Plusnet; an example maybe, but a change to service levels is needed?

When you buy a faulty product in the High St, you generally are
protected by consumer law.

If the product develops a fault, you can expect a refund in the earlier
days, a repair or replacement thereafter.

Given certain criteria, you can reject the goods after a repair if the
goods are still not of a satisfactory quality. You generally have the
same rights as if the goods were new.

Repairs are generally expected to be completed within a reasonable
period AIUI.

Telephone lines can be repaired i suppose, but ADSL can't be replaced as
such. You either have it or you don't.

If it [ADSL] goes wrong, and stays wrong for an *extended* period due to
line faults or other external causes surely you can expect to a) not
have to continue paying for it b) not remain committed to a service
contract when the service isn't actually being provided and c) as the
fault is ongoing for a period which can be considered reasonably
'excessive' by anyone with respect for common sense, the the ISP should
act reasonably in facilitating a request to cancel something which at
this point in time is not available?

Why is it then that the ISP Plusnet, after approx 3 months of
'providing' an intermittently non-working service (and acknowledged as
faulty by both BT and Plusnet) they feel they cannot cancel a customer's
annual account and refund full costs without penalty to the customer
when the product (in this case ADSL Broadband) has actually *never*
worked correctly?

Plusnet categorically state that the ongoing 3 month old fault must be
shown by BT as being an Early Life Failure (ELF) before they will take
action in consideration of ELF refunds and/or cancellation, and that
should the customer wish to cancel her non-working service, then they
must pay a £99 cancellation fee to Plusnet to do so.

Apparently, this is all in the T&C's, or at least, is covered by them.

In the meantime, they [Plusnet] say that if BT do eventually show the
fault to be ELF, then they will "apply" for a refund from BT, but to be
shown as ELF and qualify for said refund, the customer *must* continue
with the account regardless of whether it is working or not so that BT
can continue to investigate.

BT have already tried to fix the fault (and failed) so does this now
become a repair that can now be rejected as continuing to remain
unsatisfactory, as per other consumer repairs above per se?

The problem is of course, although BT are investigating the fault, they
are also undoubtedly trying to fix it, and as it's likely that it will
or can be fixed at some point, this customer continues to pay for a
service that isn't working because, as there are no SLA's in force, she
is, in essence expected to put up with it. Or pay £99.

As i interpret it, ISP's can expect customers to go without a service
for weeks and weeks, months in this case, and have no recompense
whatsoever simply because no service level actually exists?

In this case, the ISP, Plusnet, absolutely insist this £99 cancellation
fee is "non-negotiable" if the customer wishes to cancel. I'm sure there
are other other ISP's who perhaps have the same 'policies'.

Talk about rock and hard place for the customer.... ADSL isn't working
but you have to remain a customer and wait for it to be declared ELF by
BT before you can "apply" for a refund, or you can pay £99 and your ISP
will drop the call with BT and let you out of the contract, but you'll
get no refund because BT haven't declared the service faulty (remember,
you left the contract early ...!)

If ADSL doesn't work because there is a fault, how long (since there
are no SLA's) should someone have to put up with this?

A week, a month, 3 months, 6 months??

And who is the ADSL contract with, the ISP or BT? Given the criteria
that the customer needs to wait for the outcome from BT, then i'd
interpret it as the ISP is suggesting the contract is not theirs to
honour as it is reliant on BT?

Huh?

Maybe a time for change with regard to SLA's is due, now that ADSL is so
widespread nationally, and so many people now have it?

Maybe, as consumers, we should start insisting ISP's and in particular
the supplier BT offer the consumer some form of service guarantee
instead of "as soon as is reasonably possible" to quote from Plusnet's
own T&C's.

OK, so define "reasonably possible"? A week, a month, 3 months, 6
months??

It's actually as long as it takes it seems, so long as you keep paying.

In this case, the ISP, Plusnet, absolutely insist this £99 cancellation
fee is "non-negotiable" if the customer wishes to cancel. I'm sure there
are other other ISP's who perhaps have the same 'policies'.

Talk about rock and hard place for the customer.... ADSL isn't working
but you have to remain a customer and wait for it to be declared ELF by
BT before you can "apply" for a refund, or you can pay £99 and your ISP
will drop the call with BT and let you out of the contract, but you'll
get no refund because BT haven't declared the service faulty (remember,
you left the contract early ...!)


I can appreciate the problem that you have, it sounds like you've been more
than reasonable in your attempts to get the problem resolved and haven't yet
lost your temper.

I would say of all of the ISP's I've dealt with PlusNet are one of the best
so I'm sure they'll do what they can to help.

I would imagine that Plusnet have paid BT and are now locked into a contract
with BT, you've paid Plusnet and are now locked into a contract with them.
Plusnets side of the servers seems to be working so they're doing everything
correctly so it's going to take pressure from you and plusnet together to
get BT to shift and resolve what would appear to be their problem.

From Plusnets point of view, if they cancel the contract with BT without it
being done in the right way then they'll carry the penalties from BT so I
can understand why they insist on the £99 fee.

I know that Plusnet PR do read these forums quite frequently so I'm sure
that they'll be able to say something to help.
Ian Wild is certainly someone worth talking to although I'm not sure if he's
just PR or customer support.


--
Regards

John Lyons
Netserve Consultants Ltd
http://www.domaincity.co.uk

Tx2 wrote:
> When you buy a faulty product in the High St, you generally are
> protected by consumer law.
>
> If the product develops a fault, you can expect a refund in the
> earlier days, a repair or replacement thereafter.
>
> Given certain criteria, you can reject the goods after a repair if the
> goods are still not of a satisfactory quality. You generally have the
> same rights as if the goods were new.
>
> Repairs are generally expected to be completed within a reasonable
> period AIUI.
>
> Telephone lines can be repaired i suppose, but ADSL can't be replaced
> as such. You either have it or you don't.
<snip long complaint>

Without meaning to take anybody's side (I don't know exactly who is right
here, although I would expect you should be protected under the same
consumer laws that apply to all products purchased - and there are some
clauses that cannot be written out with a contract), why don't you contact
your local trading standards office, and ask them what to do next?

Hope it all works out okay for both parties

Dominic

John Lyons wrote:

> I can appreciate the problem that you have, it sounds like you've
> been more than reasonable in your attempts to get the problem
> resolved and haven't yet lost your temper.

I agree. Start going up the management chain. Speak to supervisors and
managers, then work your way up, and keep a note of who you talk to and
when. Don't be put off by attempts by staff not to pass you on to a higher
level because they are not authorised to deal with your cancellation
request. Call Centre staff are normally told not to pass calls to managers
unless they are very insistant.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed), a.k.a MA says...


> I agree. Start going up the management chain. Speak to supervisors and
> managers, then work your way up, and keep a note of who you talk to and
> when. Don't be put off by attempts by staff not to pass you on to a higher
> level because they are not authorised to deal with your cancellation
> request. Call Centre staff are normally told not to pass calls to managers
> unless they are very insistant.

Unfortunately, Plusnet customer facing staff are the ones who choose to
deal with such complaints (you'll note their presence in this very
newsgroup) and those who actually make or take the decisions are not
customer facing.

Asking to speak with managers (and even Directors) has fallen on deaf
ears.

The only channels that are open to customers is "Contact Us" (a fault
ticket scheme) or the telephone, whereby "Contact us" is updated and
passed to those whom you are not permitted to speak with.

The next level, on which advice is being taken, is legal action.

In article <4134d15a$0$21902$(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed), a.k.a John Lyons says...


> I would say of all of the ISP's I've dealt with PlusNet are one of the best
> so I'm sure they'll do what they can to help.

They actually seem to be doing the very opposite and insisting that
despite the ADSL service they are providing being faulty, it is a non-
negotiable situation in that the customer must remain with them to see
out the fault and qualify for a refund under ELF, or they can 'buy'
their way out of the contract at which point they would not get a
refund. Unless Plusnet can categorically state any different, this is
how i, and the affected customer, have interpreted it.

If Plusnet are one of the best, then there is a far greater need for the
consumer to have better protection in terms of service levels than i at
first thought.

Indeed, in a phone call with me this afternoon, the customer made
comment that she had spoken to the "rudest man ever" at Plusnet. He
wouldn't give his name when asked. "One of the best" ... ?

> I would imagine that Plusnet have paid BT and are now locked into a contract
> with BT, you've paid Plusnet and are now locked into a contract with them..

Well, maybe you see the point. The customers contract is with Plusnet,
not BT.

BTW, i'm not the customer, just an 'interested' party.

> Plusnets side of the servers seems to be working so they're doing everything
> correctly so it's going to take pressure from you and plusnet together to
> get BT to shift and resolve what would appear to be their problem.

It is without doubt a fault that is down to BT, but after 3 months the
customer has had enough and wants out. She is happy to remain a Plusnet
customer and go back to 'unlimited' dial-up.

AIUI, Plusnet will not allow it unless a 'penalty' is paid for early
termination of the ADSL contract, at which point the fault investigation
with BT will be dropped, and no refund would therefore be possible as
ELF will not be proven. Enter rock and hard place.

> From Plusnets point of view, if they cancel the contract with BT without it
> being done in the right way then they'll carry the penalties from BT so I
> can understand why they insist on the £99 fee.

Sorry, but i don't see Plusnet's point of view ....

if you bought a TV on credit from Currys that didn't work properly, and
several times the manufacturers engineers tried to fix it, and failed,
how would you feel if Currys eventually said we'll take it off your
hands if you pay us £99 and you then you'll not have to pay the monthly
credit agreement anymore?

Or you can keep it, non-working, and we'll send an engineer out now and
then and eventually, we hope to fix it, if not, when we deem it to be
the right time, you can have a refund. But you must carry on paying
monthly for it until then.

Would your answer be an agreement to those terms?

> I know that Plusnet PR do read these forums quite frequently

That's all they are, DLA's (damage limitation ambassadors)
I doubt the complaint actually ever gets escalated, despite what they
say.

> so I'm sure that they'll be able to say something to help.

I doubt it very much.

> Ian Wild is certainly someone worth talking to although I'm not sure if he's
> just PR or customer support.

Ian Wild is nobody worth talking to, not IMO.

A pleasant fellow IME, but no more influential than your average junior
manager. I'm not sure he's even in services anymore.

The customer in question has contacted Trading Standards of course, and
is currently awaiting further advice from her legal representatives.

Think SLA (Service Level Agreement) then think consumer protection, then
realise neither appear to exist if customers are unacceptably expected
to wait until the nth degree to have a problem rectified, or pay to
'relieve' themselves of such burdens.

"Tx2" <tx2newscollection-invalid-@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) t...
<snip>

If your contract is with Plusnet then it is nothing to do with BT as far as
your concerned.

It is up to Plusnet to sort out their refund from BT and not use that as an
excuse to hold back your refund from them (Plusnet).

Speak to your local Trading Standards, whose number can be found in your
local phone book.

Good luck.

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Tx2 <tx2newscollection-invalid-@hotmail.com> wrote:

> When you buy a faulty product in the High St, you generally are
> protected by consumer law.
>
> If the product develops a fault, you can expect a refund in the
> earlier days, a repair or replacement thereafter.
>
> Given certain criteria, you can reject the goods after a repair if the
> goods are still not of a satisfactory quality. You generally have the
> same rights as if the goods were new.
>
> Repairs are generally expected to be completed within a reasonable
> period AIUI.
>
> Telephone lines can be repaired i suppose, but ADSL can't be replaced
> as such. You either have it or you don't.
>
> If it [ADSL] goes wrong, and stays wrong for an *extended* period due
> to line faults or other external causes surely you can expect to a)
> not have to continue paying for it b) not remain committed to a
> service contract when the service isn't actually being provided and
> c) as the fault is ongoing for a period which can be considered
> reasonably 'excessive' by anyone with respect for common sense, the
> the ISP should act reasonably in facilitating a request to cancel
> something which at this point in time is not available?
>
> Why is it then that the ISP Plusnet, after approx 3 months of
> 'providing' an intermittently non-working service (and acknowledged
> as faulty by both BT and Plusnet) they feel they cannot cancel a
> customer's annual account and refund full costs without penalty to
> the customer when the product (in this case ADSL Broadband) has
> actually *never* worked correctly?
>
> Plusnet categorically state that the ongoing 3 month old fault must be
> shown by BT as being an Early Life Failure (ELF) before they will take
> action in consideration of ELF refunds and/or cancellation, and that
> should the customer wish to cancel her non-working service, then they
> must pay a £99 cancellation fee to Plusnet to do so.
>
> Apparently, this is all in the T&C's, or at least, is covered by them.
>
> In the meantime, they [Plusnet] say that if BT do eventually show the
> fault to be ELF, then they will "apply" for a refund from BT, but to
> be shown as ELF and qualify for said refund, the customer *must*
> continue with the account regardless of whether it is working or not
> so that BT can continue to investigate.
>
> BT have already tried to fix the fault (and failed) so does this now
> become a repair that can now be rejected as continuing to remain
> unsatisfactory, as per other consumer repairs above per se?
>
> The problem is of course, although BT are investigating the fault,
> they are also undoubtedly trying to fix it, and as it's likely that
> it will or can be fixed at some point, this customer continues to pay
> for a service that isn't working because, as there are no SLA's in
> force, she is, in essence expected to put up with it. Or pay £99.
>
> As i interpret it, ISP's can expect customers to go without a service
> for weeks and weeks, months in this case, and have no recompense
> whatsoever simply because no service level actually exists?
>
> In this case, the ISP, Plusnet, absolutely insist this £99
> cancellation fee is "non-negotiable" if the customer wishes to
> cancel. I'm sure there are other other ISP's who perhaps have the
> same 'policies'.
>
> Talk about rock and hard place for the customer.... ADSL isn't working
> but you have to remain a customer and wait for it to be declared ELF
> by BT before you can "apply" for a refund, or you can pay £99 and
> your ISP will drop the call with BT and let you out of the contract,
> but you'll get no refund because BT haven't declared the service
> faulty (remember, you left the contract early ...!)
>
> If ADSL doesn't work because there is a fault, how long (since there
> are no SLA's) should someone have to put up with this?
>
> A week, a month, 3 months, 6 months??
>
> And who is the ADSL contract with, the ISP or BT? Given the criteria
> that the customer needs to wait for the outcome from BT, then i'd
> interpret it as the ISP is suggesting the contract is not theirs to
> honour as it is reliant on BT?
>
> Huh?
>
> Maybe a time for change with regard to SLA's is due, now that ADSL is
> so widespread nationally, and so many people now have it?
>
> Maybe, as consumers, we should start insisting ISP's and in particular
> the supplier BT offer the consumer some form of service guarantee
> instead of "as soon as is reasonably possible" to quote from Plusnet's
> own T&C's.
>
> OK, so define "reasonably possible"? A week, a month, 3 months, 6
> months??
>
> It's actually as long as it takes it seems, so long as you keep
> paying.

I appreciate your frustration. As you imply, if you buy tangible goods from
a shop and they go wrong in their early life, or are dead on arrival, it is
the shop (with whom you have your contract) whose responsibility it is to
sort it out - regardless of whether they can get compensated by their
supplier.

I'm not sure to what extent this applies to internet access provision. Get
advice from Trading Standards. If they confirm your view of life, but
PlusNet won't play ball, sue them in the Small Claims Court.

I hope it doesn't come to that because I believe that PlusNet are a
reasonable outfit - but you sometimes have to get tough to concentrate the
minds. Constantly rehearsing your tale of woe here isn't going to get you
anywhere!
--
Cheers,
Tim
______
Please reply to newsgroup. Reply address is invalid.

"Tx2" <tx2newscollection-invalid-@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) t...

When you buy a faulty product in the High St, you generally are
protected by consumer law.

<Snip>

You were whinging on about NTL a few month`s ago and IIRC you always seem to
be moaning about something or other..

Maybe a Consumer Hard to please?

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed), a.k.a
Tiscali Tim says...


> I'm not sure to what extent this applies to internet access provision. Get
> advice from Trading Standards. If they confirm your view of life, but
> PlusNet won't play ball, sue them in the Small Claims Court

I think the situation so far as SLA's for internet access is concerned
needs addressing, and as such "constantly rehearsing" this issue here
may make those who can make a difference stand up and take notice.

Isolating such issues to telephone conversations and fault reports will
not help change the situation for consumers *or* indeed, ISP's.

If Plusnet are right, then indeed the consumer has no real protection;
something that needs addressing, and if they are wrong, then it
highlights an issue that may be industry wide which needs rectifying.

I hope it is isolated to Plusnet simply not being aware of their
obligations, but time will tell if legal action is required.

> I hope it doesn't come to that because I believe that PlusNet are a
> reasonable outfit - but you sometimes have to get tough to concentrate the
> minds.

Absolutely.