CUSTOMER SERVICE

Mrs GERAGHTY (Torrens) (15:20): Recently, a number of constituent inquiries have come into my office reflecting on the issue of customer service, or lack of it in most cases. My constituents were dealing with generally large service companies. One in particular involved an electricity retailer and another I will highlight involved a major mobile telecommunications company. The two cases I will highlight, I think, expose the inability of the companies to provide quality customer service. In the case of the electricity retailer, one constituent had been trying for some eight months to find out why he had not received an account. Obviously he was concerned that, when he did receive it, the account would be for a considerable amount and that he might be placed under significant financial stress.

When my office contacted the retailer in question on his behalf, initially we were advised that the company could not discuss the matter with us as we were not authorised to talk about this person's account. As usual, the Privacy Act was cited—never mind that we were merely trying to point out to the retailer that the customer simply wanted the company to provide him with a bill, and I do not think that was an unreasonable request. In the end, even after my personal intervention, the company refused to give a commitment as to when the issue would be resolved. However, it then went on to acknowledge that there was a problem with its billing system.

I have referred this matter to the Energy Industry Ombudsman, and I am advised that he is now taking the matter up as it is seen as a systematic problem. On the issue of the Privacy Act, which this particular company and a few others use to avoid addressing customers' concerns, it is quite simple to resolve: either the company rings the customer direct or, in many cases, we have the customer sign a release form and we fax it to the company so that it can see that either it can talk personally to the constituent or it has the constituent's written permission to talk to us.

However, companies use that as an excuse not to deal with customer complaints. In the case of the mobile phone company, one of my constituents had gone to the company's retail outlets in late August to sign up for a $40 a month plan with her partner. In October she received a bill from the company for $930, and she rang them on three separate occasions to try to resolve the issue. In the process she was forced to go through the company's mind-numbing voice response queuing system, which I am sure we have all been through. The constituent advised me that during the last call (which lasted two hours) she was referred five times, and at one stage the customer service representative even questioned whether she—their own customer—was authorised to talk to her own company. Apparently—

Ms Bedford interjecting:

Mrs GERAGHTY: It is really extraordinary. Apparently, in this particular case, in transferring to a new billing system, the company had incorrectly transferred the old address details into its new system. Eventually, the constituent was told that she would be contacted the next day by the company (and we have heard this many times), and that did not occur either. She then contacted the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman who gave her a special number to call at the phone company, which she did. She was given a commitment by the company that, while it was investigating her matter, the bill would be put on hold.

That was not the case, either. She received further letters of demand from that company to pay up her $930, threatening to disconnect her mobile phone service on Christmas Day. That was the company's gift to her. These are the sorts of stories we get in our office on a regular basis, particularly with the major telcos. They refuse to talk to their own customers. Certainly, they will not support a third party calling, so bills mount up, people get frustrated and sometimes these problems are very simple to resolve.

Time expired.