The customer decided to change mobile phone providers. He made enquiries by phone and believed he was advised to buy a new SIM card before porting his old number across. He went to the provider’s store, purchased a SIM card and topped up his new prepay account. The agent from his initial phone call believed he had ordered a SIM card and opened an account, resulting in the customer receiving a second SIM card by post and having a second separate account.
In addition to the SIM card and account miscommunications, he experienced network difficulties resulting in him missing out on important phone calls. During this period, he received several automated text messages from the new provider advising him that he had exceeded his data cap, which he believed was harassment. The customer and phone provider entered into a lengthy exchange of correspondence about the issues he had encountered. Confusion arose over the customer’s accounts and plans. The provider offered a goodwill credit of $10 in lieu of his top-up amount, however the customer was not satisfied with this offer and sought a high amount of compensation as he believed he had lost work due to missed calls.
The customer contacted TDR, complaining that the provider’s network service did not meet expected standards and customer service failures. We began gathering information from him and his provider. TDR explored the option of mediation with the parties. The provider had concerns about the customer’s attitude and behaviour towards their staff, and the customer was entrenched in their position. TDR’s Resolution Practitioner ascertained that mediation was not appropriate in this case, instead proceeding the matter to adjudication where they would make an independent decision on the matter.
The TDR Resolution Practitioner acknowledged that miscommunication had happened, but also noted that this had been compounded by the customer having not read the details of the product he was purchasing or the term and conditions. The provider had demonstrated attempts to resolve issues and the customer had demonstrated difficult behaviour in response to these attempts. A determination was issued and the complaint was not upheld.