Xfinity overbilled her for extra phones since 2023. Why was it so difficult to fix?

Boston Globe

07-05-2025

Mandell, who is in her 70s and lives in Bolton, said a young Xfinity representative at the store studied her bill for a while and then announced, 'Something's not right.'
Advertisement
The representative explained that Mandell was billed for four phones, not two, for an extra $60 per month. The old phone Mandell had exchanged? She was still paying for service on it. And her husband's? He had left it in some forgotten corner of the house. But she was paying for service on it too.
Xfinity's erroneous monthly billing, dated to 2023, meant she had paid an extra $1,200 for two phones not in use.
The representative urged her to insist on a credit for $1,200, Mandell told me in an email asking for help.
But Mandell's demands for a credit were stymied by what Xfinity called its '120-day rule' — that it could give wronged customers credits only for the most recent three months, no matter how far back the overbilling began. That limited her refund to $180.
Advertisement
Mandell protested but Xfinity dug in its heels, even saying the overbilling was her fault.
'It was mind-boggling that they would bill us for phones that were clearly not in use,' she said. 'And then they refused to give us a credit.'
The resolution
: I wrote to Xfinity with a copy of Mandell's detailed and lucid account of what happened, saying I thought she had a 'legit' complaint. The same day, Mandell got a call from Xfinity's corporate office.
'I almost fell off my chair when Xfinity told me I would get a $1,200 credit,' Mandell told me.
Xfinity told me: 'This should not have happened and we apologize.'
The takeaway
: The 120-day rule I found on Xfinity's website applies to the purchase or rental of movies and TV shows when customers encounter technical problems, but there was no indication it applies to phone service. Should Mandell be penalized for not discovering the discrepancy earlier? Billing accuracy should have been Xfinity's responsibility, not hers.
Mistakes happen. What I fault Xfinity for is not immediately admitting its mistake and making Mandell whole. Xfinity got paid for something she didn't ask for, didn't want, and didn't get. It would be improper for Xfinity to profit from its mistake.
The lesson in all this? When you know you are right, persist, persist, persist. And don't be dissuaded by some silly 'rule' thrown in your way.
Future of Direct File?
The Internal Revenue Service is going through some big changes under the Trump administration.
JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images
Advertisement
But the Internal Revenue Service is going through some big changes under the Trump administration. About one-third of its 100,000 employees are expected to resign or be laid off by the end of the year.
One of the casualties may be Direct File. The Associated Press reported last week that the program will be eliminated, citing two people familiar with the decision. So stay tuned.
More National Grid confusion
Last winter, National Grid failed to send timely bills to about 35,000 customers in Massachusetts.
David L. Ryan/Globe Staff
Last winter, National Grid failed to send timely bills to about 35,000 customers in Massachusetts,
National Grid publicly apologized for its administrative lapse and quickly agreed to write off amounts owed for the oldest periods when customers got no bill. For example, customers who went six months without being billed would be required to pay what they owed only for the most recent two months.
But apparently some customers nevertheless got billed for the full amount, prompting one reader to write to me asking for clarification.
'We just received a $2,138.31 bill for five months of charges going back to Nov. 1,' the reader wrote. 'Should I contact National Grid or just 'suck it up' and pay the total when we can?'
No, don't pay the full amount, I replied. It's a mistake. Call National Grid and cite the DPU order.
In an email to me, National Grid reiterated its commitment to the write-off and said it would communicate directly with impacted customers. I ask who would ultimately pay for the write-off — ratepayers or shareholders?
Advertisement
'That will be reviewed and determined at a future date,' a spokesperson said.
Refund in loan at exorbitant interest rate
The subject (left), who has schizophrenia, borrowed $500 from an online lender at a high interest rate. His father (right) tried to help him.
Brett Phelps for The Boston Globe
Last month,
The father said his son took the loan without his knowledge, then came to him for help when he struggled to keep up with the interest-only payments of $150 every two weeks.
After the column was published, Clear Air refunded the son $728.50 in interest and fees, according to the father.
'We're quite grateful to have this resolved,' said the father, who asked that neither he nor his son be identified in this column, to protect the son from being a target of online scams.
Got a problem? Send your consumer issue to