iiNet gets its CSG waiver wrong
Even though a customer has pointed out a clear defect in iiNet’s form of CSG waiver, the company hasn’t realised its waiver is probably invalid.
This 2007 exchange on Whirlpool caught my eye …
When you sign up for the iinet voip service, you are required to sign the CSG waiver. Just wondering if somebody could take a look at the wording of the CSG waiver form that they have available at: www.iinet.net.au/about/c…i_CSG_waiver.pdf
As it doesn’t specifically state that you are waiving away your rights to just the voip service, (it just mentions “this telephone service” and “the service”) is it possible that you might be unintentionally signing away your CSG rights to the normal Phone Advantage service as well? I might be signing up for voip but I don’t want to sign away my CSG rights for my Phone Advantage.
And an iiNet representative responded:
We still honour the CSG for our normal PSTN services (including Phone Advantage)
The rep should have checked the rules for CSG waivers, and he would have seen that the original post identified a real problem for iiNet. In fact, if you read the rules carefully, there are three gaffes in iiNet’s document.
Background: The CSG is a bundle of rights that fixed line phone providers have to give to most customers. It’s regulated by the Telecommunications (Customer Service Guarantee) Standard 2000 (No. 2). Basically it sets targets for connections and fault repairs and allows for financial compensation if they aren’t met.
A provider can ask a customer to waive their rights, but there are very clear rules for how that works. Seems someone in iiNet Legals isn’t too careful. The iiNet waiver document as at 2007 and the date of this article fails two, and potentially three of the rules.
Clause 29(2) of the Standard says that ‘The document must clearly identify the customer … and the specified service to which the waiver applies.’
- The iiNet document fails to specify the service. That’s exactly what the original post pointed out. The mere fact that the iiNet rep had to clarify the point (as opposed to pointing out where in the document the service was specified) makes the point.
- The customer is not identified by the document. There is a place for them to sign, but unless they have a very simple, clear signature their name won’t be readable from it. Mine certainly wouldn’t. So in many cases, the form will fail this test.
Clause 29(1) of the Standard requires that a written waiver ‘is signed and dated by the customer’.
- The iiNet form has a place for a signature, but no indication it needs to be dated. And remember that the customer must date it, not the provider.
The way the rules work, the CSG applies until the provider gets a valid waiver. iiNet’s sloppy form clearly doesn’t satisfy the rules, and I would be surprised if a court or the TIO decided to overlook the deficiencies. In that case, iiNet may think it has no CSG liability in many cases, but that’s just not true.
It just goes to show how careful you need to be when writing consumer documents.
Comments
One Response to “iiNet gets its CSG waiver wrong”
Leave a Reply
I agree with the above analysis concerning the inadequecies of iiNet’s CSG waiver form, however iiNet states on a page of its website:
“Important – Please be aware that as a customer of iiNet, you are asked to waive the CSG in its entirety for our VoIP based service (iiNetphone or VOIP) due to:
1. The service being classed as a ‘secondary line’
2. Our ability to offer significantly lower call costs for this secondary service
For further information regarding the CSG waiver please call Customer Service on 13 22 58.”
That statement appears near the bottom of this iiNet page: http://www.iinet.net.au/csg.html