Case Studies
The following case studies show the sorts of cases TDR has dealt with so far. They are based on actual complaints TDR has received, but all identifying information has been removed.
Double charging
A customer came across a pamphlet advertising an attractive package deal for landline and internet services. He rang the company offering the package and asked if he would have to pay any additional fees to either that company or his old provider if he were to make the change. He said the company told him that he would not face any additional cost, so he signed up to the new deal in early April.
Later in April, the customer received an account from his old provider comprising charges for the month of April and a disconnection fee. To his dismay, the customer also received an account for services in April from his new provider. The customer was particularly aggrieved because he had not in fact received any services in April from the new provider.
The customer was told by his old provider and his new provider that he would need to talk to the other. Feeling very frustrated, the customer rang TDR. One of the TDR facilitators contacted the new provider, who very quickly came to an agreement with the customer and apologised to him for the confusion. The new provider accepted responsibility for the error and confirmed that it would stand by the plan that had been offered to the customer.
The customer was happy with the new provider’s response and he advised TDR that he did not want to take the matter any further.
Just because you don’t use it…
In January a customer asked a provider to disconnect her phone line. She was told line charges would be payable until the end of January. Shortly after this, the customer received a letter from her provider telling her that she would also be liable for early termination of the free broadband service that was part of her phone package.
The customer had never used the broadband service and in fact had never even connected up the modem. She complained to her provider that this was totally unfair. Initially the provider told the customer it would not waive the early contract termination fee but after TDR became involved the provider agreed to waive the fee.
The customer was very happy with this outcome and withdrew her complaint.
Residential or business?
A customer asked her provider to transfer her phone and fax services to a new address. The customer was told that it could take up to 15 business days to reconnect her services. It turned out that the customer was without services for 12 days, which she said caused her major inconvenience and loss of business.
The provider initially offered the customer $175 as compensation but then discovered the customer was in breach of the terms and conditions of her contract. She was being charged for a residential service when she should have been paying for a business service. The provider therefore declined to pay any compensation to the customer.
TDR explained to the customer that it could not award compensation for loss of profits under the Customer Complaints Code and that it was up to a provider to decide whether or not it wanted to pay compensation as a gesture of goodwill. A TDR conciliator held discussions with the customer and the provider as part of the Level 3 process under the Customer Complaints Code.
The parties failed to reach agreement and the conciliator issued a formal assessment of the dispute in which he noted that the customer’s relocation instructions had been incomplete and non-specific and that this had led to delays in reconnecting her services. The conciliator confirmed that the customer needed to sign up to a business service in order to receive a higher level of service. He recommended that the provider pay the customer $175 for the inconvenience she experienced in relation to her residential service being unavailable but reiterated that no compensation could be awarded by TDR for her business losses.
The customer was unhappy with the conciliator’s assessment and recommendation but declined to take the matter any further.
Take care when you are disposing of your old phone...
A young customer rang TDR to say that a provider had billed him for mobile phone charges incurred on a mobile phone he had thrown into a phone recycling bin. He said the phone had stopped working so he had got rid of it and was very surprised to receive a bill for calls and texts he had not made.
The provider investigated the matter and found that calls and texts had been made from the phone after the customer had disposed of it. The provider therefore believed the phone was still operable when it was thrown away.
The customer asked TDR if it could arrange for the provider to ring him when his father was with him and this was duly organised. The provider agreed to go 50/50 on the disputed charges and the customer agreed to be more careful about disposing of his phone in future!
Both parties (and the customer’s father) were happy with this outcome.
Calling international
A customer signed up to a package offering a fixed monthly fee for all calls to selected countries. When the customer received his first bill, he was alarmed to see that he had been charged extra for calls to the United Kingdom involving a particular prefix. This is apparently a very common ‘local rate’ number used by a large number of retail businesses providing low call rates to customers regardless of location in the UK. The provider acknowledged that its sales representative had informed the customer that these calls were included in the package and agreed to credit the customer for the calls.
The provider advised the customer, however, that it intended to change the terms and conditions of the package and that, when this occurred, such calls would no longer be included. The customer was unhappy about this and contacted TDR.
The provider advised TDR that according to the terms and conditions of the contract, it was entitled to make this change. The provider further advised that if the customer withdrew from the contract, he would have to pay an early termination fee. The customer was unhappy about this and a conciliator was appointed to try to resolve the dispute. After some discussion, the provider agreed to release the customer from his contract without penalty and to work with a new provider to ensure a smooth transfer of his services.
The customer was satisfied with this outcome.
Visitors can be costly
A customer was alarmed to receive a bill for $2,000 for excess usage of her broadband service, which she received through a fixed fee plan. On investigation, she discovered that an overseas visitor had used her laptop computer and downloaded a significant amount of material from the internet.
The customer contacted her provider and explained that, although she accepted responsibility for her visitor’s actions, she did not see why she had to pay such a large amount. She pointed out that she had tried, unsuccessfully, to download software to enable her to monitor her usage and she complained that the provider had failed to warn her about excessive usage. She was also annoyed because the difference between her contract rate and an ‘unlimited rate’ was $20 a month and she believed it was unfair to be charged $2,000 for something that only cost the provider $20.She maintained that it was a genuine mistake and the provider was being unreasonable.
The provider noted that this was not the first time the customer had experienced this problem and that it had previously credited the customer with the full amount on condition that she change to a bigger plan. On this occasion, the provider agreed to provide a partial credit of the amount owing. It arranged for its credit management team to work with the customer on a credit plan to help spread payment of the remaining balance over a period of a few months. The provider also arranged for one of its customer service representatives to work with the customer to set up a usage alert.
The customer accepted this resolution and thanked TDR for its help.
Change is not always positive!
In January, an internet service provider approached one of its customers, suggesting that he might like to change his broadband plan because he was using more download capacity than he had initially contracted for. The provider told the customer that although the new plan would not increase his download speed, it would give him greater upload speed and a far larger download capability. He could also purchase more download capability as he needed it.
The customer signed up to the new plan but regretted it immediately. He told the provider that from the day the plan changed, he lost all his download speed and this created a major problem for him. He found it faster to download using an old telephone modem than using ADSL and he complained about this on several occasions.
Four months later, with the problem still unresolved, the provider suggested the customer cancel his contract as the problem could only be fixed by a wholesale service provider that, so far, had not managed to resolve the problem. At this stage the customer contacted TDR and said that he wanted to revert to the service he had before he changed his plan. He said he also wanted a credit for the four months of poor service he had experienced.
TDR referred the matter to the provider, who contacted the wholesale service provider again. This time, the wholesale service provider reported that it had finally fixed the problem. The provider offered the customer four months’ free broadband.
With some relief the customer informed TDR that he regarded the matter closed.