Provision of interim and alternative services and the Customer Service Guarantee

1. Introduction and definitions

If a provider is unable to connect or repair a service within the timeframes set out in the Telecommunications (Customer Service Guarantee) Standard 2000 (No. 2), it may offer a customer an interim or alternative service.

The Customer Service Guarantee (CSG) Standard specifies that when a provider offers an alternative service it must also offer an interim service.

Definitions An interim service is one that provides a customer with a service for voice telephony (or an equivalent service if voice telephony does not suit a customer with a disability). It is charged at the same rate that the customer would have been charged if they were supplied with a standard telephone service. The Customer Service Guarantee (CSG) Standard states that an interim service ‘may or may not include at the provider’s discretion a data capability or any enhanced call handling feature.’ An alternative service is a service that provides a customer with access to a service for voice telephony. Call diversions to a mobile telephone service or to another fixed telephone service are examples of alternative services. See also the definition in the CSG Standard. Alternative services will be charged at the rate set by the provider for those services, and can be higher than the rate for a standard telephone service.

Compensation under the CSG Standard is not payable from

• the date a customer receives an interim or alternative service, or
• the date of the provider’s offer, if a customer does not accept the offer.

A customer may be entitled to compensation for the period before they were offered or received the service. See also below, Reinstatement of eligibility.

2. Complaints about the reasonableness of offers of interim and alternative services

The CSG Standard states that a provider’s offer of interim and alternative services must be reasonable. While the Standard defines what is meant by a reasonable offer for an alternative service (see box below), it does not do so for an interim service.

The TIO will consider complaints about the reasonableness of a provider’s offer on a case-by-case basis. When investigating such complaints the TIO will have regard to:

• the particular circumstances of each complaint
• information from the complainant in support of any belief that a provider’s offer was not reasonable
• information from the provider in support of any position that its offer was reasonable
• for an interim service, whether incoming calls are charged at the same rate as calls to a fixed service, and
• for an alternative service, Sections 8 (2) and 8 (3) of the CSG Standard as follows.

  Section 8 (2) An offer by a carriage service provider to supply a customer with an alternative service is a reasonable offer if the offer: provides the customer with a choice between an interim service and an alternative service to enable the customer to make an informed judgment about the relative merits of both services as offered; and provides sufficient information about how the functionality and the terms and conditions of supply of the alternative service would be of benefit to the customer, relative to an interim service. Section 8 (3) For the purposes of paragraph (2) (b), a carriage service provider is taken to have supplied sufficient information to a customer about the functionality of a service, and the terms and conditions of supply of that service, if the carriage service provider has supplied to the customer details of: any enhanced call handling features that may be supplied with the service; and charges payable by the customer; and connection timeframes; and the estimated period of supply of the service, taking into account the estimated time to repair or connect the service and the maximum period allowed for the supply of an interim service.

Some examples:

The TIO might decide that a provider’s offer of an interim service was not reasonable because:

• the service required a power source but there was no power at the customer’s premises
• the service was a mobile telephone service and there is no mobile coverage at the customer’s premises, or
• a customer has provided technical information in support of their claim that an interim service would adversely affect sensitive equipment, e.g. medical or aeronautical equipment.

Because the CSG Standard states that inclusion of data capability in an interim service is discretionary (rather than mandatory) the TIO does not generally consider it unreasonable for a provider to offer a service which does not allow transmission of data. One exception may be where a customer with a disability requires a service which includes a data capability equivalent to voice telephony.

3. Offers of an interim and alternative service where the service is due to be connected or rectified in the near future

The TIO sometimes receives complaints where consumers claim that they declined an offer of an interim service, or the choice between an interim and alternative service, because the permanent service was due to be connected or repaired in the near future.

Consumers may believe that they should still receive compensation under the CSG Standard because it was unreasonable for the provider to offer the temporary service so close to the date of connection or repair. In most circumstances, the fact that a provider offered a temporary service close to the date of connection or repair of a permanent service is not unreasonable.

However, if the connection or repair of the permanent service was further delayed after a customer declined a provider’s offer, it would be reasonable for the provider to restate its offer then. In these circumstances, the initial grounds on which the customer based their decision to decline the offer will have changed. That is, if the customer had known at the time of the offer that it was going to take longer to connect or repair the permanent service, they may have accepted the offer of an interim or alternative service.

The TIO will consider a customer’s eligibility for compensation under the CSG if a provider did not restate its offer. The relevant time period for possible compensation would be the period between the promised connection or repair date and the actual date on which the service was connected or repaired.

4. Faults on interim/alternative services

If a complainant claims that the interim/alternative service supplied to them is or was faulty or otherwise of poor quality, the TIO will consider whether a customer may still be entitled to receive full or partial compensation under the CSG Standard for the relevant period. When considering this, the TIO will take into consideration:

• the nature and duration of the fault or problem, and
• the effect of the fault or problem on the complainant's ability to make and receive calls, as indicated by call records or statements from users of and callers to the service.

5. Reinstatement of eligibility for compensation under the CSG Standard

Where an interim service has been provided for more than 6 months from the connection request date, a customer becomes eligible to receive compensation under the CSG Standard again, unless they agree to have the interim service provided for a longer period. Compensation would apply to the period starting from the day after an interim service has been supplied for 6 months to the day a permanent service is connected/repaired.

Where there is a dispute between a customer and provider about the status of any agreement that the interim service would be provided for a period longer than 6 months, the TIO will consider the following:

• the circumstances under which the customer is said to have agreed to a service, i.e. what information the provider gave the customer and how it provided that information, and/or
• whether the circumstances of the delay in connection or in the fault repair have changed since the customer agreed to receive the service for a longer period.

It is our view that compensation under the CSG Standard may be payable where available information indicates that:

• the customer did not knowingly agree to being provided with an interim service for a period longer than 6 months, or
• the agreement no longer applies due to a change in circumstances.

If a customer has accepted an alternative service, no such timeframes apply; the customer continues to be ineligible for compensation under the CSG Standard unless they were not given the option of an interim service at the time they were offered an alternative service.

References
Telecommunications (Customer Service Guarantee) Standard 2000 (No. 2)

Next: Intermittent faults & the CSG

Last updated: 23 January 2008