I've been sent the details off-list by a kind soul detailing the Urgent Service Restoration process which it seems passed Zen by, so we'll pursue that in the first instance.
Still annoyed, though. Seems like sanctioning/expelling providers that were actually abusing the old migration process to hold users captive unfairly would be more constructive than this. On 12 January 2017 at 15:17, Phillip Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi > > Being as brief as I can: > > * BT Local Business reseller (Converged Communications in Leeds) draws up > agreement for telephony renewal at end of the previous term at request of > mutual customer who (paraphrasing what the BTLB reseller told me when I > rang them) has apparently told them "you need to do better on our line > rental and call costs, but are happy with our existing Internet unless you > can substantially improve the speed or wifi signal" (customer was already > on 80/20 FTTC, 69mbps sync, and based on their relatively negligible usage > do not even need "faster Internet" but that is by the by) > > * BTLB builds a quote/order for their relatively complex setup - ISDN30 > channels, PSTN lines, and existing BT broadband one of their subtenants > uses, and adds an extra BT Infinity service to a PSTN line apparently > picked at random so that they are selling something new to "justify > reducing the price of other elements", adding this order as a "new > acquisition". Unfortunately they chose the line we supply (via Zen) FTTC > on. > > * They apparently present the quotation without comment setting out what > they have done and that they are adding a new service ("1x BT Infinity > Broadband" becomes "2x BT Infinity Broadband", customer doesn't pick up on > that), or that it will cause any migrations if there is an existing service > on the line (because BTLB didn't check if there was an existing service on > the line). The salesdroid seems satisfied that he was okay to add the > infinity service as he was "increasing the speed of the broadband as > requested" ("Okay...but it was already on 80/20" "right, but it's fibre > now" "...no") > > * No migration notice to the losing provider appears to have been > sent/received by us/Zen so far as anyone can tell (Zen are looking into > this) > > * Customer rings us today to tell us their Internet is not working because > BT have of course migrated them as nobody responded to the notification > (which we do not appear to have been sent) to put a stop to the migration > > * Reseller's position is that the customer is in their cooling off period > so they can "just place a migration order back and we'll cancel the > agreement" but this leaves the end user with 10wd without our (or any) > static IP which is specified and used in various places and is a > non-trivial thing to be changing (particularly to change back in 10wd) > > I am of the position that the "new service" was missold by the BTLB, but > arguing about that doesn't help the customer get back online. > > Does anyone know if there anything that can be done about this to revert > this quicker than placing a migration (given migrations cannot be expedited > in any way, because, of course notice is supposed to be given!)? > > (Also, are BTLB resellers really supposed to be marketing themselves as > "being BT", answering the phone as "BT Local Business" etc? Our customer > was quite convinced they were dealing direct with BT, but, of course, they > are not.) > > Phil > >
