Don't hold your breath; they want you to wait 72 hours before they will assist. How can it take that long to respond to a text? Is it intentional?
@ShrubLadyPublic Mobile just only provides the bare minimum to adhere to the CCTS guidelines.. which doesn't provide a definition on time frame for "reasonable". I think it will be more effective to get your MP to advocate for change to the code. Also in comparison, Public Mobile's complaints are pretty low among the big 3 and subsidaries. Prepaid is a shrinking market segment so I doubt much would change, other than getting folded into Koodo or get charged $5 each support call like Chatr.
I would be okay with a per-incident charge, to expedite, they should include a free "expedition" for new account holders. If they go beyond 15 days, the credit card issuer will allow you to dispute the charge, and regardless, you can argue for a prorated reduction on your credit card, for the amount of time you are without service.
I think you are just ignorant of how effective it can be to push back against these bad business practices. Every company attempts to pack all kinds of nonsense into their TOS - it does not make these legally binding. In order to dispute a charge all I have to do is to convince a customer service agent at my credit card company that I have a legitimate beef. If they make me wait 72 hours before turning on my service, I will dispute it with my credit card company, and I am 100% certain that Public Mobile will get a charge-back for the pro-rated amount, we are only talking $3 or $4.
So according you your incorrect analysis, my credit card company is going to "parse" the TOS from public mobile before they accept the charge-back from a customer? That just isn't how it works.
What will happen is the credit card company will accept it as a charge-back, and the merchant (Public Mobile) will then have the "burden of proof" to establish why my dispute is not valid. So how is Public Mobile going to do that? Take one of their managers, and write up a response to the charge-back, (for $3.50); and if they prevail, so what?
I still win, I made them use a $25 per hour employee's time to work on this dispute with Mastercard, it still costs them far more money than $3.50 for just paying the charge-back. They would have to be totally vacuous, (with your kind of misguided thinking) - to do anything but just accept the charge-back.
If everybody did this, instead of "rolling over", there would be some changes in the customer service model, and everybody would win.
Why would you post such an ignorant reply to a post on this forum, I just can't understand the thinking of people who seem to have absolutely no grounding in business, and want to post things seemingly in defence of Public Mobile, who is clearly a "bad actor" by not being more responsive to new users.
This is what we need to do - complain to our credit card companies and request a pro-rated charge-back for the time we don't have service. I agree.
Yes of course- makes perfect sense to me.
Yes, it can make sense to dispute a charge to the card issuer if contacting the merchant isn't getting anywhere. However, this should be a last resort. When a card issuer does a chargeback, they might very well do it for the customer, but if you do it too many times, I suspect that the bank/card issuer will start being less helpful in the future, and may even suspect that the card hold is not being truthful.
I know that no one wants to wait a few days for a moderator to reply, but doing this can be faster than the amount of time a chargeback investigation to be concluded, the time spent on the phone, and time spent filling out forms, signing them, and then faxing/e-mailing them back to the card credit card company.
@computergeek541The technical term for chargeback without first notifying or working out with the merchant is known as "friendly fraud".