cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Guardian article on Plusnet

randpwar
Grafter
Posts: 1,308
Thanks: 1
Registered: 01-08-2007

Guardian article on Plusnet

Read this article in the Observer yesterday. I've been a contented PN customer for years and still recommend them to friends, however, this article does appear to concur with quite a few posts in the forum. Once articles like this are seen by people it can take a while to grab it back

edited to correct spelling error
66 REPLIES
Community Gaffer
Community Gaffer
Posts: 12,861
Thanks: 677
Fixes: 64
Registered: 04-04-2007

Re: Observer article on Plusnet

Read it this morning, and was disappointed to find that it contains a few inaccuracies Sad
[quote author="VF"]When I queried this I was informed I had been emailed on 3 January to say both these benefits were being withdrawn on 4 January. I did not receive this email.
We sent the email during the first week of December, not January.
[quote author="Miles Brignall"]Your letter raised a couple of questions – not least whether a phone company can continue to tie you into a contract if it makes a significant change to its offer, as it has done in your case.
Not true. We gave in excess of 30 days notice, and where a detrimental change is concerned customers are more that welcome to terminate their agreement with us. The only thing we'd expect you to pay for are any deferred hardware/activation costs.
In fact I think I might email the author of the article to offer some clarification...

Bob Pullen
Plusnet Products Team
If I've been helpful then please give thanks ⤵

pierre_pierre
Grafter
Posts: 19,757
Registered: 30-07-2007

Re: Observer article on Plusnet

and it wasnt in the Observor and is on another thread
randpwar
Grafter
Posts: 1,308
Thanks: 1
Registered: 01-08-2007

Re: Observer article on Plusnet

pierre - We do get the Grauniad and (occasionally) the Observer and got both this weekend so both were around the house but I’m pretty sure it was the Observer but...... Undecided; got a feeling that there website is the same as they are (of course) sister papers. Sorry if I’ve got it wrong; though I probably won’t bother to change the post  
BTW - Did'n't see the other thread so please merge if it is felt necessary
pierre_pierre
Grafter
Posts: 19,757
Registered: 30-07-2007

Re: Observer article on Plusnet

Steve
Seasoned Pro
Posts: 6,697
Thanks: 250
Registered: 13-07-2009

Re: Observer article on Plusnet

There's a couple of your customers who agree with everything on that quote bob, I certainly would look Into It, Not right that quote.
Community Veteran
Posts: 13,927
Thanks: 515
Fixes: 8
Registered: 01-08-2007

Re: Observer article on Plusnet

Quote from: Bob
Read it this morning, and was disappointed to find that it contains a few inaccuracies Sad
[quote author="VF"]When I queried this I was informed I had been emailed on 3 January to say both these benefits were being withdrawn on 4 January. I did not receive this email.

We sent the email during the first week of December, not January.
[quote author="Miles Brignall"]Your letter raised a couple of questions – not least whether a phone company can continue to tie you into a contract if it makes a significant change to its offer, as it has done in your case.
Not true. We gave in excess of 30 days notice, and where a detrimental change is concerned customers are more that welcome to terminate their agreement with us.
Not quite true though really is that Bob. The important information was so unimportant for you to convey to your customers you felt the need for a marketing department to construct it instead and start it with a splurge of advertising. You're clearly a busy man so you of all people should understand how its easy to ignore emails which start off advertising stuff that people do not want. You've misguided a lot of customers and I see we're not the only ones to suddenly find our bill going up £5 per month.
Quote from: Bob
The only thing we'd expect you to pay for are any deferred hardware/activation costs.
In fact I think I might email the author of the article to offer some clarification...

Would that be the FREE hardware you claim to be giving away? - The hardware which in fact is paid for by monthly installments which you want to recover the cost of? - If the customer isn't actually paying for it (IE because its free) then you shouldn't be trying to recoup the money otherwise it is not free but in fact being sold on a credit basis. You are licenced for credit aren't you?
I understand you're running a business and trying to gain new customers as does any business but there is a very fine line between dishonesty and lying - especially from a good honest company like plusnet who are actively advertising their good honest broadband from yorkshire. Perhaps you should reword your advertising to something like "We can supply your hardware with no upfront costs". That at least is honest.
To anyone about to pounce on me for the hardware comments, we have no outstanding hardware costs so don't bother trying to pick a fight. I'm just making a point that other customers might be suffering with.
I need a new signature... i'm bored of the old one!
Steve
Seasoned Pro
Posts: 6,697
Thanks: 250
Registered: 13-07-2009

Re: Observer article on Plusnet

Quote from: okrzynska
You've misguided a lot of customers
How many exactly? And the Hardware Is veering off topic to the thread BUT It Is free to those who take out a 12 month contract, Where does It not say this clearly?
Maybe Plusnet should give out the free router with the 12 month contract and Instead of paying for the Hardware If you leave early you pay for the remaining months contract that Is left? Then the Router would still be free?
Community Veteran
Posts: 13,927
Thanks: 515
Fixes: 8
Registered: 01-08-2007

Re: Observer article on Plusnet

It doesn't matter steve because at the end of the day the hardware is still being paid for by the customer. It isn't actually *FREE* is it.
If the customer leaves after 12 months do you seriously expect me to believe PN have absorbed the cost and made a loss? - For a company like PN who are BT owned this will never happen. They'll of crunched their numbers to ensure they can cover the cost.
Still why should I even try eh? - You'll only believe what you want anyway. Shame PN are causing PN forum members to fall out with each other.
I need a new signature... i'm bored of the old one!
Community Veteran
Posts: 26,379
Thanks: 634
Fixes: 8
Registered: 10-04-2007

Re: Observer article on Plusnet

No residential users are on 12 month contract, if they were they would not only have to pay for the router they would also have to pay (months left on contract) x (monthly subscription) unless the contract specifically states otherwise.
I suspect okrzynska may be right, the way the deferred payment is constructed I suspect Plusnet should be licensed to provide credit.
jelv (a.k.a Spoon Whittler)
   Why I have left Plusnet (warning: long post!)   
Broadband: Andrews & Arnold Home::1 (FTTC 80/20)
Line rental: Pulse 8 Home Line Rental (£13/month)
Mobile: iD mobile (£4/month)
Community Veteran
Posts: 13,927
Thanks: 515
Fixes: 8
Registered: 01-08-2007

Re: Observer article on Plusnet

Unfortunately some people don't like me because I speak it as it really is.
It doesn't matter how much you try to dress something up or pretend it isn't what it really is, the bottom line is the main root of an issue is always a simple one.
In this case, PN are having to apparently fund the cost of hardware. This will (as is with everything) be paid for ultimately by the customer. It's as simple as that. The way PN have done it is to take the cost via the subscription fees and that requires a licence for credit (and I have a funny feeling the 12 month subscription might too).
I need a new signature... i'm bored of the old one!
Community Veteran
Posts: 3,789
Registered: 08-06-2007

Re: Observer article on Plusnet

Of course Plusnet have to fund the hardware.  They can't just produce hardware out of thin air? There is no "apparently" about it.
As to the requiring a license for credit - IMO it's an ambiguous area (and IANAL), because there is no actual payment required if the terms of the deferred contract are met.  It's not a loan, it's a deferred contract.  The OFT regulations for a credit license specify that you need a license if you:
• sell goods on credit
• hire or lease out goods for more than three months
• lend money
• arrange credit for others
• offer hire purchase terms
• collect debts
• help people with debt problems
• advise on people’s credit standing.
I can't see that providing a router at no cost, based upon the agreement that you will stay with a company for 12 months falls under any of those categories?
B.
Community Veteran
Posts: 7,928
Thanks: 603
Fixes: 8
Registered: 02-08-2007

Re: Observer article on Plusnet

I Guess PN are like most other companies and juggle with words. Perhaps they have an advertising department somewhere or buy the service in.
If you tell everyone what the deal is in simple plain English then you are taking a gamble they will use your service, whereas someone who comes out with a detailed and jumbled account of what they offer might confuse people into thinking that particular company is offering a better deal.
Most companies do it. Yes it's wrong and we are right to complain but it remains to be seen if anything is done about it.
Community Veteran
Posts: 13,927
Thanks: 515
Fixes: 8
Registered: 01-08-2007

Re: Observer article on Plusnet

Quote from: Barry
Of course Plusnet have to fund the hardware.  They can't just produce hardware out of thin air? There is no "apparently" about it.
As to the requiring a license for credit - IMO it's an ambiguous area (and IANAL), because there is no actual payment required if the terms of the deferred contract are met.   It's not a loan, it's a deferred contract.  The OFT regulations for a credit license specify that you need a license if you:
• sell goods on credit
• offer hire purchase terms

While I do see what you are saying Barry, who is paying for the hardware - in reality? - As I've said before it doesn't matter how much you dress it up to try and sell it the bottom line is the customer is paying for it. It's not REALLY free is it.
Free would be giving it away willingly with no strings attached.
I need a new signature... i'm bored of the old one!
nadger
Rising Star
Posts: 4,498
Thanks: 46
Registered: 13-04-2007

Re: Observer article on Plusnet

My simple maths would indicate that Plusnet are on a bit of a hiding to nothing if someone takes a router and leaves at 12 months.
!2 months of Value at old price of £5.99 is £71.88 including VAT. Assuming old VAT rate of 17.5% that's £61.17 before VAT.
Out of that they pay BTw for connection and provide router.
Hardly a fortune left for Plusnet .