Hi Neil You kindly tried to intervene off-list as I made reference to, but as I was at pains to point out to the BTLB a few days ago I should not have to exert myself to work around them or rely upon favours to fix messes of their creation, especially as this is way beneath your paygrade (and being effectively roadblocked by someone in BTW in any event). You have my thanks nonetheless for trying what you could to fix a problem that ultimately wasn't yours to fix, and I appreciate the sentiment behind not wanting to leave our customer in the lurch.
Now - that said, I do - probably unsurprisingly - still have points to make.. On 18 January 2017 at 13:34, Neil J. McRae <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > I can only say that I cannot contest your statement here about it being a universal issue (our sample size is small enough so as to hopefully not be likely to experience problems with anyone, and this is the first time we've had this happen) and am generally in agreement that customers should understand what they are buying but as increasingly with all complex products "caveat emptor" doesn't really cut it these days when an advised sale is being made, and if I quietly tacked something on to a renewal order that broke an existing part of the customers infrastructure without setting it out clearly (because I didn't bother to check if it would break anything) I could expect to get into very hot water over it and have to put it right (and this is what the USR is for!). Bad sales tactics (and in some cases worse support thereafter) seems to not be an uncommon problem with BTLB (I was also contacted offlist by someone complaining about a franchisee in Scotland who behaves much the same way), and there seems to be no accountability for BTLB actions. They can pretend they are BT, lob a grenade in, walk away. The BTLB has demonstrated that they do not particularly care - and it is only BTs fault insofar as that they let these people place orders unless you swallow the line that the BTLB "is" BT (something I imagine BTs solicitors would be quick to distance themselves from if it came to it), so then what happens? Who is in charge of monitoring the BTLB franchises? How can consumers and other CPs complain about BTLB behaviour somewhere where it will have an effect? > 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. > The USR process seems fairly concise in it's requirements, though, and as Notice of Transfer was not received by the LCP, nor would they be seen by the EU in time as the clock ran down over the holiday period, all three parties agree it was migrated without the customers express knowledge and that the migration was unwanted, and that there is a case for the fact that the change in provider is disrupting their business (our ability/willingness to replumb part of our network at the behest of a single customer notwithstanding), this seems to satisfy the USR requirements completely. BTW (and again - I know that this is not who you work for) HLE have decided, sight unseen of the sales process, to determine that it was a legitimate transfer because the EU made one reference at the start of a long chain of emails to knowing about proceeding [with renewing their PSTN/ISDN] despite attempts to clarify that those remarks had nothing to do with the broadband service. [1] If there are constraints around using USR that are set by OFCOM I should imagine that they are intended to restrict use of USR to try and remove a customer from a GCP unfairly or at the disadvantage to the customer (eg: by getting an expedited slam back when the EU *did* want to migrate), but at the point that all parties are in agreement that the order ought not to have been placed, who exactly is going to be treated unfairly - in OFCOMs opinion - by enacting the USR on a migration order that has already been placed and cannot be contested by the LCP (as money owing/contract term held by OFCOM not to be valid reasons to oppose a migration) and will not be contested by the EU (as they are involved in the thread of evidence supplied stating that they did not want the service migrated)? This very much feels like one of those situations where someone has misunderstood their job (see also almost any large organisation as soon as the words "Data Protection" surface). > 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). > This is will be the eventual outcome here now that the whole contract is undone which again should be another black mark against the BTLB as far as BT is concerned, but it doesn't really feel like anyone's keeping score if CCS is seeing 3-4 issues a month from the very same franchisee. Phil [1] I guess I now know that if this happens again to just surreptitiously cut all but the bare minimum out rather than forwarding the whole chain on in case BTW can find cause not to act, but was working from my phone in an attempt to get it sent on as fast as possible and foolishly did not expect that anything other than the acceptance that the broadband migration was in error from the BTLB would be relevant!
