Bell has been known for having “shady” door to door sales practices. CBC a few years ago caught them doing really shady things by going undercover. And there was this story where an ex Bell sales rep said that they were trained to lie to customers when they went door to door. This is a main reason why I have suggested to my clients that you need to call Bell directly if you want to sign up with them. This might be about to change as a class action lawsuit in Quebec has been allowed to proceed:
Quebec’s Court of Appeal has on Friday denied Bell’s request to appeal a ruling that authorized a class action against the company for alleged inappropriate door-to-door sales practices.
The lower class action certification court approved in July a class of plaintiffs to take Bell to court over allegations it violated the province’s Consumer Protection Act by instigating a service sales using a door-to-door salesman but concluding the contract over the phone.
Bell alleged that the evidence in front of the certification court meant that there was less than a simple possibility that the plaintiffs would win the case.
But the appeal court sided with the trial judge.
“Perhaps the hearing on the merits will make it possible to demonstrate that the respondent does not meet its burden of proof of the alleged facts and offenses; similarly, perhaps the hearing on the merits will make it possible to demonstrate that the composition of the group must be restricted and that certain types of contracts are not covered by the request for collective action: this is the aim of the defense and hearing on the merits,” the appeal court said.
“However, given the simple filtering role of the request for authorization and the even more restricted role of the judge responsible for authorizing appeals of judgments authorizing collective action, the applicant does not convince that the judge has, on the face of it judgment, erred in a manifest and decisive manner or committed a simple error of law,” it added.
Here’s the thing. If telcos in Canada want to be seen as something other than companies who take advantage of their customers whenever possible, this is the sort of behaviour that needs to stop. While Bell is seen as the worst at this sort of behaviour, all Canadian telcos do door to door sales and they all do it in a way that is suspect as best. If they all either stopped doing this, or did it in a way that doesn’t result in people wanting to sue them, they would be seen in a slightly better light. Then they can work on lowering their prices to something reasonable and having better customer service.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
This entry was posted on September 30, 2023 at 11:36 am and is filed under Commentary with tags Bell. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Bell Class Action Lawsuit In Regards To Their Door To Door Sales Practices Allowed To Proceed
Bell has been known for having “shady” door to door sales practices. CBC a few years ago caught them doing really shady things by going undercover. And there was this story where an ex Bell sales rep said that they were trained to lie to customers when they went door to door. This is a main reason why I have suggested to my clients that you need to call Bell directly if you want to sign up with them. This might be about to change as a class action lawsuit in Quebec has been allowed to proceed:
Quebec’s Court of Appeal has on Friday denied Bell’s request to appeal a ruling that authorized a class action against the company for alleged inappropriate door-to-door sales practices.
The lower class action certification court approved in July a class of plaintiffs to take Bell to court over allegations it violated the province’s Consumer Protection Act by instigating a service sales using a door-to-door salesman but concluding the contract over the phone.
Bell alleged that the evidence in front of the certification court meant that there was less than a simple possibility that the plaintiffs would win the case.
But the appeal court sided with the trial judge.
“Perhaps the hearing on the merits will make it possible to demonstrate that the respondent does not meet its burden of proof of the alleged facts and offenses; similarly, perhaps the hearing on the merits will make it possible to demonstrate that the composition of the group must be restricted and that certain types of contracts are not covered by the request for collective action: this is the aim of the defense and hearing on the merits,” the appeal court said.
“However, given the simple filtering role of the request for authorization and the even more restricted role of the judge responsible for authorizing appeals of judgments authorizing collective action, the applicant does not convince that the judge has, on the face of it judgment, erred in a manifest and decisive manner or committed a simple error of law,” it added.
Here’s the thing. If telcos in Canada want to be seen as something other than companies who take advantage of their customers whenever possible, this is the sort of behaviour that needs to stop. While Bell is seen as the worst at this sort of behaviour, all Canadian telcos do door to door sales and they all do it in a way that is suspect as best. If they all either stopped doing this, or did it in a way that doesn’t result in people wanting to sue them, they would be seen in a slightly better light. Then they can work on lowering their prices to something reasonable and having better customer service.
Share this:
Like this:
Related
This entry was posted on September 30, 2023 at 11:36 am and is filed under Commentary with tags Bell. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.