* Names and details have been anonymised below to protect the identity of the people involved. The complaint was raised by an adult child [The Customer] on behalf of their mother [The Mother] who gave permission for [the Customer] to have authority to act on her behalf.   

 

1. Jurisdiction decision

This is a complaint that TDR can consider as it is within jurisdiction of the Customer Complaints Code (the Code). It is about customer service, and communication issues. It is about whether [The Scheme Member] has met its obligations in terms of the principles outlined in the Code, in particular clause 5 which includes:

  • Scheme Members will treat Customers with respect and in a fair and courteous manner at all times.
  • All information given to the Customer will be accurate, up-to-date and in plain English, acknowledging telecommunications technology is fast moving and complex.
  • Scheme Members will be clear in their communications to Customers; deliver on promises ….

2. Dispute

The dispute between [The Customer] and [The Scheme Member] relates to the changes made to [The Scheme Member’s] invoicing for [The Customer’s] mother’s account and an allegedly fraudulent charge placed on [The Customer’s] mother’s account.

3. Dispute outcome

Aside from section 8.9 whereby [The Scheme Member] is required to reimburse [The Mother’s] account for any and all Paper Invoice Charges when [The Mother] was charged but not provided with a paper invoice, [The Customer’s] complaint is not upheld.

4. Determination

In making this determination I have considered the information provided by [The Customer] and [The Scheme Member]. I will also consider the following:

  • Fairness in all the circumstances
  • Any relevant legal requirements
  • The Code and its service standards, including position statements; and
  • Any other relevant telecommunications code.

Having discussed this dispute with [The Customer] and [The Scheme Member] on 15 February 2022 and 17 February 2022 respectively, I am satisfied that there is no settlement of the dispute.  Therefore, I make the following determination:

5. The Dispute

The dispute in this instance arose in relation to  the decision on an unspecified date in mid-2022 to modify the format and content of [The Scheme Member’s] invoices provided to [The Customer’s] mother for her monthly charges, specifically no longer listing each individual phone call made by [The Mother] for the previous month. Additionally, [The Customer], having reviewed [The Mother’s] invoice(s), considers a charge relating to Txt-A-Park to be fraudulent.

I have summarised the key developments below:

  1. [The Mother] is an existing [The Scheme Member] customer as the account holder of the [The Scheme Member] account [Redacted]. Prior to the changes per (4.3) below, [The  Mother’s] monthly invoices contained an itemised record of all incurred charges for the previous month, including details of each individual phone call.
  2. [The Customer] has advised that the itemised record of all incurred charges for the previous month, including details of each individual phone call, was a valued feature of [The Mother’s] monthly invoices as it afforded her with a convenient opportunity to review the monthly charges and identify any incorrectly applied charges.
  3. [The Scheme Member] sent [The Mother] two letters, the first apparently 5 weeks prior and the second apparently 2 weeks prior, advising that her services would be changed to an Unlimited – Fibre broadband with Home Phone and free National calling plan. Importantly for this complaint, the format and content of the monthly invoices would also be changed. In these letters, [The Scheme Member] advised that this change has been made in an attempt to “simplify and improve [its] systems”.
  4. Further to (4.3) above, [The Scheme Member] advised in its formal submission that the change to [The Mother’s] services, including the format and content of the monthly invoices, was a unilateral decision and did not require the consent of the other party.
  5. On or around 20 July 2022, [The Customer] contacted [The Scheme Member] to raise his dissatisfaction with [The Scheme Member’s] decision per (4.3) above. Between 14 December 2022 and 19 January 2023, [The Customer] exchanged emails with, a [The Scheme Member] Resolution Specialist.
  6. [The Customer] has identified charges titled Other (e.g. Txt-A-Park, Fees) in [The Mother’s] invoice(s). [The Customer] considers these charges to be fraudulent as [The Mother] does not have a mobile phone account with [The Scheme Member] and is therefore unable to send or receive text messages.
  7. [The Scheme Member] has advised in its formal submission that the charge titled Other (e.g. Txt-A-Park, Fees) in the invoice(s) relates to a Price adjustment (which is part of the plan price), a Late Payment Fee and a Paper Invoice charge and that the title, Other (e.g. Txt-A-Park, Fees), is a general, cover-all title which applies to charges of a similar nature.
  8. [The Customer] lodged a complaint with the Telecommunication Dispute Resolution Service (TDR) on 19 January 2023 which was deadlocked on 20 January 2023.

6. Positions of the respective parties

[The Customer’s] position

[The Customer’s] formal submission contains the following documents:

  • A written submission dated 20 January 2023; and
  • A written submission dated 27 January 2023; and
  • A letter from [The Scheme Member] dated 19 January 2023.

I will summarise [The Customer’s] position regarding the dispute below:

  1. [The Customer] considers that [The Scheme Member’s] decision to change the format and content of the monthly invoices per (4.3) above has negatively impacted [The Mother’s] ability to comprehend and review her monthly invoices, leaving her vulnerable to be overcharged. [The Customer] considers that [The Scheme Member’s] invoices are not legally compliant following the change to the format and content of the monthly invoices per (4.3) above.
  2. [The Customer] considers that the charge titled Other (e.g. Txt-A-Park, Fees) on [The Mother’s] invoice(s) has not been legitimately incurred due to his mother’s inability to send or receive a text message through her services with [The Scheme Member] and therefore considers the charge fraudulent.
[The Scheme Member’s] position

[The Scheme Member’s] formal submission contains the following document:

  • A written submission dated 25 January 2023.

I will summarise [The Scheme Member’s] position regarding the dispute below:

  1. [The Scheme Member] considers that the decision to change the format and content of the monthly invoices is legitimate and does not require mutual agreement prior to enacting.
  2. [The Scheme Member] considers that the charge titled Other (e.g. Txt-A-Park, Fees) on [The Mother’s] invoice(s) does not relate to text messaging charges and a breakdown of the legitimately incurred charges is provided in further detail in a separate section of the invoice.

7. Reasons for the decision

  1. Prior to issuing this determination, I attempted to assist with the resolution of this matter through a mutually satisfactory, negotiated settlement. Due to the nature of the dispute, attempts to facilitate a mutually satisfactory, negotiated settlement were unsuccessful.
  2. In order for [The Customer’s] complaint to be upheld, I must determine the following:

    (a) That [The Scheme Member’s] decision to change the format and content of the monthly invoices per (4.3) above is illegitimate for either of the following reasons:

    (i) The invoices are not compliant with the relevant legal requirements; or

    (ii) [The Scheme Member] are unable to change the format and content of the monthly invoices per (4.3) above without [The Mother’s] or [The Customer’s] consent; and

    (b) That the charge titled Other (e.g. Txt-A-Park, Fees) on [The Mother’s] invoice(s) has not been legitimately incurred
  3. I will now explore these points in turn.

Are the new invoices legally compliant?

  1. The minimum legal requirements for tax invoices issued in New Zealand are specified in section 24(4) of the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985, which I have copied below:
Goods and services - Act
  1. The relevant provision for [The Customer’s] complaint is clearly subsection 24(4)(d), which imposes a statutory requirement on [The Scheme Member] to provide a “description of the goods and services supplied” in any tax invoices issued in New Zealand for financial consideration under $1000. Neither the term “description”, nor the phrase “description of the goods and services supplied” have been specifically defined in the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985.
  2. Further to (6.5) above, it follows that, without any specific definition provided, an ordinary interpretation of “description” must be taken when determining the scope of subsection 24(4)(d).
  3. The Pocket Oxford English Dictionary, Ninth Edition defines “description” as follows:

    1. A spoken or written account.
    2. The action of describing.
    3. A sort, kind, or class: people of any description.
  4. Having considered the context of section 24 and the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985 as a whole, along with the definition in the Pocket Oxford English Dictionary, Ninth Edition, it is my opinion that an ordinary interpretation of “description of the goods and services supplied” does not extend to the level of specificity that [The Customer] is suggesting, which would require [The Scheme Member] to provide an itemised, detailed list of each and every phone call which has been made during the previous monthly billing period.
  5. Despite my efforts, I have been unable to find any additional or alternative legislative provisions imposing any minimum standards or legal requirements on the format and/or content of an invoice issued in New Zealand.
  6. In addition to the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985, the New Zealand Telecommunications Forum Customer Complaints Code (“the Code”) also imposes various minimum standards on Telecommunications Providers, such as [The Scheme Member], who are bound by the Code.
  7. The relevant billing standards contained in the Code are covered under section 10, which I have copied below:
TDR - Code - Billing
  1. Having reviewed an invoice dated 10 October 2022, it is evident that the format and content of the monthly invoice is compliant with the provisions contained in section 10 of the Code. For completeness, I do not consider that clause 10.7 of the Code can be reasonably interpreted to extend to level of specificity that [The Customer] is suggesting, which would require [The Scheme Member] to provide an itemised, detailed list of each and every phone call which has been made during the previous monthly billing period.
  2. Having reviewed [The Scheme Member’s] General Terms and Conditions for Consumer, along with the Broadband & Home Phone Specific Terms, I have been unable to identify any contractual requirement for [The Scheme Member] to provide an itemised, detailed list of each and every phone call which has been made during the previous monthly billing period.
  3. In light of the findings at (6.8), (6.12), and (6.13) above, and in the absence of any binding provisions to the contrary, I hereby determine that the invoice(s) in question are legally compliant and that [The Scheme Member] are under no obligation to provide an itemised, detailed list of each and every phone call which has been made during the previous monthly billing period. This element of [The Customer’s] complaint therefore fails.

Did [The Scheme Member] require consent prior to changing the invoices?

  1. Although neither party have referred to them, I consider [The Scheme Member’s] terms and conditions to be relevant to this dispute. As such, I have taken them into consideration when issuing this determination.
  2. I have reviewed [The Scheme Member’s] General Terms and Conditions for Consumer, along with the Broadband & Home Phone Specific Terms, and have copied the provisions relevant to this element of [The Customer’s] complaint below:

[Redacted]

  1. Due to the fact that [The Scheme Member] apparently provided [The Mother] with 5 weeks-notice, it appears that [The Scheme Member] considered the changes to [The Mother’s] service as being potentially disadvantageous, which is covered by clause 6.2 of [The Scheme Member’s] General Terms and Conditions for Consumer copied above.
  2. Having reviewed the undated letters per (4.3) above, it is clear that, so long as the first letter was sent more than 30 days prior to enacting the change per (4.3) above, [The Scheme Member] would have complied with this provision and would therefore be contractually entitled to change [The Mother’s] account as [The Scheme Member] have subsequently chosen to do.
  3. I note that both parties’ formal submissions are largely undated as it relates to the development of this dispute. However, given the reference to the 5-week timeframe in the first undated letter and, in the absence of supporting documentation to the contrary, I accept on the balance of probabilities that [The Scheme Member] have provided [The Mother] with sufficient notice in accordance with clause 6.2 of [The Scheme Member’s] General Terms and Conditions for Consumer.
  4. Further to (6.19) above, [The Scheme Member], having complied with all relevant contractual provisions regarding this element of [The Customer’s] complaint, were entitled to unilaterally change [The Mother’s] services, including the format and content of the monthly invoices, as they chose to do. I hereby determine these changes to be legitimate and therefore this element of [The Customer’s] complaint fails.

Has the Txt-A-Park charge been legitimately incurred?

  1. I have copied [The Scheme Member’s] explanations regarding the charge in question on the invoice(s) below:

The front page of the bill shows ‘Other (e.g. Txt-A-Park, Fees)’. The Txt-A-Park is just an example of what the charges may cover so if you [Redacted] refer to the next page of the invoice the actual charges are listed under ‘Other’

…

We investigated further and found that on the invoice in question, the “other” charges were for a Price adjustment (which is part of the plan price), a Late Payment Fee and a Paper Invoice charge, which could be seen in detail, further down the invoice.

  1. Having reviewed an invoice dated 10 October 2022, it is evident that the charges covered by the title Other (e.g. Txt-A-Park, Fees) are specifically listed on the second page of the invoice under Current charges summary, which do not contain any charges for text messaging.
  2. In light of [The Scheme Member’s] explanations above, and in the absence of any supporting documentation from [The Customer]to suggest otherwise, I hereby determine that there is insufficient proof to determine that the charge titled Other (e.g. Txt-A-Park, Fees) has been incorrectly applied to [The Mother’s] invoice(s). This element of [The Customer’s] complaint has not been sufficiently established and therefore fails.

8. Proposed determination

  1. I invited [The Customer] and [The Scheme Member] to provide any final comments in response to the proposed determination which was issued on 20 February 2023.

9. Final determination

  1. Per (7.1) above, [The Customer] and [The Scheme Member] have been provided an opportunity to respond to the proposed decision. [The Scheme Member] has not provided a response to the proposed decision. [The Customer] has provided a response to the proposed decision, advising that he disagrees with the proposed decision for various reasons.
  2. Having reviewed [The Customer’s] dissenting response, it is clear that it echoes much of his formal submissions. [The Customer] has again generally referenced the Fair Trading Act 1986 and has again submitted that he considers [The Scheme Member] should provide an itemised, detailed list of each and every phone call which has been made during the previous monthly billing period.
  3. Further to (8.2) above, [The Customer] has submitted 5 reasons why he disagrees with the proposed decision. I will consider them each in turn below:

As the charges relate to each call, it therefore stands to reason that each item or call is a billed item. As per the conditions laid out by the standards you have mentioned it is therefore acceptable to request each billable item be listed. We would understand and accept if it was a simple case of a service charge in the same manner as internet where a monthly cost was incurred. But as [The Scheme Member] chooses to bill per call, and each call is different in length, address and distance as per their billing charges they are different items.

A description of the goods or services supplied are simply that, and with no description of the goods, eg time/date/length/number NO bill or statement can be considered valid.

  1. As discussed between (6.4) and (6.8) above, [The Customer’s] preferred level of specificity is not supported by the relevant legislative provisions.

Also it clearly states the obligations under the fair trading act REF:https://comcom.govt.nz/business/dealingwith-typical-situations/selling-goods-and-services

Pricing your products or services

When deciding on your pricing, you must take care not to mislead or deceive consumers. Any representations you make about price must be clear, accurate and unambiguous.

Businesses and salespeople must not give you false or misleading information or create for you a misleading impression about a product or service. This includes details about the nature, quantity, quality, origin, performance characteristics, suitability or benefits of goods or service - everything must be accurate and clearly described. Business must also be able to substantiate any claims they make about the products or services they offer for sale.

  1. As provided by [The Customer], the above guidance by the Commerce Commission relates to the pricing of goods and services. The pricing of goods and services is distinct from the invoicing requirements in New Zealand, which as discussed between (6.4) and (6.8) above, is governed by the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985. If the Legislature had intended for a higher level of specificity to be required, they had (and continue to have) the power to introduce that into legislation.

I feel I must also point out that your claim " Due to the fact that [The Scheme Member] apparently provided [The Mother] with 5 weeks-notice" is false and I ask if you can please provide the accompanying proof of that statement.  

…

Your statement " balance of probabilities that [The Scheme Member] have provided [The Mother] with sufficient notice" also has me concerned. Could you please explain this statement? I am unsure if you are trying to say that you are unable to prove that [The Scheme Member] sent or informed the customer ( us ) in accordance with 6.2? or that you require evidence to confirm this in order to avoid supposition?

  1. I have attached the undated letters provided to me by [The Scheme Member] in support the above.

No notice was given at all to the changes made to the PAID service paper invoice. Receipt of an invoice for the previous month which has already been altered can NOT be considered notification of change as it was changed and unknown to us until we received the first altered bill. The paid service IE paper invoice, therefore was altered without our knowledge or prior understanding until it was received.

  1. As discussed between (6.4) and (6.20) above, [The Scheme Member’s] decision to change the format and content of the monthly invoices per (4.3) above has been determined to be legitimate. Therefore, so long as [The Mother] is receiving a paper copy of the newly formatted invoice(s) for which she is being charged, [The Scheme Member] is operating in compliance with their terms and conditions. It is unclear if [The Customer]is asserting that [The Mother] has been charged for paper invoice(s) which she has not received. If this is the case, [The Scheme Member] must refund the paper invoice charges associated with any monthly invoices which were not provided to [The Mother] in a paper copy.

Might I also point out that 10.7 of the bill is extremely relevant in this instance because it is a statement of HOW the bill is to be set out or when it can be altered. To question the level of specificity does not apply.

  1. Having reviewed the invoice dated 10 October 2022, which I have attached, it is evident that the charged services have been separated into fixed charges (“Plan charges”) and variable charges (“Usage charges”) in accordance with clause 10.7 of the Code. Further, as discussed at (6.12) above, I do not consider that clause 10.7 of the Code can be reasonably interpreted to extend to level of specificity that [The Customer]is suggesting, which would require [The Scheme Member] to provide an itemised, detailed list of each and every phone call which has been made during the previous monthly billing period.
  2. The Scheme Member are hereby required to reimburse the [The Mother's] account for any and all Paper Invoice Charges when [The Mother] was charged but not provided with a paper invoice. 
  3. Aside from (8.9) above, [The Customer’s] complaint hereby fails and is not upheld. TDR imposes no further obligations on [The Scheme Member] in relation to [The Customer’s] complaint.