I can't comment here on this specific case but I can give a generic view, and I'm not an expert in all these processes. Sadly I have some doubts that replying here will just put a target on my head so fire away!
Where this has failed and where we see it fail consistently is because the customer asks to buy something or is sold something that they want, and in many cases customers don't understand the details of their infrastructure and therefore you end up with situations like this. It's not a specific BTB issue and it's seen with customers across all CPs. Simply put if a customer chooses to do something and then signs it off then it's a valid order for a migration - whether then underlying outcome is right or wrong is unclear to the reseller, BTB or BTW it's simply a signed off migration order. The conditions around migrations are very clear to be -fair- to all parties. And if a customer signs something of as a valid order then the conditions are clear around migration, from BTW POV (and to be clear I don't speak for them here) it's just another valid order, therefore it doesn't fit any special case for quick back migration and the OFCOM regulation in this area is very clear on the lead times and process for migrations and frankly in cases like this it pisses me off that we have an upset customer that we can't do anything about - that's the downside of regulating to the level of detail we have and sadly having cake and eating it doesn't apply to anyone whether is a BT CP or any other CP. There are many obvious steps that could be taken by CP's to avoid being in this situation in the first place (such as the CP managing the phone lines directly for example). Regards, Neil Sent from my iPhone On 18 Jan 2017, at 12:05, Phillip Baker <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 18 January 2017 at 11:01, Peter Knapp <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: The sad thing is Phil, that we hear and deal with similar stories from said BTLB outfit perhaps 3-4 times a month. Which begs the question - is anyone at BT proper actually in charge of regulating the shysters to whom they lend their brand that complaints can be directed to, or is it a case of just trying to use the BT complaints procedure in the vague hope that it might address this behaviour, given they pretend to "be" BT anyway?
