§ 18. Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Postmaster-General whether it is the practice of his Department, when an application for the installation of a telephone is received, to require the intending subscriber to sign a contract, binding him to take and pay the subscription for a telephone without receiving any undertaking on the part of the Department as to the period within which the telephone shall be installed; whether the subscriber is frequently obliged to wait for three months and more without his telephone and without any redress; and whether it is possible in each case to indicate in the contract some reasonable period during which the Post Office is bound to supply the telephone which the subscriber binds himself to take?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELIt is the fact that an intending subscriber is required to sign a contract for his telephone installation before the work is put in hand. When it is reasonably possible the time within which the service can be provided is indicated, but in some cases it is difficult to do so, owing to the provision of the particular lines being dependent on general extensions of the system, which are subject to uncertain delays, due to wayleave and other difficulties. No payment is required from subscribers till their lines are ready, and if in the meantime they desire to cancel their agreements reasonable arrangements can be made.
§ Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSCould not the Department adopt a form of contract which would give an intending subscriber some idea as to the time in which he could get a connection and some right to cancel the contract?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELSubscribers are told as soon as possible. It does not depend on the Department. Frequently way leaves have to be obtained, and local authorities have to be consulted and not seldom raise difficulties causing delay for which the Department is not in any way responsible.
§ Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSCould they not ascertain the facts?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELNo, frequently not. I shall deal with the matter fully on the Estimates on Thursday.