Summary

Facts

The complainant is a customer of
one telecommunications provider but was billed by another Carriage Service Provider (the
CSP) for the disputed charges due to the fact that calls of this nature are not pre-selectable but
must be billed by the company that has entered into the agreement with the 190 content
provider. The complainant is billed by their normal telecommunications provider on amonthly basis. The CSP billed him on a quarterly basis.

Decision

The TIO issued a determination that CSP to waive the outstanding disputed charges of $640.20 and
to refund to the complainant the amount of $369.93 which he has paid for charges for
calls made to premium rate service number 1900****** during the period 23 January to
17 April 2006.

Reasoning

The TIO stated that; it would not be fair and reasonable for the complainant to be
liable for the charges was that:The calls which led to the disputed charges were made in furtherance of what appears
to be an unenforceable contract between the content service provider and a minor.
Even though the CSP is not a party to this contract, it appears that the effect of the
CSP’s agreement with the content service provider by which the CSP bills account
holders for charges associated with a child’s purchase of ‘credits’ on the 190
premium rate number, is that the CSP has become the mechanism by which the
content service provider seeks to enforce any contract it has entered into with a
minor.
2. The game’s web-site contains a warning that states ‘Always get permission from a
parent or guardian before using your home phone to buy Credits. You will be
permanently banned from this site if you don’t have permission, or if the payment is
later refunded. Any credits that are not paid for will be removed from your […]
account.’ This statement appears to the TIO to imply that a refund may be
appropriate in circumstances where the child does not obtain the permission of the
account holder of the telephone service before making calls to the premium rate
number.