Wife Can't Report Fault as not authorised!

[#1]

Thanks for the support so far on this issue chaps.  Also I do apologise to the OP if they feel I am in any way hijacking their thread (since I am a Son who can't report a fault to Plusnet rather than a wife) but I thought it was useful to show the issue had arisen before but has still not been properly addressed by Plusnet.
But anyway just to add that I did point out to the various overnight Plusnet support staff who were so obstructive that surely if a household member smelled gas or if there was a power cut the respective responsible suppliers would not refuse to help those in a household in this emergency situation on the basis that they did not sound as if they were of the same gender or age group as the account owner shown on their system.  But no they just blanked me and said that their duties on Data Protection came above and beyond everything else!!!
And just carrying on the likely possible scenarios although I can get the actual customer account holder to speak to Plusnet today, but only if we can ever get through the usually interminable daytime support queue (on which the recorded announcement about the likely length of the wait is never in any way reliable) what if the account owner was actually currently delerious with flu or what if they had just been run over crossing the road and were in intensive care or what if they were a working husband or wife away all week on a business trip.  Does Plusnet really expect other household members to go with no broadband service for days or months in this situation even if the other household members can give the account name and password and are calling from a line with the same CLI as the broadband service is on.
If that is Plusnet's actual position then why does not it ask its account holders to specify any other required legitimate authorised users of the service at the time of account creation and why can they also not be easily added to the account through the online customer portal thereafter???
Of course I expect that if I ring back today the problem will not exist at all and that the staff on the day shift will not all be potential prison warders in waiting.  Also in the day time they may be a supervisor who is actually allowed to exercise their discretion instead of only following unreasonable procedures to the letter without reason, thought or further question.  I expect that Plusnet do probably get a few drunks and crazy people ringing them at night and that this so called "new policy" (which I was told last night has been in effect for 18 months but I did not encounter in several support calls on the account holder's behalf when the service was completely off for a week - due to Openreach's incompetence when maintaining the cabinet - only four months ago) but they should employ staff with enough brain power and common sense to differentiate them from the many normal customers who ring overnight because they work shifts or can't sleep that night.

[#2]

Whilst I understand the basis of this thread and the misunderstandings regarding the depth of the DPA from our side (which I'll certainly feed back on), you can get added as an authorised user on the account quite simply. Just ask the account holder to log in and create a ticket with your name requesting that you are added as an authorised user.

[#3]

Quote from: Chris

Whilst I understand the basis of this thread and the misunderstandings regarding the depth of the DPA from our side (which I'll certainly feed back on), you can get added as an authorised user on the account quite simply. Just ask the account holder to log in and create a ticket with your name requesting that you are added as an authorised user.

Yes I could have done that last night with the username and password I had but it wouldn't have done me any good because you usually take several days to process your support tickets (if they are processed at all which in some cases they aren't).  And as the FTTC modem disconnect had happened three times in the last 24 hours the issue was becoming urgent.
So my four questions to you are:-
1. Why does Plusnet not ask account holders to specify any other authorised users that are required when the account is first set up.
2. Why is there not a clear field for authorised users in the customer online portal so the customer (or those they have chosen to give their username and password to) will not forget about their existence and maintain them as required.  It is simply not acceptable that this field is opaque and hidden from account holders online and that in most cases there will be no other authorised users at all because an account holder currently usually does not even know this facility exists until one of your jobsworth like staff refuses to help other household members at a time when action to swiftly restore service or log a fault with Openreach is usually now acute and critical
3. Also why can you not retrain your front line staff to not abusively and nonsensically interpret the Data Protection Act (which most of them actually have no clue of the real requirements of) and instead start exercising logic and commonsense to differentiate between calls about faulty service on a line and those actions that could genuinely compromise the account like terminating the service on the line or changing the phone call allowance package.
4. Presumably your phone lines would also not be so gummed up all the time if some customer actions such as downgrading a 76Mbps fibre service to 38Mbps (as there is no longer a data cap on the 38Mbps service and our real world speed here never exceeds 40Mbps and usually not more than 34Mbps but it would save £5 a month) were made available to instead of being withheld from customers through the online account management portal?
There have been numerous cases exposed by the national media of ill trained front line staff who abusively quote the Data Protection Act to obstruct customers and yet this nonsense still continues in most large companies (something which Plusnet has now become).  If you are having this much trouble with the DPA's sensible interpretation at Plusnet then I suggest it is really high time that your CEO and their board replaced your current main legal counsel or head lawyer.
Your main legal bods need to get real and surely see that broadband service is actually an essential household utility (like gas, electricity or water) that customers need to work at all times but it is not in any way equivalent to an online bank or building society account on which it is usually both justified and essential to have Fort Knox like (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bullion_Depository for those born long after the Goldfinger James Bond era, although that film still seems to be reshown by ITV at least annually) security systems and only to talk to the actual account holder about  their own account.

[#4]

+1
The correct and appropriate application of the DPA is what is important.  If PN staff simply listen to the call, disclose no PERSONAL information and make no changes havng a commercial implication then there is no conflict with DPA.
In the meantime go examine the requirements about not disclosing personal details to third parties - I think one will find that PlusNET / their third parties have clearly breached those requirements, to their customer's detriment.

[#5]

Surely, up to the point where an engineer visit is required (where the account holder or authorised representative must agree to possible charges) there should be no need for any restriction on who reports a fault.  Simply confirming the address, telephone number and account name should be sufficient to rule out any malicious/hoax reports (not that I can imagine anyone making a hoax fault report).

[#6]

1. When the call was made last night, exactly what information was the agent not able to release to the caller because of the DPA? The DPA doesn't say that the company cannot listen to personal information being volunteered by the caller.
2. Blaming the DPA for not allowing someone to initiate an action which could cost money I would suggest is baloney. The DPA has nothing to with with financial transactions, it exists solely to prevent an organisation releasing confidential information to an unauthorised third party.

[#7]

Quote from: jelv

1. When the call was made last night, exactly what information was the agent not able to release to the caller because of the DPA? The DPA doesn't say that the company cannot listen to personal information being volunteered by the caller.

He was not willing to release any information at all about the technical status of the FTTC VDSL connection or any reasons behind a number of recent disconnects of the broadband service in the last few days that were only resolved by power cycling the BT VDSL modem and the Plusnet Technicolor router.  He was only prepared to take a complaint about the voice quality of the line (supplied by Plusnet) but said he could only provide any information about the outcome of those tests to the account owner and not to me.  This was even though I could quote the account name and password and was calling from the account telephone number.
Nowhere on the Plusnet website is there any page talking about "authorised users" or how to add them to an account even though the people who now man Plusnet's phones will not connect you to anyone at a policy level to discuss this nonsense unless you are an "authorised user."  There is no high level complaints section that can be reached on the phone in this situation so the whole scenario is complely bonkers.

Quote

Blaming the DPA for not allowing someone to initiate an action which could cost money I would suggest is baloney. The DPA has nothing to with with financial transactions, it exists solely to prevent an organisation releasing confidential information to an unauthorised third party.

The DPA covers personal data of all kinds including financial data but to discuss with someone able to use a phone line why the broadband on that line is disconnecting and appears erratic in nature does not in my opinion breach the DPA as it does not disclose any of the paying
The DPA is all too frequently used by poorly skilled front line advisers to cover their backs to the detriment of all reason and common sense.
We have made an online request to add me as an authorised user to the account but that may not be actioned till Monday or Tuesday, meanwhile I can't get any escalation on the phone to high level managers or supervisors to discuss this absurd policy that other members of the household with a faulty broadband service cannot report it immediately to Plusnet to get the service fixed as soon as possible.
It is quite outrageous and quite unbelieveable.  Plusnet's current policies means that where the account holder is rendered medically unfit enough to be unable to wait in a 30 minute plus call queue and speak to customer service staff then all other members of the household could be left with a non broadband service for either weeks or months.  Clearly it is time to move to IDNet or some properly run company if Plusnet are just gong to behave in the same headless chicken fashion as BT Main is so renowned for.
If there is any point at all left in remaining with Plusnet as an ISP then can some senior customer service manager reading this thread PM me with their direct phone line so that we can discuss this further.
[Moderator's note by Dick(Strat) Personal attacks against Plusnet staff removed as per forum rule.

[#8]

Quote

He was only prepared to take a complaint about the voice quality of the line (supplied by Plusnet) but said he could only provide any information about the outcome of those tests to the account owner and not to me.

We would have also discussed the outcome of these with an authorised user. Can I ask why you seem so against being added as an authorised user as this would resolve the majority of the issues you've seen?
As you've mentioned, we do allow a phone fault to be opened. However if we need to send an engineer this needs to be agreed due to the potential fees involved via an authorised user or the account holder.
I agree that the majority of the concerns are not actually related to the DPA but down to our own policies on who and how people can contact us about their accounts.

Quote

Plusnet's current policies means that where the account holder is rendered medically unfit enough to be unable to wait in a 30 minute plus call queue and speak to customer service staff then all other members of the household could be left with a non broadband service for either weeks or months.

Not at all, as above you can request to be added as an authorised user which would resolve this. Alternatively we can investigate issues on a case-by-case basis if the account holder is unable to contact us due to medical reasons.

[#9]

Hi Chris,
I think your response is very usefully starting to dissect the issue - discussion of the account vs. discussion of the service.  The problem is that no such distinction appears to be being made by the service personnel.  For some people, making someone an "authorised" person on an account - with "full powers" - might be more than they wish, even if they knew about it, knew how to do it and had done it in advance of the technical issue they need help with.
For example I have a handful of referrals for who (if they ever have an issue) turn to me for technical assistance, including if necessary talking with PlusNet support about the TECHNICAL issue.  Making me an "authorised user" on their accounts would not be appropriate, even though they might be content giving me access to their account credentials.
So long as the support call does not seek to elicit and PlusNet does not disclose personal account information or commit the account holder to financial or commercial liability, I suggest that DPA does not "come into play" and therefore ought not be a barrier to a third party affording assistance to someone not able to deal with what they perceive to be technical challenges beyond their grasp.
I hope that you will be able to influence a change of approach in this space to the benefit of "cared for" customers.
Cheers,
Kevin

[#10]

Quote from: Chris

Can I ask why you seem so against being added as an authorised user as this would resolve the majority of the issues you've seen?

I am not against becoming an authorised user and it has already now been requested through your online portal now that I have become aware (for the first time ever today) that your new inscribed in blood and totally inflexible authorised user restrictions (which were not there four months ago contrary to what your staff are trying to claim today) exist.  The problem is your support tickets take at least one working day or more to be actioned so nothing will happen till Monday so the fault can't be reported till then.  Your authorised user restrictions would only be at all reasonable if you had proactively advised all customers of the existence of these new aggressively and rudely enforced restrictions on other household members talking to you and given them the chance to easily set up the other authorised users through the online portal without having to add to your already woeful and quote telephone support call queues.
But you haven't done that at all.  In fact the existence of the authorised user system isn't documented anywhere at all in your help support pages or by that stupid and pointless grinning help robot.

Quote

As you've mentioned, we do allow a phone fault to be opened. However if we need to send an engineer this needs to be agreed due to the potential fees involved via an authorised user or the account holder.

No sorry that's not true as I called again this afternoon and tried to do that and your adviser was completely and utterly obstructive and refused to talk to me at all unless I had the account owner with me to talk to you at that very moment.  This was even though I could give the account name, password, address, phone number, date of birth etc.  And the only people who get challenged in this way are those who your call advisers decide are of a different gender from the account holder (a crude, random and pretty unsophisticated method of security control).  On the online portal there is no such requirement at all and anyone of the same gender as the account owner who has the account name and password will also not run in to this obstacle on the phone..
The trouble is Plusnet's third rate lawyer is only thinking what system covers their back in quadruplicate instead of what system is actually reasonable in the real world.  And it is not at all reasonable creating a situation where other household members cannot kick off repairs (especially those which are pre any engineer visit and merely remote technical tests) on an apparently faulty line.  You will note that Google (a highly commercially successful company) always has much more modest and reasonable restrictions when it comes to account access and discussing existing orders.   But then it does have the attitude that it is some form of ex state monopoly that its customers have to tolerate anyway (no matter how unhelpful or unfriendly) that pervades virtually all aspects of the operations of the BT Group (of which Plusnet is ever more intrinsically a wholly owned subsidiary)
Anyhow your staff's thoroughly obstructive behaviour has now forced me to email your Director of Customer Experience directly and I set out the email I have sent in the post below.

[#11]

Here is the email I have sent your Director of Customer Experience as listed at https://careers.plus.net/meet-the-team/

Quote

-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Abusive New Policies Re "Authorised User" and Faults/Service Repairs Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 16:30:18 +0000 To: Plusnet's Director of Customer Experience Transformation and Billing - see https://careers.plus.net/meet-the-team/ CC: Plusnet CEO , Plusnet CIO, Plusnet Director, Legal, Governance and Compliance, Plusnet Head of HR Dear Mr Director of Customer Experience Transformation and Billing, Absurd and Abusive New "Authorised User" Policy Where Other Household Members Using Service Cannot Report Defects In The Service When They Occur - re 017xx xxxxxx - Account Holder ______________ (account = ___________) - Repeated Drops of Connection on FTTC Line Please can you make contact with me (in your position as Plusnet's Director of Customer Service, Transformations and Billing) urgently to discuss the absurd and quite ludicrous situation that now exists at Plusnet where due to some overly paranoid interpretation of the Data Protection  Act you are now refusing to allow other members of a household who use a broadband service, and/or who frequently are the main technical experts in the household on the internet, to report a fault with a connection not working properly unless they are what your telephone support staff call an "authorised user"???  This is even where the other household member actually has the account user name and password that is all that is required for a customer to log in to their account online. When I was primarily responsible for bringing about the decision to connect to your service and also placed the order for it two years ago (both so the service was ordered exactly as technically required and so I received an amount of cashback from www.topcashback.co.uk that my mother would not do as she is not a user of that service) at no stage during the account setup process was I asked for other persons in the household who could be "authorised users".  I have also checked your main account areas (most of which is now unfortunately occupied by an aggressive and patronising help robot system that could only actually help a customer who is severely IT challenged and where it is very hard how to find how to actually lodge a support ticket) and nowhere at all are there any fields for other authorised users of the customer account. I have set out my feelings in full on this matter under the forum user name Capvermell at  http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php?topic=116409.new;topicseen#new where a previous husband and wife encountered the same kind of problems.  I have received a lot of support from other forum members that Plusnet is interpreting the Data Protection completely wrongly.  Your telephone support staff now claim the current "authorised user" restriction on other household members reporting a defective service (but not asking to change the nature of the service or the call plan which you may well need to be sure you are speaking to the account holder about) has been in effect for at least two years but I know it hasn't as only last September (2014) you had no problem at all letting me repeatedly chase up a disconnection of my mother's FTTC circuit at the local cabinet due to a failure in one of Openreach's circuit boards (and all kinds of nonsensical requirements by BT that they needed traffic lights to work on a cabinet that third party contractors make new FTTC connections in several times a week without traffic lights on the road in question).  Your policy is now being implemented so completely unreasonably by your front line telephone staff that one cannot even be escalated to a supervisor or high level complaints team (after usually holding for half an hour or more to get through) to discuss whether refusing to accept a fault report from another household member is a reasonable policy.  Instead the front line call adviser simply hangs up on you the caller without putting your call through to anyone at a higher level who can review their decision. Quite clearly when an electricity, gas or water service fails any member of a household can make contact with the network supplier to report the problem and start repair work and they do not have to have special user passwords to be authorised to do so.  Can you envisage the situation where an electricity, gas or water customer is in hospital with a severe stroke and other members of the household cannot get their service restored for months on end.  Yet that is effectively the situation Plusnet has created for its broadband products.  Also Plusnet never advised customers of its new restrictive policy on authorised users or gave them the ability to add further users simply and easily online through the account portal without adding to your woeful and permanent 15 to 60 minute telephone customer service call queues. I look forward to hearing from you about this absurd, paranoid and totally unreasonable way of handling fault reports from your customers at the earliest possible opportunity. Regards,

[Moderator's note by Dick(Strat) Personal data removed from a public forum.

[#12]

Quote

[Moderator's note by Dick(Strat) Personal data removed from a public forum.

[color=black]
I don't see how your senior directors email addresses in the industry standard format firstname.lastname@plus.net (even though many of your long serving staff also have email addresses in the format of alastname@plus.net) can be deemed to be confidential information when the senior management team's names are all published on your own public website and your CEO's email address is also published at www.ceoemail.com.  It is however unfortunately all too indicative of the increasing BT Group style mentality at Plusnet that we the mere customers should be happy to be fobbed off with inadequate answers to important questions from low level customer services staff.
As for screen savers harvesting the email addresses for spamming I find that whatever Ironport has now become is an almost totally reliable service in blocking spam so I don't really see how that's a serious issue.

[#13]

Note Strat "the mod" is a customer just like you and I charged with keeping order around here according to the published forum rules.  So the redaction was an action of a fellow customer, not our feared PN DPA madness.  

Quote from: http

•Personal details are not to be posted on these forums, this includes the content of private message unless permission is obtained from all parties. •This includes the names of staff members who you may have had contact with via a call or ticket. This does not include members of the Customer Relations Team.

I guess that the redaction relates to the second rule - even though the details are well known, he is a staff member outside of the CRT.  

[#14]

Quote from: Townman

Note Strat "the mod" is a customer just like you and I charged with keeping order around here according to the published forum rules.  So the redaction was an action of a fellow customer, not our feared PN PDA madness.

Then he should surely be on our side and not helping the almost certainly highly overpaid but largely unaccountable senior minions (I say minions since they in turn, or at least certainly the Plusnet CEO, are of course then accountable to the main BT Board) of Plusnet from having to face direct customer reaction to the decisions they (and not the lowly paid front line call centre workers) have taken but are unwilling to discuss or justify.
I have therefore re-added then names of the persons emailed but not in email address format (to remove the objection that they could be used for spamming.
Oh and I see this issue has come up before but Plusnet has still done precisely nothing to add control of authorised users to the online customer account management portal nor emailed customers to point out what will happen when other household members who are active internet  users need to contact Plusnet about a fault in the service. if they don't
See http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,113592.0.html/

[#15]

@Capvermell - See your PMs
You are not allowed to post names - even though they are given on the web page you've linked.