Original article ISPreview UK:
Broadband provider TalkTalk has apologised and pledged to improve their processes, which occurred after the company acknowledged to ISPreview that it had made a number of mistakes when dealing with somebody who held a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) for one of their more vulnerable broadband customers.
Just to give this a bit of context. One of the reasons why people may seek a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA), in this case for Property and Financial Affairs, is when a family member loses the mental capacity to look after their own affairs (e.g. dementia). You can get an LPA for Health and Welfare too, but that’s less relevant for telecoms and utilities.
The LPA enables the holder to manage their family member’s affairs (our example), such as with respect to broadband contracts/accounts and billing etc. Naturally, due to data protection laws, the telecoms provider must first be notified of the LPA and validate it before they can engage with the LPA holder as if they were themselves the customer. TalkTalk explains how this works on their website (here).
Sadly, this is a situation that one of ISPreview’s readers, who we will call John (they wish to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of the subject), recently found himself in when he had to obtain an LPA for his elderly mother, the TalkTalk account holder. But John ran into a problem after TalkTalk initially appeared to confirm that it had successfully accessed and verified the LPA using the Office of the Public Guardian system.
Despite the apparent verification, John complained that the provider’s Customer Relations team continued to treat him as a third party, insisting on TalkTalk-specific forms as a gatekeeper and repeatedly misclassifying correspondence as a “non-customer” matter.
In addition, John also complained that his mother was “cold-called and told she was out of contract (she was not)“, before being charged unnecessary fees as part of a re-contracting agreement. According to John, the deal that was accepted by his mother resulted in a £30 “admin fee” and a £9.95 “delivery charge” for a duplicate router that provided no benefit.
John told ISPreview:
“It is important to note that elderly customers often struggle to understand modern technologies and the complex terminology used by providers, particularly when they may be living with conditions such as dementia. This makes them especially vulnerable to confusion and mis-selling during unsolicited sales calls.
…
I have tried to resolve matters calmly and constructively, but the situation now feels procedurally stuck, with TalkTalk relying on internal process arguments rather than addressing the substance of the issues raised.
However, I am increasingly concerned that what I have encountered may not be an isolated incident, but part of a wider pattern in how TalkTalk is engaging with customers.”
John informed ISPreview that he had repeatedly asked for a formal complaint to be logged regarding the aforementioned issues, yet he states that TalkTalk’s support team refused to log a complaint unless the account holder contacted them directly, despite the verified LPA.
“Requests for clarification or escalation [were] met with circular responses and repeated demands for information already provided,” added John. In addition, John said he’d yet to receive a satisfactory response to a related Subject Access Request (SAR) he’d made to the ISP.
TalkTalk’s Response
Following a review of the account, TalkTalk later confirmed to ISPreview that John does indeed hold an LPA for his mother, but they also acknowledged failing to record the contact details for him, which they said is not in line with their usual LPA process. The provider has since discussed the case internally and taken steps to prevent this from happening again.
As for the accusation of cold-calling. TalkTalk clarified how they were following the usual End-of-Contract Notifications (ECN) process for engaging with customers who are near the end of their existing term, usually to discuss renewal options (hopefully ensuring a seamless, uninterrupted service at an acceptable price). Crucially, on this point, TalkTalk said they had spoken to John’s mother before the LPA was registered on their system. A like-for-like order was then placed to continue her existing service, although they’ve since apologised for sending an unnecessary router and pledged to refund the associated charges.
A TalkTalk spokesperson told ISPreview:
“We’re very sorry for our mistakes when processing [John’s] lasting power of attorney and [his mothers] contract renewal. We’ve taken steps to resolve both of these problems and help prevent them from happening again, and we’ll look to provide a gesture of goodwill once this complaint is closed.”
The situation perhaps demonstrates how a basic mistake in handling such cases at the outset can sometimes spiral into a series of additional problems, creating unnecessary stress and obstacles for LPA holders and those they represent.
On the other hand, this is one of the first such complaints that we’ve seen about a broadband provider’s LPA process, so at present such incidents do appear to remain incredibly rare and hopefully are not reflective of a wider pattern.
