Bethany* has a landline and, for as long as she can remember, has received her account invoice through the post each month. She initially paid it by cheque and now uses the Post Office’s bill payment service.

Bethany’s phone service provider informed her that they had changed their practice and she would no longer be receiving physical bills in the mail. Instead, she would need to log into their portal and access her information online. As Bethany is sight impaired and does not have a mobile phone or internet connection, this is not possible for her. She phoned her provider to complain and, after some delay, was told that she could phone their help desk each month to get her balance and then pay the balance at the Post Office. This option only allowed Bethany to access her balance and not the transactions which made up that balance. As her account statement had sometimes been incorrect in the past, she wanted to ensure that she had all of the information so that she could ensure it was accurate.

The provider’s proposed ‘solution’ was unsatisfactory to Bethany and she complained to TDR, seeking an order that the provider be required to reinstate her monthly physical bills sent through the post.

Next Steps:

TDR referred the complaint to the provider and contacted them to discuss the matter.

The phone provider advised that they had the contractual right to make such changes and that the vast majority of their customers had no problem with it. They suggested that customers who were resistant to change needed to ‘move with the times’. When asked whether a disability impact analysis had been completed prior to the change being made, the provider was unclear but no evidence was supplied to support an analysis having been undertaken.

The home-phone service provider was not willing to move on their position, other than offering to reinstate monthly paper bills for three months to allow time for Bethany to find an alternative provider. They were not willing to engage with the issues that their policy change created for customers with disabilities and for customers with no internet access.

Outcome:

As Bethany and her provider were not able to reach agreement together, the matter proceeded to formal adjudication where TDR can make an independent decision on it.

TDR’s adjudicator determined that the provider had not breached the terms of its contract with the customer however they advised that there was an argument that they had not taken adequate account of their obligations under the Customer Care Code, the Privacy Act 2020 and the Human Rights Act 1993. 

TDR recommended that the scheme member carry out a disability impact assessment to determine whether the options available are appropriate for all users of their services, with particular consideration given to customers with disabilities (including sight and hearing impaired) and older people.

TDR also advised the customer of her ability to engage with the Privacy Commission and/or the Human Rights Commission if she wished to pursue the matter further in another forum.

Lessons Learned:

This complaint highlights the problem with unilateral changes. Had a disability impact assessment been completed, the service provider would have had the opportunity to design a policy which met the needs of all of their customers.