topic Re: Official....Plusnet confirm they don't have to provide a "Reasonable" service in Plusnet Feedback

Official....Plusnet confirm they don't have to provide a "Reasonable" service

dustymil59 — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:21:15 GMT

This is the reply I got from Plusnet regarding my comment that I felt they were in breach of contract since they had not provided a reasonable service:-
"Dear Mr M******,
Thankyou for your contact, i am afraid that we are not in breach of contract as there is no part of our terms and conditions which stipulate that we must supply a reasonable service. In the event of a fault the only time fees would be waived is when the fault process is completed and it is confirmed we cannot supply broadband at the property.
Broadband is not a guaranteed service and i am afraid that the situation with the fault does not overturn the contract on the account."
[mremoved] CSC Analyst.
So all of you out there who expect a reasonable service from PN, think again, it's not on their agenda.
jim:csa

Re: Official....Plusnet confirm they don't have to provide a "Reasonable" service

jelv — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:28:33 GMT

The Plusnet contract cannot override consumer law!

Re: Official....Plusnet confirm they don't have to provide a "Reasonable" service

James — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:35:13 GMT

Hi,
That's not strictly true.
Clause 8 in our Broadband Terms states: We aim to provide a continuous, high-quality service but we do not guarantee either the quality of the service or that the service will be available at all times. From time to time faults in the service may occur. We will repair these faults as soon as we can.
&
Clause 11 in our Talk terms state: When we provide you with the Service, we will use the reasonable skill and care of a competent service provider. We cannot and do not guarantee that the Service will be fault free. Should faults occur we will use reasonable endeavours to correct such faults.
I'll have a chat with the guy you spoke to, but your contract with us does state that we have to use reasonable care as your ISP.

Re: Official....Plusnet confirm they don't have to provide a "Reasonable" service

Mand — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:40:55 GMT

As James has said, there are provisions in our terms for fault scenarios.
Ultimately, once we've gone through the faults process we're happy to discuss credits and such like.
However cancelling midway through the faults process would not generally result in us waiving cancellation fees.

Re: Official....Plusnet confirm they don't have to provide a "Reasonable" service

jelv — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:18:36 GMT

The uncertain factor here is how long it is reasonable for the fault investigation/rectification process to last - this is where consumer law would apply.

Re: Official....Plusnet confirm they don't have to provide a "Reasonable" service

dustymil59 — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:28:06 GMT

My situation is that since I joined PN in January, I have not had a stable connection, my billing account is a horror story (credits unauthorised debits etc) and the whole fault finding "my questions" procedure is a disaster.
I've had credit but I would have preferred to have had a service, at full cost, that worked.
PN never provided the service I paid for, therefore, in my view, I feel this is in breach of the service contract. And if this existed in my field, construction law, I believe that I could get compensation through the courts.
As it is, I can't be bothered to waste any more of my life on PN and am happy to pay the £65 to be rid of them.
I don't believe my next ISP will be any better, but they surely cannot be as frustrating as PN are and at least I did something about it rather than suffer endlessly with the same old same old.

Re: Official....Plusnet confirm they don't have to provide a "Reasonable" service

magnetism2772 — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:18:34 GMT

hi dustymil59
Business regulation where it does exist , exists mainly to protect the corporaton as many of those may of guessed who
watched Panaroma's 'how the banks won' Tv channel 4 last night.
I would be angry , as if i had only recieved some of the goods
sounds like a breach of contract (ie when the seller fails to provide the goods)
(but buyer beware ) and all that
if we are paying by monthly installments for phone an internet
as we all are
then perhaps we might be protected too under the Consumer Credit Act 1 974
Seems a seller can sell on his own terms these days , like visiting a shady Iranian market
run by sinbad , and a buyer should not be foolish and buy from such a seller ,,,
I did at one time sturdy company law , but I've forgot most of it

Re: Official....Plusnet confirm they don't have to provide a "Reasonable" service

magnetism2772 — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:22:03 GMT

can we claim against our credit cards ?

Re: Official....Plusnet confirm they don't have to provide a "Reasonable" service

magnetism2772 — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:29:26 GMT

phew
you may be able to get your money back (or what you have to spend to get an equivalent item elsewhere) through section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Re: Official....Plusnet confirm they don't have to provide a "Reasonable" service

magnetism2772 — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:56:13 GMT

I may opt to pay for my internet by a visa card
otherwise try a pursuit as if a product breaks while under warrenty

Re: Official....Plusnet confirm they don't have to provide a "Reasonable" service

hulls — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 16:40:25 GMT

Sorry to be a killjoy The Consumer Credit Act doesn't apply here (I'm pretty sure) It's different with something like your car insurance, where you are charged for a year, and they allow you to pay in monthly instalments. Your internet service is provided and paid for on a monthly rate.
As I say, the CCA is quite complex, and I don't often deal with it, but I'll be very surprised if you can use it to get your money back in this instance. The legislation your looking for Supply of Goods and Services Act. Plusnet is required to use all reasonable care and skill in providing the service. If the problem lies outside their control, then there's not much they can do about it (by definition).
Breach of contract is slightly different, as it depends on the terms and conditions within the contract (although no T&Cs can over-rule your statutory rights under the above law)
I'm afraid it's all down to reasonableness
John

Re: Official....Plusnet confirm they don't have to provide a "Reasonable" service

jelv — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 16:48:24 GMT

Plusnet cannot squirm out of responsibility by saying that the problem lies outside of their control. BT are their sub-contractors and therefore they are still responsible. (If a car crashed in to the telegraph pole outside your house and brought it down that would be an example of something they could reasonably assert was outside of their control)

Re: Official....Plusnet confirm they don't have to provide a "Reasonable" service

magnetism2772 — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 17:19:21 GMT

as terms and conditions are defined by the company
and the company from where I see it , sets out to protect itself from the consumer , and to limit the responsibillty for what it provides
somewere in the middle of this the law, surely can decide whether the contract was fair
if the internet is monthly renewed, then the start of any month is a new month and covered by warrenty as new goods would be
the user could ask to be refunded and may even be abe to cancel any contract
although you say your services are not guarenteed
they would / should or maybe be guarenteed if one payed for these services under a credit card

Re: Official....Plusnet confirm they don't have to provide a "Reasonable" service

magnetism2772 — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 21:17:52 GMT

cash purchasing does not pay
looking into paying rules
like paypal
its a case of not what you pay for it but how you pay for it

Re: Official....Plusnet confirm they don't have to provide a "Reasonable" service

hulls — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:04:18 GMT

I don't work for PN. I'm merely stating the law. You can't equate the provision of a service with the supply of goods. Yes the terms and conditions are what lay down how the contract is carried out (that's what "terms and conditions" means), but the law does step in to redress the balance between the business and the consumer.
As I said earlier, the Supply of Goods and Services Act stipulates certain implied terms into any contract between a business and a consumer. That includes that any service will be carried out using reasonable care and skill, that it will be carried out in a reasonable time (unless a time is stipulated) and for a reasonable cost (again unless the cost is agreed as part of the contract). You're entitled to make the assumption that any goods are as described, the seller's to sell, and that they are of satisfactory quality (but again don't confuse "goods" with "services" they're two different things), among other things.
Any contractual terms that would be deemed unfair (that is that give an unfair advantage to the business that isn't available to the consumer), could make the contract voidable in the worst instance. An example would the business has a right to cancel, without notice, but the consumer hasn't., or the business attempts to restrict the consumers' statutory rights, such as having a term that says the business will not be responsible for goods which are faulty when purchased.
I could go on, but there are plenty of books on the subject. In essence, what I'm saying is that it boils down to reasonableness, and that's always difficult to make a judgement on without the full facts, and I've dealt with enough problems to know that there are always at least two sides to the story (and that's without anybody deliberately trying to mislead you)
Even BT won't guarantee their lines (I've had plenty of discussions with them in the past about poor quality lines), so it's a bit unfair to expect PN to be able to guarantee line quality.
It seems that "Mr M*****" (I suspect the username is a clue) has had a difficult time, and I'm sure the good people at PN are trying their best, but spurious advice about using inappropriate legislation to claim damages doesn't help.
Lecture over
John

Re: Official....Plusnet confirm they don't have to provide a "Reasonable" service

hulls — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:11:01 GMT

Sorry - I didn't cover "warrenties" (sic).
There is no legal requirement to give a warranty or guarantee. Goods are covered by the Sale of Goods Act and the Supply of Goods and Services Act, and must be of reasonable quality and fit for the purpose for which they were sold, but that's goods. (You do not have a warranty on a service, just the reasonable care and skill bit noted above)
A warranty is additional to those rights and at the discretion of the manufacturer (note your rights under warranty are usually against the manufacturer, whereas your rights under SOGA are against the person who sold the goods to you).
Lecture really over now
John

Re: Official....Plusnet confirm they don't have to provide a "Reasonable" service

danger11 — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 05:35:18 GMT

I would opt to find a Much more reliable broadband service than plusnet (You get what you pay for) and in this case is complete useless rubbish. (Dont Forget PlusNet are owned by bt so you aint going to get a better service) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plusnet

Perhaps Virgin Media?

Re: Official....Plusnet confirm they don't have to provide a "Reasonable" service

Strat — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 07:16:21 GMT

Owned by BT doesn't necessarily mean controlled by BT

Re: Official....Plusnet confirm they don't have to provide a "Reasonable" service

magnetism2772 — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:53:42 GMT

are you sayng
If services are payed for using a visa credit /debit card
that if the services break , we cant make a claim via our credit cards

Re: Official....Plusnet confirm they don't have to provide a "Reasonable" service

Lurker — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:57:56 GMT

A service cannot break.
A product can break, but a service can't.
A service can only fail to be delivered.
The service PN contractually provide is to "attempt" to provide an ADSL connection.
PS - Our learned poster works in Trading Standards IIRC