By Gabriel Princewill-
The Ombudsman for Vodaphone needs better development in their operations.
This claim comes after the eye of media.com discovered that the Ombudsman only commence investigations by complainants who are able to present a systematic account of the efforts they have made to resolve issues they may have have with Vodaphone.
An independent regulator of Vodaphone, the ombudsman are self appointed to regulate the failings of Vodaphone
and offer redress to complainants where Vodaphone have failed those customers. It has come to light that there are shortcomings in the Ombudsmans’s operations, because not all Vodaphone complainants have their case heard or addressed. Ofcom monitor the industry as a whole, but do not regulate the Ombudsman.
The regulatory body is an alternative to a court dispute, and seeks to rectify any manifest failings on the part of Vodaphone that may impact customers adversely. They can impose compensatory fees of up to £10,000, but admit that most fees are often within the small bracket of £50-£100. Fundamental to their procedure is the collation of evidence from both parties which would constitute the basis of their evaluation of any complaint brought before them.
However, the Ombudsman for Vodaphone is clear that processing a complaint from complainants requires all the evidence pertaining to the case in question. Amongst the evidence typically required by the regulatory body are the date the issue of complaint took place, the date it was reported, and the Vodaphone staff spoken to by the complainant.
If a complainant fails to produce these, the ostensibly highly esteemed process of investigation designed to regulate and hold Vodaphone to account, will not take place. This means the network provider- Vodaphone- will get away with whatever degree of incompetence it has displayed.
Unsatisfatory
The expectation by Vodaphone for complainants to store details of their efforts to address issues they have with the network provider is not unreasonable. The onus should be on complainants to present evidence that support their complaints against Vodaphone, or indeed any organisation.
However, more is expected of the Ombudsman, whose central purpose should have the best interest of the customer at heart. In the case of customers who may have failed to make a note of the people they spoke to, or the dates their conversation took place, inaction from the Ombudsman is wholly unsatisfactory .
An organisation that purports to regulate a network provider like Vodaphone would be failing in its remit if its workings are riddled with flaws of this nature. It could also question statistics provided by Ofcom in relation to complaints made against the network provider, if those who have no record of the precise dates are completely ignored.
Some customers maybe stressed when providers fail to behave professionally and may forget to keep a record of the required details.
Considering the fact the Ombudsman claim to get both sides of the story before concluding on their judgement, it beggars belief why they would fail to do so in the event of a complainant failing to have those details. However, the eye of media.com discovered that customers who don’t have their details to hand will get overlooked by the Ombudsman and not even get their case heard. This should not be the case considering the regulatory role of the Ombudsman over Vodaphone.
A spokesperson for the Ombudsman told the eye of media.com that they were acting ”within their jurisdiction”. ”Evidence is necessary to begin the process” Ombudsman spokesperson said. Ofcom support the stance of the Ombudsman for Vodaphone.
Rachael from Ofcom told the eye of media.com that the Ombudsman is akin to a court, in terms of its core requirements. A court, she argued, requires both parties to make submissions on the basis of tangible evidence and does not rely on just the defendant’s evidence. That is useful insight to have, and explains the general importance of having details to hand.
The slight flaw in this perspective is that Vodaphone expressly state that they record all their calls. This means all the evidence the Ombudsman needs is obtainable from their recordings. With this fact in hand, the Ombudsman should do more on some occasions to protect customers from the flagrant negligence sometimes expressed by Vodaphone and other providers.
If the Ombudsman for Vodaphone is an alternative resolution to a court, then all cases must be heard without leaving out existing complainants who have been cheated.
When the eye of media.com asked Vodaphone and the Ombudsman for the percentage of complainants whose complaints had been solved, they said they couldn’t reveal it because they only reveal collective data of all the groups they regulate. It will be harmful to their commercial interests, the eye of media.com. This is poor and not good enough. The eye of media.com have put in an application to Ofcom for that information and have been told to call back for it.