The Regulatory Authority has taken action over allegations that the Bermuda Telephone Company overcharged customers.

The RA filed a notice in July and claimed that the BTC may have breached its licence and charged customers for “overcalls” they did not make.

But BTC called for a judicial review and insisted that the notice set out no factual basis for the allegations.

Puisne Judge Stephen Hellman dismissed BTC’s request in a judgment issued yesterday.

He said the purpose of the notice was to inform the company about the start of proceedings.

But he added that the RA would have to detail its case early in the adjudication process.

The RA notice said that in October last year the authority had received complaints from commercial customers charged for exceeding their monthly allowances.

BTC explained that due to a software error it had not billed 2,418 customers for calls they made.

The company said when the problem was spotted the customers were billed for calls made but not charged for.

The RA added its investigation suggested there remained “ongoing problems” with the BTC’s billing system.

The regulator said it had reason to believe the BTC had acted in contravention of its licence.

Among the possible breaches listed were that the company may have misstated the number of overcalls and the amount due, charged customers for overcalls they did not make, charged late fees and disconnected service for the charges and maintained an inaccurate billing system.

The notice said: “In general, the authority believes the BTC’s billing practices and controls are not operating at a standard that ensures that consumers are receiving accurate bills for the electronic communications services they are using.

“As such, the authority finds it imperative to initiate enforcement for an independent presiding officer to decide whether BTC has contravened the provisions of its licence, as well as the general principles of the licence and the Act.”

BTC responded in a letter that the RA had made “incredibly serious allegations” without setting out a factual basis on which the complaints could be founded.

The company proposed that it and the RA enter voluntary mediation with several conditions — which included that the existence of the mediation remained confidential.

Those conditions were refused by the RA.

Jeffrey Elkinson, representing BTC, argued that the RA notice did not give the company enough information to properly respond.

He said that the notice should be detailed enough to allow the company to make “informed representations” about whether the matter should be taken to adjudication.

Mr Elkinson also said that the allegations could seriously damage the reputation of the company — even if they are disproved.

But Alex Potts, representing the RA, said the notice was detailed enough to fulfil its purpose — to initiate enforcement proceedings.

He told the court that while BTC is entitled to the full details and an opportunity to plead their case, that should be dealt with in adjudication.

Mr Potts added that the public impact of news about the proceedings would be “blunted” because claims of overcharging had already been reported in the media.

Mr Justice Hellman found the main purpose of the notice was to start enforcement proceedings and only needed to include a “gist” of the allegations.

He said: “The purpose of the notice is not to give the BTC an opportunity to make representations that the enforcement proceedings should not go ahead.

“It need not set out the allegations against the recipient in sufficient detail for the recipient to give a detailed rebuttal.”