TIO Annual Report 2005/06

Case Studies

Intermittent fault

The complaint

The complainant operated a small business and relied on her landline to receive notification of appointments from customers. She claimed that her line had been intermittently experiencing the following faults:

• call drop outs
• incoming calls receiving the message - “the number you have called is disconnected”
• incoming calls getting an engaged signal - instead of a call waiting signal
• incoming calls ringing out and the service not actually ringing at her end
• incoming calls going to a third-party voicemail service.

The complainant said that when she reported the fault to her provider she was initially told that a cable near her premises needed upgrading and the fault would cease once this occurred. She was subsequently advised that the cable was not the cause of the faults and that they may be due to her own equipment, which included a back-to-base alarm system. After testing, none of the equipment proved to be the source of the fault. At one stage, when the complainant diverted her landline to her mobile, she received a marked increase in calls. The complainant contacted the TIO after dealing with her provider for several months and getting no resolution. She said she had lost income as a result of the fault but could provide no supporting evidence.

TIO response

The TIO decided that it would formally investigate the complaint as it believed that the customer might be entitled to more substantial Customer Service Guarantee payments than the amount already offer to her by her provider. (Compensation is payable under the CSG if a fault is not fixed within a specified time.) The CSG is less than clear on how intermittent faults - where a service is workable between faults or where a provider attends to a fault but the fault recurs – are to be compensated. The TIO investigates these faults based on its position statement Intermittent Faults and the CSG. It takes into account factors such as whether a recurring fault was related to the one cause. The provider told the TIO that it believed the complainant had not been overly inconvenienced as the faults were rectified within the specified times and she was still able to make calls during these periods.

The outcome

The provider ultimately admitted that there was a fault at the exchange but said that the complainant had reported only two faults on her service and these had been fixed within the timeframes prescribed under the CSG. Furthermore, the provider disputed that the faults were related.

To resolve the case, the provider said that it would not admit liability but offered the complainant a $2,000 goodwill payment, which the complainant accepted. On this basis, the case was closed.

> NEXT Case Studies cont...