www.190complaints.com.au

Telephone Information Services Standards Council

Complaints Case Studies

Case Study 1

Complaint: Ms A saw an advertisement in the paper for a service offering loans to bankrupts and those with a poor credit history, with no application fees. Applications were via a 190 number, charged at $5 per minute. She called the service twice, and tried to speak to a manager to find out if it would be worth her while applying for a loan. On her third call she answered the application questions asked by an operator on the service, and was asked to call back with further information. She did this, often repeating information at the request of the operator. She was told to call back on the 190 number to check on the progress of her application, and received a fax from the company explaining that when her loan was approved, an administration fee of $98 would be payable. Her loan application was initially unsuccessful, however she was told that the company made three attempts to arrange a loan, and asked if she wished to continue. She agreed, but her application was ultimately not approved. She was charged approximately $350 for her calls to the service.

Action taken: Ms A contacted 190 Complaints stating that she felt that she was misled by both the advertising used to attract her application, and by the information provided to her on the service. She also felt that she had been deliberately delayed by lengthy and unnecessary questions by operators on the service.

190 Complaints investigated the advertising and content of the service, and the Arbitrator contacted the 190 service provider pointing out that the advertising was misleading in two ways, firstly for promoting loans to those least likely to qualify, and secondly for stating that no application fees applied when applicants were charged $5 per minute to apply, and furthermore charged an administration fee of $98 if successful. Also outlined was the outcome of 190 Complaints' investigation of the service, which found it to be unnecessarily delayed by inefficient operator performance. Possible breaches of the Code of Practice, paragraph E.4 (misleading advertising) and paragraph B.2.1 (delays in service delivery) were identified.

The 190 service provider offered to refund Ms A, and outlined the steps taken to rectify the problems on the service. The Arbitrator found the service in breach of the Code of Practice, advised Ms A of the offer of a refund, and, in view of the seriousness of the breaches, recommended to Telstra that the service be suspended. The service was subsequently suspended.

Case Study 2

Complaint: Mr B received a bill from his telephone company for two calls made to an Internet dialler, for which he was charged $110. While the complainant remembered using the Internet at the time, he had no idea what these charges were for, and had not knowingly authorised them.

Action taken: Mr B contacted 190 Complaints indicating that he was unaware of any connection being made to a 190 service at the time, and had not agreed to any charges being made to his telephone account. He pointed out that his Internet Service Provider (ISP) account indicated that he was not connected to the Internet at the time of the calls, and could not work out what had happened.

190 Complaints explained to Mr B that when connection is made to an Internet dialler, the user is disconnected from his or her usual ISP and connected to pay per minute value added web site content via a 190 number. The software to allow for this connection had previously been downloaded when Mr B was connected to his regular ISP.

190 Complaints investigated the service by locating a web site address for the dialler, and checked the dialler. It was found not to contain the fixed dialogue boxes prior to user connection required by the Code of Practice, in which the user is informed of the cost per minute of connection, given the 190 number on which connection is to be made (paragraph C.8.2), and confirms that the bill payer's permission to accept the charge has been given (paragraph C.8.3).

The Arbitrator contacted the 190 service provider indicating that the complaint raised possible breaches of paragraphs C.8.2 and C.8.3. The service provider offered to refund Mr. B, and voluntarily disconnected the 190 number from the dialler until software technicians could fix the breaches of the Code of Practice.

Case Study 3

Complaint: After seeing an advertisement promoting ring tones for mobile phones obtainable from a 190 service, Mr C rang the 190 number to place his order. He followed the instructions as outlined in the advertisement and on the service, but did not receive the ring tone on his handset. He later received a bill from his telephone company showing that he had been charged $15 for the call.

Action taken: Mr C then contacted 190 Complaints, complaining that the product he had ordered and been charged for had not been received. 190 Complaints investigated the service by ordering a ring tone, which was not subsequently received. The Arbitrator wrote to the 190 service provider responsible indicating that on the basis of Mr C's experience, and our investigation, the service may be in breach of paragraph B.1.2 (misleading content) of the Code of Practice, as the product as ordered on the service was not received, despite all the correct steps being followed.

The service provider responded explaining that the service had some problems, which prevented callers from receiving their ring tones. All complainants were being refunded, and the problem had been fixed.

The service was found in breach of paragraph B.1.2 of the Code of Practice, the complainant was refunded for the cost of his call by the 190 service provider, and the service provider fixed the problem on the service.

Case Study 4

Complaint: Ms. D called a 190 lotteries results line advertised in the Information Services section of her local White Pages directory, only to find that the results of latest draw were not available.

Action taken: Ms. D immediately contacted 190 Complaints and expressed her concern that she had been charged for using the service, but the information it purported to contain had not been updated.

190 Complaints investigated the service on the morning the complaint was received, and found that the service gave two options. Option 1 could be selected for the results of previous draws, and Option 2 for the current draw results. Option 2 was selected, and up to date results provided.

The Arbitrator found no breach of the Code of Practice in this instance, as the service provided up to date information as advertised. Ms. D was advised that 190 Complaints could not help her further in the matter as the service complied with the Code of Practice, however if she wished to pursue her complaint further she could take it up with the 190 service provider concerned. Contact details for the service provider were given.

Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Level Double-A conformance icon, W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0