Wilson transferred his mobile and business services to a new telecommunications provider. As a self-employed small business owner, he advised them that it was crucial that he kept the same phone numbers.
A couple of months after the switch, Wilson was contacted by a regular customer who let him know that his business number had a message saying it was no longer in service. Several times, Wilson followed up with his new provider and each time they advised him that the issue was resolved.
He requested compensation from his new provider as goodwill for the business losses, his compensation request was refused but he he was offered a credit on his account.
Wilson decided to submit a complaint to TDR after finding out some of his potential customers were still hearing the ‘no longer in-service’ message. TDR asked the new telecommunications provider to look further into the matter and at their request, TDR invited Wilson’s former telecommunications provider to help find the fault.
Wilson’s original provider found that the fault was at their end - the porting request had not been completed correctly. His original provider fixed this and afterwards the issue was resolved. Wilson’s original provider apologised to him and offered a discounted plan if he returned his services to them.
Wilson also received a new mobile device from the new provider because of the time and effort involved in resolving the complaint.
Wilson chose to accept his original providers offer to return his services for a discounted plan. However, he also believed that the current provider had not done enough to resolve the issue sooner and should provide further compensation relating to his business losses.
As all the parties were unable to reach an agreement and communication had broken down, the matter was deadlocked and assigned to a TDR Resolution Practitioner. After looking into the matter, it was clear that the issue could not be mutually resolved. In cases like this, TDR can make a binding decision on the matter.
The Resolution Practitioner considered the submissions made and discussions that he had with both Wilson and the new provider. The Resolution Practitioner noted that while there were failings in service and equipment, overall the new provider had acted in good faith, in a timely way and had offered (and provided) the customer gestures of good will to acknowledge the poor experience he had.
Ultimately the case was dismissed as the Resolution Practitioner determined the Customer Complaints Code had not been breached and TDR cannot consider any claim for loss of profits.