The complaint:

The complainant and her husband, who resided in Victoria, received a phone call from an agent of a phone company offering them better coverage and rates than they had with their existing mobile plan. The complainant said that she was assured that her bills for two handsets would not exceed $180 a month and she would not be charged for SMS and voicemail. On this basis, her husband signed a two-year contract.

The complainant said her first bill was for $299 and she had been charged for SMS and voicemail. Her second bill was for $296. On this basis, she requested the contract to be cancelled at no cost.

The provider said that it was not prepared to release the complainant and denied that the agent had misled the complainant and her husband about the terms of the contract. The provider said that the complainant’s husband had confirmed his understanding of all the particulars of the contract by signing the contract itself and also the accompanying “Do you know what you are signing” documentation.

Nevertheless, the provider said it was prepared to offer the complainant a $320 credit and would allow them to move to a plan that was in line with their previous expenditure.

TIO response:

The TIO’s view was that in cases of this nature it was often one person’s word against another’s and that a written contract was valuable evidence in assessing the intentions, rights and obligations of parties to a dispute. However, in this case the TIO was concerned that the contract did not comply with the Victorian Fair Trading Act (1999), which stipulates that typed or printed consumer documents must use a minimum 10-point font. The Act also stipulates that a purchaser must be provided with and sign a rescission notice, which provides details of cooling-off periods, when signing a contract. The complainant and her husband claimed they were not provided with such a notice when they signed the contract.

The outcome:

The service provider agreed with the TIO’s contention that its contracts were not of a minimum 10-point font and undertook to review and make amendments to all its contractual documentation. It said that a notice to rescind was usually provided as a matter of course with all its contracts, but could not verify that the complainant and her husband had received one. In conclusion, the company said it was prepared to release the complainant and her husband from the contract and waive any cancellation charges, which would have amounted to at least $2,500.