FINAL CONSULTATION DRAFT TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSUMER COMPLAINTS HANDLING INDUSTRY STANDARD 2018
IFC 06/2018
Submission lodged by B Bebbington
DEFINITION OF RESOLUTION
“RESOLUTION when used in connection with a complaint, means the outcome of bringing the complaint to a conclusion in accordance with the requirements of this industry standard, irrespective of whether the outcome is in favour of the consumer. It does not include implementation of that resolution.”
This means that if a provider notifies that the resolution will be the payment of money, issue of a credit, adjustment of an account or rectification of a service, but that does not occur, then the matter is deemed to be resolved and the consumer would have to lodge a new complaint and recommence the process.
There is no remedy included in the standard for such an event.
The definition should include that it is “subject to the implementation of that resolution” so that if the resolution does not occur as notified to or agreed by the consumer, the matter is not “resolved” and the existing complaint and timeframes apply.
DEFINITION OF URGENT COMPLAINT.
This is the only reference to priority assistance consumer in the document.
I believe it would be more appropriate to change the list so that
C appears first, being reference to priority customers
A appears last, being reference to financial hardship.
The rationale being that the document itself differentiates priority assistance customers to ensure prompt resolution of complaints, particularly if it affects the supply of a priority assistance service.
I also believe the wording of (b) should be changed to
(b) disconnection of a service is imminent or has occurred, or
This would delete the wording “…and where due process has not been followed…”
The reasoning being that the complaint itself is about the appropriatness of the disconnection or imminent disconnection, this should warrant its treatment as urgent.
The complaint would be looking at whether the disconnection is or has occurred due to failure to follow due process.
The proposed wording of (b) means that the provider would have to admit that they have not followed due process in disconnection or notifying an intention to disconnect imminently before it can be treated as urgent.
If the provider admits that due process has not been followed, then the disconnection should not have occurred or be allowed to occur and the complaint resolved accordingly.
PART 2 COMPLAINTS HANDLING PROCESS
I note that there is no reference to ensuring that the contact for a complaint is not the person the complaint is about.
It is increasingly common with call centres that the complaints line is handled by the same call centre staff who handle account and faults. If a consumer wishes to make a complaint about an interaction with a staff member, the complaint should be received by another person.
Often call centres will not permit this to happen.
I also note that in the case of the TIO, their response to contacting them about a complaint about the handling of a TIO matter, the response was to offer to put me through to the officer who the complaint was about.
12 ACKNOWLEDGING COMPLAINTS
Under the draft, a carriage service provider must acknowledge a complaint received by telephone immediately however if the complaint is received by telephone (where a recorded message is left) they must acknowledge within 2 working days.
Technology exists that email lodgement and online lodgement can provide immediate acknowledgment of receipt of communications or lodgements, therefore it shall be immediate acknowledgment.
If the consumer leaves a phone message this should not have to wait 2 business days, it shall be done “by the end of the next business day” at the latest, if not “within 12 hours”.
Does it take two days to check messages?
Postal lodgement shall also be acknowledgement ‘by end of the next business day”, as there is no reason that it should take 2 business days to enter a complaint.
If a complaint is deemed urgent, then the providers need to be attending to all lodgement sources promptly and without delay.
If the requirement can be that someone can hand deliver a written or typed complaint to a store and the carriage service provider must acknowledge it immediately, then this shall apply to a written correspondence by mail.
If an item is urgent, with 2 business days to act, but they are given two days to open the letter and provide and acknowledgment, attend to an online form, attend to an email or to check a voice mail, then the 2 day response time shall be adhered to, this should not give the carriage service provider an additional time period to act.
When is it deemed to be received, at the time and date of acknowledgment or at the time of lodgement online, by email, by phone or upon proven receipt of delivery in the case of registered post or proof of delivery by post tracking?
13 (g) and (h) clarifies the actions are based upon receipt, not acknowledgment, therefore the timeframes in 12 shall refer to receipt not a two business days after receipt.
13 RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINTS
Under clause (f) where a provider must “resolve complaints about alleged billing errors within the consumer’s current billing period, there are a number of issues
a)If a consumer contacts the provider at their shop immediately before closing time, on the last day of the billing period, it is unlikely that the provider will be able to resolve any or all issues,
b)The complaint can be lodged by phone to a recorded message, by email, online or by post which part 12 says does not need attending to or acknowledging for 2 business days, would mean that resolution may not occur within the billing period,
c)Is this based on receipt time or acknowledgment time?
It should not be to the detriment of the consumer if a provider does not provide the staff resources to attend to compliants when they are lodged, and in the case of (f) this would occur.
A consumer should not be penalised because the provider does not have a retail store in their location, nor should they be penalised if the phone contact is understaffed, resulting in messages being left or call back messages.
Under clause (h) the provider is required to “provide written confirmation of a proposed resolution of an urgent complaint within 2 working days of receipt, yet does not have to acknowledge the existence of the same complaint until the 2nd working day.
14 DELAYS
The failure of the carriage service provider to check emails, telephone messages, online forms or post shall not be a valid or permitted grounds for not complying with the standard for urgent complaints, in the case of 14 (3).
The only way to prevent this is to make all responses, acknowledgments and timeframes based on time of lodgement (other than for post) where it shall be receipt.
15 COMPLAINT PRIORITISATION, ESCALATION AND EXTERNAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION.
Under 15(1) of the proposed standard, if a consumer contacts their provider to say that they want their complaint treated as an urgent case, the provider is allowed five working days from receiving that communication to advise the consumer about its internal prioritisation process, internal escalation process or options for external dispute resolution.
Firstly, this states that if a consumer asks to lodge a complaint and that they believe it is an urgent complaint, despite an urgent complaint being required to be resolved, in accordance with 13(h) within 2 working days, the provider has five working days to tell the consumer it is not an urgent complaint.
If the customer is a priority assistance customer, which is automatically qualifies under the standard and definition as an urgent complaint, if the provider does not immediately treat it as an urgent case, then the priority customer will have to wait up to five days for a response and then wait for the resolution to commence.
Is it really the intention of the standard that priority assistance customers have to wait up to 7 working days for a resolution?
15 COMPLAINT PRIORITISATION, ESCALATION AND EXTERNAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Under 15(1) there is no provision outlined for the resolution, reprioritisation, review, escalation by the carriage service provider, if the consumer communicates their dissatisfaction or request for treatment as an urgent complaint.
The provision only states that they must tell them their processes, it does not require them to address the complaint being made.
Under 15(1) a priority assistance customer who rings to say their complaint should be treated as urgent, the provider, under this proposed standard, only has to advise them of their processes, including that automatically priority assistance customer complaints are urgent, but does not have to upgrade or escalate the complaint.
Surely, in a complaint handling standard, if a customer complaints with this issue, that is clearly defined in the standard, then the provider should, by this clause, be required to act immediately and escalate rather than simply tell the consumer what should have happened and what they can do externally.
15(2) has no time frames.
Under 15(2) the provider is only required to advise its internal escalation procedures and external options.
The provider does not have to review the matter nor is there a time frame in which they have to respond to the communication.
17 Attempt to make contact
There is no reference to use of the customers nominated contact number or that the contact can not be made on a non- working service.
Our situation is we have two landlines for voice communication and NBN skymuster for internet. We do not have mobile coverage.
During landline failures, with no dial tone reported, our provider left messages on exchange based voice mail (they operated the service) and claimed they were unable to contact us on the phone when the voice mail service they operated also failed.
This was used as a defence by the provider with the TIO in conciliation.
Therefore it should be clear that communication in accordance with part 17, shall only be on
a)The customers nominated preferred voice contact number, and in the event of a fault being reported on that service, the provider shall not claim failure to contact on that number during a period of fault report, as a grounds for delay for resolution.
Bruce Bebbington
April 16 2018
[address redacted]