hot deal - Bell Late Fees declared illegal by Ontario Judge - YAY!

[st7860]

[url]http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=59a47a48-946b-4a55-bad9-14f728cf542e[/url]

Bell ExpressVu's charge to customers who fail to pay their monthly bill on time is illegal, an Ontario judge has ruled in a class-action lawsuit that throws into disarray the common corporate practice of charging consumers late fees.

In a rebuke of Bell ExpressVu's central argument - that its $25 fee is an administrative charge to cover costs in recouping money from wayward customers - the Ontario Superior Court dismissed late Monday the company's motion to toss out the case. Instead, Justice Paul Perell ruled in favour of the plaintiff, Ottawa-area subscriber Peter De Wolf, in a summary judgment.

The court ruled that the administration fee is an illegal charge because it imposes a criminal rate of interest, contrary to Canada's anti-usury provision in the Criminal Code that outlaws annual interest charges in excess of 60 per cent.


In a rebuke of Bell ExpressVu's central argument - that its $25 fee is an administrative charge to cover costs in recouping money from wayward customers - the Ontario Superior Court dismissed late Monday the company's motion to toss out the case.

Justice Perell zeroed in on the fact that Bell continues to offer the satellite television service even as customers are in arrears.

"There is a bold statement that there is no evidence of an agreement or arrangement on the part of Bell ExpressVu to extend credit. In my opinion, that statement is not correct," Perell wrote.

"What Bell ExpressVu appears to be doing is extending credit rather than accepting the customer's breach and enforcing the contract."

In an interview Tuesday, De Wolf said the decision is great news for consumers in their fight against late fees or "administrative" charges.

"It's a huge decision. This puts all the other companies on notice that you can't charge these types of fees and get away with it."

The two parties made their case last week in a Toronto courtroom. Bell was not immediately available Tuesday to comment on the decision.

Perell certified the class action suit earlier this year after De Wolf successfully argued the issue is not only about him, but also about the company's 1.7 million customers. Bell had argued the class-action claim had no merit, but the judge rebuked the company for raising a "straw man" argument to try and block the suit.

[MarkIII]

Good news indeed. The $25 late fees definitely falls into the "Criminal Interest Rate" category!

[Digital_Domain]

[QUOTE=st7860;7431063]In a rebuke of Bell ExpressVu's central argument - that its $25 fee is an administrative charge to cover costs in recouping money from wayward customers - the Ontario Superior Court dismissed late Monday the company's motion to toss out the case. Instead, Justice Paul Perell ruled in favour of the plaintiff, Ottawa-area subscriber Peter De Wolf, in a summary judgment.[/QUOTE]
LOL! I love how they realized that they might not win and tried to get out of the ruling in order to save themselves, FAIL. I like this judge.

[whampoa]

Wow, is that administrative fee on top of what's owing plus interest. That's one big motha of all fee.

Never happen to me before, but I never have Bell TV in the first place.

[dgmorr]

So this is just for Bell. How does this apply to other companies and services?

[st7860]

[QUOTE=dgmorr;7431157]So this is just for Bell. How does this apply to other companies and services?[/QUOTE]

it might become case law maybe?

[untaka]

yay! +1 for customers -1 for Bell ....


Current Score

Customers: -9
Bell: 992393849834

If we keep this up maybe one day Bell AND Rogers will be fair!

[gman]

Who else is charging this kind of 'admin' fee?
Is Bell home phone doing this too?

[AcidBomber]

I was hoping they threw out the incoming text charges from Bell... :(

[alkaseltzer01]

I doubt things will change. Bell ( & others) have multiple probes to stick up customer's @sses. This case just takes away one of them.

[CSK'sMom]

[QUOTE=gman;7431230]Who else is charging this kind of 'admin' fee?
Is Bell home phone doing this too?[/QUOTE]

Lots of other companies have been charging this for the past few years. I know Cogeco does and it seems to me my girlfriend said Rogers cable does as well. AFAIK Bell phone does not charge this fee...

[molala]

it would be a hotter deal if rogers does the same!

[st7860]

[url]http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/money/story.html?id=05bbb8be-eef8-419b-81cd-5c90d97c34ea[/url]
Bell ExpressVu's "administrative" charge to customers who fail to pay their monthly bill on time is illegal, an Ontario judge has ruled in a class-action lawsuit that throws into disarray the common corporate practice of charging consumers late fees.

In a rebuttal to Bell ExpressVu's central argument -- that its $25 fee is an administrative fee to cover costs in recouping money from wayward customers -- the Ontario Superior Court dismissed late Monday the company's motion to toss out the case. Instead, Justice Paul Perell ruled in favour of the plaintiff, Ottawa-area subscriber Peter De Wolf, in a summary judgment.

Even though the company "denies that the administration fee is the price of granting an indulgence for late payment," the court didn't buy the argument and ruled that the fee is indeed an illegal charge because it imposes a criminal rate of interest.

Canada's anti-usury provision in the Criminal Code outlaws annual interest charges in excess of 60 per cent.

Perell zeroed in on the fact that Bell continues to offer the satellite-television service even as customers are in arrears. He pointed to the "bold statement that there is no evidence of an agreement or arrangement on the part of Bell ExpressVu to extend credit. In my opinion, that statement is not correct," Perell wrote.

"What Bell ExpressVu appears to be doing is extending credit rather than accepting the customer's breach and enforcing the contract."

De Wolf said the decision is great news for consumers in their fight against late fees or "administrative" charges -- a common feature in customer agreements in the telecommunications sector and beyond.

"It's a huge decision. This puts all the other companies on notice that you can't charge these types of fees and get away with it."

The two parties made their case last week in a Toronto courtroom.

A spokesman for Bell on Tuesday said the company is reviewing the decision, and declined further comment.

John Lawford, staff counsel for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, says he fully expects the company to appeal the decision, but its challenge will be hampered by Perell's record.

"Perell can pretty much write any book on any area of law he wants. In particular, he's often looked at debt, credit and payment issues, so if the Court of Appeal works the way it should, this should be an unappealable judgment."

[gman]

[QUOTE=CSK'sMom;7431744]Lots of other companies have been charging this for the past few years. I know Cogeco does and it seems to me my girlfriend said Rogers cable does as well. AFAIK Bell phone does not charge this fee...[/QUOTE]

Are you talking about interest or admin fee?
Are you saying they are charging like $25 as well?

[CSK'sMom]

No gman, it's an "admininstration" fee and is not related to the interest they charge for late payments and is charged over and above the interest penelty. It really is highway robbery and about time some one called it exactly what it is... extortion + criminal rate of interest!