Independent Review 2022
The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) has undergone an independent review – as required by legislation
Independent Review Report
The review includes the views of the TIO’s many and diverse stakeholders, and reflects the environment of dynamic change occurring in the policy, technology and social environment of the telecommunications industry.
The review recognises the TIO’s role and success in contributing to better consumer outcomes in the telecommunications industry and the improvements made by the TIO since our 2017 Independent Review.
The review makes 26 recommendations, the majority of which the TIO accepts or agrees with. This includes recommendations to collect socio-demographic data of its service users and reducing the length of time it takes to close cases.
The TIO has already commenced implementation of some of the recommendations and will continue to incorporate the review’s findings and recommendations in its priorities for the next financial year and beyond.
Purpose of the review
The TIO is committed to working effectively to meet the needs of consumers, members, and the telecommunications industry as a whole.
In 2014, the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 was amended to include section 133A, which requires an independent review of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman Scheme to be conducted every five years. The first review took place in 2017, followed by the second review which was conducted this year.
The legislation requires the review to:
- be conducted by a person who is independent of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and the telecommunications industry
- include public consultation as well as consultation with the ACMA and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman
- be given to the TIO who must give a copy to the Minister and publish the report on the TIO’s website.
Queen Margaret University was engaged to conduct the review. To assess the TIO scheme, the reviewers looked at the TIO’s compliance with the Benchmarks for Industry Based Customer Dispute Resolution.
The review involved research, interviews, and a public consultation. As part of the public consultation the reviewers published an Consultation Paper and invited interested stakeholders to provide written submissions.
10 submissions were received from industry, consumer and industry advocates, and regulators: