Is it legal to continue charging a subscriber monthly rental if the line has been disconnected?
More than 20 years ago, the telephone line in my name was used by some tenants sharing one house. The original tenant, a friend's relative, left and the house was rented by her friends. By the time I took back the house, the telephone charges accumulated to a few hundred Ringgit. I posed the question then 'Why can't Telekom disconnect the line when the earlier bills were unpaid?' but did not get a satisfactory reply. Since my name was involved, it was a case of payment unless I wanted to test it in court.
Now, I face a similar problem in the PJ house. But this time, it was a case of disconnection because of non-payment, but the rental charges (plus service tax of 5%) continued, at a guess, for more than 2 years! A nephew's friend transferred her line from somewhere in PJ for the purpose of broadband connection. When she left, the bills kept coming in despite returning to sender with a note to send to her address shown in her Identity Card. The latest bill showed amount due at Rm811.35! Telekom continued to charge rental of Rm26.00 plus Rm1.30 Service Tax, regardless of the long disconnection of service for the past 3 years?
I am not sure how many such cases exist all over the country. Just imagine the number multiplied by hundreds, if not thousands of Ringgit, and the substantial amount shown in Telekom's accounts as subscription revenue in their Profit and Loss Account, and as debtors in the Balance Sheet. What portion of it is considered recoverable and what portion is bad? I am not sure about the legal position, but I think it is unethical, if not immoral, to charge anyone rental when the line has long been disconnected because of non-payment of bills earlier.
Link
2 comments:
This is a major problem when Telekom has an almost total monopoly of all the land lines. I suggest you don't pay and then use your wife's name to apply for new lines!
I wonder what percentage of Telekom's revenue is achieved by bullying innocent clients into paying for non-services.
In my first example, the bill was under my name, so it was paid to avoid future problems to my credit standing. I am sure there are many cases of utilities under owners' names being used by others. It would help if service providers disconnect whatever services after the first bill unpaid after a grace period.
In my second example, the bill was in someone's name but the service provided to my son's house. Again, we are caught because Telekom can deny service to that particular property if they so wish and this is my perception and I could be wrong.
Nevertheless, I cannot help feeling cheated by the unfair charging of rentals when service already disconnected.
Post a Comment