I don't know, getting the info she got seems worth the $49 to me

Not necessarily I work for a call center and I asked a manager to reverse and refund a person because it wasn't their doing and because that person's name's on the count they assumed that she/he did it. Companies can't go around refunding everybody that calls in and says they didn't do it. They would lose money.

Sounds like this was a quick fix to not incur more charges meanwhile she got the service 100% cut. Sometimes can take a week or 2 or more to prove the situation legally and reverse charges.

I think the paper trail was more valuable for the litigation; she likely included the cost while suing him... so he would've been accountable, and deserves the charges... then he would have to pay all her court and attorney fees too, most likely.

Exactly. They had a duty to refund her money AND report any fraud they become aware of. And I don't know if Canada is like the US, but in the US this would have been a federal crime because it HAD to have crossed interstate lines (even if the victim and the ex live in the same state, the fact the ex defrauded a company most likely officially registered in another state using a credit card of a different company that likely ALSO was registered in a different state qualifies it for interstate fraud.) Of course, then it becomes federal jurisdiction--and good luck getting the FBI to do ANY FÜCKING THING. (We had a client defrauded over the wire of almost a 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS, and the FBI wouldn't even RETURN OUR (the law firm representing the victim) CALLS. Complete WASTES of tax payer $$$ and oxygen.

Because you can't close an account without canceling all services and paying all balance due. And like it said, then she would have to pay cancelation fees and etc. I.e. it would cost her more to cancel and "delete" the account than to just downgrade. Now that she can give her lawyer the ex's address, she can get a court order that says to remove the services from her account, and/or force the ex to pay the cancelation fees. It'll take time to do that though, so in the meantime the cheapest option was to downgrade.

Because it was her phone account. Why should she have to cancel her services in order to cancel his? When she would cancel she would also lose her phone number putting it back into the rotation takes time and she would probably not get it back again. Technically what she should have done was requested the cancel stated that she didn't give permission for those services to be purchased and if the agent wouldn't have done it then she should have spoken to a manager who, upon explaining would more than likely have canceled and refunded those initial charges.

Read it again. Nobody stole her identity. Her ex-husband just took advantage of still being listed on the account.

I work in cybersecurity. It's possible this is phisihing, but the odds of it are extremely low. Someone would have to have all the info to prove they are the account holder, AND know that a secondary person on the account just signed up for service that isn't available in the primary account holder's area. All the info to get to that point (of getting the address where the secondary services are provided) would be more valuable for a phisher than the address, so there would not even be a point in phishing the secondary address. It's way more likely that the story is true, someone noticed something weird on their bill and called to see what's up. It's important to avoid phishing, but you can't refuse to provide service to actual customers for fear of it.

Did you even read the story?

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Thank you. People here really like the unsung hero stories, without want to hear the backsides.

How is it breaking company policy to give the owner of the account (her) the information on the account?

No policy was broken here as she was the account holder. It would only been a breach of policy and liability issue if the husband had his own separate account and the wife called wanting details on his account. As it is, she was the account holder and therefore allowed access to the information on the account.

As the account owner, she had a right to know the information from HER account.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

I was working the emergency assistance queue that night as I was getting calls from him and the sheriff trying to find them both