Eir fined €10,500 by court for charging too much
Phone company Eircom has been fined €10,500 after it admitted overcharging customers.
Eircom Ltd, trading as Eir, pleaded guilty at Dublin District Court yesterday to offences under the Communications Regulation Act 2002.
The prosecution was in connection with complaints by five people who went to industry watchdog ComReg after Eircom's customer service teams failed to resolve their problems.
Cavan pensioner Irene McHugh, who attended the hearing, was an existing customer and had been cold-called by an Eircom sales agent last year and agreed to a fibre- optic broadband plan for €65 a month.
ComReg compliance analyst Una Milton agreed with prosecution counsel Ronan Kennedy that a verbal contract was entered into, but a day later she had second thoughts. She made a number of calls to cancel. She ended up paying two bills, her old account which she believed was cancelled and the new one.
Ms Milton agreed with Mr Kennedy that the pensioner felt like it was "talking to a brick wall" when she dealt with Eircom's helplines. The court heard she was overcharged by €148 but has since been refunded.
The court heard another woman, who had moved from Belfast to Glenties, Co Donegal, opted for a landline and mobile broadband service which did not work. She was overcharged €592 and cancelled her direct debit payments, after which she got disconnected.
The third customer was overcharged by €205, told she would have to pay an early cease charge of €450 and had a debt collection agency contact her.
The fourth complainant was overcharged by €31 after she changed her package, while the fifth complainant had been overcharged €149 after a discount was not implemented, Judge John Brennan heard.
The court was told the company had two prior convictions for similar offences. It was fined €21,000 in 2015 and €16,500 in March this year. Refunds were granted after the customers made complaints to ComReg.
Defence counsel Joe Jeffers asked the court to note Eircom had refunded them and had co-operated with the investigation. He said the company had put in place new ways of dealing with customer issues. This had cut complaints from 1,000 to 300 a month.
The court heard human error as well as system errors were responsible for the overcharging of the customers. Mr Jeffers also issued an apology on behalf of the company, which had agreed to pay prosecution costs.