forcing COMREG to carry out mandatory duties.

JoeB-

Hi

I have been dealing with COMREG for over two years about a specific issue and I've got nowhere. They refuse to consider a specific case on its merits and they also refuse to carry out their job.


This relates to COMREGs failure to ensure compliance with an EU directive, specifically, The European Communities (Electronic Communications Networks and Services) (Universal Service and Users’ Rights) Regulations 2003 - S.I. No. 308 of 2003


This EU directive is about broadband contracts and certain minimum information which must be contained within such contracts, it was introduced as far back as 2002 or 2003. In 2007 COMREG produced a report (Comreg 07/49, available from COMREG website).. this report concludes that there was a 100% level of non-compliance with compulsory legislation as of the date of the report, July 2007. Since then Comreg have done nothing further, despite repeated requests from me.


Comregs obligation to ensure compliance is confirmed in their own document, from 2003, called Comreg 03/129, available from their website. This is a quote from the 03/129 document...

COMREG wrote:

Under Regulation 32(1) ComReg is charged with monitoring compliance with the Regulations including Regulation 17. Section 10 (1)(c) of the Communications Regulation Act, 2002 specifies as one of the functions of ComReg “to ensure compliance by undertakings with obligations in relation to the supply of and access to electronic communications services …”.

So you can see how Comreg have had this obligation since 2002, yet they produce a report in 2007 finding that there's a 100% level of non-compliance, and they've done nothing since.


My question is, can I, as a private individual, take COMREG to court, or otherwise force COMREG to carry out their duties? Would I for example just have a case listed in the District Court?, listing Comreg and Minister Eamon Ryan as co-defendants?

Or would I need to go to the Circuit Court or another court? Will there be expenses for me in this?

Do people think that the Opposition, i.e Fine Gael, would fund such a case in order to embarrass the current Minister and government?


Thanks for any help in this.

Our man in Havana

You would need to take a High Court case. This will cost thousands.

Could you not get a FG TD to table a parliamentary question to Eamonn Ryan on the matter?

JoeB-

Yes, just a few days ago I wrote to Edna Kenny, and Simon Coveney (by email),... Simon is the Opposition counterpart to Eamonn Ryan, hopefully one of them will be prepared to question Eamonn about this in the Dail. I reckon they could score a few points by doing so.

Eamonn Ryan himself doesn't bother to respond to questions from me about this.

I have also lodged a complaint with the EU about Irelands failure to implement an EU directive, that was done several months ago.. I have a case number but it is a slow process and could take months or years.

Thanks for your help, if you have any other ideas that'd be great!

Cheers so
Joe

Tom Young

Is this is the VAT issue you're posting about in the other thread?

If it is, then it is not a matter you should be litigating.

Tom

JoeB-

No, this isn't about the VAT issue, this is different.

To summarise, ...
In 2002 Ireland introduced legislation, as we were forced to under an EU directive. Comreg were charged with ensuring compliance.

The legislation is about minimum information which must be contained within broadband contracts. Info like refund and compensation arrangements which apply if contracted service levels are not delivered. So this would be very good for consumers, as if your broadband provider fails to provide the service, then you are entitled to compensation or a refund.

Comreg, under law,must ensure compliance, since 2002 or 2003.

So in 2007 COMREG produce a report,COMREG 07/49 and conclude that there was a 100% level of non-compliance.. and they've done nothing since,... and so Ireland are in breach of an EU directive., for over seven years.


I would like to force COMREG to tae action.

For example, when I was with Vodafone they were routinely unable to provide the contracted service.. yet they offered no refunds or compensation.

Meteor have had acknowledged nationwide outages of their broadband service yet they refuse to offer refunds or compensation.


So consumers are losing out... if the law was being adhered to then both Vodafone and Meteor would have had to offer a refund or compensation...similar to dropped calls I suppose.

There are many threads on this forum about terrible service... in all of those cases there should be compensation or refunds offered.. but there's not, .. and why not?, because COMREG faciliate and condone massive and widespread lawbreaking by large companies, and because COMREG ignore their compulsory duties.

See COMREG 07/49 and COMREG 03/129 for more info.

Tom Young

I think you'll find that ComReg are in compliance with their obligations under S.I. 308 and the USO elements of their responsibilities.

Please note the use of language such as inter alia and the word 'any' in the S.I. this is subject to the undertakings individual contracts (all of which differ).

An action in this area would more than likely fail before a Court, just so you know.

Tom

JoeB-

Would you mind explaining that in a little more detail please?

Why are Comreg producing reports at all on this issue if they don't have to?

Who is going to ensure compliance if COMREG don't?

Is Ireland in breach of the EU directive or not?.. if the legislation is ignored and there's no-one to ensure compliance?

Tom Young

Just taking Regulations 17 and 18 from this: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/si/0308.html

In effect this USO Directive is very wide in it's application.

You might also note that this is due to change early next year.

I am not sure you're grasping what is meant in the USO Directive/Law.

What precisely do you say ComReg/Ireland are breaching?

JoeB-

I've given the info and links above.

Comreg themselves, in the Comreg 03/129 documents (from 2003) state that they have an obligation to ensure compliance with the law concerning broadband contracts, and the law was introduced on foot of an compulsory EU directive.


In the Comreg 07/49 documents (from 2007) Comreg state that there was a 100% level of non-compliance with that law.


Given that the law was introduced on foot of a compusory EU directive, which must be transcribed into National law in each of the member states, unless they negotiate a waiver of some kind... and also given that there's a 100% level of non-compliance... I'd say that Ireland are in breach of the requirement to implement the EU directive.

Cheers so

Tom Young

No, the Directive is in force.

There are issues cited in 07/49 alright. USO is being applied and reviewed as against 5 operators at the moment. Particularly Reg 17.

JoeB-

Well, yes, the Directive is in force in the sense that it has been transcribed into Law in Ireland... however this could be seen as a trick if it is ignored by all companies and no action is taken by the Irish State despite official bodies of the Irish State reporting a 100% level of non-compliance.

Can I ask about the 5 operators being reviewed currently? Did you get that information from Comreg? Is it published on their website?

Reg 17 seems to be complied with in some respects... like the big 'Get out of Contract with O2' thread...

Tom Young

The situation is that the Directive is going to be of limited use if the undertakings in questions operate differing standards e.g., fixed versus wireless broadband and consumer v business.

Source: http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg1034.pdf

Where are you getting this 100% non compliance from? I didn't see it in 07/49, I saw a sub section which reflected a problem, but not 100% full non compliance.

Remember, this USO is always going to be subject to the terms operators offer to users layered over the USO as a starting point.

I don't think there is anything really which is not being done.

Tom

JoeB-

Comreg 07/49 (from 2007) wrote:

No service provider appeared to be fully compliant with the requirements of Regulation 17 of the 2003 Regulations.

I take that to indicate a 100% level of non-compliance. Of course it's correct to say that I'm choosing a form of words that has the maximum impact... but why would I choose a form of words that seeks to minimise the impact?


Comreg also say

Comreg 07/49 (from 2007) wrote:

It should be stressed that in many cases, this may not have a material effect on end-user interests e.g. while a postal address may not be specified in a contract document, it is available to a consumer by other means

I would disagree... Comreg here have clearly chosen an example to benefit them... the absence of compensation and refund arrangements in contracts has a huge effect on consumers.. it means that some people are locked into contracts with no service being provided, and they have no comeback due to the absence of the compulsory info relating to refunds and compensation. Just read some of the many threads on Boards about poor service.



Thanks for the link to the 10/34 document. I think some of what you say about USO (Universal Service Obligations) is cryptic and confuses the issue... Comreg state clearly what's required in the 03/129 document and also in the 07/49 document, .. and muddying the waters with complicated stuff isn't completely helpful. But I'm not trying to be critical, I appreciate your input very much.


The entire document 07/49 is about the failure of operators to comply, not just a small sub section... well, I suppose that the first section lists the requirements that operators should be complying with, but mainly the whole document is about this issue.
http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg0749.pdf


Cheers so, and many thanks, as I say I really appreciate it.
Joe

Tom Young

You need to grasp the point though that operators can be in compliance with the USO Directive obligations as set out in the S.I. and various other ComReg publications and still leave users wanting ..... that is not reason to take an action as against ComReg for failure to do something .... the defence for an operator will invariably luy within the terms and conditions that they state in their own contracts for service with a user/consumer.

JoeB-

I don't understand what you mean.

Comreg are the ones saying they're not compliant.


The point is that the operators must include certain info in the contracts.. info like compensation and refund arrangements which apply if contracted service levels are not met.


So the operators are not free to choose what they include in contracts. They must include certain info... and it's Comreg who are asserting that many operators aren't including the info, and so they are in breach. Comreg themselves state this.


Are you saying that operators don't have to include the info on compensation and refunds in their contracts?


I thought it was pretty cut and dried... Comreg themselves state that COMREG have an obligation to ensure compliance, and COMREG themselves also state that no operator is compliant... so those two facts taken together, ignoring all other info as it's not relevant, means that COMREG are failing in their duty to ensure compliance.


Where is the mistake in what I've said above?

Victor

Complain to the EU. Have them fight it.