Share:

Rogers Broke Promise to Low-Income Applicants for Internet Service

Share:

A resident of Toronto Community Housing is suing Rogers for $100,000 over a claim that it broke a promise to low-income applicants for internet service. The carrier advertised that it would not run credit checks on low-income customers, however, they admitted that they did.

In various advertisements, Rogers explicitly said credit checks would not be required for customers to enroll in its “Connected for Success” program, which provides internet service for customers in low-income households for just $9.99 a month.

Abdullahi Hassan, the Toronto Community Housing resident, said that he is suing the company for $100,000 claiming a breach of contract. Hassan alleges that the credit check affected his credit rating and his heath. These claims have not yet been proven in court.

In a statement responding to the matter, Rogers spokesperson Samantha Grant said:

“It’s important to note that the only eligibility requirement of the Connected for Success program is residing in a rent-geared-to-income unit with one of our housing partners.”

Osgoode Hall Law School professor Allan Hutchinson said that the cable giant is treating customers poorly by promising one thing and doing something completely different. He said:

“They should not, first of all, be engaging in the practice they did — which is saying ‘we don’t do credit checks’ when they do. They really should put their hands up and say, ‘Yeah, we did do something that was inappropriate and we’ll change that for the future and extend to Mr. Hassan some kind of apology.’”

Internet access for lower-income communities is important because without it is really hard to get access to services. Additionally, no access can lead to children falling behind in school.

[via The Star]

Share:

  • Bill___A

    Although they shouldn’t be doing something they agreed not to, I don’t think that $100K is a reasonable amount of penalty for running a credit check. One wonders what the situation is where this caused so much stress and affected health. I have Rogers service and although they did have permission to check credit, I don’t think it caused me $100K of damages.

  • FragilityG4

    Maybe it’s their poor credit that is the source of the stress….

  • To me, it’s in the wording.

    It’s “Not Required” to check someone’s bags in secondary at an AirPort, but can be ordered to do so. I’m going by the words written here, unless the Rogers contract states otherwise.

    That’s just how I read it, I could be wrong.

  • Maybe they want the 100K to clear said bad credit heh.

    It’s caveman theory:
    You have money?
    Me want money.
    Give me money.

  • It’s Me

    They broke a promise, buddy is trying to use it as a scam to make some money.

  • Stefan

    Credit checks cannot be done without consent. 100k could be reasonable in the right circumstances. What if that person wanted to apply for some kind of credit and roger’s credit check made that credit unavailable now.

  • It’s Me

    Almost impossible that a single soft credit check would have any tangible difference in your score and certainly not enough to exclude you from anything.

    Can almost guarantee that is consent is required that Rogers boilerplate agreements they signed included consent.

    Sorry, straight up scumbag running a scam.

  • xeronine992

    In the mean time, they should put him on the regular package every other Joe pays. No more freeloading with the $9.99 internet!

  • Lilly

    Rogers does not break their contract when you have a contract with them they abide by their contract I’ve been with Rogers for years and very happy with their service I think it’s time for people to get out of the low income housing and get a job and live like everybody else and pay their bills like everybody else

  • Travis Pinky Mcdowell

    this isn’t a soft credit check. when any communications company run your credit it is a hard check and effects your score.

  • Bill___A

    Still, if it is a hard check, and it affects things to that extent, it isn’t “only” the rogers check that does it. I’m unsympathetic.

  • Running a credit check always degrades a credit score.

  • It’s not a penalty for running a credit check: it’s a penalty for breaching the contract, and running a credit check without his authorization. Consent is needed for credit checks…

  • First of all, when a communications company does a credit check, it’s a hard check.
    Second of all, you do not have the facts to say that it could not have made a difference in being approved or rejected for a credit product.

  • FragilityG4

    No it doesn’t.

  • It’s Me

    Hard or soft, explain how a single check could tarnish your score so badly that you’d be rejected for credit?

    At that point your credit is already pathetic and you’re just looking for excuses.

  • It’s Me

    Now who doesn’t have the facts? You’re assuming he didn’t give consent. Yet it’s a fairly safe assumption that he signed the same agreements we all do, agreements that include consent for a credit check.

    There is simply no reasonable, rationale, honest or sane way to argue a single credit check is worth $100,000. Why not a billionity or bazzillion ?

  • It’s Me

    Hard, or soft, it isn’t worth $100k. One check ain’t going to exclude him from anything g.

    Scammer looking for the biggest payday of his life.

  • MikeOxlong

    It used to, and I think in some cases (depending on the type of query being made) it still does. In doing those self queries like credit karma they’re designed in such a way to avoid this issue – hence why their entire advertisement explains this exact problem/solution.

  • JJ

    You probably work for Rogers. Just how ignorant can you be? Just because people stay in low income housing doesn’t automatically means they are lazy and choose not to get a job!
    There could be many reason why they stay in one, ever thought that they could be loosing a job and loosing everything along with it and they have to make another mean to find a shelter or a home?

  • Widohmaker

    A soft credit check does not affect the score. A Hard check done by banks, credit card issuers and sometimes telephone and internet service providers does impact the score temporarily.

  • FragilityG4

    What about car loans? Mortgages? So everyone who wants one will have their score degraded?

  • FragilityG4

    What about car loans? Mortgages? So everyone who wants one will have their score degraded??

  • Widohmaker

    Yes, those as well. Your score will reflect that you are soliciting for new credit. The hit on the score is a temporary hit but it occurs nonetheless.

  • FragilityG4

    And your source for this information is what?

  • Widohmaker

    Hey man, you don’t have to believe me. You are welcome to research it yourself.

  • FragilityG4

    I figured if you had researched yourself you would have the answer. I myself worked many years in a car dealership and have had many discussions with business managers about topics such as this. They have told me that checks do not affect your score unless they are multiple checks within a short amount of time.

  • Widohmaker

    I check my credit score regularly. If I am applying for any new credit, as soon as the provider checks the credit file my score will drop. As I said it is a temporary hit but you only need one hard check for the score to drop a few points. If you are applying for multiple credit products in a short span of time the the points will drop cumalatively for every time a lender does a hard query on your credit file. Finally, I would not trust a car dealer’s business managers to divulge accurate information about finance in general. But as I said. There is plenty of information available publicly on this.

  • FragilityG4

    I trust them as they were colleagues. I have named my source, what’s yours?

  • Aleks Oniszczak

    That may be true, but if people don’t sue for significant amounts, then there is no incentive for corporations to stop lying. If he sued for $1000, Rogers would just laugh and come up with another scam. We should be ENCOURAGING people to stand up to corporate lies. As it is, $100K would barely be a slap on the wrist. Good on him for doing something that may help us stop getting Rogered.

  • It’s Me

    How is this helping anyone but his bank account? It won’t stop you from having a credit check. There’s no good reason for Rogers not to do a credit check, other than they said they wouldn’t because most of these people would fail so there was no need. Since they were going to use the failed results to deny them, they had no reason to do it. They did it only because they alway do it because they normally care about the results. Rogers didn’t benefit from accidentally credit checking some guy that has crappy credit.

    The one time Rogers doesn’t act like a corporate douche and tries to help those that are on the bottom, and the sumbags try to enrich themselves off of it. No wonder no one wants to help these people. No wonder they are where they are.

    I do find it hilarious that we moved from just defending this scumbag to now you’re actually romanticizing his behaviour and trying to frame it as somehow noble. That made my day.

  • Jesus, just Google it yourself. It take two seconds.

    https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hard-inquiry.asp

  • Jesus, just Google it yourself. It take two seconds.

    investopedia[dot]com/terms/h/hard-inquiry.asp

  • Except that if Rogers advertised publicly that they would not, while in fact making people sign contracts that said they would, the judge is likely going to side with the complainant because not only is it bad faith, but one could argue that he may have been in a position of weakness due to his socio-economic position.

  • That’s for the judge to decide if it would have made a difference or not. Unless you’re an expert in credit score?

  • It’s Me

    A) since Rogers was not and could not have been trying to enrich themselves, it would be difficult to prove any intent to harm. Exactly the opposite in fact, since they were performing a charitable act.
    B) he was certainly in a position of weakness. That doesn’t mean anyone tried to take advantage of or harm him. Nor does it mean anyone took advantage of or harmed him.

    If you are disadvantaged and someone tries to give you a hand up and makes an honest and harmless mistake, you have to be a pretty big DB to try to profit off of that. Especially to try to make 6 figures off of it.

    No wonder no one tries to help these people. Too much risk of them trying to scam you. I wonder how many other scams this guy is running right now.

  • It’s Me

    Not always a hit. Applied for my first car loan in a over a decade and my score went up one point. Sitting at 851 now.

    The check could actually have “helped” his score.

  • Aleks Oniszczak

    Well we don’t really know how much Abdullahi was actually affected and we don’t really know if Rogers made a mistake – we’ll let the courts decide. But if we want to encourage corporations not to make mistakes – especially ones where they explicitly go out of their way to make an exception to their rules and to receive all the good-will from the media for doing so, then there has to be some consequence for doing so.

    I think the greater good is if Rogers learns a lesson and thinks twice before cheating their next customer rather than worry about some poor person that got some of Rogers’ “well earned” money.

    So I’m saying they may be both in the wrong, but more people would be better off if Rogers were encouraged to act like a better corporate citizen.

  • It’s Me

    Given Rogers gained no advantage by doing credit check and given Rogers was bound to ignore any results of credit check by approving all residents, there is no reason to believe it was anything except an honest mistake on Rogers side.

  • Aleks Oniszczak

    Sure there is! We have become accustomed to poorly trained staff working on minimal wages not knowing how to perform their jobs; have you ever called Rogers customer service? Did you get prompt pleasant service? It’s not the employee’s fault she gives you the wrong answers and screws up your account. It’s Rogers fault for not training and paying its staff enough so that they know what they are doing. Ever wait on hold for 30 mins or more? That’s called not hiring enough staff. That also results in overworking their staff. That leads to MISTAKES. I wouldn’t give Rogers a pass on their mistakes when they set up the system for mistakes to happen.

  • It’s Me

    Incompetence and stupidity doesn’t mean it wasn’t an honest mistake.

    I don’t give Rogers a pass on anything. I detest them. That doesn’t mean I turn off my moral compass nor my ability for critical thought and support frivolous lawsuits meant only to enrich scumbags and that have nothing to do with preventing mistakes.

  • Aleks Oniszczak

    It may be a mistake, but given the system they have set up, I wouldn’t call it an “honest” mistake.

    I have a movie recommendation for those who hate “frivolous” lawsuits. I used to be one of them but not anymore. It’s called Hot Coffee. It’s about the lady that sued McDonalds after spilling their coffee on herself. I guarantee you will think differently about it after watching it.

  • FragilityG4

    There are too many people passing off opinion as fact that is why I have requested sources.

  • Widohmaker

    And I provided them to you. Unless the link is not showing up. But what is surprising is that you seem unwilling to do the research yourself.

  • FragilityG4

    You mean I’m unwilling to research your claims, yes.

  • Widohmaker

    You have some serious issues my friend. I already told you don’t have to take my word for it but you insisted on asking for sources. Then when I provided you those sources you continue to call them ‘claims’ as if I’m just making it up. It’s like you’re arguing for the sake of arguing. Bizarre bahaviour.

  • FragilityG4

    If that is your perception, either I don’t really care… I’m not sure why you do, but to each their own.

  • Widohmaker

    My aim was to enhance the understanding regarding how certain credit inquiries impact your score. If you don’t care that’s fine, but then why ask for sources. Strange.

  • FragilityG4

    So you can back up your claims. It was for you, not me. I always think of others ?

  • Widohmaker

    Uh-Huh.

  • FragilityG4

    Your welcome ?

  • Widohmaker

    “You’re” not “Your”

  • FragilityG4

    Your welcome ?

  • FragilityG4

    Thank you for the grammatical correction. It’s unlike me to make such a mistake. I guess it’s okay to be wrong once.

  • Widohmaker

    You’re welcome. ?

  • MikeOxlong

    Yep, that’s basically how it works.

  • dmflash

    Rogers did 13! Hard credit checks on me in the span of 9 months due to a “system error” perhaps I should sue for 1.3 million?

Deals