Introduction

When a customer stepped in to help his elderly relative manage their mobile phone account, he thought it would be a straightforward task. With Power of Attorney in place, he simply wanted to switch the account from a monthly plan to pre-pay and get a replacement SIM card posted to him. Instead, he ran into a series of roadblocks that left him frustrated, out of pocket, and feeling dismissed.

The Complaint

The older relative had a medical condition that caused them to misplace phones often, so switching to pre-pay made sense. The customer contacted the mobile provider to explain the situation and asked for a new SIM card to be mailed to him – as there was no store close by. The provider refused, saying they couldn’t post a SIM tied to an existing number and that he’d have to visit a store in person. He pointed out that he held Power of Attorney, but the provider still wouldn't send the SIM.

Frustrated but determined, the customer travelled to Auckland. Once at the store, he was told he needed to speak to the “Bereavement Team” – even though his relative was alive. That comment, understandably, caused offense. He also tried multiple times to lodge a formal complaint, but felt the provider didn’t take it seriously and closed it before resolving anything.

Next Step

The customer escalated the issue to Telecommunications Dispute Resolution (TDR), raising concerns about being forced to travel, the inappropriate reference to the Bereavement Team, and poor handling of his complaint.

TDR appointed an adjudicator to consider the complaint. They reviewed both sides of the story and looked into whether the provider followed the industry’s Customer Care Code.

Outcome

TDR sided with the customer. The provider’s actions didn’t meet the expected standards of care and fairness. Here’s what they found:

  • SIM card: The provider’s website clearly stated that SIMs could be posted. If more documentation was needed to verify Power of Attorney, the provider should have explained that upfront and helped facilitate it.
  • Bereavement Team: Using that term when the relative was still alive was inappropriate and understandably upsetting. The provider agreed in hindsight that this was a poor choice of words.
  • Complaint handling: The provider didn’t follow a proper complaint process. Closing the complaint without proper communication wasn’t acceptable.

TDR directed the provider to issue a formal written apology, reimburse the customer for travel expenses, and reopen and properly review the original complaint.

Lesson Learned

Good customer service isn’t just about following the rules – it’s about listening, being clear, and treating people with empathy. In this case, a customer trying to do the right thing for a vulnerable relative ended up feeling ignored and disrespected.

Providers must ensure they’re communicating clearly, offering flexible solutions when possible, and following through on complaints properly – especially when dealing with support people acting under Power of Attorney.

* Names and identifying details have been changed or removed