James* suffers from several degenerative health conditions in addition to being in the early stages of Alzheimers disease. His long-term memory for events which occurred some years ago is still very good but he struggles to lay down new memories. This means that he easily becomes anxious and overwhelmed by new things or unpredictable situations.
James previously had a landline phone, but copper services were withdrawn in his area and his landline was no longer supported. His family had tried to teach him how to use a mobile phone but not been successful. They were very concerned that he would not be able to contact 111 in the case of an emergency.
James’ daughter Sylvie contacted TDR and requested that James be classified as a Vulnerable Consumer under the Commerce Commission 111 Contact Code. She asked for a ‘like-for-like’ replacement for the landline service James had previously enjoyed and the family wanted the scheme member to install an uninterruptable power supply at James’ property once the Vulnerable Consumer application had been accepted.
James’ telecommunications provider shared additional background information with TDR. They provided evidence that they had already considered James for Vulnerable Consumer classification however they concluded that he was not eligible. While they had agreed that James was a person at particular risk of needing to contact 111 in the case of an emergency (the first requirement) they had not agreed that he had no other way of contacting 111 in the event of an emergency (the second requirement).
When the copper service was withdrawn, the phone and internet company had provided James with a mobile phone which was easy to operate, a docking station, credit and SIM cards for two networks. They had also communicated extensively with Sylvie and the family, explaining how the providers worked together on 111 calls and how the 4G and 3G networks operated in the area where James lives.
Most convincing for TDR was the provider’s evidence that they had obtained confirmation that James had a St John’s medical alarm which had cellular functionality, a backup battery life of 72 hours in case of a loss of power, a SIM card and confirmed the device was more likely to be within reach when needed than either a mobile phone or a landline. Importantly, James already knew how to operate the medical alarm.
Next steps
TDR spoke with both parties and shared information between them, however they were not able to reach an agreement and so the matter proceeded to formal adjudication, where we make an independent decision.
TDR considered whether the provider had met its obligations under the Commerce Commission Copper Withdrawal Code 2024, Commerce Commission 111 Contact Code 2020, TCF Customer Care Code 2023 and the provider’s own Customer Care Code. TDR also considered whether the provider had acted fairly and reasonably in its dealings with James and Sylvie.
Outcome
The adjudicator determined that the provider had met all of its obligations to James and was correct in its decision to decline his application for Vulnerable Consumer status under the Commerce Commission 111 Contact Code.
Lessons learned
Any decision made involving a vulnerable person is a difficult one but the web of laws, rules and regulations recognise that the needs of vulnerable people must be balanced with consideration of what is reasonable to expect of a provider. In this case the provider had gone beyond what was required and TDR’s decision reflected this.
* Names and identifying details have been changed or removed