Class Action Law Suit against Bell ExpressVu

I can't understand how people on this board are making such harsh judgements about the guy taking on Bell Expressvu.

I have also been on the receiving end of this "administration fee" and not just once. I'll admit that missing the payments was entirely my fault and there was no excuse, and I was more than happy to pay the overdue interest. I realize that lending money to me (which is what Bell did by giving me time to pay them back) costs Bell money and I was more than happy to repay what that actually cost them.

But for those who haven't had the unfortunate experience of missing payments let me explain what happens to the 33,000 (according to the lawsuit) people who get charged this every month.

After you miss your payment another invoice is printed next month with the outstanding amount. If you pay that invoice ON TIME at the full amount, on your NEXT invoice you have your new charges PLUS the administration fee.

So for example:

Bill issued on January 25: $70 - Not paid
Bill issued on February 25: $140 + 2% overdue interest - Paid in full on time
Bill issued on March 25: $70 + 2% on past overdue + $25 fee

The entire cost to Bell is one phone call mid-way through the second month (in which you are behind) that is made from an automated dialer to remind you that you are behind in payments.

I don't think it's fair for anyone to expect people to pay $25 extra on a $60 bill just because you missed one payment. And even if you do think it's fair, it's CLEARLY interest as defined in the criminal code. The Ontario judge was absolutely correct to find Bell in contravention of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Let's not forget, these laws were enacted to protect consumers from predatory people taking advantage of contracts. Do the math, in the past 6 years Bell has been collecting this "administration fee" they would have made an extra 50 MILLION DOLLARS. And they are treating it as a matter of business, with no intention of actually discontinuing service to a client. That means it's INTEREST on an amount of credit.

Should people pay their bills on time? DEFINITELY
Should people who don't pay their bills on time be charged for the effort the company puts into collecting that bill? DEFINITELY
Should people be forced to pay upwards of 300% interest because they miss a payment? DEFINITELY NOT

For all those people who have said this guy should just learn to pay his bills, I hope this has explained how easy it is for you to fall into this trap. A trap that Bell has setup because they didn't believe they would get caught. Or they were delusional and actually thought their contract wording was enough to confuse the courts. Clearly it wasn't.
 
Well aside from the fact that a TOS is an agreement between the company and the subscriber and your example would just be considered a threatening letter with no binding contract between the individuals, they aren't breaking the law. 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 worded very carefully in order to comply with the letter of the law.

If they said that this was a fee because you haven't payed your bill, then there might be a case.

Nem, who thinks there's a difference between a TOS and a letter threatening to kill someone
 
It's not like something like this happened for the first time in your life.
Phone companies: you don't pay your bill few month in a row (interest compounding), your service is cut of. Your name blacklisted.
You pay your bill plus re-activation fee - your service is returned. But not a minute earlier. Is anything wrong with this system? Tested over time...
It's not like satellite TV is some sort of water supply. That can freeze in the winter and rupture the pipes. Just cut him off and be done with it.
Why this constant "milking"? Let me guess, to make more money while doing nothing, right? Well, they knew it was a gamble. And now the time for payback arrived...

Next time they will be smarter...
 
Lurker, all I was really trying to say is that the 2% (or perhaps $1.50 per delinquent account) is not sufficient to deal with the problem. $50,000 in interest charges won't pay for many employees, overhead and bad debt charges.

FWIW, I think Bell could find better ways of dealing with this (i.e./ simply cancelling service)
 
If this were true, it would not get clearance to proceed as a class action lawsuit.
Like most of the time with CALs, it will be settled, lawyers (on both sides) will get most of the money,
TOS will be re-worded, nothing else will change...
 
I find it funny that he thinks its unfair to charge him a $25 fine for missing payments, but because he was charged this fee 6 times, he feels he is entitled to $7,700 in damages, as per his original lawsuit...:confused:
So $150 + taxes, now is blown up to $7700? How did he come to that figure?
I found it funny that he realized that he was going to be charged another $25 while getting ready for his vacation...Maybe he should have paid his satellite bill, instead of paying for a trip? He just seems slimy to me.
 
How are NSF charges that banks charge any different?
Hopefully someone will get on the ball, and get that class action suit started, so I can get a case of Premium Beer for the few NSF's I have had in my days
:D
 
I don't follow. Mr. Wolfe seems to have a habit of paying his bills late. If he paid them on time, he'd never be charged anything. Perhaps the additional fee is unwarranted, but his "vindication" will only encourage him to continue with late payment of bills. He won't have learned anything. So...I'm not sure what this has to do with how or when my employer pays me.
 
Anybody remembers the hot coffee lawsuit against McDonald's?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stella_Liebeck
The lady wanted $30K in the end got 20 times more (the jury awarded her 100 times more)...
 
Bell's certainly done its fair share of screwing people on billing, but still it irks me that people who are consistently late with their payment for an entertainment service, are winning this one. I pay my bill every month on time, so should everyone else.

-Mike
 
But wait, there's more!

http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081021.wbelldealers1021/GIStory/

In case the link goes stale:

Bell Canada sued by independent dealers
The Canadian Press


Tuesday, October 21, 2008

MONTREAL
 
Which is 58 or 59 days earlier than the date they would charge the $25 fee.

Late transfer is no excuse for having your account in arrears for 60 days.
 
So if they would have just cancelled his service, would they be allowed to charge him a re-activation fee?
I don't have time to read the criminal code, and this criminal act doesn't affect me, because I pay my bills on time. It costs money to collect money from deadbeats (like Mr De Wolf) and I don't see a charge of $20-$30 being unreasonable. If this is such an open and closed case, why are criminal charges not being pursued? I wonder if he is still a BellTv customer?
 
That's what Frank (no neck) Chianti said just before he went to Leavenworth penitentiary.
 
Bell deserves a good kick in the pants. I do not agree with the late service fees that Bell charges at all. Or the system access fees on cell phones, 911 fees, touch tone fees, interest on late paytments. It is all just a money grab.

I also do not agree with people who consistantly do not pay their bills.

Here's an idea ... if you don't pay your bill, then Bell should cut your service. Simple.

I do not have a problem with pre-paying for my service ... in October, pay for November, etc. If I don't pay before November 1, then cut the service until payment is received.
 
Bell seemed to have no issue with it as they didn't cut off his account. They let him go past 60 days. Charge him $25 plus interest, go past 60 days charge him $25 plus interests over and over. So they aren't really concerened about having him as a customer. He's actually the kind of customer they prefer since they are making and extra $25 every month off him.

Its bells mistake. They should have written this differently. Had they written -"we have the right to terminate service at 60 days overdue they could have probaly charged a $25 heck a $100 reconnect fee and no one could touch them.

But theyr didn't.
 
Look at Canada's Criminal Code I Hate TV...

Section 347 says:

...every one who enters into an agreement or arrangement to receive interest at a criminal rate, or receives a payment or partial payment of interest at a criminal rate, is

(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine not exceeding $25,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both.



Bell is getting off easy with just a civil suit. Crown Counsel in Ontario should be going after Bell for criminal charges. Let's see Bell's CEO locked up for 5 years for over charging clients in excess of 50 million dollars. I think you'd quickly find every last major company in Canada stop trying to pull these underhanded tricks on their clients.
 
Of course they could cut him off I Hate TV. But if you read my earlier post about how simple it was to get charged this $25 fee you'd understand that Bell had no intention of ACTUALLY cutting this man off.

Don't get me wrong, I know there are several options for my TV dollar out there, and I feel I have the right decision in staying with Bell, despite my opinion on some of their business practises.

But just because a company says in contract language that 'these are our rules' doesn't mean it's legal for them to impose those rules. In the end, Bell is a creditor by offering to bill it's clients for a service and then wait for payment. Any fee, surcharge, levy or interest they apply to the account to recover that payment is interest according to the law. And the judge in Ontario has already ruled that it in fact does break the law.

And bev fan, don't you worry about good old BCE. It cleared 4 Billion Dollars last year, I'm sure there's a contingency fund to be able to handle these kinds of lawsuits. Granted there wouldn't be a lawsuit to begin with if Bell only asked for what it was legally allowed to ask for.
 
But you are mising the point. No one is saying they shouldn't pay on time. No one is arguing that there should not be a penalty for being late.

But the law clearly states what maximum anual interest rates are. Bell by adding a $25 fee on TOP of interest accured is breaking the law. How much is an acceptable penalty for being late? 2% interest 60% interest, 100% your first born? I wonder would people feel different if they charged a $10,000 fee if you were late?

Its kinda like the old joke:

Man says to woman: Will you go to bed with me for 1 million dollars
Woman:YES
Man says : Will you go to be with me for $1
Woman No what do you think I am?
Man: We have already established what you are now we are just haggling over price.

Its established that there can be and is a peanalty for being late. Bell is not being charged for charging a peanalty. They are being charged for charging an unreasonable (and illegal) penalty. Usery laws spell out what an accepatble intereest rate is. Claoking it as a penalty fee (vs a fee for service like disconection) doesn't make it any more legal.
 
Back
Top