of clients will self-cure when they see the next bill come in showing the missing payment, ie more than 30 days late but less than 60. The jolt of the next bill is all that is needed. No real additional costs and interest is charged/collected.
--> The final tranche is a little more habitual and a little more costly to deal with. Some will cure with cheap touches such as a letter or e-mail or an automatic dialler leaving a voice-mail. The rest though, will require high degrees of handling by CSRs and other methods. Again though, interest is accruing and should be proximate to the costs to collect. In the end though, this is typically a small number of clients.
Any shortfall after all that is either due to too low of a late interest charge, or bad decisions to apply too many costly methods to collect, or poor results from collection efforts, or overly liberal customer acquisition strategies (or some combination). It's easier for a complacent and do no wrong management to "address" their arrears issue with the fee card instead of facing up to the fact that they have made less than ideal decisions or they have put less than ideal people in place.
IMHO, management took what they perceived to be the easiest way (and what they thought would be the lowest profile way) to bring in more revenue without adding costs and without addressing the underlying issues in the business wrt their various arrears policies and procedures. They probably also could have done more to vet clients before taking them on and a heavy handed collection policy covers up somewhat for an overly aggressive new customer acquisition policy.
Their own TOS (the one that was challenged) points out that they can suspend service and charge a $50 termination fee if a client goes 30 days late (plus a re-connection fee too). However, this probably looks bad in subscriber counts and is more costly to administer, so instead - they ignored this hard-stop measure and milked clients past 60 days with the fees. Either way, they made the mess themselves and good on the courts for sticking up against usurious charges.
If they're serious about the drag on costs from these clients, then follow the TOS and cut them off at 30 days late - otherwise they should suck it up as the cost of business. If the industry is as competitive as they make it out to be, then rates won't rise. If they do, then there's other (albeit limited) solutions to turn to.
mickk - the courts aren't saying that at all. If you're late you can certainly be charged. What they are saying is that there are limits to what can fairly be charged.
N
Nemnoch
Guest
But, it's not interest charges.
It's not as if they are charging him extra interest on his bill as it wasn't charged every 60 days.
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with charging a fee, knowing all the work that goes into collecting money and the additional charges lost of money that can occur fromhutting off someons' service andsending it to a collection agency.
The only reason it's more than 60% of this guys bill, is because he more than likely had a basic service.
I'd have a problem with it if he was charged every month. That would be a little month. But seeing as he was only charge this fee like 6 times in 5 years, I think he should have to pay.
I guess I'm in the minority here though.
Not suprising, given the climate in the world lately that allows people to not have to take responsibility for their actions.
Nem, who tires of everyone blaming someone else
It's not as if they are charging him extra interest on his bill as it wasn't charged every 60 days.
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with charging a fee, knowing all the work that goes into collecting money and the additional charges lost of money that can occur fromhutting off someons' service andsending it to a collection agency.
The only reason it's more than 60% of this guys bill, is because he more than likely had a basic service.
I'd have a problem with it if he was charged every month. That would be a little month. But seeing as he was only charge this fee like 6 times in 5 years, I think he should have to pay.
I guess I'm in the minority here though.
Not suprising, given the climate in the world lately that allows people to not have to take responsibility for their actions.
Nem, who tires of everyone blaming someone else
N
Nemnoch
Guest
So this beats 'Cape does not enable wearer to fly'(found on a superman halloween costume for adults)
Seriously though, it's there to ensure people properly understand the context of the notice. I don't see that reasoning as 'stupid'.
I didn't say you did, did I? That was a broad and general statement about CA lawsuits, not about you're post in particular. My apologies if that's how you understood it.
Nem, who's here for a good time, not a long time
Seriously though, it's there to ensure people properly understand the context of the notice. I don't see that reasoning as 'stupid'.
I didn't say you did, did I? That was a broad and general statement about CA lawsuits, not about you're post in particular. My apologies if that's how you understood it.
Nem, who's here for a good time, not a long time
H
haystack
Guest
How about Bell doesn't have the right break the law regarding loan sharking regardless of the customers accounting ability.
I can not write the guy down the street indicating that his dog has repeatedly dumped on my yard and one more time I will kill him. This letter would not exonerate me from the law although by most accounts I would be in the right.
I can not write the guy down the street indicating that his dog has repeatedly dumped on my yard and one more time I will kill him. This letter would not exonerate me from the law although by most accounts I would be in the right.
L
Lurker
Guest
Interesting find:
Breaking News from The Globe and Mail
Court finds Bell ExpressVu fee illegal
Paul Waldie
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
An Ontario judge has ruled that a $25 administration fee Bell ExpressVu charges customers who are late with monthly payments is illegal.
The ruling applies to Bell ExpressVu's roughly 1.7 million customers. According to court documents, about 33,000 customers pay the fee every month.
The case was brought by Peter De Wolf, a long-time Bell ExpressVu customer who lives in Braeside, Ont., near Ottawa. Mr. De Wolf said he was elated by the ruling.
http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080916.wbell0916/GIStory/
Breaking News from The Globe and Mail
Court finds Bell ExpressVu fee illegal
Paul Waldie
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
An Ontario judge has ruled that a $25 administration fee Bell ExpressVu charges customers who are late with monthly payments is illegal.
The ruling applies to Bell ExpressVu's roughly 1.7 million customers. According to court documents, about 33,000 customers pay the fee every month.
The case was brought by Peter De Wolf, a long-time Bell ExpressVu customer who lives in Braeside, Ont., near Ottawa. Mr. De Wolf said he was elated by the ruling.
http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080916.wbell0916/GIStory/