Bill paid, but family still unconvinced

Press, 30 September 1988, Page 6

Bill paid, but family still unconvinced

By

NEIL CLARKSON

The Hilton family in Wimbome Crescent, Christchurch paid their telephone account this month, unconvinced they were responsible for three toll calls listed on the bill. The account arrived on August 23, detailing four toll calls. Mrs Jillian Hilton said a June 16 call to Wellington was made to her brother. But neither Mrs Hilton, her husband nor their sons, aged 17 and 19, knew anything about a July 15 call to Queenstown and two July 16 calls to Greymouth and Dobson, both within two minutes of each other. Mrs Hilton said family

members knew no-one in Queenstown or Dobson. “We know one person in Greymouth but we haven’t phoned him for about three years,” she said. Mrs Hilton approached Telecom and was told the length of time each call took and the time of day they were made. She checked with family members, who remained convinced they had not made the calls. Telecom inquired further and told the Hiltons the Queenstown call was made to a gourmet food outlet. The corporation

named a man living oh the Main South Road at Greymouth who had received a call about'a car for sale, and a couple at Dobson who had been called about a landscaping inquiry or a car for sale. I The Hiltons remained certain they had not made the calls. * “They (Telecom) still said, ‘l’m sorry; they were S.T.D. calls. You are going to have to pay’.” Mrs Hilton mailed a copy of the account for Telecom to check again. It was returned with a number of possible explanations and conducted: “Sorry — unable to cancel as these were

S.T.D. calls.” The full account, including $8.06 for the three calls, has been paid but the Hiltons are annoyed and are considering having their telephone disconnected or taking action through the Small Claims Court. “We have never had any problem before like this. Actually, Telecom has always been very good when I queried a toll call,” said Mrs Hilton. The district manager of Telecom in Christchurch, Mr Brian Finn, said the chance of an equipment fault being responsible was extremely small. “In fact, there arfflex-

ceptionally few considering the hundreds of thousands of calls that go through. “One of the things we find is that when people start to check on calls they find they were made when there was someone else in the house. They find that these people made a call.” This seemed to be the situation in a “vast majority” of cases, he said. Mr Finn said occasionally there was some doubt about the validity of a charge for a toll call. “Sometimes we give the benefit of the doubt. Mainly people come

back to us after finding there was someone else in the house at the time.” Mr Finn said householders were responsible for calls made on their telephone, even if made without their permission. “They recoup the cost from the person who made the call.” Mr Finn said inquiries into toll complaints tied up resources. “People are making complaints when they haven’t done the research themselves. They should make some thorough inquiries with the family and with people who have been in that day.” telephones with toll

bars, or which can be locked, were popular overseas. “I know we have been looking at some of them because there definitely is a demand,” Mr Finn said. Mrs Hilton said she could not accept the theory that a visitor to the family home made the calls. The only visitors during the two days in question had been Mrs Hilton’s parents. They had not made the calls. “We really can’t afford not to have a telephone. I am a diabetic; my husband and I have high blood pressure. But we wUI go without ifr, need Se.” V