PlusNet is in breach of contract and trading standards by moving us to an email provider that ch

[#1]

They will have kept all data they are legally required - shredding the account merely means that should you wish to rejoin, a new account will have to be opened on the system.

What is your job, and are you sure your accusations of 'criminal behaviour' are not slanderous?

[#2]

I was told, by the representative, that account couldn't be restored as it had been "shreaded". I asked if this was normal for PlusNet to do this, and they said "no".

[#3]

It is perfectly standard practice at Plusnet to wipe the account details from the system when an account is closed, but that does not mean that data they have to legally keep is destroyed - it is merely removed from the live system to archive - a standard practice in any electronic data storage system to save clogging the live system with essentially 'dead' data. 

We had exactly the same system when I was working.

You were badly misinformed by by the agent you spoke to.

[#4]

---

@jab1 wrote:

What is your job, and are you sure your accusations of 'criminal behaviour' are not slanderous?

---

A former Plusnet employee bearing a grudge ?

[#5]

To be slander, the company would have to show that the statement caused them financial loss and that the statement was untrue. As I've stated, if they have destroyed evidence (by shreading an account) while there is an ongoing complaint does meet the criminal behavior threshold. The question becomes, what was shreaded. Also why was this action taken by PlusNet during an active complaint and when an DSAR request had been made. All these activities are suspicious, especially these actions came after I pointed out the direct debit payment dates, the question about the data breaches, and had already gone to the ombudsman.
The fact I was told, by the PlusNet representative, that this is not normal practice, adds weight to this.
The representative stated she couldn't restore access to the account so I could get access to get the evidence for the ombudsman because of what had been done to the account. She also stated that she would put in a request to another department so I could get access to information but I don't know what they have destroyed and what still exists at this point.

[#6]

As I  stated above, the agent was mistaken. Re-read what I said - data they have to legally keep is archived, other data is actually removed. Like a paper-based system, you get rid of clutter as the space for it is not constantly expandable.

[#7]

---

@Champnet wrote:

---

@jab1 wrote:

What is your job, and are you sure your accusations of 'criminal behaviour' are not slanderous?

---

A former Plusnet employee bearing a grudge ?

---

If so, they obviously didn't know how the company operated.

[#8]

OK How's about a failed law Student.........

[#9]

Possible, I suppose, but I think it may be a good idea to exit stage left here. The OP is clearly no longer a PN customer, so they can sort it themselves.

[#10]

---

@taedian1 wrote:
To be slander, the company would have to show that the statement caused them financial loss ...

---

One would have thought that given you appear to know so much about the law, that you would have realised that slander is the spoken word.  You have WRITTEN your questionable statements, which are potentially libellous which does not require proof of "special damage".

That said, there are exceptions to Proving Financial Loss in respect of slander...

There are specific exceptions where slander is "actionable per se", meaning the claimant does not need to prove specific financial loss:

• An imputation that the claimant has committed a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment.
• An allegation that disparages the claimant in their office, profession, calling, trade, or business at the time of publication.

Whatever, you are not going to find remedy here.  Follow the complaints process ... or just take your deep knowledge of "the law" to the courts and see where it gets you.  They don't take kindly to complaints for complaining sake ... its call a vexatious action.

In UK law, a "vexatious action" (or vexatious litigation) is a legal proceeding instituted without sufficient grounds, purely to cause annoyance, harassment, or embarrassment to the defendant. The primary characteristic is that the action lacks a proper purpose or any reasonable prospect of success.

That sounds much like the demeanour of this thread.  You are not able to show tangible loss ... indeed having closed your account, I do wonder why you still have a Plusnet email service to worry about.  If you still have your Plusnet email service, you have a tangible gain.

[#11]

If you still have your Plusnet email service, you have a tangible gain.

Highly unlikely, I  would think, @Townman , if the closure has very recently taken place? 😉

[#12]

At this point I don't care what you think. I came on here to get a response from PlusNet after the customer service agent I was stuck with keep refusing to treat my complaint as a complaint. The customer service agent eventually agreed the matter was deadlocked but then closed the ticket before I had chance to respond. And I did ask for the deadlock letter which they did not issue.

PlusNet have escalated the matter. I had already made a complaint to the ombudsman over this. I have been in touch with the ICO this morning who provided me the data protection officer's email for PlusNet as the website has been down all day. PlusNet are not adhering the the regulations. 

"An Internet Service Provider (ISP) in the UK cannot usually close an account with only 24 hours' notice, especially during a valid complaints procedure. Providers are generally required to give at least 30 days' notice for contract termination, or more if specified in the contract, and must adhere to a formal complaint process.

• Insufficient Notice: A 24-hour notice is highly likely to be considered unreasonable and a breach of your consumer rights, except in exceptional circumstances such as suspected financial crime or illegal activity.
• Ongoing Complaint: Providers must engage with their internal complaints procedure and, if the issue is unresolved after 8 weeks or a "deadlock letter" is requested, the customer has the right to escalate the complaint to an independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) scheme, such as the Communications Ombudsman. The provider should not terminate the service in a way that prevents this process.  "

PlusNet has violated this. I had less than 24 hours notice of them closing the account. The fact they have "shredded" it after the DSAR request was made states the level of failings by PlusNet. There are consumer protections in place to protect customers. PlusNet has been ignoring them in my case.

[#13]

Something is less than clear / complete here.  It is incomprehensible that an ISP would close an account over a spat about the change in status of a non-contractual service provision as seems to be being inferred.  There is something more serious missing from this narrative.  As ever in cases such as this, one only hears one side of the history.

There is in the depths of the T&Cs this interesting clause: "...we may limit, suspend (in part or fully) or end a service immediately in the situations listed below. If ... You or anyone else using a service act towards our staff or agents in a way which is unsuitable or serious enough to justify suspending or ending a service" (or similar words - this is the EE version).

Quite separately there are scenarios where accounts do need to be closed to fix issues with service provision and / or billing.  When those accounts are closed they do disappear entirely from normal access (by users and front line support staff), but the legally required data is retained within the business.

[#14]

@Townman Must admit I suspected we were not getting the full story, but that quite often is the situation in cases like this. I responded to what was posted, not what I suspected, as I could have been wrong - it does happen, you know. 😁

[#15]

Seeing as the ICO & ombudsman are apparently both now involved it might be better if Plusnet locked the thread until the investigation is complete & outcome is officially known.