Official....Plusnet confirm they don't have to provide a "Reasonable" service
The Plusnet contract cannot override consumer law!
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.
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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