Pure Telecom fined €10,000 after 55,000 customer contracts breached regulations

The court heard one customer understood he had a €29 a month contract, with all calls and time included. However, he was charged €57 for additional charges, various calls, administration, and late payment.

A telecom firm’s service contracts with 55,000 customers were not transparent about terms and charges, and breached communication regulations, a court has heard.

Irish phone and broadband company Pure Telecom has been ordered to pay €10,000 after pleading guilty to not clearly showing their prices and conditions in their contracts.

The firm, which has 55,0000 customers, was prosecuted at Dublin District Court today following an investigation by the Commission for Communications Regulation (ComReg).

It faced 99 representative charges of failing to comply with requirements of the European Communities (Electronic Communications Networks and Services) (Universal Service and Users' Rights) Regulations 2011.

The offence can result in fines of up €5,000 per charge.

Judge John Brennan heard there were guilty pleas to 25 sample charges and the company had rectified its error at some expense.

He noted the remaining charges could be taken into account. The regulations were there for consumer protection and the court took that seriously, he said.

He noted a lot of customers were using this service and most importantly there were vulnerable consumers, particularly people of mature years, and people who have not studied contracts. They faced fees which they should not have, he said.

He took into account mitigating factors such as the firm’s co-operation with the investigation.

It was not a case where it was “fleecing” consumers, he held.

He said he would strike out the case, sparing Pure Telecom a recorded conviction, if it donated €5,000 to Our Lady's Children's Hospital, Crumlin, and the same amount to Merchants Quay Ireland drug and homeless service.

The case was adjourned until December 12 next. He warned Pure Telecom that it was getting a chance "but there cannot be a repeat".

Eoghan Cole BL, prosecuting, told the court the offences happened from July 31, 2017, until the end of September last year.

The regulations required prices and tariffs to be provided to customers in a way that was “clear, comprehensible and easily accessible”.

Mr Cole acknowledged the defendant’s guilty plea was of considerable value because a trial would have been considerable in length and complexity.

The court heard that the phone company’s customers did not receive paper copies of their contracts but they were emailed out instead.

ComReg compliance analyst said all the summons before the court represented cases of non-compliance with the regulations.

The court heard two examples of the breaches.

Ms Milton said in 2018 a customer complained about his bill. He had understood he had a €29 a month contract, with all calls and time included. However, he was charged €57 for additional charges, various calls, administration, and late payment. At no point had he been advised about the additional fees, and they were not set out in the contract.

The information and prices were not available on Pure Telecom’s website either, the court was told.

The second example involved a woman who spent some time in hospital in 2018 and was not in a position to pay a number of her bills. She received calls looking for payment and a letter from a debt collector.

She sought a full breakdown of the Pure Telecom’s charges which included fees she had not been advised about.

The ComReg analyst agreed that over two years all of the firm’s customers were affected, and their contracts were not compliant with the regulations.

The company was obliged to make refunds, Judge Brennan heard.

Ms Milton agreed with defence counsel Brian Gageby that Pure Telecom had co-operated with the investigation and voluntarily provided the ComReg with information it sought.

She agreed the company had not provided its prices in a clear and transparent way.

The other fees also included charges for direct debit bounce as well as early termination of contract and late payment fees.

There had been concern about wider non-compliance. Other breaches have been dealt with pursuant to an agreement between the company and the communications watchdog, and it had to discharge a sum of money, the court was told.

The judge said as a matter of law customers were incorrectly charged.

The court heard if proper notification had been given to customers, the charges would have been lawful.

The company had no prior convictions.

Pleading for leniency, Mr Gageby said the errors had been rectified. He asked the judge to note the early guilty plea, and that regulatory cases such as this can be tedious, technical, and expensive to prosecute.

It had been taken seriously by the firm. Its directors were in court and there had been full compliance with the investigation, he submitted.

Counsel said Pure Telecom had 55,000 customers and employed 65 people. It was an Irish company trying to compete with “big players”.

New contracts had to be sent out to all its customers.

It had also paid out a significant amount in refunds and complied with the agreement reached with ComReg.

He submitted that this represented the company’s good will toward the regulations as he pleaded with the court to consider sparing Pure Telecom a recorded conviction.