TIO Annual Report 2006/07

Case study: Provisioning Delay

The complaint

The complainant contacted the TIO about a delay in the provisioning of a telephone service at his property in rural Tasmania.

He had advised his phone company of the date he was moving into the new premises and had been given a date for the installation. Before requesting the new service he had called the phone company to ask for maps of its infrastructure so he could dig a trench for the phone connection through his property to the telephone network.

He said that the infrastructure was not where the phone company said it would be and advised the company of this. On the date that the connection was to go ahead the phone company discovered that there was no available infrastructure and the connection could not take place. About a week later the complainant was provided with an interim mobile phone service (interim service A) which he said was unusable due to frequent call drop-outs.

Three weeks later the interim service was replaced with a CDMA mobile phone (interim service B) which was usable despite some drop-outs. The service provider calculated that he was entitled to a Customer Service Guarantee (CSG) payment of $58.08 for the delay between the agreed connection date and the provision of the first interim service. The complainant claimed that the $58.08 did not cover the cost of the mobile phone calls he had to make due to the interim services not working properly. The complainant’s main complaint at the time of contacting the TIO was that he wanted the phone service connected as soon as possible. By the time he contacted the TIO he had been given three connection dates which had not been met.

TIO response

The TIO raised a formal complaint requesting that the phone company connect the service as soon as possible and provide
a connection date. The TIO also raised the issue of whether the interim services were an adequate substitute for the phone connection. This could have an impact on the CSG entitlement as the TIO considers that CSG applies where an interim service is of poor quality.

The phone company provided the TIO with an expected completion date (which subsequently was not met) and said
that the interim service B was functioning and that the complainant’s total CSG entitlement was $58.08.
The TIO asked the phone company for fault reports for the interim services and copies of itemised phone bills indicating their usage. The TIO formed the opinion that the low number and short duration of calls made from interim service A indicated that it was not functional. The TIO believed that the complainant was able to make calls from the date interim service B was supplied.

When the TIO examined the fault history for the service, it became evident that there was only one fault report for interim service A, made just before the service was replaced with interim service B. The service provider said that, as the complainant had not reported faults on interim service A, it had not been given the chance to repair or replace it. The complainant was therefore not eligible for the CSG for this period. The service provider also produced records of the complainant reporting that interim service A was functional. The TIO asked the complainant if he had any further proof such as notes of discussions or mobile phone records (he had a mobile phone with a different company) to show that he had reported faults on the first interim service. The complainant said he did not.

The outcome

The complainant’s service was connected six months after the agreed connection date. The complainant told the phone company a few days later that the service was connected. It responded saying that it wasn’t due to be connected until the following week. The complainant mailed the interim service (mobile phone) to phone company and came home to find that his phone was not functioning. It was rectified six days later. The complainant received an additional CSG payment of $43.56 for the delay in fixing the service fault.

The complainant advised the TIO that, while he felt he had been treated badly by the service provider, he did not want to pursue the matter further.

> NEXT Case Study: Mobile Premium Services