My mother is 86 and has serious mobility problems but despite these problems she is still living a very independent life.

She has been a subscriber of Telecare services for many years, so a telephone line in good working order is vital to her. On Monday September 5 at 9 a.m. I reported her telephone line out of order. An hour later a Go representative called me and promised me that it was being taken care of. Despite this call, the telephone line remained dead for the following 24 hours.

I called Go customer care on Tuesday evening and was told that the damage on the line was from outside. I was also promised that technicians would fix the line first thing in the morning on Wednesday. By midday, the line returned for a few hours but it was evident that it was still faulty and unsteady as there was a continuous crackling sound and at times the line even went blank. I phoned customer care again and told them about the problem that same day. I was told that they would now also report the faulty line to Telecare.

Since my mother moved into her apartment in Attard three months ago, this telephone line has been unsteady and we have already reported it out of order at least three times. I know for a fact that Go technicians do not work on public holidays and for this reason the first time I reported the line faulty last June it took Go technicians five days to fix it. So being Wednesday and knowing that Thursday was a public holiday, I was dreading that the line, besides having been unavailable for the past 48 hours, would be out of order for at least another two days.

My predictions proved right because mum had to go without the use of a phone on Thursday and by late afternoon on Friday there was no sign of Go technicians. My last hope was to phone Telecare and ask for their assistance. The person who answered was a real gentleman and despite the fact that it was late, he contacted one of the Telecare technicians who came immediately and fixed the phone.

It seems that Go are not aware of the huge responsibility they have undertaken when committing themselves to provide a telephone service. A telephone line, besides being a basic requirement for normal healthy people, has a greater and more urgent significance for people with a disability. How can we encourage elderly persons to live independently if we are not even capable of giving them stable telephone lines, the most basic and elementary requirement in their lives?

I reiterate what I said in my previous letter: any serious telephone service provider is in duty bound to see to it that telephone lines are in good working order and when faults are reported immediate action taken, especially in such cases where elderly or ill people are concerned. If this company cannot distinguish between urgent repairs and normal repairs, perhaps it should consider opting out of this line of business.