From Credit Decisions to Allegations to Discretionary Exclusion

When Vodafone denied my applications for service, the reasons provided were not consistent. Over time, the basis for denial shifted repeatedly – often contradicting earlier explanations and, in several instances, later being corrected or abandoned entirely.

What follows is a chronological account of those changing justifications.

Stage 1: “Internal credit decline” (vague and unsupported)

Vodafone initially advised that my applications were declined due to an “internal credit decision.”

No criteria, documentation, or explanation was provided as to what this internal decision entailed. Importantly:

Vodafone later confirmed that external credit bureau data did not cause the decline
I was, in fact, approved on external bureau data
The internal decline was later traced to the presence of a write-off flag, which Vodafone has since admitted was wrongly applied

At this stage, the reason given was vague and unreviewable.

Stage 2: “External credit decline” (factually incorrect)

Vodafone subsequently suggested that the decline related to external credit information.

This explanation was demonstrably incorrect:

No credit enquiry was run in relation to the relevant applications
My credit scores across bureaus ranged between 690 and 880 (Very Good to Excellent)
There was no adverse credit information or defaults recorded

Vodafone later ceased relying on this explanation.

Stage 3: Alleged “ban” on my credit file (confirmed to be false)

Vodafone then purported that there was a “ban” on my credit file.

This claim was independently verified as false:

All relevant credit reporting bodies confirmed that no such ban existed or had ever existed
No bureau record supported Vodafone’s assertion

This justification was subsequently abandoned.

Stage 4: Escalation to allegations of “altered ID” and “hundreds of applications”

Only after the matter was escalated to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) did Vodafone introduce far more serious claims – namely:

that “altered identification” may have been used, and
that “hundreds of applications” had allegedly been submitted

These assertions implied potential fraud or serious misconduct.

Lack of substantiation

Despite their seriousness:

no identity verification failures were demonstrated
no fraud analysis or forensic explanation was provided
no application logs were initially produced

I maintain that any applications submitted were genuine, made by me, and tied to my identity.

Implications if true

Had Vodafone’s allegation of “altered identification” been correct, it would necessarily imply a failure of Vodafone’s own Know Your Customer (KYC) and identity verification systems – a matter of regulatory significance.

Vodafone did not pursue this allegation further.

Stage 5: Correction of the record – five applications, not hundreds

Vodafone later corrected its position.

Material supplied to the TIO confirmed that the number of applications was five, not “hundreds”.

The existence of multiple applications is explained by Vodafone’s own conduct. After advising that the wrongly applied write-off flag would be removed, Vodafone sales and credit staff encouraged further applications to be submitted and ‘tried again’ through the system.

The repetition was therefore a product of Vodafone’s internal handling and representations, not misuse or circumvention.

Stage 6: Admission of a wrongly applied write-off flag

During further escalation, Vodafone admitted that:

a write-off flag existed on my account,
it was associated with my name and identification details,
the underlying balance was invalid and meant to be credited in full, and
the write-off flag was wrongly applied

Vodafone further advised that, despite acknowledging the error, the flag cannot be removed due to internal “record-keeping” requirements, a position contradicted by Vodafone’s own Collections staff, who confirmed on a recorded call that write-off flags applied in error can be reversed.

Stage 7: Escalation to NSW Fair Trading – discretionary service denial

Vodafone later advised NSW Fair Trading that it was exercising “discretion” to deny service.

Notably:

the service denial was not grounded in allegations, “altered ID”, excessive applications, unpaid debt, or credit impairment
Vodafone asserted that the denial extended not only to me personally, but also to any companies I control

This position was advanced despite Vodafone having:

admitted a billing error,
acknowledged the wrongful application of a write-off flag, and
paid over $2,000 in compensation, exceeding standard caps, to resolve the billing issue

NSW Fair Trading has confirmed receipt of this position, which appears to characterise the service denial as a discretionary response following the dispute.

Why this pattern matters

Viewed collectively, the progression is difficult to ignore:

Vague internal credit decline
Incorrect reliance on external credit
False claim of a credit ban
Escalation to unsubstantiated allegations
Correction of exaggerated application numbers
Admission of a wrongly applied write-off flag
Broad discretionary service denial extending to related entities

This sequence raises legitimate questions about transparency, complaint handling, data governance, and whether adverse treatment followed escalation rather than any substantiated risk.

Burden of proof and right of reply

If Vodafone maintains that service denial is justified on grounds independent of:

admitted billing errors,
incorrect credit flags, or
the presence of a ‘write-off’ flag (wrongly applied and admitted)

it is open to Vodafone to provide:

documentary evidence,
internal policies supporting such discretionary exclusion, and
an explanation for extending denial to associated entities.

Absent such material, the concerns outlined above remain unresolved.

Disclaimer & Right of Reply:

This article is based on contemporaneous correspondence, regulatory communications, and admissions made during dispute resolution processes. It does not allege criminal conduct or assert that any law has been breached. Vodafone is invited to provide clarification, correction, or supporting evidence. Any formal response will be published in full and unedited in the interests of accuracy, transparency, and procedural fairness.

Post 3 – Vodafone’s Shifting Reasons for Service Denial