Response to interpellation 2023/24:523 on deficiencies in customer service
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned deficiencies in customer service and consumer rights. S considers it very serious that consumers have difficulty reaching customer service, are stuck in long queues, and that requirements for mobile BankID are unsustainable 1. S argues that the deficiencies lead to unnecessary costs, debt collection demands, and shame, and that consumers feel powerless 2 3. S emphasizes the importance of addressing the problem 1 4. KD considers it serious when businesses bypass legal requirements 5. KD argues that it is good that requirements for written confirmation have been introduced and that the Consumer Agency has taken measures 6. KD considers that it often involves using existing legislation 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Anna-Belle Strömberg has asked me what measures I intend to take so that consumers and relatives can cancel a service, a subscription, or another agreement in the same simple way as it is possible to enter into the agreement in question.
Anna-Belle Strömberg recently asked a similar question, which I answered on 31 January. My answer, then as now, is that a business operator, according to current practice, cannot impose specific formal requirements on how a consumer must terminate a contract concerning, for example, a subscription. If the consumer, for example, sends a message where it clearly appears that they wish to terminate the contract, the business operator must accept the termination, as long as it is clear that it is actually the consumer who is on the contract who is submitting the termination. There are also legal requirements, based on fully harmonized EU law, which state that the business operator must provide information about their telephone number, their address, their e-mail address, and other means of communication when a contract is entered into. It is naturally serious if business operators do not follow the requirements imposed on them and if they attempt to circumvent current law.
Regarding the situation where a relative wants to help with terminating a contract, the starting point is that it is the person who entered into the contract who can also terminate the contract. It is important that no one can terminate or change a contract without valid consent from the person who entered into the contract. If a person has difficulty asserting their interests, for example as a result of dementia, it may be appropriate to arrange for a legal guardian (god man) for him or her. In this context, the possibility of establishing a future power of attorney (framtidsfullmakt) can also be mentioned, which gives someone the right in the future to take care of one's affairs, such as the termination of contracts, in the event that one no longer has the ability to do this oneself.
Anna-Belle Strömberg (S)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking Minister Erik Slottner for the answer.
Just as the Minister says, there are requirements for businesses. But unfortunately, it still does not work, which is very serious. According to the consumer rules, it should be at least as easy to cancel a service, a subscription, or another agreement as it is to enter into an agreement, that is, just as easy to find it, reach it by phone, get in contact via email, and so on. Unfortunately, I am reached by stories and signals that it is often difficult for the consumer to cancel a service or a product.
The Consumer Agency also signals the deficiencies. In June 2023, they reported that consumers experience major problems in contact with companies' customer service. Already two years ago, the Consumer Agency called the industries to a dialogue. Then, as now, it concerned a number of reports received regarding the companies' deficient customer service.
The mapping of reports made in 2023 shows that consumers are on hold in telephone queues for 30-60 minutes or need to call several times to get through. They have also not received any feedback from customer service, despite this having been promised previously.
Consumers have also reported difficulties in getting in contact with customer service in cases where a power of attorney is required. Powers of attorney have not always been accepted, but instead, customer services have required a specific power of attorney to handle the consumers' cases.
The disability organizations also say that button selections in customer service can cause major problems for people with visual impairments or hearing impairments. The problems consist of difficulties in having enough time to interpret the button selections and being physically able to make button selections afterwards.
The system of identification via mobile BankID also creates difficulties, for example when a deaf person uses a mobile phone and cannot identify themselves directly because an interpreter is used.
The signals from the honorable members are that there is no system for how this is communicated to the principal's suppliers. The proxy must act as a detective to find the suppliers and find contact routes to everyone. Everyone also has different routines for accessing the information. Guidelines are missing here on how this should be done. When an address is changed, a name is changed, or someone passes away, the information goes out lightning-fast to everyone. Why does that not happen when it concerns proxy representation?
Back to my question: What measures does the Minister intend to take so that all consumers - regardless of disability, representatives and relatives - can cancel a service, a subscription or another agreement in the same simple way as they can enter into an agreement?
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Anna-Belle Strömberg, for a very important interpellation that I am personally affected by! That is why I chose to participate in the debate and provide some insight into how it can be and function.
Yesterday my mother called me. Even though she doesn't want to say it herself, she is a bit older. She is 85 but maintains that it has nothing to do with age that she actually cannot do that with technology. My parents do not have mobile BankID. I help them with everything related to their finances, for many different reasons.
My mother said that she needed to get in touch with a customer service. It was not possible to get through. Then I called. I thought that I would ask them to call my mother. It was not possible to get through. It was completely impossible if one did not have mobile BankID. My parents do not have it.
I know that this is not something that only affects my parents. Every time I tell friends or acquaintances about how it works, I get many nods of recognition and "That is something we are also exposed to."
It took five months to cancel a subscription for my parents. I don't even dare count how many hours I sat in a telephone queue to get through. They promised that it would be cancelled, that it was now done, and then a new bill arrived. I called again. It was promised that it would be cancelled, and a new bill arrived.
It is unsustainable for very many people, myself included, to have it this way. Something we must do together so that it becomes easier to just come forward and say, for example: Can you please call my mother? Or to cancel a subscription, as Anna-Belle Strömberg pointed out. It should be just as easy as obtaining one—and that, I can emphasize, it is not. These are just two examples of how it is and works in very many cases.
I could mention, but I do not intend to do so, which companies it concerns. It is a long list. This is only proof that it actually does not work.
I am also curious to hear what the Minister of State thinks and what intentions there are. What measures can be taken to stop it from functioning as it does now? Can it be facilitated so that it is possible to come forward and speak out? There are many who can provide testimony that it functions in this way today.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, I want to say that it is very good that this interpellation has been submitted and that the question is being raised.
Eva Lindh asks me how I feel about this issue. I am always deeply affected. Fraud is, of course, more serious. I am deeply affected when it happens because they target with precision the most vulnerable groups in society. It is always extra heartbreaking. It is the same thing here.
One can visualize people who have difficulty managing digital services, who do not have BankID, who perhaps do not have the energy or strength to take on the matter themselves, who are dependent on relatives or their surroundings and who feel both powerless and perhaps a little ashamed of this. It is clear that this is very unfortunate from many different aspects. It is therefore good that the question is being raised.
I will gladly follow up with measures on how we can address this through several other steps.
I do think, however, that it should be said that a fair amount has been and is being done. Already in the autumn of 2018, requirements for written confirmation were introduced for telephone sales to consumers, precisely to strengthen consumers and so that it will not be as easy to be persuaded or deceived via telephone sales. That is good.
One can also avoid telemarketing altogether by joining the blocking register. Nix-Telefon is another way to protect oneself against that type of telemarketing. It is good to have that consumer protection.
There is also EU law that is fully harmonized and which states that the business operator must provide their telephone number, their address, their email address, and all other means of communication when a contract is concluded. That requirement exists. Then perhaps not all requirements are always complied with. That is how it is in a society governed by the rule of law. Some break rules and laws. But that regulation is in place. The business operator shall state telephone number, address, email address, and other means of communication when a contract is concluded. It is good for consumers to know about.
There is also established practice from the Patent and Market Court and from the National Board for Consumer Disputes which states that businesses cannot set specific formal requirements for how a consumer should cancel a contract, for example a subscription. I completely agree with both Lindh and Strömberg that it should be just as easy to cancel a contract as it is to enter into a contract or a subscription. That is the goal. I am happy to contribute more measures, if we can find such, to reach that.
The Consumer Agency has quite recently conducted a mapping of customer service. It was reported in June 2023. On the basis of that, the Consumer Agency has taken a number of measures. 47 out of 100 reviewed companies have been assigned, and they have been urged to make corrections. For two of these, the cases remain open. 45 of them have therefore corrected the deficiencies after what the Consumer Agency has said. That is very good. If the company does not do so, the Consumer Ombudsman can take the case to court and impose sanction fees.
There are, therefore, already some measures in the toolbox. They have also been used in the recent past by the Consumer Agency and the Consumer Ombudsman. That is very good.
Anna-Belle Strömberg (S)
Mr. Speaker! I want to clarify the seriousness and the consequences of the deficiencies regarding customer service.
It is positive that the government feels that something perhaps needs to be done here in the future. It needs to be addressed.
I intend to read out some complaints that are described in the Consumer Agency's report. They sound like this: The day after my mother's passing, I contacted the telecommunications operator to terminate her phone subscription. They took my details and promised to terminate the subscription. Now it has been nine months, and they are still sending out invoices. I have been in contact with them three times by phone and five times via email. Each time they apologize and promise that it is terminated. The invoices remain, and now they have been sent to a debt collection company. For nine months they have not been capable of terminating the subscription and withdrawing the invoices.
Vidare: My sister and I have for eight months now tried to get back money that our deceased father paid for his fixed telephone subscription. We have been urged to send in the estate inventory via regular mail, which we have done four times, and have called the teleoperator on countless occasions. During every call, the teleoperator has urged us to mail or send the estate inventory, which we had already done. On these occasions, it was said: Wait a week and it will be resolved. At the next contact, they had no idea what the matter concerned and came with new directives on what was needed to solve the problems. Once I only needed to provide an account in my bank and the money would be sent, which did not happen at all. At the latest contact, I demanded to speak with a responsible manager, but no manager was available.
Another report reads as follows: I have problems with the electricity company and canceling the agreement. They do not have any email address or "My Pages" where one can cancel an electricity agreement, only a telephone number that it is impossible to reach them on. Every time I call, there are really long queues, or they simply ignore answering. I have called every day this week and had to hang up after 25-60 minutes without any answer.
I have had a variable-price agreement with the electricity company. In October, when I started reading that electricity was becoming more expensive, I thought about changing the agreement to a fixed price. I could not do it online due to limitations at the electricity company and was forced to call. I called several times during October, November, and December but could not get through. I was always told that there was high pressure and that I had to call later. I tried chatting via their website but was again referred to the telephone.
That they could not take my call and change my agreement affected me by the fact that I received a very high invoice for the month of December. When I later got in contact by phone regarding our subscription, I received essentially different answers all the time depending on who answered. There were many calls with the company. I received different answers. I cannot manage to write everything now. I am just relieved when the contract expires.
I understand what the Minister intends when he takes note of these stories. The Minister himself expresses in his response that it is serious if businesses do not follow the requirements that are actually set. It is not good that one tries to circumvent this.
My question to the Minister is what we can do when there are such deficiencies in customer service and so many complaints. The Consumer Agency also describes this in its report.
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! I perhaps do not really need to say more. Anna-Belle Strömberg has clearly highlighted what it is about. I really recognize that.
I am also thinking about all the costs that this involves. I think people forget that sometimes. It is not just about costs for subscriptions that should have been cancelled. When you talk to people, you also hear about all these debt collection demands. It has been agreed that the bill should not be paid because the subscription has been cancelled. But when it is then not paid, according to the agreement, it goes to debt collection. It goes further to the Enforcement Authority, or whatever it is. It actually affects people. It is costs. It is helplessness. It is time. But it is also shame and debt that one is put into because these companies do not do what they are required to do.
It is good that the Minister understands, recognizes and sees this situation. I also think it seems good that the Minister is open to it if we come with initiatives for changes. But my question is whether the Minister will take initiatives for changes in this area because we now know that it does not work.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, I must say that these stories are truly moving. I believe that everyone who hears them feels both anger and frustration that it can happen this way. There might also be a certain recognition factor. One has sat in very long customer service queues, become irritated and frustrated, and many times given up because one did not get through, for example, during the lunch break or between those two meetings. Then customer service was closed when one finished work for the day, so there was no possibility to do it at home or on the weekend.
Everything that has happened and is happening is not legal and permitted. A good deal of this is not permitted, and in those cases, it needs to be reported. Therefore, I think it is good that the Consumer Agency has carried out a special audit of customer service at a large number of companies during the autumn of 2023, which was concluded quite recently anyway. They found errors and deficiencies in very many cases. With the court practice that exists in the area, the Consumer Agency via the Consumer Ombudsman – who, moreover, is the Consumer Agency's Director-General – has the muscle and power to impose fines and, in the long run, sanction fees if the companies do not rectify the deficiencies.
I also think it is good that of 47 companies that have received a remark, 45 have already rectified the problems and taken measures. I think that is very positive. The two remaining companies are expected to report back recently on how they have worked. If they do not meet the requirements, the Consumer Agency shall take measures.
So there are muscles today. In some other contexts within the political portfolio I have, it is not always new legislation that is needed either. Many times it is about utilizing and making use of the legislation that exists, and perhaps that is also the case in this instance.
The problem is further complicated by the fact that it may be a case of dementia, cognitive impairment, or other reasons creating difficulty for relatives of the person who, for example, has entered into a subscription agreement to terminate it, which also emerged in the interpellation. It is a problem how relatives are then to be able to take over. We have this with power of attorney and legal guardian. It is very possible that it can develop even further; I do not know. But there is an inherent conflict there, and it is not possible to avoid it. It must not be the case that a son or daughter who thinks that the mother or father has signed the wrong agreement from their own perspective is granted the right to cancel it. There must be some form of needs analysis at the base to obtain that right as a relative, I argue.
I still dare to promise, here on Friday afternoon this first calendar day of the year when we begin to see some hope for the future, that I will contact the Consumer Agency regarding this issue. I have no other ambition or desire than that the problem should be addressed. I will ask the Consumer Agency if they see any need for political initiatives or if we can work better and more tangibly with the legislation that exists today.
Anna-Belle Strömberg (S)
Mr. Speaker! I am very pleased that the Minister says that he will contact the Consumer Agency to continue working to act in this matter. I agree with the Minister that the legislation must, of course, be followed.
According to the Association of Consumer Advisors, it has become worse in recent years. Companies do not want to be contacted. Consumers do not feel that they are being listened to or that customer service can help with their cases. If customer service cannot solve them, where are they then supposed to turn? They feel powerless.
The Minister responds that the government is closely following the issue, but that does not solve this problem. Therefore, I am very pleased that the Minister here and now, on a Friday afternoon, promises to make contact.
I would like to thank you for the debate and wish you a pleasant weekend.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Mr. Speaker! How wonderful that we can conclude the interpellation debate in a positive spirit!
I do not have much more to add. The promise is hereby made from my side that I will contact the Consumer Agency in this matter. It is not a big step for me to contact the Consumer Agency. It is one of my quite many agencies as Civil Minister. I intend, furthermore, to visit the Consumer Agency physically once more during the spring.
This is an important issue. I can tell the interpellator that it has been raised in another, more closed context that I participated in a few weeks ago. There, the problems in this issue were also seen. It is, therefore, something that I myself have reflected upon.
I think the issues have been accentuated and concretized in this debate. Some stories from reality have also been testified to in here, which I always think is good to be able to take part in. There is, of course, no other will from my side and the government's side than to resolve the problem. But with that said, it is also important to say that we are not standing passive today. Work is ongoing to address the type of issues that the interpellor and the interpellation bring up.
A fairly extensive piece of work has recently been carried out by the Consumer Agency, which is the responsible supervisory authority in this area, to address this issue. Almost all the companies that received remarks have now rectified the problems. I think that shows that we have an active authority on the matter, which is also very positive.
As I have said, I will raise the issue and I am not averse to taking further measures if it should be necessary.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.