The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has issued a warning that it will act quickly against telephone companies who incorrectly transfer customers to other companies.
'The ACCC is currently investigating several complaints about telephone companies who swap customers without making certain that customers actually want to change,' Mr David Lieberman, ACCC Commissioner, said today. 'This week the ACCC received several new complaints about unauthorised transfer or 'slamming' as it is known in the industry.
'Clearly some telephone companies are not always making it apparent to consumers that the forms they are signing have the effect of swapping them over to a different provider and that the new company will be billing them for long distance calls,' he said.
The ACCC is concerned that consumers are misled when 'door-to-door' sales people fail to clearly explain forms which have the ultimate effect of changing their telephone company. For example, customers are claiming that they are advised that their signature is for a survey or that it will provide them with an override code rather than permanently changing them to another company for all long distance/and or international calls. (If an override code is provided a customer can take advantage of occasional discounts offered by telephone companies.)
'As a result it appears some consumers only realise that they have changed providers when they receive a bill.'
Mr Lieberman said it was of particular concern that according to information from the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman's office that the elderly and people from non-English speaking backgrounds were being targeted. Consumers should always be careful if they were asked to sign forms when products were being marketed by 'door to door' salespeople.
'The ACCC stresses that if consumers do not understand a form, then they should ask questions and not sign anything until they are confident that they understand the impact of their decision.
'All telephone companies should be aware that the Trade Practices Act 1974 requires them, and their agents, to properly inform customers or they risk prosecution under Part V of the Act.'
'The ACCC is currently investigating several complaints about telephone companies who swap customers without making certain that customers actually want to change,' Mr David Lieberman, ACCC Commissioner, said today. 'This week the ACCC received several new complaints about unauthorised transfer or 'slamming' as it is known in the industry.
'Clearly some telephone companies are not always making it apparent to consumers that the forms they are signing have the effect of swapping them over to a different provider and that the new company will be billing them for long distance calls,' he said.
The ACCC is concerned that consumers are misled when 'door-to-door' sales people fail to clearly explain forms which have the ultimate effect of changing their telephone company. For example, customers are claiming that they are advised that their signature is for a survey or that it will provide them with an override code rather than permanently changing them to another company for all long distance/and or international calls. (If an override code is provided a customer can take advantage of occasional discounts offered by telephone companies.)
'As a result it appears some consumers only realise that they have changed providers when they receive a bill.'
Mr Lieberman said it was of particular concern that according to information from the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman's office that the elderly and people from non-English speaking backgrounds were being targeted. Consumers should always be careful if they were asked to sign forms when products were being marketed by 'door to door' salespeople.
'The ACCC stresses that if consumers do not understand a form, then they should ask questions and not sign anything until they are confident that they understand the impact of their decision.
'All telephone companies should be aware that the Trade Practices Act 1974 requires them, and their agents, to properly inform customers or they risk prosecution under Part V of the Act.'