Eir, the leading company for wired and mobile telecommunication services within the country, has been issued a £7,500 fine for failing to adhere to ten areas of its own set customer complaint procedure. The punishment handed out by the Dublin District Court, although seemingly small, reveals the depth of the company’s disregard in this particular situation. Legislation requires telecommunication enterprises to have a standard approach to handling customer grievances, and breaches of such can be prosecuted by the Commission for Communications Regulation (ComReg). Eir was found guilty of not recognising and responding to complaints within the ten-day limit as laid out in their own policies, inclusive of a range of other inadequacies. It was discovered that Eir’s handling of customer complaints and their company ethos caused more worry. Employees facing complaints were threatened with punishment if they aided customers in lodging a formal complaint by providing them with necessary contact details, and complaints were only escalated if specific ‘trigger words’ were used by the client. As noted by Judge Anthony Halpin, such practices are a disgrace. The Court was informed that one customer’s genuine complaints about her mobile network services were continuously dismissed for half a year, leading to a critical situation where she was incapable of calling for emergency services for her child and unable to accept delivery of a crucial medical device. Eir gave a statement claiming that ComReg had misinterpreted their documents post-judgement, to which the regulator responded by highlighting Eir’s failure to raise these issues in court. The fines look insignificant compared to Eir’s turnover of £1.3 billion and customer count of 2 million, and against the backdrop of the unfolding situation, it signifies ComReg’s assumption that heavily regulated companies like Eir would not look for ways to evade their responsibilities on this scale. The minimal fines that can be handed out reflect a light-touch or ‘principles-based’ approach similar to pre-2008 financial crisis scenarios, which assumed that banks would always act in the broad public interest.
The regulation of financial services has long adopted a more robust stance, utilising hefty penalties. Now, it’s high time for ComReg to pursue supplementary authorities enabling serious disciplinary measures in instances where it’s obvious that a regulated body is wilfully and systematically disregarding regulations.