These examples give you an idea of some interventions by the Mediation Service.
Mrs. H van B. files a complaint with the Mediation Service because she has been the victim of a scam via a 090x number.
She received a call from a premium rate number, allegedly linked to a COVID vaccination center, and she was asked to call back to that number for additional information. She was assured that her call would be free of charge. In February 2022, the operator charges her € 39.27 for this call. After all, it was a premium rate number and a warning message was available during the call.
In accordance with the mission of the Mediation service, the case manager contacts the operator in question to try and reach a compromise. He points to the fraudulent aspect of the approach, which is to abuse the trust of an elderly person. After several exchanges, the operator accepts to credit the amount unduly paid. We contacted Ms. H to inform her of the positive outcome.
Mr S. from Z. contacted the Office of the Ombudsman as he was considering that his operator was mistakenly charging set-up fees.
In January, he became a customer for internet and mobile. The promotion, only valid in January, included a free set-up of his pack, without mentioning any particular conditions. The operator refused the refund, explaining that the promotion was only valid online and not via telephone contact.
After the intervention of the Mediation Service, the operator recognised the administrative error and we confirmed to Mr S. the € 59,00 refund.
Mrs V. from W. addresses the Telecom Mediation Service because she disputes the amount of € 200.00 charged by her operator for not having returned hardware.
She explains to the person handling her complaint that she remembers returning three decoders, three remote controls and a modem, but that she no longer has the Bpost ticket confirming her story.
The complaint handler contacts the operator concerned. The latter notes that the return of the decoders was indeed registered, but not the modem. The operator was conciliatory within the framework of the mediation and considered that the modem probably was also included in the parcel. Ms V. was informed by the person handling her complaint that this was an administrative error from the operator’s part and that the amounts claimed were cancelled.
A police inspector sent to us by e-mail an identification form of alleged perpetrators of malicious calls, filled in and signed by Ms P. from V. who lodged a harassment complaint.
Ms P. declared being bothered, several times, by someone, using a masked number, who was slurring one of her close relatives.
The case was sent to Proximus’ justice cell which sent us the listing of the incoming calls at the times and dates given by the victim. After analysis of this listing and the elements of the form, the case manager identified the alleged perpetrator of the malicious calls. A letter was thus sent to Ms P. with the contact details and the address of the alleged perpetrator of the malicious calls of which she is a victim.