AUSSIE ANSWER?
CRTC looks to address aggressive sales tactics
Critics say plan touted for Canada isn’t protecting telecom consumers,
At last month’s hearing into the sales practices of Canada’s telecom giants, the CRTC heard a series of complaints about misleading tactics by aggressive sales representatives.
It also heard of potential solutions, such as Australia’s code of conduct for telecom service providers. But that code is itself facing criticism and a push for reform.
Australia’ s Telecommunications Consumer Protections (TCP) Code has been a positive step, according a leading Australian consumer advocacy group. But it’s hampered by a lack of independence in the enforcement of prohibitions against the sort of high-pressure sales tactics that came under fire during the week-long hearing in Gatineau, Que.
Una Lawrence, director of policy for the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network, said the key question is whether a code developed by the industry and enforced by an agency funded by service providers is the best instrument to safeguard consumers.
“Generally, we have real concerns about the TCP Code’s efficacy in the areas of selling practices, credit management and financial hardship practices across the industry sector,” Lawrence said in an email. “We consider these are areas where direct (government) regulation would drive better practices and improve consumer outcomes.”
In Australia, a consumer with an unresolved issue with a telco can lodge a complaint with the country’ s Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, a dispute resolution service for telephone and internet complaints that is fully funded by industry fees and charges.
In Canada, the Commission for Complaints for Telecomtelevision Services (CCTS) is funded entirely by telecom service providers, with industry funding a common model for ombudsman’s services agencies. The CCTS resolves customer complaints about wireless and television service contracts, but its current mandate does not give it authority to handle product and service pricing claims or consumer al- legations of misleading or false advertising.
Concerns about the effectiveness of the complaints-handling measures in the Australian code have been heightened by the high number of complaints to the Australian Telecommunications Industry ombudsman. That led to the government creating a new complaints handling standard that came into effect in July and which is enforceable by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), the nation’s telecom regulator.
Even though the code had been improved in 2012 following ACMA’s public inquiry into customer service and complaint handling processes, complaints about mobile, landline and internet services continued to soar.
In the most recent quarters, they have fallen amid government intervention and industry initiatives such as the complaints handling rules, according to a report from the telecom ombudsman.
“We have been working hard to improve the way we respond to customer complaints and resolve issues more quickly,” said a spokesperson for Optus, Australia’s second-largest telecommunications company. She added that she believes recent changes by Optus would be reflected in the ombudsman’s report next year.
The Australian code regulates sales, service and contracts, billing, credit and debt management. Proposed changes include making the billing of third-party charges clearer and making it easier to seek financial hardship assistance. “Consumers are not well served by the current regulatory regime,”said Angela Flannery, a Sydney-based partner with commercial law firm Holding Redlich. She added that service providers need to focus on ensuring better compliance with the code and any amendments.
That view was echoed during the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission’s hearing last month. That hearing will lead to a report to cabinet by the end of February and possibly the creation of a governmentbacked sales practices code, and a ban or limits on unsolicited door to door telecom sales calls.
Public advocacy groups including the Fair Communications Sales Coalition told CRTC commissioners that poor sales practices are increasing, with the coalition calling for a code similar to Australia’s. It also disputed the claim that internal guidelines and rules issued by companies are effective in prohibiting misleading, aggressive and unsuitable sales.
“Whether this situation is due to the companies’ loss of control of their sales force, lack of audits or oversight, negligence, wilful blindness — or even intention — is not relevant,” coalition spokesperson Jennifer Chow told the CRTC.
In their CRTC submissions, representatives of big telecommunications companies said they do not tolerate unethical sales practices and that employees undergo training to ensure their sales tactics are appropriate. Rogers says it monitors and reviews all telephone sales calls, and uses other tactics to keep tabs on what happens in store.