Jurisdiction assessment

This complaint is about billing.

The Customer claims that they were charged for services they did not receive and that the charges were not disclosed to them prior to the service being provided.

The Wholesale provider denies the allegations and submits that the service was delivered in accordance with the Customer’s request, the applicable terms and conditions, and at a cost that is publicly available on its website.

The Wholesale provider further argues that the matter should be excluded from TDR jurisdiction under Exclusion 2 of Schedule 4 of the Terms of Reference.

Exclusion 2 of Schedule 4 of the Terms of Reference states that matters should be excluded if:

2. relating to the composition or level of charges (price) a Scheme Member sets in respect of Telecommunications Services (provided that a Consumer shall not be prevented from basing a Complaint on the Scheme Member engaging in misleading conduct regarding its pricing).

In this case, the Customer is not challenging the Wholesale provider’s composition or level of charges. Rather, the complaint relates to charges for services that were allegedly not delivered, as well as the manner in which those charges were communicated to the customer. Therefore, Exclusion 2 does not apply.

Accordingly, the matter falls within TDR jurisdiction and will proceed to mediation and, if necessary, adjudication, where the merits of the Customer’s claims will be considered in the context of the relevant codes and contractual obligations.

Dispute outcome

  1. TDR’s determination is that the customer’s complaint is Not Upheld.

Dispute

  1. The Customer claims that 
    1. He was not informed of the Wholesale provider’s costs before the location services were carried out at his property, and
    2. He has been invoiced for services he did not request. 

Positions of the respective parties

  1. Based on submissions from both parties, I have summarised their respective views below.
Customer’s position
  1. The Customer claims that he used the “BeforeUDig” service to locate utility services on his new property before arranging for trees to be removed. This online service sent a request to LINZ, Vector, Watercare and the Wholesale provider to identify the locations of their respective services. 
  2. The other three utility providers provided their information at no cost and offered an immediate response. 
  3. The Customer claims that he had no contact with the Wholesale provider before they responded to his service request. 
    1. The Customer claims that the first indication that the Wholesale provider had received the “BeforeUDig” request was the arrival of one of the Wholesale provider’s technicians at his property. 
    2. There appears to have been some confusion about what the contractor was being asked to do.
    3. The Customer was unable to be at the property when the contractor arrived. 
    4. There was no indication that a cost would be incurred for the location of the Wholesale provider’s services. There was nothing on the original online gateway indicating any cost.
  4. The Customer received an invoice for the location service totalling $180 plus GST. 
  5. The Wholesale provider’s technician mistakenly identified where the provider’s services entered the property rather than the location of the services within the Customer’s property boundaries.
  6. The Wholesale provider has now provided the PDF attachments showing the council’s records for the telecommunications lines. This information was not provided before the invoice was sent. 
  7. The Customer therefore seeks: 
    1. A full refund of the costs of the location services and 
    2. Safeguards on the “BeforeUDig” site that will provide an explicit declaration of the Wholesale provider’s cost for location services for future homeowners.  
Wholesale provider’s position
  1. The Wholesale provider outlined their response as part of their submission. 
  2. The Customer submitted a services location request via “BeforeUDig”. One of the nominated utility Wholesale providers was the Wholesale provider.
    1. The “BeforeUDig” request clearly states that some utility Wholesale providers will charge for locating services.
    2. The Customer was required to acknowledge this before submitting his request. 
    3. The online site also requires the requester to indicate where the services are to be located. In this case, the location request concerns services outside the boundaries of the Customer’s property. 
    4. The Wholesale provider has responded to the Customer’s request. 
  3. The following day, the Wholesale provider emailed the Customer to confirm receipt of the request and to outline the process and costs. 
  4. The Wholesale provider acknowledges that the email subject line (PLAN, the address and the BeforeUDig reference) could have been clearer and that the timeframe for the site visit was short. 
    1. However, the Customer clearly received the email. The visit was scheduled based on the dates the Customer requested.  
    2. The Customer did not attempt to defer or reschedule the visit before the technician’s arrival. 
  5. The Wholesale provider’s qualified technician subsequently visited the Customer’s property on the date proposed by the Customer. 
    1. The technician reviewed the property records and plans and located the services in accordance with the Customer’s “BeforeUDig” request. 
    2. There was no request for a “whole of property” review or for the location of service within the internal boundaries on the BeforeUDig form. 
    3. The contractor marked the position of the services in accordance with the standard process and based on the Customer’s request for the service location. 
    4. The technician confirmed by phone that the service location had been completed.  
  6. The Customer clarified that he was seeking to identify the fibre route across this property to avoid potential damage from proposed tree removal work.
    1. The Wholesale provider advised the Customer to submit a new request, selecting the “whole of inside boundary” services location.
    2. The Wholesale provider’s representative provided, in good faith, the indicative photos from the original installation records. 
    3. The Customer was advised that these images were not a substitute for an internal boundary review and did not guarantee the precise location or depth of the cabling. 
  7. While the Wholesale provider has expressed regret for the Customer’s dissatisfaction with the outcome and the cost of the service— 
    1. The location services were undertaken in accordance with the Customer’s BeforeUDig request.
    2. Notice was provided on the online site that some utility companies charge for the location services.
    3. The cost was confirmed by email to the Customer.
    4. The charges were consistent with the Wholesale provider’s published pricing and process. 

Proposed determination

  1. In making the proposed determination, I considered the information provided by the Customer and the Wholesale provider and 
  • Fairness in all the circumstances
  • Any relevant legal requirements
  • The Customer Care Code and its service standards, including position statements; and
  • Any other relevant telecommunications code.
  1. Having discussed this matter with the Customer and the Wholesale provider on, I am satisfied that the dispute cannot be settled. 
  2. Therefore, I made the following determination: the Customer's complaint is Not Upheld.

Reasons for the decision

  1. In this instance, the legal issues are relatively straightforward. 
    1. Did the Wholesale provider deliver the location services requested by the Customer?
    2. Did the technician act within the scope of the Customer’s service location request?
    3. Were the charges justified and in compliance with the Customer Care Code (to which the Wholesale provider is a signatory)?
  2. I accept that the Customer has been frustrated by the outcome of the service location request submitted to the Wholesale provider via the BeforeUDig online portal. However, I am satisfied that the Wholesale provider delivered the service requested by the Customer. 
    1. The “BeforeUDig” online request clearly states that some utility Wholesale providers will charge to locate services. The Customer accepted this before submitting his request. 
    2. The site requires the Customer to identify where the services are to be located. In this case, the service location is related to services outside the boundary and is not a “whole of inside boundary” service location.
    3. The Wholesale provider and their technician have responded to the Customer’s request. 
  3. The Wholesale provider emailed the Customer to confirm receipt of the request and to outline the process and costs.
    1. The Customer received the email, and the timing of the visit was based on the dates requested by the Customer.
    2. No attempt was made to defer or reschedule the visit before the technician’s arrival. 
  4. The Wholesale provider’s qualified technician visited the Customer’s property on the preferred date selected by the Customer.
    1. The technician reviewed the appropriate records and plans and located the services in accordance with the Customer’s “BeforeUDig” request.
    2. There was no request for a “whole of property” or internal boundaries service location on the BeforeUDig form.
    3. The technician marked the position of the services in accordance with the standard process and confirmed by phone that the service location had been completed. 
  5. Based on the evidence we have received, I am satisfied that the 
    1. The Wholesale provider delivered the location services requested by the Customer on the BeforeUDig site. 
    2. The technician acted in accordance with the scope of the Customer’s request.
  6. The only issue is whether the charges are fair, justified and comply with the relevant codes. 
    1. The BeforeUDig site warns customers that there may be costs for the service location, and the Customer accepted this before he submitted his request. 
    2. The Wholesale provider emailed the Customer to confirm receipt of the request and outlined the process and costs.
    3. These costs are clearly set out on the Wholesale provider’s site, “Preventing damage to the Wholesale provider network.” 

      “Get an on-site cable location.
      If plans show our cables nearby, we recommend getting an on-site cable location from a qualified Wholesale provider asset locator for greater accuracy. The BeforeUDig centre can arrange this visit. Once located, the cable is marked with purple paint to guide careful digging and confirm its exact position. 

      On-site cable location fees (effective 1 April 2026).
      Minimum fee: $186 + GST”
  7. The Wholesale provider’s site records that additional costs would have been incurred for locating services within the boundary of the Customer’s property. 
    1. I am satisfied that the invoice was issued in accordance with Clause 10.2.5 of the Customer Care Code (to which the Wholesale provider is a signatory). 
    2. This clause sets out the minimum standards Wholesale providers must meet. 

      “Providing service information that is accurate, up-to-date and easily understood. Service information that a Wholesale provider will commit to disclosing will include: 

      a) Plan pricing information; 
      b) Any additional relevant fees/charges relating to a service.”
  8. While I recognise that the service did not meet the Customer’s expectations, the service was provided in accordance with the Customer’s instructions. 
    1. Costs were fairly charged based on information provided by the Wholesale provider via email correspondence with the Customer and on the Wholesale provider’s website.
  9. On that basis, the Customer’s complaint is not upheld, and no remedy is available.

Response to proposed decision

  1. I invited the parties to provide submissions on the proposed decision. 
  2. There were no further submissions from the Wholesale provider. 
  3. The Customer provided feedback in an email. He claims that the original BeforeUDig request was a “whole of property request”. The Customer sought the location of services within the boundary. He claims that the Wholesale provider therefore did not fulfil the job request. 
    1. The Customer’s main reason for this claim is a screenshot of the original job details that refers to “private” rather than public property and includes a highlighted diagram of the boundary of his property. 
    2. This is clearly disputed by the Wholesale provider, who states, “The original BeforeUDig request did not specify a “whole of inside boundary” locate, which is a separate option within the BeforeUDig form.”
  4. I am not convinced that the screenshot substantiates the Customer’s claim that he was requesting a whole-of-property check. 
    1. In any event, the cost of that internal check would have been higher, according to the Wholesale provider’s website. 
    2. I am satisfied that the Wholesale provider would still have been entitled to charge this additional amount under the wording of the job request forms. 

Final determination

  1. On that basis, I confirm the proposed determination that the Customer’s complaint is not upheld and that no remedy is available.

Future actions

  1. It is important to note that there is no appeal process available against TDR’s final determination. Other options, such as the Disputes Tribunal or the District Courts, may be available if the final TDR determination does not become binding.
  2. If the Customer does not accept this final determination, they may pursue the matter in another forum with legal jurisdiction to hear it. If the Customer agrees to this final determination, it is binding on the parties.
  3. Final determinations are confidential between the Wholesale provider and the complainant. All files are closed upon the release of this final determination.