The customer contacted TDR as they felt it was not fair that they were being charged for repair work conducted on a faulty fibre connection.

The customer’s fibre connection had recurring connectivity issues, so they contacted their internet service provider (ISP) for assistance.

The ISP arranged for a technician to visit the property.  The technician worked for the Wholesale Scheme Member (WSM), who owns and manages the fibre network that the customer uses through their contract with the ISP.  The technician could not access the cables that were under the property, so the customer cut a hole in the floor to allow the technician access.

The technician repaired the cables and reported that the damage had been caused by rodents.  The WSM then issued an invoice for payment on the repaired cables.

The customer disagreed that rodents caused the damage and disputed that they were liable for the repair charges.  They claimed that the damage was caused by an incorrect installation during previous repairs to the cables.  The property had recently been renovated and during the renovations the fibre cables had been damaged or cut several times which the WSM fixed without charge.

The customer also claimed that they continued to have service disruptions despite the repair work being completed.  In addition, the customer sought compensation to repair the hole they made to make access to the cables available for the technician.

The ISP offered to troubleshoot the ongoing connectivity issues, but the customer declined. 

How we helped

TDR facilitated discussions between the ISP, the WSM and the customer.  During these discussions, the ISP made a settlement offer which would have waived all charges that had been applied by the WSM for the repair work.  

The customer declined the settlement offer. 

TDR appointed an adjudicator to review the complaint and make an independent decision as the parties were unable to reach a mutual settlement. 


TDR reviewed the evidence submitted by parties and determined that the customer’s complaint was not upheld.  

TDR found that liability of the repair costs lay with the customer as there was no evidence provided to suggest the damage was caused by an incorrect installation.  

Therefore, having reviewed the information provided, TDR found no contractual obligation on the WSM to undertake repair work or to take responsibility for the hole made by the customer to access the cables.   

The WSM was not liable for the costs of repairing the access point to the cables.