Fighting extra charges for paper bills - Telus Mobility

[fersure]

Does anyone have any experience in fighting Telus Mobility (or any corporation) in their move to paper billing? Recently, Telus Mobility began charging $2 a month for customers who refused to sign up for e-billing and support the tax write off charity scam (you know, sign up for e-billing and we'll "donate" $1 to x charity). I have escalated my challenge of this extra fee to the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services, but doubt this will work.

I am challenging Telus' billing based on the following:
1) I am a long-term customer (acquired when Telus took over Clearnet)
2) I have a three year contract with Telus (fortunately, ending January 2011), which stipulates what they can charge. (Going through the fine print, there is no mention of fee to receive a bill.)
3) While my contract stipulate that Telus can elect to deliver my bill electronically, it again does not stipulate that it can charge if I refuse this service.

Surely, I can't be the only one affected by this? For the record, I'm tee'd off by the principle of Telus violating the terms of our signed contract, rather than phony environmentalism assoicated with e-billing.

____________
Update: May 20, 2011
In case anyone was wondering, here's what happened with my dispute with Telus Mobility over their illegal billing practices.

1) I submitted a complaint with the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Service. In my complaint, I explicitly stated that I wished all communication with Telus Mobility in writing.

2) I received two voice messages from the President's Office (yeah, right) from Telus mobility, one on Christmas Eve and one on New Years eve. I did not respond to either message.

3) CCTS wrote in January asking if my claimed had been resolved. As I had not received written communication from Telus Mobility acknowledging my complaint, I said it was not. I was then assigned a case worker for my case.

4) The case worker took my case to Telus, who offered a $20 credit (equal to 10 months of billing service). However, the case worker said that she could not investigate me claim that Telus was violating the terms of my contract by charging me an extra fee, because the CCTS CANNOT INVESTGIATE CELL PHONE COMPANY BILLING PRACTICES.

5) I requested that in order to close my file, that Telus Mobility write me indicating why they were providing me a $20 credit. I never received such a letter, just a credit on my bill. The CCTS subsequently closed my complaint.

6) I've closed my Telus Mobility account, and currently do not have a cell phone. I have also written my local MP (Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore, and the former Industry Minister expressing my dissatisfaction with the current voluntary corporate regulatory body (the CCTS), which has no power re: billing to hold the cell companies accountable for illegal billing practice. Sometimes you need big government to come in hold these companies accountable!

7) I strongly urge anyone else who was illegally billed by Telus for their contract-breaking charge for their unilateral switch to paperless billing to follow up with the CCTS and the Industry Minister.

[kcowan]

I sympathize with your concern. I have resisted ebilling too because I had to keep hard copy records for tax reasons. But because I have renwewed most contracts in recent times, I have gradually been forced into ebilling.

So I have accepted it as inevitable. I know it is cheaper for me to print a pdf than for Telus to print, sort, and mail my bill. I suppose those extra savings will eventually show up in corporate profits.

What has been the experience of others?

[sprocket1200]

i agree with kcowan. ebill and print, then buy shares to benefit from the profits...

what i really hate is them changing HOW you can pay the bill. sometimes credit cards not accepted with autobilling, sometimes they are.

[brad]

No sympathy from me here, I'm afraid. I am a fan of e-billing and support the policy of making people pay to get paper statements. E-billing is cheaper and uses fewer resources; it should be the standard for the future. If you want to be the exception and receive paper statements you should have to pay for it. Same principle goes for food shopping bags: if you bring your own, you don't pay, if you want to use the bags provided by the grocery store, you pay.

The transition to a new system is painful because it sucks having to pay for something that used to be "free," but ultimately it's a better system. I've been getting almost all my bills and all of my banking statements electronically for a few years now and it sure beats having to keep paper files. I haven't had to print anything yet, but I save everything as PDFs and back them up offsite. I got rid of two filing cabinets that I no longer needed and now have a lot more room in my home office.

[Taxsaver]

Nobody answered this question: Where in the contract does it say that they can charge the fee for print invoice?

[Mandy101]

I don't think it says anywhere in their contract that they can charge for this but I'm sure they are just able to cover it up by saying they are being enviromentally friendly. It is better for the enviroment and what I started doing is just saving a PDF of my bill each month.

[the-royal-mail]

This is yet another scam from an industry that has gotten fat on such billing practices. Never mind the tree-hugger rhetoric: they are doing this because it saves money for them and raises their profit level, and get to claim browny points for being green. Hogwash. If they were concerned about being green they wouldn't be in a business which fills our landfills with millions of useless handsets every year, rendered useless by ever-changing service plans and upgrades. This perpetual obsolescense makes them very rich. That's what it's all about. Making people pay for getting a paper bill is a money grab, plain and simple.

[furgy]

I was just talking to a good friend of mine about this the other day.

He phoned and complained but the person on the other end said there was nothing that could be done about it , so he said he would cancel his service with them and asked to be put thru to cancellations.

After about 30 seconds or so , someone else answered and said the only thing they could do , was to offer another service for free , so they are going to stop charging him for call waiting and voice mail , which he was paying $6 per month for , so he will actually be ahead by $4 , the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

He has service with them but not under contract , I myself have a contract for a 3G internet and cell phone , I see no where in the contract that allows them to do that , I will be challenging it as well , maybe I can get the same deal.

So yes , it can be challenged , and they will give something up to those who threaten to cancel service , I think everyone should bitch to them about it.

[Square Root]

This is yet another scam from an industry that has gotten fat on such billing practices. Never mind the tree-hugger rhetoric: they are doing this because it saves money for them and raises their profit level, and get to claim browny points for being green. Hogwash. If they were concerned about being green they wouldn't be in a business which fills our landfills with millions of useless handsets every year, rendered useless by ever-changing service plans and upgrades. This perpetual obsolescense makes them very rich. That's what it's all about. Making people pay for getting a paper bill is a money grab, plain and simple.

I disagree. If it is cheaper to e-bill they should charge you less. That's what they are doing. Thete are lots of things i don't like about these companies but this isn't one of them.

[the-royal-mail]

Not true. The bill cost x before the change. They are charging x + 1 if you wish to maintain status quo. That's an increase. Those who take a cheaper (for the company) service pay the same price as before when they were getting more for their money. How is this not an increase?

You would be right if they were charging x -1 if you e-bill.