Jurisdiction

The customer alleges that Chorus has not followed the procedure set out in the Copper Withdrawal Code. Chorus consider the dispute to be excluded from jurisdiction, but the exclusions do not apply as this is a customer service matter. The merit of the dispute will be considered by the practitioner at mediation and adjudication.

Dispute outcome

  1. TDR determination is that the customer’s complaint is not upheld.
  2. Chorus is not required to reinstate the customer’s copper connection (the “property”).

Dispute

  1. The Telecommunications Dispute Resolution Scheme (TDR) has received a complaint from the customer against the scheme member.
  2. The complaint is that Chorus has failed to adhere to the Copper Withdrawal Code in that Chorus did not provide the retail service provider (the “RSP”) the required notice under the Code.

Determination

  1. In making this determination TDR has considered the information provided by the customer and the scheme member, and
  • Fairness in all the circumstances
  • Any relevant legal requirements
  • All relevant telecommunications codes including the New Zealand Copper Withdrawal Code effective 5 April 2024 (the “Code”).
  1. Having discussed this with the customer and shared an email exchange with Chorus, TDR is satisfied that there is no settlement of the dispute. Therefore, TDR make the following determination:

Positions of the respective parties

Customer’s position

  1. During April the customer’s copper connection was disconnected at the property.
  2. The customer had received 3 letters from Chorus to advise them of the disconnection. The first one was in July 2024, the second letter was in March 2025, and the last letter was sent in early April 2025.
  3. However, the customer was only contacted by their RSP in April 2025.  The RSP confirmed that the copper connection would be disconnected.
  4. The RSP has a telecommunications wholesale provider (the “wholesale provider”) that supports its provision of telecommunications services. Chorus notified the wholesale provider who failed to pass on the July 2024 and March 2025 notices to the RSP.
  5. The Customer has said that Chorus has breached the Code by failing to provide notices to their RSP.
  6. As a result of the alleged breach of the Code, the Customer has said that Chorus is now required to provide continuation of the copper service for the recommended period of 4 months to allow the customer time to seek alternative arrangements for their telecommunication services. 

Chorus position

  1. During July 2024, Chorus sent the ‘first notice’ to the wholesale provider advising that the copper service was to be withdrawn.
  2. During March and April 2025, Chorus sent the ‘second and final notices’ to the wholesale provider. Chorus also sent notices to the customer by post to the property.
  3. Chorus has said that the wholesale provider was its customer, and it was unaware that the wholesale provider then wholesaled the service to the customer’s RSP. It has stated that the wholesaler was responsible for cascading the information to the customer’s RSP.
  4. Chorus states that under the Code it is:

“required to advise the RSP and give the customer at least 6 months’ notice. The customer has confirmed that they received Chorus notices/letters; these letters all encouraged the customer to act by contacting their RSP to discuss alternatives and warned them that inaction could result in them being left without a service, customer was well informed.”

  1. Chorus has submitted that:

“Under the Copper Withdrawal Code 2024, the scheme member are required to advise the RSP and give the customer at least 6 months’ notice. The 4 months’ notice published by the Commerce Commission is the Commission’s marketing guidelines for RSPs and recommends they give customers 4 months’ notice. However, this is not part of our Copper Withdrawal Code obligations.” 

  1. Chorus has advised it will not reinstate the copper service. 

Reasons for the decision

  1. TDR’s determination is that the customer’s complaint is not upheld.
  2. Chorus has adhered to both the purpose and the wording of the Code.
  3. The purpose of the Code is to the protect the end-users (the Customer) when copper services are being withdrawn.
  4. Chorus has provided notice to the RSP as defined in the Code.
  5. The customer was provided notice and has not suffered any financial loss.
  6. Chorus are not accountable for the failure of communication between the wholesaler and RSP.
  7. Chorus has not breached the Code and is not required to reinstate the copper connection as outlined under the Code.  

The Code 

  1. The purpose of the Code is outlined in Section B.
  2. The relevant definitions from the Code are:
  • access seeker has the meaning given in section 5 (of the Telecommunications) Act 2001, and includes a retail service provider;
  • end-user means a person who is the ultimate recipient of a copper service or of another service the provision of which relies (wholly or partly) on a copper service at a premises, and either:
  1. has a contract with a retail service provider for the supply of a telecommunications service that relies on the copper service to that premises;
  • retail service provider means an access seeker that supplies a retail telecommunications service to an end-user, and that retail telecommunications service relies in whole or in part on a fibre service or a copper service;
  1. Chorus has cited the following parts of Section D of the Code as relevant:

“4. This Code applies where Chorus seeks to stop supplying a copper service by complying with the requirements of the Code in relation to stopping the supply of that copper service.”

“The term copper service means:

6.1 a copper fixed line access service, where:  

6.1.1 Chorus is required by a standard terms determination to supply the service to an access seeker;”

  1. The customer has citied parts of section F clause 19 of the Code as relevant:

“At the same time that Chorus provides a Notice 1 to an end-user, it must  also provide a notice to the end-user’s retail service provider…” 

  1. The customer has citied G4 clause 53 of the Code as relevant:

“As soon as reasonably practicable after Chorus has failed to satisfy the minimum requirements in Sections F and G of this Code, but no later than 75 days after the 28 expiry of the notice period, Chorus must provide a notice to the end-user of the copper service that:

53.1 confirms Chorus is required to continue to supply the copper service to that end-user;”

Application of the Code 

  1. Chorus has met the purpose of the Code by ensuring the customer understood the process for the withdrawal, had access to information about fibre services that are available, has provided a reasonable time frame for the customer to prepare and confirmed that fibre can be installed (if the customer wants it).
  2. The Code’s applies when Chorus is stopping the supply of the copper service to an ‘access seeker.’ This recognises that the supply relationship is between Chorus and organisations that supply telecommunication services.
  3. The Code also provides consumer protections for end-users, when the copper supply is withdrawn.  However, Chorus is not required to continue supplying a copper connection to an end-user once it has sought to cease the supply to an ‘access seeker.’
  4. Chorus provided notice to the end-users RSP as defined in the Code. The error on the part of the wholesale provider does not change the fact that the wholesale provider was an ‘access seeker’ as well as a RSP and did supply the telecommunications service to end-users.
  5. The wholesale provider in this case supplied a telecommunication service to the customer via a second RSP.  The Code does not state Chorus has to check and then provide notices to multiple access seekers, or RSP’s.
  6. There has been no breach of the Copper Withdrawal Code or any other applicable telecommunications code. 

Response to proposed decision

  1. Chorus had no feedback.
  2. The customer has provided the following feedback:
  • Chorus said that it did not know that [REDACTED] was wholesaling its service to [REDACTED]. It also wholesales to [REDACTED] and [REDACTED]. It has been supplying to [REDACTED] since 2019 and I think [REDACTED] since 2018. As I said, in Chorus records, [REDACTED] do not appear as a customer but [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] do. I find it very hard to believe that they didn't know they were just a wholesaler.
  • Chorus sent notice 6 months out from the cutoff date. It was up to me to contact my RSP to arrange alternate service before that date. Chorus sent out an unsolicited letter, addressed " to the householder", on 10 July 2024. As it was not personally sent to myself, I treated it like all other junk mail and ignored it. I do not have a commercial relationship with Chorus and so do not have to react to any communications.
  • TDR claims that [REDACTED] is an access seeker as well as a RSP. According to [REDACTED] website, they state "As a wholesale-only provider we don't own a retail brand". They have no end user retail customers that they deal with. They are an ISP not a RSP.
  • In section 19 of the Code it states Chorus has to provide notice to the end users retail service provider. There is nothing in the code that says they can notify [REDACTED] as the access seeker and let them pass the information onto [REDACTED]. They have a responsibility to make sure [REDACTED] is given due notice. This shows the flaws and complicity of Chorus's systems.
  1. The Customer thinks Chorus needs “to be held accountable for their mistake.” They want Chorus “to improve its systems and not disregard the end user customers.”

In Response

  1. Chorus may have [REDACTED] and other organisations listed as its customer. However, Chorus advised that the wholesale provider was it’s ‘customer’ for this copper line and the customers’ address. It noted “[redacted] had not advised Chorus that they wholesaled this service to another RSP.”  There is no evidence to support the suggestion that Chorus knew the wholesale provider was not the RSP.
  2. The Customer is correct that they have no commercial relationship with the Chorus.  Chorus supplies its services to properties and not individuals.  It sent the notice as required under the Code to the property where an end-user resided.  Chorus was not required to identify the name of the end-user.
  3. Under the definition within the Code the wholesale provider meets the definition of RSP.
  4. Although the customer views his RSP as only [REDACTED] under the terms of the Code the wholesale provider was also the Customer’s RSP. The flaw in the system was the wholesale provider not advising the RSP. The wholesale provider and the customers RSP accept this is where the error occurred. There was no error in the actions taken by Chorus.  It adhered to its requirements under the Code, and it did not disregard the end-user.

Future actions

  1. Given there is no breach no future actions are required.