The Investigation
The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman referred the complaint to More Mobiles to provide it with an opportunity to review its response to Rachel and to resolve the complaint.
After four weeks Rachel contacted the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman again to say that she could not resolve the default listing issue with More Mobiles. She requested that the dispute proceed to an investigation with a Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman Dispute Resolution Officer.
The Dispute Resolution Officer requested further documentation from Rachel and More Mobiles to determine if More Mobiles had complied with its obligations under the TCP Code to consider Rachel’s financial hardship, and that it had listed the debt in accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act 1988 and the Credit Reporting Code of Conduct.
Rachel submitted a copy of her credit report and More Mobiles submitted evidence of the payment history and debt recovery notices issued to Rachel. The investigation found More Mobiles had responded to Rachel’s financial hardship and Rachel had agreed to a payment plan. Rachel had failed to keep to the payment arrangement and More Mobiles continued debt recovery action.
When assessing More Mobiles’ debt recovery action, it was noted that debt default and demand notices were sent to the address More Mobiles had on file for Rachel and that each notice invited customers experiencing financial hardship to contact it or a financial counsellor. The default notice also warned that failure to pay the debt would result in a default listing that would remain on Rachel’s file for up to five years.
