TIO Annual Report 2002/03

Case Studies

• Dumping
• Credit Control

The Complaint:

The complainant contacted the TIO about charges that appeared on his telephone account for two international calls to Guinea Bissau. The complainant denied calling Guinea Bissau but confirmed that a friend had been surfing free pornographic sites on the Internet. He provided the computer’s temporary Internet files which gave the URL of the website visited on the day the charges were incurred.

TIO Response:

The TIO viewed the website and noted that after downloading the program and electing to view the “adult material”, the modem began to redial. The TIO noted that at no time was a warning presented to the user advising that the local connection would be disconnected and a connection made to a remote modem resulting in charges to his telephone account, nor were any terms and conditions available to be viewed by the user.

The complainant’s telephone service provider advised the TIO that it was not the regulator of information available on the Internet and only provided a gateway to the Internet to its customers through its telephone service. The service provider claimed to be charging for IDD calls that were made from the complainant’s telephone service only, and as a result maintained that in accordance with its terms and conditions the complainant was liable for the charges.

The Outcome:

The TIO held the view that where neither party had any control in preventing the disputed calls from being made, it was fair and reasonable that the service provider assume the loss as it was better able to provision for such losses than the complainant. The provider agreed to waive the charges in this case, and in a number of similar cases raised by the TIO.

The Complaint:

The complainant received an account from a debt collection agency for an amount it claimed he owed his telephone company from 1997. The complainant did not dispute that a debt had been owed but claimed the debt had been waived in 1997 after it was found that he had been billed in error. He also stated that had not received an account for the disputed debt at any time since 1997 despite living at the same address for the past 10 years.

The debt collection agency referred the complainant to his telephone provider in accordance with a procedure agreed with the TIO for handling debt recovery complaints. The provider refused to acknowledge that it had agreed to waive the debt and insisted that the complainant owed the money. The complainant contacted the TIO.

TIO Response:

The TIO asked the provider to supply its customer care notes from 1997 to confirm whether or not the complainant had disputed the amount at that time. The TIO also asked the provider to confirm whether it had sent the complainant any reminder notices for the disputed amount and if so, to provide copies of the bills it had sent.

In its response, the telephone company advised that there was no evidence to support the complainant’s claim that he had disputed the amount. It also advised that it was unable to provide copies of the reminder notices it claimed had been sent to the complainant.

The Outcome:

The TIO advised the provider that it did not consider it fair or reasonable for it to request payment for a debt from 1997 when it was unable to provide specific details about the debt or demonstrate that reminder notices had been sent. The company agreed to waive the disputed charges.

> NEXT Case Study: Land Access - Objection to mobile antenna