She still has to pay the monthly service charges, even for a downgraded plan, for the 3 years of the contract. I just pulled up Optik TV, and their cheapest tv/internet bundle is $115/mo. She needs to press charges and then submit the police report o the company to have them cancel it without fees.

Definitely cheaper than hiring a private detective!!

Exactly, it was a quick way to get him locked out of the account, her lawyer can help her get the money back later, the important part is that he was BUSTED!

But she didnt get it cut, she only got the free tv gift switched 2 her MAYBE. In order 2 cancel it ALL shed hav 2 pay cancel fees with 3 yrs left on a contract.that means the fee = the rest of the time left on contract usually at like $100 p/m. That's what xfinity did 2 me wen I cut my service off early so my sheister roomates wouldnt have my service 4 free anymore. Ended up payin $400 wen I had 4 mnths left on contract. Now she has 2 pay the lower amt of the basic service charges 4 the 3 yrs or the cancel fee is probably only slightly less than her monthly fee. That's still a lot. Not sure how it wrks there but here u hav 2 sue, win, then if he don't volunteer 2 pay, u need 2 file ANOTHER crt date 2 get them 2 garnish wages & they can only take a certain amt (in my state) & not if they wrk under the table, dont wrk or are on SSI etc. He mite b judgement-proof as my lawyer calls my scum sucking ex subtenants who r broke/jobless/on welfare

That's literally stolen identity 🤣🤣 He was not in fact her so he stole her identity to open an account. How is that hard to understand?

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

I see the guys later on in this post getting downvoted for saying It's against company policy. There's a reason It's against company policy. search Google for DEF con *(hacker convention)... hell I'll show you a video... search YouTube for the phrase "This is how hackers hack you using simple social engineering" It has the number one phisher at that time manipulate a service agent into giving her confidential information. The only difference between this "ghosted wife" is the crying baby. A tool used by these guys to manipulate heartstrings.

I agree with you how is that breaking policy it's her account it's her information she verified everything on there since it's her account she can do whatever she want with it.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Because you're making the assumption that she's the owner of the account. This is a voice on a phone. You have no idea what she's saying is true or if this circumstance is as she described. search YouTube for the phrase "This is how hackers hack you using simple social engineering" 2 minute video. Watch it and educate yourself. The information stolen can be used to gain access to an account, change passwords and information. This agent wasn't a hero, she was an idiot. And she was conned. I wouldn't be surprised if you look this "ex husband" up and find he never had a wife. The end result is she gave away personal information without knowing. That's why you can change information or close accounts, but you can't disclose information. She broke the cardinal rule because of a "story" which could have been a lie.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Out of interest in New Zealand this is 100% a breach of the privacy act, you're also required to protect the information on the account if you know it isn't the account holders. If the she hadn't admitted it wasn't her information it would be a grey area, but she did, therefore it couldn't be released. Even if the customer was to request all the information on their account, this information would have to be redacted as it knowingly identifies another person. Also, having worked investigating these types of issues, I hate to say how often the account holder lies to manipulate the agent into empathetically give information or to make it appear that they are the 'victim' of the story. There really are two sides. Here, this agent would have essentially broken the law, and would be on the line personally for a massive fine along with the company in question. I'm not saying this is right BTW, just saying how it is here.

I agree

Could not be a more different situation. Having worked in a bank call center, I can assure you that when the person whose name is on the account calls in, we actually cannot legally WITHHOLD any information that account holder requests without very good cause (if there's cause to think there's fraud going on, there's a specialist department that caller gets to talk to about it). The ex-husband made expensive changes to the account without permission of the actual account holder, and I'm quite sure the poster would rather not have wound up fired for aiding and abetting by shielding the ex as you seem to think they should have.

You still haven't explained how this broke company policy. We're not talking about cellphone position tracking but rather an explicitly given (and registered) location where you want some of their services (most often cable bound) "installed" and/or bills to be sent to.

Nice story but absolutely unrelated and irrelevant in this case...?