Broadband overcharging - £150 per month!

[#1]

Good to know you have resolved the issue, at least partly ....  @marthatorres

One good point about PN are these forums, they may not always completely solve people's problems but you do end up being pointed in the right direction.

Many of people do leave PN, but as you are aware, the alternatives may not be much of an improvement owing to the way the industry is run and organised, and who owns the infrastucture, (unless you are prepared to pay quite a bit more for your internet service)

But also good to know that the call centre staff you dealt with were helpfull and polite!

[#2]

The comment on “Should contact customers in such situations...” have you seen the out cries around here over unsolicited “service” calls to do exactly what you understandably suggest?

Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

[#3]

I rather think in this case that Plusnet should be more proactive and act responsibly to limit the excessive charges that are billed monthly. Would anyone complain if they were contacted to offer reduced monthly bills?

@Townman

I find it rather annoying that you choose to defend Plusnet in this situation

[#4]

I do not defend it - I simply state that elsewhere when PN has sought to offer such help (on the basis of making SERVICE calls to users), there has been a right royal outcry herein - "its marketing in disguise".

To suggest that Plusnet (or any other organisation) cannot please all of the people all of the time is not defending them, it is simply stating a truism.  Whatever act is done someone will find grounds for complaint ... if the action taken (against or incompliance with people's perceived communications preferences) is / is not compliant.

[#5]

@Townman If you cannot see the difference between complaints from users about Plusnet making unsolicited marketing calls, and 'real' service calls concerning excessive bills, then there is no point in discussing this further with you. 

[#6]

I think you miss the point - I do see the difference - personally I agree with the point other have made on which you've chimed in on.  However, in the context of what is seen on this forum - many of the regularly moaners and complainers have equated such helpful service calls as marketing calls and therefore an infringement of their request and right to not be contacted.

One could argue that by the act of sending a bill every month, Plusnet has made clear the excessive usage.  Migration to a different tariff is a contract change, which requires bill payer approval so cannot be automated.  This is not any different to the supply of gas or electricity, users are not transferred between tariffs without the user requesting such a transfer.

[#7]

@Townman

I may be missing your point, but the issue in this case is nothing to do with unsolicited communications from Plusnet. I agree with your point that Plusnet cannot automatically switch users onto the best tariff without consent. The OP has confirmed that Plusnet notified her of charges via email to address that she neglected to monitor. The issue here is that for six months a customer has been billed quite an excessive amount, and a significant change from previous billing. There appears to be no mechanism for flagging this as a potential security issue or of causing ongoing financial difficulty for the user. There is no provision for customer welfare, in comparison to gas and electricity providers. 

Which brings me back to my original comment I addressed to you. As a Superuser, should you not be monitoring and commenting on issues from a user/customer perspective, instead of simply dismissing it by commenting that in a completely different situation so-called 'regular moaners and complainers' have complained about marketing calls masquerading as service calls. 

Thankfully in this case the OP has had resolution of sorts, accepted responsibility, and it appears is fortunate to be able to bear the financial loss. Others may be in a less fortunate position if a similar situation were to arise.

[#8]

As a Superuser, should you not be monitoring and commenting on issues from a user/customer perspective...

I think you'll find that I do, but I also have a realistic perspective too.

If any organisation sends out communications within the permitted rules and those communications are ignored - is that the 'fault' of the organisation?

As a SU I have strongly argued with PN (in the private arena most of which is all under NDA) over not automatically moving users on metered tariffs to unlimited products.  Commercially its all made hard and difficult by the very body which is supposed to protect consumers - Ofcom.  There are rules about how packages can be changed, there are also preferred contact rules which need to be complied with less the usual culprits around here squeal DPA volition.

As for (like you imply) PN phoning up customers to discuss an account matter, for which security checks need to be made to verify that it is the account holder answering the phone ... did you miss the DPA / security squeals arising from "unsolicited" phone calls?

Please you tell me - how does any organisation deal with people (and I am not thinking of those directly affected) who will find anything to complain about (and we know who they are around here)?  If what you suggest is not done, they (you?) squeal.  If what you suggest is done, they squeal just the same.  It is all an unhelpful sea of negativity.

Yes this user has had an unpleasant experience, which has been resolved.  But please tell me, whose fault is it that for several months emails were not read; that bank / card payment statements were not checked; that if the user had changed email addresses, their contact PN account details had not been update?  Tell me, how can any level of SU escalation or campaigning alter such user behaviours?  Caveat Emptor!

Finally at no time have I dismissed this user's issue: what I have challenged is the expectations of some, that the suggested proactive communication (which personally I would prefer and have already championed), is not without pitfalls and issues.

As I said in summary, dammed if they do, dammed if they don't.

Superuser citation

This topic has been cited by one of the Superusers; the purpose of which is to provide a note for information which might help to focus continued discussion (but might not result in a staff response).

[#9]

@Townman

I’ll readily admit that I agree with many of the points you have noted.

Firstly, Plusnet have done nothing wrong. They have sent out regular bills to the user, and personally speaking I find it difficult to comprehend how the OP can neglect to see such amounts disappearing from their bank account from day 1. But everyone behaves differently and has different personal circumstances and priorities. I can envisage a situation where a user could get overdrawn on their bank account, start incurring charges, neglect to pay other bills, to the extent where their situation worsens. That is not Plusnet’s responsibility, but at the same time in this case there appears not to have been any ‘red flag’ of a significant billing increase. From a personal perspective this would be a positive aspect of service, above and beyond the basic and legal requirement, but I recognise that Plusnet have limited resources and there are higher priority issues .

Your second point about regular moaners and complainers is equally valid. You probably know who they are better than I do. I’ve been known to have a rant myself on occasion, but as you correctly point out, neither the OP nor the other contributors to this thread fall into that category. Whilst your comment ‘damned if they do, damned if they don’t’ is a valid one in many circumstances, I don’t believe it is wholly appropriate in this case, and what for me makes it inappropriate is that coming from a Superuser (as opposed to a normal user) such comments carry a perceived level of authority that is unwarranted, as well as appearing dismissive of the issue.

[#10]

Sorry if you thought I was being dismissive of the OP's situation - I was not - that was already being dealt with by PN and needed no further comment.

My comments were very clearly in respect of the expectations of other's, that PN (or any other supplier) should / can just make unilateral or automatic changes to a customer's account / contract, even if it is to the customer's advantage.  There are commercial and industry rules to be followed here.

We have seen the out come here of not doing so and we have seen the outcome of Plusnet making unsolicited "service" calls, both in terms of verifying that the caller is talking to the PN account holder and perceived contravention of declared contact preferences.

I agree that in circumstances such as this, breaking all of the rules, making contact and catching the bricks, might make more sense ... but from the commercial side there's a marked risk that someone some where will equally make a complaint to the ICO.

Whatever, I have re-raised the issue, specifically on the welfare angle.  If it comes about, I wait with interest to see who will be the first to complain that Plusnet monitoring user's expenditure is an invasion of their privacy.

[#11]

---

@Townman wrote:

Sorry if you thought I was being dismissive of the OP's situation - I was not - that was already being dealt with by PN and needed no further comment.

And yet you did comment

My comments were very clearly in respect of the expectations of other's, that PN (or any other supplier) should / can just make unilateral or automatic changes to a customer's account / contract, even if it is to the customer's advantage.  There are commercial and industry rules to be followed here.

Nobody suggested this, the OP believed she was on an unlimited package due to confusion over legacy product names, and asked why automatically moving to unlimited package didn't happen. Matthew Wheeler confirmed and explained why this wouldn't happen - no debate. Just for clarification, there is nothing to stop Plusnet from increasing the data allowance or making it unlimited whilst keeping the user on the same legacy product. I've been a customer for many years as a metered user where allowances have been increased.

---

We have seen the out come here of not doing so and we have seen the outcome of Plusnet making unsolicited "service" calls, both in terms of verifying that the caller is talking to the PN account holder and perceived contravention of declared contact preferences.

I agree that in circumstances such as this, breaking all of the rules, making contact and catching the bricks, might make more sense ... but from the commercial side there's a marked risk that someone some where will equally make a complaint to the ICO.

You claim to see the difference here, but feel the need to emphasise the point about unsolicited marketing communications to justify your original comment, even though it does not apply to the issue described.

Whatever, I have re-raised the issue, specifically on the welfare angle.  

It took a while to get there

---

[#12]

... was the only way to cease the persistence ... even though as I said, it has all already been discussed.

Having escalated it, I've been reminded that for each incremental charge there would have been a "warning you're near your usage limit" email EVERY TIME the 5GB top-up was near to being used up, plus the email confirming that another 5GB top-up allowance has been added to the account.  So to get to £150 of additional charges at £5 a go, that's a total of 60 emails, plus the monthly billing emails.

Usage charges are capped at £100 per month by Plusnet, so the £150 must be a total across several months.  Users can apply lower limits themselves.  Plusnet does warn users, but they cannot make them listen; written communication is not likely to arrive in a time frame adequate to make a difference.

As and when issues arise - such as this one - PN does deal with them on a case by case basis. 

[#13]

@Townman

Your latest response adds nothing to the discussion, as it has already been established that the OP could have done more.she has accepted this and the matter is resolved.

The issue of whether Plusnet could have done more to avoid the Op incurring large bills for a number of months has also been discussed, and has now been raised for further consideration as a result of our exchanges, for which I thank you.

However, throughout our exchanges you have yet to convince me that there is any relevance within this issue to unsolicited marketing communications masquerading as service calls, which you introduced to the debate and to which I raised my initial objection. I do not believe we will ever reach an agreement on the appropriateness of this comment, but I hope we can at least agree that further discussion is pointless.

[#14]

you have yet to convince me that there is any relevance within this issue to unsolicited marketing communications masquerading as service calls

You've got the point the wrong way around - it is forum members who have complained about the practise to making service calls, which they claim as masquerading as marketing calls.

The forum is rife with complaints about unsolicited calls (in general) from Plusnet...

https://community.plus.net/t5/Plusnet-Feedback/call-from-plusnet/m-p/1478474#M78995

https://community.plus.net/t5/Plusnet-Feedback/Calls-from-0114-307-0124/m-p/1334865

https://community.plus.net/t5/Plusnet-Feedback/Phishing-telephone-call-from-0114-307-3836/m-p/151680...

https://community.plus.net/t5/Plusnet-Feedback/Calls-from-0114-307-3836/m-p/1371384

... rather than me posting the 200+ links to complaining posts, use this search term - https://community.plus.net/t5/forums/searchpage/tab/message?q=0114&collapse_discussion=true

I cited such attitudes simply to illuminate that there is no win space here for Plusnet ... or indeed any organisation who calls out of the blue, needing to verify who they are talking to.

[#15]

---

---

Thank you for the support and understanding. As discussed, we are not technically blameless in this case as an old email address was not monitored. Likewise the bank account was not properly looked at.

As stated previously, we had used this service for many years without a problem and were perhaps too trusting.

Plusnet does warn users, but they cannot make them listen; written communication is not likely to arrive in a time frame adequate to make a difference

Written communication would have made a difference in this case. The overcharging went on for months, so there was plenty of time to send a letter.

A genuine phone call would also have solved the problem.

You've got the point the wrong way around - it is forum members who have complained about the practise to making service calls, which they claim as masquerading as marketing calls

They are right to complain. Unfortunately, I have yet to come accross an organistion whose "service calls" do not serve some ulterior motive. My banks phone calls certainly seem to be thinly veiled marketing. Someone is paying their wages for a reason, so to ask them to call in order to lose money in the short term in order to gain a customer for the long term requires a strategic vision and nerve that most companies do not have.

there is nothing to stop Plusnet from increasing the data allowance or making it unlimited whilst keeping the user on the same legacy product.

This is exactly what needs to happen.

As far as I can see, being a succesful broadband supplier is all about customer service (assuming reasonable service provision). Once a company has lost the trust of a customer it is almost impossible to win it back, however well they do subsequently.