Where are consumer rights in the GT&T 1997 surcharge case? Consumer Concerns
By Eileen Cox
Stabroek News
October 13, 2002

Related Links: Articles on GT&T
Letters Menu Archival Menu

In arriving at their decision that the Guyana Telephone & Telegraph Co. Ltd. is entitled to the surcharge which it unilaterally imposed on consumers in April 1997 the learned judges, the Hon. Mr Justice Carl Singh, Chief Justice, the Hon. Mr Justice Nandram Kissoon and the Hon. Mr Justice Ian Chang, Justices of Appeal, relied on the principles of natural justice. The GT&T is entitled to recover, by way of surcharge or otherwise, such loss of revenue caused by the invalidated PUC Order 7 or 1995.

Natural justice, it is ordered, gives the GT&T these rights but what about natural justice in relation to consumers? Let us see how the story unfolded.

On 11th October, 1995, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) issued an Order, No.7 of 1995, granting subscribers to GT&T reduced temporary rates. It also provided for off peak rates, 50% of the regular rate, from 6 p.m. to 7 a.m. Monday to Friday, Saturday and Sunday and on public holidays.

GT&T did not file an appeal but sought relief from a judicial review. The case was heard by Hon Justice Carl Singh. The GT&T, in relation to the challenged aspects of the Order, contended that there should have been due enquiry by the PUC before making its decisions, but this was not done.. GT&T, it contended, did not have an opportunity of being heard.

Mr Ashton Chase, S.C. on behalf of the PUC, argued that judicial review is not applicable in Guyana, and, secondly, that the only body with controlling authority over the PUC is the Court of Appeal. GT&T, he said, was free to appeal to the Court of Appeal but had not done so. He invited the Judge to exercise his discretion against issuing the writs sought, particularly because GT&T did not employ the right of appeal provided by the Act. The Judge declined the invitation. On the 13th January he ruled that the temporary rates were in breach of natural justice. GT&T had not been heard.

On 19th January, 1997, in an advertisement, GT&T informed subscribers that it was reverting to the old rates that were in existence before PUC Order 7 of 1995.

In April, 1997, GT&T published a Notice in the local newspapers informing subscribers of its intention to impose an additional rate over an authorised period of eighteen months to recover revenue that was lost by the temporary rate reduction.

The Consumers Advisory Bureau Ltd. (CAB) applied to the High Court seeking

(i) a declaration that no surcharge can now be imposed unilaterally by GT&T on consumers on the basis of the judgement of Justice Carl Singh, and

(ii) a declaration that no surcharge on consumers can be imposed by GT&T without the approval of the PUC and that the proposed surcharge is illegal and void.

CAB also sought an injunction restraining GT&T from demanding or collecting a surcharge. This injunction was refused.

On 30th November, 1997, Justice Claudette Singh granted the following:

(i) the declaration that no surcharge can be imposed unilaterally by GT&T on the consumers on the basis of the judgement of Justice Carl Singh.

(ii) an injunction restraining the GT&T from imposing a surcharge unilaterally on consumers pursuant to the notice of April, 1997 without complying with the provisions of the PUC Act.

GT&T appealed to the Court of Appeal. Mr Peter Britton, S.C., representing the CAB, argued that section 46(1) of the PUC Act required GT&T to obtain the permission of the PUC before imposing a surcharge on the rates. The Court of Appeal ruled that this section does not at all impose any obligation on the public utility but rather imposes on the PUC a negative obligation not to obstruct or prevent the public utility from implementing such a means of recovery.

So, GT&T has been allowed to impose a surcharge on subscribers without hearing the views of the consumers and without having its calculations of loss of revenue checked. The surcharge fell on all subscribers who use overseas services from 1997 to 1999 whether or not they had benefited from the reduced rates. The exact amount collected has not been revealed to consumers but we believe it was in the vicinity of US$10 million.

The question now is: Was the surcharge imposed by GT&T in breach of natural justice? Was it fair to consumers to permit reduced rates and then later demand payment at the full rate?

This matter cannot Rest in Peace.

What is good for Peter is good for Paul. Let us always seek a level playing field.