Woman loses husband. Sues Cable Company

[Stuart]

Was tempted to put this in the Other Telephone companies forum, but it's not a UK company..

Anyhow, a woman is suing Rogers Cable after they started bundling her mobile bill in with her husbands bills. The problem was caused when the husband opened the bill, and found several long phone calls to one number. He called the number, and spoke to the person who answered. What was said is not disclosed, but apparently caused the husband to leave the woman, their home and their children. The woman has since admitted to a short affair.

The court papers said “The husband used the previously private and confidential information that the defendant unilaterally disclosed to the husband to inquire about the people that the plaintiff was telephoning and the nature of such calls,�

The documents also claim that the account was in her maiden name, but was included in the account under her husband's name.

She claims they breached her privacy, and is sueing them (after the problems apparently caused her to lose her job.

Rogers, not surprisingly is denying doing anything to breach her privacy.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05...s_privacy_sue/

Now, apart from the moral question of having the affair (I am not defending her for doing this), does she have a point? The account was under her maiden name, although, seemingly, the accounts are linked.

[danielf]

If the bills were previously sent out separately, and the company unilaterally decided to bundle them without informing here, then I think she has a point.

[TheDaddy]

Hmm is she really suing them because her husband left her? Here's a thought if she managed to keep her knickers on it wouldn't have mattered who she was calling, I'd love to hear her case, "if the phone company hadn't sent the bill I could have continued deceiving my husband", she has no one to blame but herself imo. The need to blame some one else when your own short comings have been exposed is reaching epedemic levels.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Here's a thought if she managed to keep her knickers on it wouldn't have mattered who she was calling, I'd love to hear her case, "if the phone company hadn't sent the bill I could have continued deceiving my husband", she has no one to blame but herself imo. The need to blame some one else when your own short comings have been exposed is reaching epedemic levels.

What if the husband was beating her, and the number was a 'help' line?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Gary L

What if the husband was beating her, and the number was a 'help' line?

She was having an affair with a help line operator?

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Hmm is she really suing them because her husband left her? Here's a thought if she managed to keep her knickers on it wouldn't have mattered who she was calling, I'd love to hear her case, "if the phone company hadn't sent the bill I could have continued deceiving my husband", she has no one to blame but herself imo. The need to blame some one else when your own short comings have been exposed is reaching epedemic levels.

I did say apart from the morals of having the affair..

But Gary does raise a good point. What if the number was a helpline? Or even a friend who she talked to if she needed to (who would more than likely not have a freephone number).

We don't know why he left, who he spoke to or what was said. The only reason we know she had an affair is that she said so later.

Putting aside the moral aspect of the affair seems to me that yes the cable company was at fault just because a couple are married doesn't mean they shouldn't and cannot have seperate accounts. Would it really have been so hard for this company to send her a letter asking if it was ok to bundle the accounts together rather then doing it without notifying. While i do think it is a bit of a cheek for her to moan about her husband leaving and to blame anyone but herself for the actions that probably caused him to leave, do we really want to send a signal to any company that it is ok for them to do as they please with accounts of customers without consulting them first.

From the Toronto Star

When Nagy’s husband opened the Rogers invoice, he saw several hour-long phone calls to a single phone number.

“Nobody does business this way and he's not stupid,� says Nagy, who is in her 30s.

He called the number, spoke to the “third party� who confirmed the affair

from the global toronto
link

Rogers has denied all the allegations, saying it was notified by Nagy and her husband that they wanted a single bill for all their services.

Rogers said the cellphone bill was consolidated into one bill for "administrative efficiency" that would result in savings to the plaintiff and her husband.
Rogers also claimed that Nagy paid her husband's bill on a number of occasions, using both her maiden and married name.

womans got a bit of a cheek if you ask me

[BenMcr]

I got told something simliar happened when I used to work for a bank

They used to sent out quarterly reports on customer's accounts e.g spend, balances etc.

A customer was in the midst of divorcing their wife and had managed to hide money in an account. However the quarterly statement went to the home address instead of where the statements went. Customer got found out and sued the bank for the extra money they lost.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Was tempted to put this in the Other Telephone companies forum, but it's not a UK company..

Anyhow, a woman is suing Rogers Cable after they started bundling her mobile bill in with her husbands bills. The problem was caused when the husband opened the bill, and found several long phone calls to one number. He called the number, and spoke to the person who answered. What was said is not disclosed, but apparently caused the husband to leave the woman, their home and their children. The woman has since admitted to a short affair.

The court papers said “The husband used the previously private and confidential information that the defendant unilaterally disclosed to the husband to inquire about the people that the plaintiff was telephoning and the nature of such calls,�

The documents also claim that the account was in her maiden name, but was included in the account under her husband's name.

She claims they breached her privacy, and is sueing them (after the problems apparently caused her to lose her job.

Rogers, not surprisingly is denying doing anything to breach her privacy.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05...s_privacy_sue/

Now, apart from the moral question of having the affair (I am not defending her for doing this), does she have a point? The account was under her maiden name, although, seemingly, the accounts are linked.

She most certainly does have a point. Irrespective of the nature of the calls, the company should have protected her privacy. This sounds like the days of when women's tax affairs were not separate from their husbands and they had no financial independence.

P.S. From the title of the thread, I thought it was one of those hoax articles and she had mislaid him in a supermarket or something, because the cable company had told to her to take him there for a prize.

---------- Post added at 15:46 ---------- Previous post was at 15:44 ----------

It does remind me of the American radio show who got a wife to hoax-call her husband to admit to an affair and he admitted to sleeping with her sister.

From the Global Toronto link above

Rogers has denied all the allegations, saying it was notified by Nagy and her husband that they wanted a single bill for all their services.

"We did not terminate Ms. Nagy's contract or automatically consolidate these accounts," said Rogers spokeswoman Kathy Murphy in an e-mail

[Flyboy]

I doubt she would have agreed to such a thing of she was aware of all the consequences. It is unlikely she would have agreed to it, if she knew her husband would be able to see all her calls.

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I doubt she would have agreed to such a thing of she was aware of all the consequences. It is unlikely she would have agreed to it, if she knew her husband would be able to see all her calls.

The affair lasted three weeks, and ended just before the bill was received - perhaps, just perhaps, at the time she agreed (if she agreed) she wasn't having the affair?

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I doubt she would have agreed to such a thing of she was aware of all the consequences. It is unlikely she would have agreed to it, if she knew her husband would be able to see all her calls.

why is it unlikely ,maybe she wasn't having a afair when she aledgedley agreed to have the bills lumped together ,maybe she wasn't aware of the consequencies of having the bills put together

it's a big mistake to credit people with too many smarts in a case like this ..not enough facts and too many asumptions

but IF the woman didn't agree to the change of bills then possibly she has a case but a judge with a nounce of common should kick it into touch

if the woman DID agree to the change of bills without realising the consequencies then more fool her and deserves everything she gets

either way she should get nothing imo