Determinations

TDR Case Note T013335 (2015)

Background

This dispute was brought on a number of grounds, including proposed customer service issues, the accuracy of accounts raised, and service provision. There were facts disputed by both parties.

The Customer was living in a flatting situation where another flatmate was responsible of the telecommunications account. When that flatmate moved out the Customer decided to use a different service provider. However, the other Provider did not take steps to connect her account and she returned to the Provider her flatmate had used. The service was connected with no issues noted.

After a few weeks of problem-free internet, the service was interrupted when the modem was showing as connected but no access to the internet was available. The customer contacted the Provider who suggested the modem be turned off and on again. This did not fix the problem and was referred to technician.

After that time, the internet would only work intermittently. The Customer said that she was calling the Provider almost daily after this and her faults issues were not being recorded in the Provider’s system. This meant she had to continuously repeat the problem details and still the problems were not fixed.

The Customer asked for a technician to be sent to investigate and she was told she would be charged even if the problem was the Provider’s. The Provider sent the Customer a new modem. The new modem made no difference to the faults issues. A third modem was sent to the customer and it only worked for about 10 hours before the fault appeared again. The customer contacted the Provider and was told the service was not working due to cancellation for non-payment of the account. The Customer stated she had been told she could defer payment until the problems were rectified. The debt was subsequently sent to a debt collection agency.

Adjudicator’s decision

After considering the complaint the Adjudicator held as follows:

  1. The Customer had made no attempt to pay the undisputed amounts owed to the Provider. The modems were not returned by the Customer and the Provider was entitled to be paid for those modems.
  2. The Provider had taken too long to apply the credits that had been agreed to by the parties. However, because the Customer had also been slow in paying and returning the modems, no recommendations were warranted in this case for breach of customer service breaches.
  3. The Adjudicator dismissed the complaint.