Case Studies
These case studies are based on complaints received by TDR. All identifying information has been removed.
New number allocation
A customer moved house to another area and was allocated a new phone number.
Unfortunately it became clear that the phone number allocated to the customer had previously been used by a business that had advertised in the Yellow Pages. The customer began receiving phone calls from people trying to contact the business; some of them were not altogether pleasant.
The customer complained to his provider and a new phone number was allocated.
At the same time the customer queried some charges on his bill that appeared to have been accrued several months earlier. The customer made several calls to his provider, trying to resolve these issues. He was offered a goodwill credit but told his provider that he was not satisfied.
Frustrated, the customer contacted TDR and indicated he was seeking compensation for the stress and inconvenience he had been put though.
Before looking into the complaint TDR advised the customer that TDR cannot consider claims for compensation that are based on the following:
a) loss of profits or indirect loss
b) claims for pain and suffering
c) loss of business reputation
d) inconvenience and mental distress:
e) costs involved in compiling or pursuing a complaint through the TDR process
TDR then set about exchanging written details between the two parties.
The Provider stated ……..” As necessitated by this type of transfer (the customer) was allocated a new number for his new premises. Unfortunately (the customer) began to receive some business calls for a company that had been previously trading under the number he had been allocated.
Although there is a stand-down period prior to the allocation of numbers that were previously in use, from time to time this stand-down period is not sufficient to prevent unwanted calls. When this was highlighted by (the customer) as a concern, we allocated a new phone number and changed the service accordingly.
Although a change of number was performed, this did not affect the operation of the phone line and the customer retained full use of all services during this period.”
The provider also acknowledged that, due to a processing delay, the customer was not billed for all his services following his change of number. Although this did not affect the use of his services there was a delay of approximately three months before all incurred charges appeared on the customer’s account.
They said “Although we understand that the customer was unhappy that backdated charges were applied to his account, as per our Residential terms and conditions we do reserve the right to apply backdated charges.”
The customer was unhappy with his provider’s written response and so discussions were held with a TDR Conciliator.
Following the talks between the parties, the customer eventually decided to accept the offer that had been put on the table previously. A written agreement was exchanged and the complaint was closed.
Contract termination and final billing
Mrs C requested early termination from all her phone and internet contracts for services with Provider P in January 2009. She asked for the final account to be sent and understood this would be with her shortly.
When the bill arrived it included termination fees for some of the services that had been cancelled. Mrs C contacted Provider P and came to an arrangement to pay what she understood to be her final bill by instalments.
Unfortunately (due to circumstances beyond his control) her husband’s pay was three days late and so her first payment was three days late. Provider P said they were withdrawing the offer of the payment arrangement. Mrs C thought this was unfair and continued making weekly payments.
The customer heard nothing more for a while however some weeks later she was surprised to receive a bill for further charges, and late payment fees, together with a demand for immediate payment of the entire outstanding amount.
She logged a complaint and Provider P provided a Deadlock Number and referred the customer to TDR.
The customer then contacted TDR and the matter eventually moved to conciliation.
After hearing from both parties, the TDR Conciliator prepared an Assessment and Recommendation. It was felt that Mrs C’s final charges with Provider P were an accurate reflection of services she had used, but that the final accounts had been confusing and not properly explained.
The Conciliator also felt that the action of terminating the instalment agreement (because payment was three days late) was punitive.
The Conciliator recommended that Customer C arrange a new monthly payment instalment arrangement, with Provider P, that met the needs of both parties (including some flexibility of payment dates). In addition the suggestion was made that Provider P remove the late payment fees.
The two parties agreed to this recommendation and the complaint was closed.
Mobile phone warranty
Customer X signed up to a mobile contract with Provider Y and received a (brand name) mobile phone. Nine months later one of the buttons on the mobile handset “fell off”.
The customer claimed that the fault developed through ‘normal use’ of the phone.
Provider Y advised that, as per their terms and conditions and the information provided to the customer, charges applied for the assessment and any repair costs in instances where the type of damage (in this case to the keypad) was not included as part of the mobile handset warranty.
The mobile phone was then sent away for assessment and repair.
When the phone was returned, Customer X was again advised that faults with the keypad were not covered by the Manufacturers Warranty. The assessment had indicated the phone had been”damaged” and that there had been no “fault”. It was explained that any repair would be at the customer’s expense.
The customer refused to pay the assessment fee and suggested that the button broke away from metal/plastic fatigue as a result of repeated, yet reasonable, use. The customer argued that this matter fell under the Consumer Guarantees Act.
He logged a formal complaint that was subsequently “deadlocked” by Provider Y. The customer then contacted TDR.
In their written submission, Provider Y re-iterated that, as per their terms and conditions and the information provided to Customer X, “…charges apply for the assessment and any repair costs in instances where the type of damage is not included as part of the mobile handset warranty.
Although Customer X has made reference to the Consumer Guarantee’s Act in their written complaint, Provider Y does not consider the act pertinent in this instance. Customer X’s mobile handset has been evaluated by an approved repair agent, who have determined that the damage evident on the mobile handset is not consistent with a faulty handset”.
Photographic evidence was also provided that indicated the button appeared to have been “torn off” (probably by catching the button against a hard edge of some sort) as opposed to metal/plastic fatigue.
Provider Y did not propose a settlement offer in their Level 2 Response. The customer rejected this response and so the matter moved to conciliation.
The TDR Conciliator listened to the two sides and looked at the technical evidence submitted by Provider Y. Customer X was asked whether any evidence (such as an independent technical report) supported their side of the argument. The customer said they could not provide such evidence.
The Conciliator recommended that the customer should pay the outstanding assessment fee and withdraw the complaint.
Customer X agreed to this recommendation and the complaint was withdrawn.
Ongoing faults
After experiencing ‘dropped calls’ on his new mobile phone, a customer returned the phone to the store where he’d bought it.
While a subsequent under-warranty technical check found no fault with the phone, the problem continued – so the customer returned to the store a second time. Another check revealed the same result. The same thing happened some time later, after the phone’s two-year warranty had expired. Once again, the customer returned the phone to the store – this time to be told that he would now be charged for the technical check. The customer argued that the problem was the same as that which had developed while the phone was under warranty, and that the phone should be replaced at no cost to him. The provider declined his request, and the customer contacted TDR.
Conciliation discussions with the provider revealed that they believed the dropped calls were a mobile coverage issue, rather than a fault with the mobile phone. The matter could not be resolved, so the complaint proceeded to adjudication.
After considering all the facts provided by the two parties, the adjudicator concluded that network coverage issues were more likely to be the reason for the dropped calls. As complaints about coverage are specifically excluded from TDR’s jurisdiction, there was no basis for upholding the customer’s claim for a replacement phone at no cost.
Repairs under warranty
After a customer’s mobile phone was damaged, she received a replacement touch-screen phone through her insurance policy.
Within two weeks of using her new phone, the customer noticed scratches on the screen that were affecting her ability to see it clearly. She assumed the scratches had come from her fingernail while scrolling, and returned the phone to the manufacturer for investigation.
The manufacturer referred the customer to her service provider. They advised her that the phone was not (and was not promoted as being) scratch resistant, so they were not liable for repairing or replacing it.
The customer disagreed, saying that the screen should have been more robust given that the phone was designed to be operated using a stylus or finger. She was particularly concerned that the fault had happened after just two weeks – and to an expensive, top-model device.
The customer contacted TDR with her complaint. TDR referred the matter to the provider, but the situation reached deadlock and proceeded to conciliation. The parties agreed that the phone would be returned to the manufacturer, who would fix it at no charge (and with no effect on the warranty) if the problem proved to be cosmetic. This proved true, and the case was closed.
Conflicting accounts
A customer signed a two-year contract that included a free mobile phone.
Unfortunately, he accidentally left the phone in an item of clothing that was machine washed. He contacted the provider to explain the circumstances, and was left with the impression that the damaged phone would be replaced, free of charge.
The replacement phone didn’t arrive, so the customer contacted the provider again. He was told there was no record of any offer of a free replacement phone, and that the representative he had spoken to had since left the company. Instead, he would have to pay $499 for a replacement phone as the original phone’s warranty had not covered water damage.
The company maintained this position in subsequent calls between the customer and its representatives. Company records showed that the customer eventually agreed to the fee, and received and activated the replacement phone.
A few months later, the customer contacted the provider to advise that his phone had been lost or stolen. He again asked for a replacement phone, free of charge. The request was declined.
The customer contacted TDR for help. After attempts at conciliation failed, the matter was referred to an adjudicator, who concluded that the provider had no legal responsibility to provide a replacement phone. They also stated that the provider was unlikely to have made the original offer, firstly because there was no record of it and secondly because the representative hadn’t arranged for a replacement phone to be sent to the customer. As a result, the customer was liable to pay the $499 charge outstanding on his account for the replacement phone that had been sent to him.
Misinterpreted sales advice
A visiting salesman offered a customer a phone and internet package that included (among other features) a 5GB or 10GB monthly data allowance, each with a different monthly fee. Not a particularly heavy data user, the customer asked the salesperson if it was possible to sign up to an intermediate plan: 7GB of data a month. The salesperson wrote ‘7GB’ on the application form, and left the customer with the impression that he’d get 7GB a month (and the rest of the package) for the price of the 5GB deal.
When his first bill arrived, the customer noticed that it was for much more than he’d expected to pay. He contacted the provider and was told that he’d been charged the costs of exceeding his 5GB data use limit – and that there was no such thing as a 7GB package.
After lodging a formal complaint with the provider, the customer was contacted by a sales manager and advised that he could either stay on the 5GB plan (and pay additional costs if he exceeded the usage limit) or upgrade to the 10GB plan for a higher monthly fee. The sales manager also said that if the customer broke his contract he would have to pay a termination fee. Unhappy with his choices, the customer contacted TDR, saying that he wanted the provider to stand by the contract for a 7GB package or give him the 10GB package for the 5GB price. He also wanted a written apology.
TDR then passed on the customer’s complaint (and proposed solution) to the provider. In response, they offered the customer a 10GB plan at a reduced cost for six months, as well as a sincere apology for the misunderstanding during the sale.
Still not satisfied, the customer maintained he did not need 10GB a month and still wanted 7GB for the price of 5GB. However, the provider reiterated that it did not have a 7GB plan. The matter escalated to conciliation – and a solution. The provider released the customer from his contract without penalty, waived the additional fees that had been charged and wrote the customer a formal letter of apology.
Contract misunderstandings
A customer contacted his provider to ask about increasing his broadband allowance.
During the discussion, the provider’s representative offered the customer a new package deal that included a higher broadband allowance, plus a free modem if he signed up to a 24-month contract. However, the package didn’t provide the unlimited calling to a designated overseas country that was included in the customer’s original plan.
According to the customer, he made it clear that, because he wanted to keep the unlimited calling feature, he wasn’t prepared to change plans. He was left with the impression that he’d extended his broadband allowance for a few extra dollars a month and that this entitled him to the free modem. He did not believe that he’d changed his plan or agreed to a 24-month contract. He later complained to TDR because his provider advised him that he had agreed to the new plan and contract, and because of this had been sent the free modem.
During the conciliation process, the provider acknowledged that there had been a misunderstanding and offered to cancel the contract as long as the modem was returned. The customer was keen to cancel but believed that as the modem had been offered free, he should be able to keep it. The parties eventually agreed to a workable compromise: the customer would keep the modem on a reduced 12-month contract.