A customer complained to her provider about a series of Internet faults that had disrupted her service for periods in June, August, October, November and December 2008.
Having read the Customer Complaints Code on the TDR website, she logged a formal complaint with her provider around the middle of December 2008. The provider responded that it would investigate and get back to her.
Eventually the customer received a letter of apology and an offer of goodwill credits for the times that the service was unavailable. The customer was not happy with the response and (because nearly 6 weeks had passed since lodging her complaint) contacted TDR to say that her complaint had reached deadlock. She advised that she was looking for a guarantee that there would be no further disruption to her internet services. She also requested 6 months credit for the inconvenience and an apology for failing to resolve the dispute within 6-week timeframe required by the Customer Complaints Code.
After TDR became involved it became clear that the company had tried to contact the customer on a number of occasions and had finally sent a letter in an attempt to resolve the complaint (all within 6 weeks). The company explained that, whilst they always aimed to provide an uninterrupted service, they could not guarantee that faults would not recur (this had been a terms in the contract she signed). The provider also made an improved goodwill offer. The customer was still not satisfied and so the matter moved to conciliation.
Following discussion with the conciliator the customer was offered an apology and 4 months credit as a good will gesture. The customer accepted this offer. She also accepted that it was impossible for a provider to guarantee that faults (sometimes beyound the provider's control) would not occur, but that when they did the provider would make every effort to resolve them within a reasonable time.