TIO Annual Report 2002/03

Case Studies

• Mobile Contract
• Mobile Handset Fault

The Complaint:

The TIO received a complaint against a phone company from a father acting on behalf of his intellectually impaired daughter, whom he claimed was persuaded to sign a mobile contract for a friend, the user of the phone. The friend used the phone and did not pay the bills and the company pursued the legal lessee of the service, the intellectually impaired daughter. The provider listed the daughter as a credit default with a credit reporting agency after failing to recover the amount outstanding. Upon receipt of evidence from the father that his daughter had an intellectual impairment and was incapable of understanding the contract she signed, the company agreed to waive the debt but refused to remove the default listing.

TIO Response:

The TIO’s view was that the default listing should also be removed if the company accepted that the daughter lacked the capacity to enter into the contract. The company argued that it had waived the debt as a goodwill gesture and claimed that it had listed her as a credit default to protect her and prospective borrowers.

The Outcome:

The company agreed to remove the default listing.

The Complaint:

Soon after entering into a bundled mobile phone contract, the complainant found that his handset, despite being fully charged, began to lose power, leading to missed and dropped calls. After initial assessment by the dealer, the handset was sent away for further assessment and repair. The complainant contacted the TIO after he had been waiting for four months for his handset to be repaired. His service provider had not provided him with a replacement handset during this period and had continued to charge monthly access fees.

TIO Response:

In exercise of its new jurisdiction, the TIO referred the complainant to a higher level within the provider company to allow them an opportunity to resolve the complaint. The complainant contacted the TIO again and informed the TIO that the provider had advised him that the manufacturer of the handset was responsible for the repair of the handset and the issue was nothing to do with the company. The TIO raised the issue with the provider and asked the provider whether it accepted that it had the responsibility to provide a workable handset.

The Outcome:

The company advised the TIO that it accepted that, as the supplier of the handset under the contract with the complainant, it did have a responsibility to provide a workable handset. The provider advised that the fault had been detected and repaired and the handset had been returned to the complainant. The provider also agreed to credit four months’ access fees. The complainant advised the TIO that he was satisfied with this outcome.

> NEXT Case Study: Internet Billing