Poor customer service from Plusnet and deadlock between SKY and Plusnet

[gphancock]

Quote from: Kelly

I've not heard of it before :/   I'm not particularly close to provisioning though! I suspect actually Sky aren't entirely innocent here.  If there is still a Sky tag on the line in Wholesale's systems, they should be able to generate a mac code which we can process.  Feels like their system also schedules a cancellation, which prevents a new Mac code being generated.    I've absolutely no evidence of this, I'm just rolling it around in my head, because frankly, it's a ridiculous situation. I don't understand why OFCOM are telling you that it is our job to sort though.  If we were able to, what would be to stop Sky phoning up and "sorting out" Jelv's connection and slamming him..... The whole process is planned to change to be "gaining provider led" as part of their new recommendations over the next few years.   Right now though, you need a valid mac code from the losing provider :(

From what Ofcom told me if it is an unusual case.
I suspect you are correct on the SKY situation and not far from the truth. I have a feeling that SKY closed down the administrative element of my account (billed to the 26th March and mySKY account extinguished) and it is only operating on operational basis. If they want to create a MAC code, they would have to create a new account. This theory is based on the fact that there is a SKY TAG and SKY still have the capacity to inform BT wholesalers when they can and cannot switch off my account.
SKY are saying to me that it is in fact BT wholesale providing the account at present and the account transferred to Plusnet on the 28th March. Ofcom were completely on SKY's side on this one. In fact, they accepted SKY's explanation in full, which I posted earlier in the thread. My predicament was not a consideration. If was all about SKY.
Ofcom seem to think you can make a request to remove the TAG. Thinking about it, you may a valid point about the slamming issue. Ofcom think it is Plusnet's responsibility to resolve this situation due to the issue with the original order.

[gphancock]

Quote from: jelv

You could have added that if Plusnet attempted to contact Sky direct they would refuse to talk to them, probably (quite rightly) citing DPA.

I had completely forgotten about the validity of the DPA in this case. I must check the relevant sections.
I am aware with Natwest that the credit card and branch sections are not allowed to share data/information due to the DPA.

[gphancock]

Quote from: HPsauce

No, not rightly at all. DPA has perfectly sensible provisions to allow data access in performance of a contract and related activities. Won't stop them quoting it as an excuse though.  >:(

TBF, some companies do use the DPA as an excuse. So I can see that pov too.

[gphancock]

Quote from: Chris

@gphancock - Thank you for your PM.

Glad you received it as it took several attempts. Thanks again!

[HPsauce]

Quote from: jelv

You're wrong. Sky MUST refuse to talk to Plusnet about the account the user holds with them. Likewise Plusnet would be totally wrong to divulge anything to do with his account to Sky.

I don't want this to degenerate into a ding-dong about the DPA but it was my professional responsibility in several companies over many years and I'm not wrong.
Not saying they should do it automatically, far from it, but it's very definitely allowed with appropriate procedures used.
Most companies write their own internal blanket rules to try and protect them selves against a breach which is what you'll almost certainly hit in this situation.

[gphancock]

Interesting. It would seem appropriate to take a common sense approach in some cases but I suspect in many cases the internal blanket rules override things, hence, why you get this deadlock. There seems an inability to interpret legislation with a common sense approach due to the fear of litigation. It is easier to hide behind the veil of DPA sometimes.
dick:quote

[gphancock]

Oh dear, I think I am on the naughty step. I apologise Mod's and promise to behave in future  :)
Update - Sat afternoon
The good news is that I can retain my telephone number. There was some confusion about whether my whole bundle was with SKY. In reality, the line line and rental are with BT, which makes life much easier. As Jelv pointed out, if the phone line had been with SKY, this may have been more problematic.
I am resigned to having some broadband down time from Monday. SKY and I will be in contact to remove the service via BT Wholesale. I have been informed by SKY  that is could take up to 48-72 hours to cancel. Is there anyway to expedite this process Chris or anyone else reading from Plusnet? Or does this not matter? To reiterate what Chris said, my order is going to be expedited, once the SKY TAG is removed. Generally positive news and I think we have found a solution.
Jelv - returning to one of your old posts, I am questioning the TAG advice too from Ofcom and I am slightly baffled why they sided so unreservedly with SKY. When I have posted things on here from Ofcom, I am effectively relaying their messages. I also spoke to three different individuals and their emphasis was always on Plusnet resolving issues, as they benefit from the migration.
Re-reading the Ofcom site again, it would appear that Ofcom are aware of a situation like I find myself in and propose simplifying the process :
http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/2013/08/consumers-set-for-easier-broadband-and-landline-switching/
The following section is especially pertinent in my own case:
Ofcom research shows that, in cases where the customer has to contact their existing company to request a change, the resulting process can be significantly more difficult for consumers to follow.
Such a process can give too much control to the existing provider, which has an incentive to delay or disrupt the transfer. This can also result in unwanted pressure on customers not to change provider.
Effectively, Ofcom arguably ignored their own future guidance. IMHO, they permitted SKY in this case to "delay or disrupt" the transfer and seemingly provide SKY with the upper hand in this migration. From the evidence Kelly and Chris have provided, Plusnet cannot place an order without the MAC and when the TAG is in place. In short, "the computer says no"

[HPsauce]

I presume Sky "could" (if they wanted to be generous to a departing but presumably once profitable customer  ::) ) reinstate your contract temporarily, issue you a MAC and then allow migration to proceed normally.
Given they didn't initially cause the problem that might even enable them to gain some positive publicity.  :-X

[MauriceC]

There is of course the 'Hidden'  issue - lost in this battle of extreme Ping Pong.
Way back in the early posts, it was reported that if the OP were to consider migrating to BT,  then magically a service could be provided Quickly and the problem of the Line Tag effectively by-passed.!
How?   Well, BT do own two of the critical components:  The line AND the provisioning system.  So bending the rules is much easier to accomplish.  In a number of areas BT is rapidly getting back to its old monopolistic regime to the detriment of any real competition short of building a duplicate Network.  Only Virgin really exists as a UK wide independent network provider.  (There are others, but the scope is limited)  Look particularly at the way that government spend on Rural Broadband has ALL gone to BT and where most of the spend is really on extra urban housing developments and business parks.  Very little spend on any uplift to Rural Communities. Small business and Kids education in particular continue to suffer as a result.

[Declaration of Interest]
My exchange EABDF only supports ADSL1 (MaxDSL) and the only 'upgrade' note in the Exchange Checker is that ADSL1 equipment is scheduled to begin de-commissioning across the UK from 2014.. Currently getting 3 Mbps Down 400 UP.
Maurice
Note to Mods.  No objection if you want to edit and move as a new Topic e.g  Rural Broadband.

[jelv]

BT should not be better placed than Plusnet. The relationship between BT Retail and BT Wholesale should be exactly the same as the relationship between Plusnet (or any other ISP) and BT Wholesale.
@MauriceC 20CN ADSl1 is only being decommissioned on exchanges with 21CN.

[MauriceC]

Quote from: jelv

@MauriceC 20CN ADSl1 is only being decommissioned on exchanges with 21CN.

True.  But the equipment is getting more difficult to maintain and locally all but the few DSLAM's located in the small 'remote shelf' type exchanges have been upgraded.
M

[gphancock]

Quote from: HPsauce

I presume Sky "could" (if they wanted to be generous to a departing but presumably once profitable customer  ::) ) reinstate your contract temporarily, issue you a MAC and then allow migration to proceed normally. Given they didn't initially cause the problem that might even enable them to gain some positive publicity.  :-X

I am not sure if I was a once profitable customer, as I migrated from O2 to SKY and they (SKY) could not provide the pre-existing service, hence why I left. But potentially I could be a future profitable customer, if SKY were able to provide an unlimited broadband service in future ;)
It is debatable whether they did cause the problem, prior to switch to Plusnet. I was an O2 broadband customer who migrated to SKY. SKY did not inform me prior to a box arriving that my service was going to be downgraded and in the first month tried to almost double my existing fee for a downgraded service. They initially refused  to provide a MAC key and declared I was in a 12 month contract, which I had not sanctioned and unaware of its existence. There was no letter, e-mail or phone call. Certainly, I would not have entered any migration with SKY if I had previously knowledge of a downgrade and increased charges.After several phone calls and missed callbacks by SKY, I spoke to this nice man called Jim from Glasgow. He said the 12 contract was non-existent in terms of rigidity and even advised me which providers to avoid etc in terms of migration. He also managed to generate the MAC code that other customer service advisers at SKY had refused to do due to that "non-existent" 12 month contract. I did like Jim from Glasgow ;)
Anyway,  I did take this up with the MAC code issue and the Executive Support Team responded with the following:
Firstly may I apologise for the problems that you have experienced, but with regards to the changeover from o2 to Sky, o2 did notify all their customer's over the past few months to make them aware that this transition would be happening and this also gave the customer the opportunity to opt out if they did not wish to transfer to Sky.
This certainly does not address contractual changes and changes in terms of a downgraded service. On this issue, Ofcom were firmly on my side, when I mentioned this series of events. I guess in this case it is pretty straightforward. You cannot change the terms of a contract when one of the parties is unaware of the service alternation.
Given the above, I think providing a new MAC code would have generated positive publicity and rectified their previous mistakes. :)

[HPsauce]

Ah yes, that does complicate (and explain) things, I'm very prepared to see Sky as complicit in all this given that story.  ;)
I'm an ex-Be customer who moved to PN to avoid the Sky migration. They just couldn't provide anything suitable and the future migration path was unacceptable.
I think O2 customers were "easier" in general to deal with so were migrated first. Be migration to Sky is still ongoing.
None of that helps, but it sounds like you've just got to "bite the bullet" and move forwards.  :'(

[gphancock]

With regard to the rural broadband issue, it is actually very relevant to this case. With the cession of O2 broadband, the only two providers that could provide a stand alone unlimited broadband in this area were Plusnet and BT. I checked this with Uswitch both online and in person. They were quite surprised by the lack of choice. I would definitely agree that the BT's old monopolistic regime is very much in existence and I have less choice these days than I had even 12 months ago. I think in addition to O2, Tesco was an standalone unlimited broadband option 12 months ago. In the end, I decided to bring forward the bundle move by 3 months to Plusnet. Plusnet was my preferred option, after reading good reviews about their customer service ;)
As someone who has these restricted option, I have to admit I get quite infuriated when I see these advertisements on TV offering unlimited broadband for £3.99. I am all too aware that I will receive a " computer says no message" when I type in my postcode.
That is true re BT and Plusnet. Unless Plusnet mess up again, I won't be able to test them at their word. Still interesting.

[gphancock]

Quote from: HPsauce

Ah yes, that does complicate (and explain) things, I'm very prepared to see Sky as complicit in all this given that story.  ;) I'm an ex-Be customer who moved to PN to avoid the Sky migration. They just couldn't provide anything suitable and the future migration path was unacceptable. I think O2 customers were "easier" in general to deal with so were migrated first. Be migration to Sky is still ongoing. None of that helps, but it sounds like you've just got to "bite the bullet" and move forwards.  :'(

Oh they are  ;)
Unfortunately, they didn't even give me that option and just migrated me. >:( I would be interested to know if this happened to others and whether individuals felt pressured to stay?
I had no idea about Be migrating to SKY.
I think so. Plusnet customers seem to be a nice lot in general, so it isn't too bad ;)