LAST UPDATE | 15 Apr

A JUDGE HAS described as “disgraceful” how telecom giant Eir threatened staff with “disciplinary action” if they handled customer complaints according to its own code of conduct and in compliance with Irish law.

At Dublin District Court today, Judge Anthony Halpin convicted and fined the company €7,500 after it was prosecuted by the Commission for Communications Regulation (ComReg) over its former customer complaints procedures.

Eircom, which trades as Eir, said it had remedied the problem. The company also paid €10,000 in costs and pleaded guilty to 12 offences for breaching the Universal Service Regulations for two years commencing in mid-2021.

The court heard that a mother who was unable to make 999 calls when her daughter needed “urgent” medical attention was wrongly told there was nothing wrong with her service. Her dad also ended up in hospital after a missed delivery of his breathing machine.

Barrister Shelley Horan, for ComReg, said Eir did not adhere to the legal requirements and made “deliberate decisions” not to handle complaints in an acceptable manner.

ComReg compliance analyst Michelle O’Donnell told the hearing that customer care staff were warned not to give out the right customer complaint numbers or website address unless callers used specific “trigger words”.

O’Donnell said several Eir customers informed ComReg that they could not make complaints.

In some cases, they went unacknowledged and unresolved for weeks or months.

The analyst outlined the offences, which included failing to comply with and implement a code of practice to settle unresolved disputes, provide a first point of contact for complaints, a means of recording complaints, acknowledge a complaint, give a unique identifier for reference, and respond to the problem within 10 working days.

After 10 days, the firm was required to provide a specific number, email address and link to the online published code of practice to assist the customer.

However, Eir agents were not permitted to give customers the complaints number or code of practice; otherwise, according to their training manual, they would face “disciplinary action”.

She explained that the manual stated that calls would be transferred to the complaint line only if the customer used “trigger words”, such as “code of practice”, or mentioned the industry regulator ComReg.

In one of the cases, after four attempts, a customer got the correct number when ComReg assisted, and he could proceed with his complaint.

Not using the trigger words typically meant they were promised “callbacks” from a team leader or supervisor, which never happened in several instances.

The witness quoted the manual: “Under no circumstances are the complaints number or the complaints webpage address to be provided to the customer, and an agent found doing this would be subject to disciplinary action.”

Questioned further by counsel, O’Donnell said that Eir was not in line with the legislation because the customers should have been able to make “first point of contact” complaints.

ComReg found that in the cases before the court, Eir did not provide an acknowledgement within two working days, including a reference number, and did not comply with its requirement to resolve the problem within the maximum time frame of ten working days or provide an email address to escalate the complaint.

Customers had to contact Eir numerous times, but “promised callbacks” were not received. All the complaints before the court were resolved after ComReg intervened.

Customer experience

The witness outlined the impact on one customer.

The court heard that in December 2022, her mobile service dropped, and she did not receive calls. A local engineer informed her it was a mast issue.

Over six months, the woman called Eir 13 times and sent five emails and eight messages via social media without sorting out the issue.

On every occasion, she requested a reference number but was repeatedly told she did not need one and that there was nothing wrong with the mast, and “Eir remained adamant there was nothing wrong”.

But the court heard on one occasion having no service meant she was unable to make a 999 call for her daughter and had to drive her to A&E for urgent medical attention.

She also missed a delivery of her father’s CPAP breathing machine, and he ended up in the hospital.

On 26 June, after ComReg intervened, the phone company admitted there was a mast issue. She was advised to move to a different provider and given a €80 voucher.

The judge noted Eir had prior prosecutions in 2013 and 2015 in cases brought by the Data Protection Commission.

One resulted in a €3,000 fine, and the other led to it getting the Probation of Offenders Act after donating €35,000 to charity.

Judge Halpin noted the rest of the convictions and said the company was entitled to the benefit of the Spent Fines Act. He said he was not looking at convictions from more than five years ago.

The offence carries a maximum €5,000 fine per offence. Eir, offering a €20,000 payment to charity, pleaded for a chance to avoid a fresh conviction.

Staff

Hugh McDowell BL, for Eir, said the firm has since rectified the problem, and he was instructed to apologise to customers.

However, Judge Halpin demanded, “What about your apologies to Eir employees?”.

“Because”, he added, “from what I can see here, if an employee here, motivated to ensure his duties are carried out lawfully, breached a condition of his or her contract and faced disciplinary action, surely that cannot be just”.

He said he could not believe what he had seen: “That is disgraceful to threaten employees with disciplinary action because they are carrying their duties out in compliance with Irish law.”

He said the staff deserved an apology.

In mitigation, counsel said that since early 2023, Eir changed its process as part of a multi-million euro transformation programme after being taken over by NJJ Telecom Europe.

The court heard it has sped up customer complaints, was compliant with the legal requirements and complaints to ComReg had dropped to the lowest ever level.

Judge Halpin noted the changes made, said the guilty pleas avoided a three-day trial and noted the charity donation offer.

However, he said he could not accept that primarily because of the training manual.

He said he could only conclude that Eir’s legal department did not vet the manual. He recorded convictions and imposed €7,500 in fines.

In a statement to the media following the court hearing, Eir said the training slides were “taken out of context”.

“Eir is committed to the highest standards of compliance and integrity, and we take our legal responsibilities very seriously. At no point has eir directed any team member to act contrary to legal or regulatory obligations,” it said. 

With reporting by Hayley Halpin