Crikey, unlucky and woah in the same sentence!
First up you've admitted it's a BT fault, second up give the Plus Net team some time to respond, third up 'customer for two years' yet first forum post, hmm.
From personal experience, having moved from AOHell, I'm a lot better off over here, for sure some individuals are having problems, but, it's a network, having said that, the 'free' advice here is priceless compared to 90% of the other ISP's.
Having spent a fair few weeks watching this part of the forum, 60% of the time it's BT quite obviously playing dead, to encourage dissatisfaction, 20% of the time it's user/router related, 10% goes to inexperience, and, the last 10% in this digital age is in the lap of the gods.
If you have not already done so, raise a fault ticket, append it here, and watch the advice flow in.

Hi iansumuk,
[quote=iansumuk]Plusnet, want to charge £65 to restore the service as it is classed as a "house move",  the house hasn't moved, same address, same line, same telephone number
The only way we can defer the charge so that you don't have to pay up front is to class it as a house move. That doesn't necessarily mean you've moved house. If a line is removed from service then the broadband on that line will cease, and the only way to get you up and running again without charging you is to defer the payment in this manner. There are no grounds to blame plusnet for this and any recompense should be sought from your phone provider.
Jojo

I'm very disappointed that Plusnet didn't come up with a better answer than that. It should be treated as a fault and Plusnet should be insisting that BT Wholesale re-instate the line at no cost (if BTw want  to cross charge BT retail that's up to them).

Quote from: iansumuk

Luckily, I look after the IT for a large company and lots of employees have been signed up to by me,   I can now move the whole lot away,

I suggest you ring up and ask for all the MAC codes. The writing has been on the wall for some time, they've been competing with the likes of TT and Sky on price and now they're trying to compete by offering the same level of customer care.

HI jelv,
[quote=jelv]It should be treated as a fault and Plusnet should be insisting that BT Wholesale re-instate the line at no cost
If a line that we provide broadband on has been ceased by that customer's provider we cannot intervene as the contract is between that person and their provider. It was not a fault, the line was ceased for reasons we have no way of knowing (once again, that is between the customer and their provider). When this happens the broadband asset is removed as there is no line for it to function on. We have to pay for the broadband to be reprovided and simply pass that cost on (we also offer to defer that cost). So, if any charges are to be claimed back by the customer then they should ask their provider, who ceased their line in the first place.
[quote=jelv]The writing has been on the wall for some time, they've been competing with the likes of TT and Sky on price and now they're trying to compete by offering the same level of customer care
I don't understand how our customer care can be brought into question regarding an issue involving a 3rd party provider.
Jojo

I'm nothing to do with PN (just a customer of 5 years who's been generally impressed by their customer service) but I have to stick up for them on this one - you are being totally unreasonable. 
BT caused this issue in the first place and you must look to them to reimburse you for any consequential losses.  Say, for example, your energy supplier cut off your electricity and you lost the contents of your freezer, you wouldn't expect Tesco to replace your fish fingers, you'd expect your energy company to.  It's the same scenario.

Hi Jelv,
This is one of those unfortunate areas were regulation bites back.
It may seem as simple as because one part of BT broke the whole link, the others should correct without intervention, but it just isn't.
Equivalence of Input (EOI) mandates that another part of BT must operate and take service from another division of BT, as if they were any other customer. So if Wholesale start providing Retail with a new means of ordering services, this new method must be made available to all. If retail obtain a product on IPStream that allowed greater than 832kbps upstream, this too much be provided to all.
The same applies to processes and for this we will flip the examples on it's head.
What is it had been another SMPF provider on the line such as [Be/Sky/Easynet/insert or LLU] and the error had occurred. It wouldn't be expected that an error made by the phone supplier result in said ISP absorbing all costs associated with the re-provision.
Equivalence means that whilst BT can technically be the broadband and telephone supplier here, purely through parent ownership, it doesn't mean we can get a free ride to restore the service.
This doesn't mean there is no liability here. It's more common than you think for any phone provider to cut the service. We see this in the Business Support team, examples being a customer is moving property and sorted things in advance, only the phone supplier cuts the old service too early. This isn't just restricted to BT.
Yes it is unfair on the customer to have to pay to re-provide, this is why if the error is on the phone suppliers side, we always recommend up-front payment and not deferring it on business, so the invoice cost can be passed on. I sure wish there was a way to pass the cost on directly, but such practice wouldn't be operating in an equivalent way, as a result it does make the customer piggy in the middle, which to be fair they became when the whole thing broke to begin with, so not our initiation.
You can see more on BTs undertakings and the requirements of operation using "equivalence" in the following pages.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/policy/bt-undertakings/

I thinking more of a phone call "what the hell do you think you're doing cutting off our user, you get it put back on again pronto".

Ah, but their in lies the point, they didn't cut off our user.
Us from Wholesale, as did they from Openreach, received notification that there is no longer a phone service over which the broadband can be carried.
The source/reason as to why there is no longer a phone service is not our concern. It could be from the most obvious/basic customer terminating all phone service, to the phone company ceasing the phone in error.
Were the error is by the phone supplier, they should bare the cost. The problem is, us as an ISP cannot pass that cost back through the supply chain as the SMPF portion has no direct link to the phone contract. Any cost incurred must be settled directly between the two parties in dispute.
Yes, it isn't fair, but it is "equivalent".
BT can be very cloudy on occasion on how they apply "equivalence", however this is one of the quite clear areas on how it operates, it also happens to be the one that is seen as most unfair, but this again is the price on ensuring consumer/market protection within the regulation set out by Ofcom.

Or to attempt to put it more simply...
Treat every part of BT as a separate entity.  Then, as with any other contract, if one entity breaks their contract with you (ie they cut the phone line) which causes other consequences involving other entities (ie the broadband is removed, and Plusnet charge to add broadband to a line), then you should take up the issue through the complaints procedure (and if that is exhausted, the regulator and/or the courts) of the entity that is originally at fault and who originally broke their contract with you.
Hmmm, not sure that is simpler 

In a Master/ Slave relationship, what matters is Who is Master
The relationship isn't reciprocal. I could be more explicit but it is difficult without being Politically Incorrect.
Edit: Perhaps this quotation typifies the situation:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all."
(Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6)

First thing I would do is stop your direct debit if you pay that way
Plusnet stated its not their concern so dont forget to ask for your plusnet monthly fee back from the time BT cut your line no service from plusnet no money from you
Things are getting stupid with BT these days
Openreach
BT Wholesale
Plusnet
are all part of BT why can’t they work together in this instance to keep a customer happy its BT error whichever department of BT it done from
Seems plusnet customer service is dropping re: replies from Plusnet I am very shocked at what they have said seems they dont want to help a long standing customer

Puddy

Quote from: P

The source/reason as to why there is no longer a phone service is not our concern..

Says it all
Puddy
ps I would be to embarrassed to refer a friend neighbour or family member to Plusnet these days

Quote from: P

The source/reason as to why there is no longer a phone service is not our concern..

The trouble is, it's true.  It's not Plusnet's responsibility or concern or fault or anything.  They've merely responded in the way they have to, to the removal of the phone service.  The OP needs to take the issue up with the organisational entity responsible for the removal of the phone service in the first place - to get it reinstated, and to get compensation for the effects of the action (ie the cost Plusnet are charging for setting up Broadband on the reinstated line). 
It's hugely frustrating and unfair and inconvenient, but it is the way contract law works in this confusing situation of different entities all called BT or owned by BT, but legally having to act as if they are separate.

Quote from: puddy

First thing I would do is stop your direct debit if you pay that way

I'm not sure there's any suggestion that plus.net are charging the user for the time the line was inactive (though I guess conceivably they might be due to notice periods?)

Quote

Seems plusnet customer service is dropping re: replies from Plusnet I am very shocked at what they have said seems they dont want to help a long standing customer

As far as I can see plus.net are offering to help - they've offered to not charge the 65 quid if the user agrees to stay for 12 months.
I'm not sure why people feel plus.net should go beyond that for something that was another companies mistake? As people have already said, the OP could instead claim the 65 (and some compensation on top for hassle) from the company that put the cease order in.

The whole BT situation is a bit odd these days, but the rules that cause the above problem are an integral part of the rules that have been an active part of ensuring there is active competition in the ADSL market, which had turned out to be a very good thing.