Openreach missed appointments?

[Steph]

Over the last fortnight we were told by BT Retail that our home phone
and broadband were not working due to a fault in our property.

In total and over six day's, four appointments were made through BT with
Openreach to visit our property. Each visit was confirmed by email by BT
and we we warned a £129.99 charge would be incurred if a fault was found
on our equipment.

On each occasion Openreach failed to attend without notice.

BT finally determined the problem to be at the exchange and have now
restored service some three weeks later.

I have asked for some kind of compensation for the four half days income
lost as a self employed person whilst waiting for their non appearance.
BT have initially blamed Openreach stating they (BT Retail) are not
responsible.

What would be reasonable?

[Paul Cummins]

In article <ntt8gq$hg5$1...@dont-email.me>, s...@invalid.com (Steph) wrote:

> In total and over six day's, four appointments were made through BT
> with Openreach to visit our property. Each visit was confirmed by
> email by BT and we we warned a £129.99 charge would be incurred if
> a fault was found on our equipment.
>
> On each occasion Openreach failed to attend without notice.

> What would be reasonable?

I;d ask for £129.99 per missed appointment, and one moths line rental for
every day of no service, and given them 14 days to pay, then sue if they
don't.

I did something similar to New Call Telecom a few years back, and got
about half of what I asked for.which was much more than I was entitled
to.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ

[Graham Murray]

Steph <s...@invalid.com> writes:

> I have asked for some kind of compensation for the four half days income
> lost as a self employed person whilst waiting for their non appearance.
> BT have initially blamed Openreach stating they (BT Retail) are not
> responsible.
>
> What would be reasonable?

Your contract is with BT retail, so they are the ones responsible to you
for any breaches of the contract. They are responsible for the actions
(or inactions) of their subcontractors (Openreach). Whether they do the
work themselves or engage a subcontractor should not affect their
liability to you.

[Iain]

Steph <s...@invalid.com> Wrote in message:

> Over the last fortnight we were told by BT Retail that our home phone
> and broadband were not working due to a fault in our property.
>
> In total and over six day's, four appointments were made through BT with
> Openreach to visit our property. Each visit was confirmed by email by BT

> and we we warned a £129.99 charge would be incurred if a fault was found

> on our equipment.
>
> On each occasion Openreach failed to attend without notice.
>
> BT finally determined the problem to be at the exchange and have now
> restored service some three weeks later.
>
> I have asked for some kind of compensation for the four half days income
> lost as a self employed person whilst waiting for their non appearance.
> BT have initially blamed Openreach stating they (BT Retail) are not
> responsible.
>
> What would be reasonable?

Whoever you made the appointment with is liable. Were you told
that if you were not in when Openreach turned up you would have
to pay a certain amount? If so, it would be reasonable to charge
them that same amount for non-attendance.

Several years ago, my then ISP installed a second line in a
special deal. I was told that if I was not in when BT called, I
would be charged £30 (I think it was). I then told them that if
BT failed to turn up, I would charge them £30. There was silence
at the other end when I said that!

I would suggest at least £50 for each failed appointment.

You may want to look at:
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/broadband/2016/02/broadband-
users-to-get-automatic-compensation-for-outages
and
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=70204950&_ga=
1.132543630.1238852384.1475846340#post70204950
(In March this year, in the County Court, they won £50 for each
no-show from BT)

IANAL

--
Iain

Sent from my Mi3


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[Michael Chare]

On 15/10/2016 13:47, Steph wrote:
> Over the last fortnight we were told by BT Retail that our home phone
> and broadband were not working due to a fault in our property.
>
> In total and over six day's, four appointments were made through BT with
> Openreach to visit our property. Each visit was confirmed by email by BT
> and we we warned a £129.99 charge would be incurred if a fault was found
> on our equipment.
>

I reported a line fault to Plusnet -on a Sunday and was offered an am or
pm appointment the next day. I was threatened with a £65 charge as follows:

"As agreed with you, If the engineer finds the fault to be within the
boundaries of your property, the engineer will demonstrate to you where
the problem exists and we will add a one off fee of £65 to your bill.
The same fee will apply if you miss the appointment or you cancel the
appointment within 48 hours of the engineer visit time. This charge will
appear within 90 days of the engineer visiting your property."

There was a fault at a BT junction box on the soffit. So far no one has
mentioned anything about charging me.



--
Michael Chare

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Iain]

Michael Chare <mUNDERS...@chareDO.Torg.uk> Wrote in message:

> On 15/10/2016 13:47, Steph wrote:
>> Over the last fortnight we were told by BT Retail that our home phone
>> and broadband were not working due to a fault in our property.
>>
>> In total and over six day's, four appointments were made through BT with
>> Openreach to visit our property. Each visit was confirmed by email by BT
>> and we we warned a £129.99 charge would be incurred if a fault was found
>> on our equipment.
>>
> I reported a line fault to Plusnet -on a Sunday and was offered an am or
> pm appointment the next day. I was threatened with a £65 charge as follows:
>
> "As agreed with you, If the engineer finds the fault to be within the
> boundaries of your property, the engineer will demonstrate to you where
> the problem exists and we will add a one off fee of £65 to your bill.
> The same fee will apply if you miss the appointment or you cancel the
> appointment within 48 hours of the engineer visit time. This charge will
> appear within 90 days of the engineer visiting your property."
>
> There was a fault at a BT junction box on the soffit. So far no one has
> mentioned anything about charging me.

My understanding is that BT's responsibility is up to and
including the master socket in your premises. This is what they
fit. Anything beyond that is your responsibility.

[Roland Perry]

In message <nu13if$6pt$1...@dont-email.me>, at 00:47:44 on Mon, 17 Oct
2016, Michael Chare <mUNDERS...@chareDO.Torg.uk> remarked:

>On 15/10/2016 13:47, Steph wrote:
>> Over the last fortnight we were told by BT Retail that our home phone
>> and broadband were not working due to a fault in our property.
>>
>> In total and over six day's, four appointments were made through BT with
>> Openreach to visit our property. Each visit was confirmed by email by BT
>> and we we warned a £129.99 charge would be incurred if a fault was found
>> on our equipment.
>>
>I reported a line fault to Plusnet -on a Sunday and was offered an am or
>pm appointment the next day. I was threatened with a £65 charge as follows:
>
>"As agreed with you, If the engineer finds the fault to be within the
>boundaries of your property,

That's rather poorly worded - what they mean is the consumer side of the
NTP: https://www.openreach.co.uk/flexibledemarcationguide

>the engineer will demonstrate to you where
>the problem exists and we will add a one off fee of £65 to your bill.
>The same fee will apply if you miss the appointment or you cancel the
>appointment within 48 hours of the engineer visit time. This charge will
>appear within 90 days of the engineer visiting your property."
>
>There was a fault at a BT junction box on the soffit. So far no one has
>mentioned anything about charging me.

--

Roland Perry

[HarpingOn]

On 17/10/2016 00:47, Michael Chare wrote:

> I reported a line fault to Plusnet -on a Sunday and was offered an am or
> pm appointment the next day. I was threatened with a £65 charge as follows:
>
> "As agreed with you, If the engineer finds the fault to be within the
> boundaries of your property, the engineer will demonstrate to you where
> the problem exists and we will add a one off fee of £65 to your bill.
> The same fee will apply if you miss the appointment or you cancel the
> appointment within 48 hours of the engineer visit time. This charge will
> appear within 90 days of the engineer visiting your property."
>

I have to wonder if all these threats of penalty charges (which is what
they look like, even if it's not what they are) put many people off
reporting faults on their broadband.

I know when I had a fault, which resulted in the reduction of broadband
speeds and dropout, that I did all the diagnosis I could, including
using the BT test menu, quiet line tests, test socket (dismantling the
face plate with a screwdriver) before I reported it, and even then the
warnings of being charged were perturbing. Without any evidence, I'm
going to stick my neck out and say that most people wouldn't do as much
self diagnosis on a line as I did. These threats of charges must have a
chilling effect on fault reports.

[Flop]

If Plusnet say your 'boundaries' then those are your T&Cs. They could
say 'your street', 'between you and the exchange' or whatever.

They may wish to retain a degree of flexibility in case Bt/Openreach
decide to be awkward.

I have been in a similar position with problems associated with the drop
wire. No charge.

It does raise the question though of what happens if you have broadband
from your ISP and telephone from Bt.

Where do responsibilities diverge?

--

Flop

Insanity is hereditary, you get it from your children

[Peter Crosland]

On 17/10/2016 0:47, Michael Chare wrote:
> On 15/10/2016 13:47, Steph wrote:
>> Over the last fortnight we were told by BT Retail that our home phone
>> and broadband were not working due to a fault in our property.
>>
>> In total and over six day's, four appointments were made through BT with
>> Openreach to visit our property. Each visit was confirmed by email by BT
>> and we we warned a £129.99 charge would be incurred if a fault was found
>> on our equipment.
>>
> I reported a line fault to Plusnet -on a Sunday and was offered an am or
> pm appointment the next day. I was threatened with a £65 charge as follows:
>
> "As agreed with you, If the engineer finds the fault to be within the
> boundaries of your property, the engineer will demonstrate to you where
> the problem exists and we will add a one off fee of £65 to your bill.
> The same fee will apply if you miss the appointment or you cancel the
> appointment within 48 hours of the engineer visit time. This charge will
> appear within 90 days of the engineer visiting your property."
>
> There was a fault at a BT junction box on the soffit. So far no one has
> mentioned anything about charging me.

That is not chargeable.


--
Peter Crosland

Reply address is valid

[Peter Crosland]

The BT/Openreach position has always been that the boundary line is at
the junction box usually known as an NTE5 that is fitted internally. BT
did fit some exterior boxes so they did not need access to the premises
but AFAIK they don't any more. Recently Plusnet have tried to say that
if the removeable faceplate is faulty that is the customer's
responsibility because of a BT/Openreach dictat. I don't believe that
would stand up in court because BT/Openreach supply it.

[Robin]

On 17/10/2016 09:47, Peter Crosland wrote:
>
> The BT/Openreach position has always been that the boundary line is at
> the junction box usually known as an NTE5 that is fitted internally. BT
> did fit some exterior boxes so they did not need access to the premises
> but AFAIK they don't any more. Recently Plusnet have tried to say that
> if the removeable faceplate is faulty that is the customer's
> responsibility because of a BT/Openreach dictat. I don't believe that
> would stand up in court because BT/Openreach supply it.
>
>

ISTM difficult to express simply a "boundary" when, I suggest, it is
perfectly reasonable - and lawful - to charge the customer if the
customer (or the customer's family/friends/workmen) have wrecked the box
in the course of decorating, fighting, training pit bull, leaving
children to play with lump hammer, etc etc. Difficult to express that
simply and succinctly in T&Cs of course.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

[Roland Perry]

In message <DYydnZvMjrutFJnF...@brightview.co.uk>, at
09:17:49 on Mon, 17 Oct 2016, Flop <Fl...@flop.knot.me.uk> remarked:

>>> "As agreed with you, If the engineer finds the fault to be within the
>>> boundaries of your property,
>>
>> That's rather poorly worded - what they mean is the consumer side of the
>> NTP: https://www.openreach.co.uk/flexibledemarcationguide
>>
>>> the engineer will demonstrate to you where
>>> the problem exists and we will add a one off fee of £65 to your bill.
>>> The same fee will apply if you miss the appointment or you cancel the
>>> appointment within 48 hours of the engineer visit time. This charge will
>>> appear within 90 days of the engineer visiting your property."
>>>
>>> There was a fault at a BT junction box on the soffit. So far no one has
>>> mentioned anything about charging me.

In the matter of boundaries for telecomms service that is the NTP. It's
also where legally the network changes from a public to a private one.

>If Plusnet say your 'boundaries' then those are your T&Cs. They could
>say 'your street', 'between you and the exchange' or whatever.
>
>They may wish to retain a degree of flexibility in case Bt/Openreach
>decide to be awkward.
>
>I have been in a similar position with problems associated with the drop
>wire. No charge.

I've had a dropwire replaced (it was rubbing on a tree, that belonged to
the council, no charge) I also had Openreach out numerous times to try
to fix a Plusnet connection which was running a about a quarter of the
estimated speed. They never did fix it, but there was no charge, and no
dispute at all that they were responsible up to the NTP, which was
rather oddly in the kitchen at the back of the house, wired rather
poorly around the brickwork near ground level, from a connection box to
an underground cable at the front of the house.

>It does raise the question though of what happens if you have broadband
>from your ISP and telephone from Bt.
>
>Where do responsibilities diverge?

If your telephone service is from BT then in effect your Internet is
too: BT-Net wholesale badged by the ISP, ad both services delivered from
the exchange to your NTP by Openreach.
--
Roland Perry

[Roger Hayter]

Much more dubiously it is their policy to charge the customer if the
master socket (generally the MOVs inside it) are damaged by lightning.
On a legal basis it may be reasonable that the customer should pay if an
item on their premises is damaged by an Act of God through no fault of
BT. But in this particular circumstance I would argue that it has
almost certainly been damaged by an electrical impulse carried to the
premises by BT's overhead lines. In my case it never go to court
because I argued that if it was my responsibility to repair it I could
not reasonably be required to do so via their expensive and monopolistic
repair service, so I replaced the box myself at a total cost of about
5% of their estimate, and they failed to forbid this. That would be
another arguable point as well as the damage being conducted by their
plant. In neither case is it obvious to me who would win. They could,
like other utitlites, argue that they should be only ones to do the work
for safety reasons. A test case would be interesting, but expensive.

--

Roger Hayter

[Roland Perry]

In message <6bOdnVlcquG8DZnF...@brightview.co.uk>, at
09:47:29 on Mon, 17 Oct 2016, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
remarked:

>The BT/Openreach position has always been that the boundary line is at
>the junction box usually known as an NTE5 that is fitted internally. BT
>did fit some exterior boxes so they did not need access to the premises
>but AFAIK they don't any more. Recently Plusnet have tried to say that
>if the removeable faceplate is faulty that is the customer's
>responsibility because of a BT/Openreach dictat. I don't believe that
>would stand up in court because BT/Openreach supply it.

The NTP (a legal concept) is frequently delivered by an NTE5 (the part
number of a particular design of junction box). I have some sympathy for
the concept that the NTP is actually the internal socket into which the
faceplate plugs.

As for the responsibility for the proper functioning of the faceplate,
that might require studying consumer law to determine whose property it
is and what warranties exist upon it. Does, for example,who paid for it
back in the mists of time have any bearing on the ownership? Is it
leased to the consumer/BT-Net/Retail-ISP by Openreach, in which case is
that a repairing lease or not.

Personally, I'd just buy one of these and throw everything except the
faceplate away:

<https://www.amazon.co.uk/NTE5a-connection-complete-BT-
compatible/dp/B003TQXJ82>
--
Roland Perry

[Roger Hayter]

And if you want to keep the BT logo du jour, just change the circuit
board if that is what is at fault.

--

Roger Hayter

[Steve]

Roland Perry formulated the question :

> In message <6bOdnVlcquG8DZnF...@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 09:47:29 on Mon, 17 Oct 2016, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
> remarked:
>
>> The BT/Openreach position has always been that the boundary line is at
>> the junction box usually known as an NTE5 that is fitted internally. BT
>> did fit some exterior boxes so they did not need access to the premises
>> but AFAIK they don't any more. Recently Plusnet have tried to say that
>> if the removeable faceplate is faulty that is the customer's
>> responsibility because of a BT/Openreach dictat. I don't believe that
>> would stand up in court because BT/Openreach supply it.
>
> The NTP (a legal concept) is frequently delivered by an NTE5 (the part
> number of a particular design of junction box). I have some sympathy for
> the concept that the NTP is actually the internal socket into which the
> faceplate plugs.
>
> As for the responsibility for the proper functioning of the faceplate,
> that might require studying consumer law to determine whose property it
> is and what warranties exist upon it. Does, for example,who paid for it
> back in the mists of time have any bearing on the ownership? Is it
> leased to the consumer/BT-Net/Retail-ISP by Openreach, in which case is
> that a repairing lease or not.

The general public are not allowed to work on/interfere with BT
lines/wiring, which is the whole reason that the NTE5 was developed.
BT's wiring/line terminates in a part of the NTE5 that the public have
no access to, therefore any problem up to and including that point must
be BT's responsibility. The public can terminate any extension wiring
on the removable lower part of the NTE5 which, when pushed back into
place, connects with the BT network. Any fault found on the removable
plate looking into the house is the consumer's responsibility and is
chargeable to them.

I do not speak for the company and that is my own interpretation of
things, but I do speak as a BT telephone engineer (cable jointer) with
more than 30 years on the job (installation and maintenance of the
underground cables between exchanges and top of pole/entry into
building).

[Peter Crosland]

Legally the faceplate is property of BT/Openreach and supplied by them.
To disclaim responsibility for it is simply absurd.

[Chris R]

>
> "Peter Crosland" wrote in message
> news:PbadnbmNPrF7JpjF...@brightview.co.uk...

> On 17/10/2016 20:15, Steve wrote:
> > Roland Perry formulated the question :
> >> In message <6bOdnVlcquG8DZnF...@brightview.co.uk>, at
> >> 09:47:29 on Mon, 17 Oct 2016, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
> >> remarked:

> Legally the faceplate is property of BT/Openreach and supplied by them. To
> disclaim responsibility for it is simply absurd.
>

I can't see any reason in law or in principle (subject to larger public
policy considerations such as abusing a dominant market position) why
BT/Openreach shouldn't make whatever contractual arrangements they like, and
that their customers will agree. The ownership of an item and the liability
to maintain it/risk of it failing are two (or three) different things.
Making someone responsible for the replacement cost of something installed
on their property, even if you retain (or purport to retain) ownership of
it, is not in any way absurd.
--
Chris R

========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======

[Roland Perry]

In message <PbadnbmNPrF7JpjF...@brightview.co.uk>, at
07:06:30 on Tue, 18 Oct 2016, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>

Those being the reasons why I have sympathy for the view that the NTP is
that inner socket.

>Legally the faceplate is property of BT/Openreach and supplied by them.
>To disclaim responsibility for it is simply absurd.

What if it was paid for by a previous resident who paid the £25 to BT to
get a hard-wired socket converted to an NTE5? Whose property is it then.
Perhaps the fitting contract specifies it remains with Openreach.

--
Roland Perry

[Steve]

Peter Crosland formulated on Tuesday :

I forgot we're in a legal group where every single thing has to be
spelled out :D

Yes, of course the plate itself is BT's responsibility - I was speaking
as a maintenance engineer when I said "Any fault found on the removable
plate looking into the house" meaning that we disconnect the wiring
from the plate and test "looking into the house".

[Flop]

On 18/10/2016 08:52, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <PbadnbmNPrF7JpjF...@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 07:06:30 on Tue, 18 Oct 2016, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
> remarked:
>

> Those being the reasons why I have sympathy for the view that the NTP is
> that inner socket.
>
>> Legally the faceplate is property of BT/Openreach and supplied by them.
>> To disclaim responsibility for it is simply absurd.
>
> What if it was paid for by a previous resident who paid the £25 to BT to
> get a hard-wired socket converted to an NTE5? Whose property is it then.
> Perhaps the fitting contract specifies it remains with Openreach.
>

I suspect that we are recycling arguments that arise from the different
approaches of the participants.

BT/OR/ISPs all have their own interpretations between themselves and
with the consumer.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it
means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

And we have not even considered consumer law.

When you pay for a new faceplate are you paying for the physical item or
its installation?

If an ISP gives you a free router is it your responsibility or theirs?

If an ISP gives you a free router linked to a new contract, is it your
responsibility or theirs?


--

Flop

[Roland Perry]

In message <LuydnV47NJXffJjF...@brightview.co.uk>, at
09:45:53 on Tue, 18 Oct 2016, Flop <Fl...@flop.knot.me.uk> remarked:

>> Those being the reasons why I have sympathy for the view that the NTP is
>> that inner socket.
>>
>>> Legally the faceplate is property of BT/Openreach and supplied by them.
>>> To disclaim responsibility for it is simply absurd.
>>
>> What if it was paid for by a previous resident who paid the £25 to BT to
>> get a hard-wired socket converted to an NTE5? Whose property is it then.
>> Perhaps the fitting contract specifies it remains with Openreach.
>>
>
>I suspect that we are recycling arguments that arise from the different
>approaches of the participants.
>
>BT/OR/ISPs all have their own interpretations between themselves and
>with the consumer.
>
>“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it
>means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
>
>And we have not even considered consumer law.
>
>When you pay for a new faceplate are you paying for the physical item or
>its installation?

I'm not sure it's that easy to buy just a "classic" faceplate (rather
than the whole unit) unless you find one of the suppliers who buys whole
units and then split them up as two lots. But you *can* buy a so-called
enhanced faceplate which improves ADSL performance, separately.

Of course, even if the faceplate *does* belong to Openreach and is
covered under consumer law, won't the resident have to show it was a
manufacturing fault if more than six months old?

Another possibility (contracts would have to be examined in detail) at
the other end of the scale is that the faceplate is supplied on some
sort of extended lease with a lifetime repair warranty.

>If an ISP gives you a free router is it your responsibility or theirs?
>
>If an ISP gives you a free router linked to a new contract, is it your
>responsibility or theirs?

Different ISPs have different views about the ownership of "free
routers", but my observations are that they are increasingly likely to
want them back if you leave for another ISP.
--
Roland Perry

[Ian Jackson]

In article <nu4j61$75r$1...@dont-email.me>,
Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
>[Peter Crosland:]

>> Legally the faceplate is property of BT/Openreach and supplied by them. To
>> disclaim responsibility for it is simply absurd.
>>
>I can't see any reason in law or in principle (subject to larger public
>policy considerations such as abusing a dominant market position) why
>BT/Openreach shouldn't make whatever contractual arrangements they like, and
>that their customers will agree.

For domestic customers these "larger public policy considerations"
also include consumer protection law. For example, the Consumer
Rights Act (SOGA-bis), the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts
Regulations, and perhaps the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading
Regulations and/or The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation
and Additional Charges) Regulations (DSR-bis).

These will limit the industry's ability to impose "whatever
contractual arrangements they like" on end users. (Of course end
users often do not have a realistic alternative, so "impose" is right.
And the user's chosen telco may find that BT/Openreach impose
contracts on the telco with terms which are are quite unreasonable and
which cannot be lawfully imposed on the consumer, but that doesn't
mean that the user's telco won't try to do so.)

Whether any particular arrangement would fall foul of consumer
protection or competition law depends on the specifics, of course.

--
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

[Roger Hayter]

Historically, protecting the public network went quite a long way to
neutralise any consumer law objections to the the GPO/BT monopoly.

--

Roger Hayter

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <LuydnV47NJXffJjF...@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 09:45:53 on Tue, 18 Oct 2016, Flop <Fl...@flop.knot.me.uk> remarked:
>
>>> Those being the reasons why I have sympathy for the view that the
>>> NTP is that inner socket.
>>>
>>>> Legally the faceplate is property of BT/Openreach and supplied by
>>>> them. To disclaim responsibility for it is simply absurd.
>>>

>>> What if it was paid for by a previous resident who paid the ÂŁ25 to

>>> BT to get a hard-wired socket converted to an NTE5? Whose property
>>> is it then. Perhaps the fitting contract specifies it remains with
>>> Openreach.
>>>
>>
>> I suspect that we are recycling arguments that arise from the
>> different approaches of the participants.
>>
>> BT/OR/ISPs all have their own interpretations between themselves and
>> with the consumer.
>>

>> â?oWhen I use a word,â?ť Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful
>> tone, â?oit means just what I choose it to meanâ?"neither more nor
>> less.â?ť

>>
>> And we have not even considered consumer law.
>>
>> When you pay for a new faceplate are you paying for the physical
>> item or
>> its installation?
>
> I'm not sure it's that easy to buy just a "classic" faceplate (rather
> than the whole unit) unless you find one of the suppliers who buys
> whole units and then split them up as two lots. But you *can* buy a
> so-called enhanced faceplate which improves ADSL performance,
> separately.
>
> Of course, even if the faceplate *does* belong to Openreach and is
> covered under consumer law, won't the resident have to show it was a
> manufacturing fault if more than six months old?
>
> Another possibility (contracts would have to be examined in detail) at
> the other end of the scale is that the faceplate is supplied on some
> sort of extended lease with a lifetime repair warranty.
>
>> If an ISP gives you a free router is it your responsibility or
>> theirs?
>>
>> If an ISP gives you a free router linked to a new contract, is it
>> your responsibility or theirs?
>
> Different ISPs have different views about the ownership of "free
> routers", but my observations are that they are increasingly likely to
> want them back if you leave for another ISP.

With Virgin Media the router is their responsibility.
Long story, I have three VM Superhubs in the loft that they did not want
back.

[Roland Perry]

In message <nuaq75$lqi$1...@dont-email.me>, at 17:08:46 on Thu, 20 Oct
2016, Mr Pounder Esquire <MrPo...@RationalThought.com> remarked:

>> Different ISPs have different views about the ownership of "free
>> routers", but my observations are that they are increasingly likely to
>> want them back if you leave for another ISP.
>
>With Virgin Media the router is their responsibility.

As in "if it breaks down they'll replace it"?

>Long story, I have three VM Superhubs in the loft that they did not want
>back.

One of my children just left a student rental and VM (who have a special
9-month package for students) had asked for their router back.

They consistently failed to send the promised pre-paid wrapper, so one
of the students dropped it off at the VM shop where they had originally
signed up. Whether or not it got re-united with the right bit of VM is
probably another story, but at least the students have a good case if VM
send them an invoice for it.
--
Roland Perry

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <nuaq75$lqi$1...@dont-email.me>, at 17:08:46 on Thu, 20 Oct
> 2016, Mr Pounder Esquire <MrPo...@RationalThought.com> remarked:
>
>>> Different ISPs have different views about the ownership of "free
>>> routers", but my observations are that they are increasingly likely
>>> to want them back if you leave for another ISP.
>>
>> With Virgin Media the router is their responsibility.
>
> As in "if it breaks down they'll replace it"?

They say that all repairs are free.
I read a thread ages ago where this guy was digging in his garden and put
his pitchfork through the VM cable. He was not charged for the repair.

[Steven Langdale]

> I have asked for some kind of compensation for the four half days income
> lost as a self employed person whilst waiting for their non appearance.
> BT have initially blamed Openreach stating they (BT Retail) are not
> responsible.
>
> What would be reasonable?

Your T&C's with BT Retail will say they will give you £10 for every missed appointment.