A customer asked TDR to review the repair charges for a damaged fibre cable, disputing the cause of the damage, the installation quality, and the hours billed.
Background
After the customer’s internet stopped working, a technician visited and repaired the fibre cable. The technician noted that the damage appeared to have been caused by the customer’s dog chewing through the line. The customer disagreed with this assessment and refused to pay the invoice.
The customer argued that the original installation was below standard, with cable clips worn and sections of the line left exposed rather than secured overhead or properly run underground. They believed it was more likely that rats or neighbourhood cats had caused the damage. The customer also questioned the labour hours on the invoice and expressed frustration at how the provider handled their concerns, describing them as difficult to deal with.
Next steps
TDR reviewed the provider’s policies and procedures around installation standards, damage, and repairs, as well as the technician’s notes and observations from the site visit. The customer supplied photos of the original installation showing worn clips and exposed cabling, along with evidence of animal damage from cats on other parts of their property.
TDR found that the provider was entitled to recover repair costs where customer‑caused damage occurred. However, the provider had dismissed the customer’s evidence about alternative causes and had not constructively engaged with them after the repair. The photographic evidence suggested that the original installation was deteriorating and had left the cable more vulnerable to being chewed by animals or rodents.
TDR also reviewed the technician’s work log, which showed he had spent time outside the property checking connection points and identifying blockages while the customer was not present. The labour hours were therefore found to be accurate. This part of the complaint was not upheld.
Outcome
The complaint was partially upheld.
TDR directed the provider to amend the invoice to reflect the contributing factors, including the poor installation and the possibility of alternative causes of damage. The provider was also required to issue an apology for failing to acknowledge and properly respond to the customer’s concerns.
Lessons learned
This case illustrates the importance of thorough investigation, clear communication, and constructive engagement when assessing repair charges. Providers should ensure installation work meets appropriate standards and is resilient to foreseeable risks, as poor workmanship can contribute to future faults or disputes. When customers present credible evidence or alternative explanations, providers should take this into account rather than relying solely on initial assumptions.
For customers, documenting issues with photos and providing relevant context strengthens their position when raising concerns.
Early, respectful dialogue and a willingness on both sides to consider all contributing factors can help avoid escalation to formal dispute resolution.