Consumer complaints: an area under scrutiny
05 November 2010
Getting effective redress when you have a consumer complaint is one of the basic consumer rights - so important that it is written into the United Nations Guidelines for Consumer Protection.
And we all intuitively understand why that is: we have all got our own experience of how frustrating it is when your complaint is not taken seriously, when your service continues to be disrupted, when your charges are incorrect etc...
However consumer complaints in the communications area is an area that still leaves a lot to be desired. I think there are two main areas that need to be resolved.
Firstly, with the complexity of current telecommunications contracts and bundles, it is very difficult for any consumer to make an informed choice about what the best option is for them. In this context, it makes sense to ensure that consumers have an overall picture of how individual companies are performing by giving them a straightforward comparator that we are all familiar with from e-bay: other consumers' level of satisfaction with their provider and the level of complaints other consumers have about sellers?
Unfortunately there is no way of knowing how individual telecommunications companies perform on this issue, because they do not have to publish their complaints/total customer accounts ratio and there is no agreed definition of a complaint. Both problems can be overcome if there is the will do tackle them. An article in Broadcast Magazine on 11 October pointed out that "TV licence fee staff have been issued with a manual advising that customers who use the words "idiots", "shambles" or "useless" are likely to be making a complaint.. The article also says that "Staff are advised to look out for particular "keywords" suggesting a customer is protesting about some aspect [....]. These include: "compensation", "complaint", "disgraceful", "disgusted", "incompetent", "appalling", "furious", "intimidation", "mistakes", "harassment", "rude", "threatening", "outrageous", "upsetting", "unacceptable" and swear words. So maybe this BBC staff document can help solve the problem? A solution would benefit both consumers as well as those telecommunications providers who take customer service and complaints handling very seriously and who would be able to show a good track record in this area.
Secondly, if a telecommunications provider does not resolve your complaint, you have the right to take it to the next level, where it can be independently resolved, the ADR Scheme. Every telecoms company has to sign up with a provider of this independent service, and because of historical reasons, there are two...the Office of the Telecommunications Ombudsman (Otelo), and the Communications and Internet Services Adjudication Scheme (CISAS). Both systems have different operating modes, both have their strengths and weaknesses. For example, one provides consumers with assistance in formulating their complaint whilst the other one does not. Do consumers get the same justice or different justice depending on which ADR provider their case goes to? Nobody seems to know for sure, and nobody has evidence that that a system with two redress companies is beneficial for consumers.
Ofcom published its consultation " Review of Alternative Dispute Resolution Schemes" on 20 October 2010. I hope that consumer representatives are writing in - this is an area that is too important for consumers to lose sight of and this consultation presents an opportunity to address the issues outlined above. If this opportunity is not used, than there won't be another one for quite a few years to come....