From: Joseph & Sari Grove [mailto:grovecanada@fastmail.fm]
Sent: October-05-11 8:04 PM
To: Contact Centre; grovecanada@fastmail.fm
Subject: Violations of Consumer Protection Act of 2002...

To File a Complaint About a Regulated Sector

Information is provided on this website to aid consumers in resolving a complaint concerning one of FSCO's regulated sectors, see: Insurance; Co-operatives; ; Loan & Trust; Mortgage Brokering; and Pensions. Alternatively, consumers may contact FSCO using the following contact information:

Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO)

5160 Yonge Street

Box 85

Toronto, Ontario, M2N 6L9

Phone: (416) 250-7250

Toll free: 1-800-668-0128

TTY: 1-800-387-0584

Fax: (416) 590-2040

E-mail: contactcentre@fsco.gov.on.ca

Companies involved: TD Bank TD Canada trust bank TD Insurance Assurant Solutions ABLAC American bankers Life Assurance Company of Florida Canadian premier Life Assurance Company AIG Canada BMO bank of Montreal Bank of Montreal Insurance

referred by: referred by Financial Consumers Agency of Canada, phone conversation today with Dawn at Services Ontario the provincial branch said Bank Act superseded Ontario legislation in 2005 banning negative option billing for banks, so was referred to Julie Canuel at Federal level who said this is a banking issue despite claims by TD Bank & Td Insurance...Spoke to Rene Autret at Ombudsman for Life & health Insurance who suggested I go after Assurant Solutions/ABLAC?canadian premier Life Assurance Company, but found out that was all owned by AIG Canada who failed in our market & was bought out by BMO BMO Insurance recently...Filed complaint with OBSI & came to you after no response yet...(FSCO)...

Violations:

Product: balance protection Insurance on credit cards: 

Consumer agreements not binding

93.  (1)  A consumer agreement is not binding on the consumer unless the agreement is made in accordance with this Act and the regulations. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A, s. 93. (Note: thus the consumer agreement is not binding because the Act has been violated at the get-go...(ConsumerAct2002-CA2002)

Limiting liability for unauthorized charges

69.  A borrower is not liable for any amount that is greater than the prescribed maximum for unauthorized charges under a credit agreement for open credit. 2004, c. 19, s. 7 (18). (Note: technically this credit protection insurance product is an unauthorized charge & should have been refunded based on that...I was taken for $2,684.70 plus interest, which is well within the limits that TD banks for example can refund for an authorized charge...)

Express opportunity to accept or decline agreement

(2)  The supplier shall provide the consumer with an express opportunity to accept or decline the agreement and to correct errors immediately before entering into it. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A, s. 38 (2). (Note: The error that I am self-employed & thus cannot qualify for job loss coverage, disability coverage, dismemberment coverage was not corrected before they signed me up for this product...)

(e) that the consumer transaction is excessively one-sided in favour of someone other than the consumer; (Note: if a customer cannot pay their credit card balance the credit card company suffers- so this balance protection insurance really benefits the company ie: TD Bank, not the customer, & as such should be part of their interest rate premiums not a fee paid by customers separately)...(The insurance is also ten times the cost of regualr life insurance & claims are almost impossible to make due to exclusions that only present after years of paying premiums...)

“remote agreement” means a consumer agreement entered into when the consumer and supplier are not present together; (“convention à distance”) (Note: a phone record contract, which is what they call this, should be given to the customer to listen to as a digital file in an email or a repeat of the recording at the end of the phone conversation...Such systems are available to businesses...An over the phone conversation, if it is to be called a contract, then both parties need a copy...No contract exists when the customer cannot have his or her own copy, this is ridiculous...)

13. A representation that the transaction involves or does not involve rights, remedies or obligations if the representation is false, misleading or deceptive. (Note: It is established that negative option billing is deceptive, by various Canadian laws, such as Consumer Act of 2002, Ontario law of 2005...Banks have signed voluntarily to not do this practice...The underwriters for these banks have not- which is why this practice is still happening today in Canada...However, TD Insurance has repeated that there are no rights or remedies despite the fact that this product was deceptive...My final letter from TD Insurance attested to that...In not so many words...But essentially they are saying that despite the fact that the product was misleading, that they do not have a policy of refunding monies or rescission...How can a company claim not to give a remedy when they know they sold a false product?)

(h) that the consumer is being subjected to undue pressure to enter into a consumer transaction. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A, s. 15 (2).( Note: The balance protection insurance sales pitch by remote over the phone is bundled with new or old card activation...That is pressure, because you think that your credit card activation is tied to saying yes...The written documents apparently come bundled with your new card to further reinforce the notion that your credit card service is bundled with the balance protection insurance product...At any rate I have not seen any written documentation, nor have heard any so-called phone records- though when I objected to the fact that no one told me the self-employed do not qualify over the phone, I was told it was in the written documentation...Which confirms to me that no mention of being unqualified for benefits occurred over the phone...The phone record was referred to by TD Insurance as "the contract" so again, the contract was void abinitio or void from the beginning...

(c) that the consumer is unable to receive a substantial benefit from the subject-matter of the representation; (Note: Those in the financial sector have publicly stated that this product is worthless)(It was banned in England & all Class Action lawsuits in the States have been successful...providian refunded 105 million in 2001 on this product after a class action suit...Then they moved into Canada, as this product began here then, in 2001, after Americans said no...)

(f) that the terms of the consumer transaction are so adverse to the consumer as

 to be inequitable; ($2,684.70 plus interest, on a TD Visa card, billed to a self-employed visual artist? For something she could never benefit from...? Inequitable is not enough of a word!)

Additional: 

written documents bundled, solicitation bundled, coercive: After signing people up over the phone without disclosing terms or unqualifying the self-employed, disabled, retired, senior citizens or other excluded groups, written documentation if sent at all, is supposedly sent bundled with a new card activation & can appear like a brochure advertising another insurance service...As such, people take their new cards out of this envelope & ignore the junk spam brochures...Banks send & call so often for insurance products that most people just ignore these brochures or phone calls...However this balance protection insurance is sold coercively as a bundled over the phone remote conversation when one activates their new or renewed credit card...The person feels that if they don't say yes to whatever this insurance product is that it might be bundled in a negative position on your credit card, like a higher credit card interest rate or other penalty for not saying yes over the phone...The phone bundling of credit card activation or reactivation with this balance protection insurance sales pitch is coercive & deceptive insofar as they sign you up even if you cannot qualify...Which makes the contract void abinitio...







 


Comments


Comments are closed.