THIS IS URGENT! Broadband and phone cancelled by someone else!

[#1]

---

phj wrote:

Are PlusNet in contact with the new supplier to inform them what has happened?

---

I'm afraid ISP's cannot contact each other directly.

I did however email our suppliers advising of the situation and requesting they contact the new provider to assist in letting us re-provide the services as soon as possible.

I did get a response from our suppliers yesterday confirming an email had been sent to the other service provider, requesting the required by date on the order be brought forward to the earliest possible date and that Openreach relies on the co-operation of both the losing and gaining communication providers in these situations. However I was hoping to wait on further confirmation regarding this before setting any expectations.

I'm afraid our orders were since cancelled, around half an hour ago.

This may just be because the losing provider are going to cease the line for us to re-provide the service, however I've not heard anything further from our suppliers yet, but have sent a chaser email regarding this.

---

@phj wrote:

---

Could I contact them and tell them not to stop the order?

Unless you are the account holder for the account they have that took over the line, they shouldn't really take any instruction from you unfortunately.

---

@phj wrote:

One final point, can you also confirm that the telephone number ending 597 has now been officially reserved rather than only having a provisional reservation yesterday?

---

It was reserved when the order went committed on the evening of the 20th, however as the order has since been cancelled, we're essentially going to have to start again. Hopefully with restarting a phone line as opposed to placing another migration order.

I'll keep you updated with any further updates I receive from our suppliers.

[#2]

---

@HarryB wrote:

---

---

It was reserved when the order went committed on the evening of the 20th, however as the order has since been cancelled, we're essentially going to have to start again. Hopefully with restarting a phone line as opposed to placing another migration order.

Hello @HarryB

Thank you for the update. Keeping my phone number is of the utmost importance and I'd rather the priority was focussed on getting this number confirmed. The broadband element can follow on with somewhat less urgency. I have elderly relatives that suffer with memory problems that are used to my number and virtually every person I've known for the last 30+ years knows to get me on the ***** ***597 telephone number.

---

HarryB wrote:

I'll keep you updated with any further updates I receive from our suppliers.

---

Thank you. Can you keep pushing them? Can I do anything by contacting Openreach directly?

Regards,

Peter Jones

[#3]

Thank you. Can you keep pushing them? Can I do anything by contacting Openreach directly?

We're still pushing, we have to wait for their response before we can push further.

As frustrating as this process is contacting Openreach yourself wouldn't help unfortunately. 

[#4]

---

@JonoH wrote:

---

......   The problem is it's very difficult for us or our suppliers to know if the records are incorrect before there is a problem.  As always I'd be interested in hearing any suggestions people have to improve this process.

---

To state the obvious it is a reasonable assumption that the ISPs etc have a mainly accurate number/address combination as it is key to providing the service and obtaining payment. It should be a relatively trivial task for the supplier to reconcile their database entries with those of their customers and act upon any differences to ensure the database is correct.

From what has been said, it appears only phone number is given to the losing service provider. In the interim, if the supplier provides both number and address it would be trivial for the service provider (their customer) to check and notify any discrepancy.

However, I think a pig just passed my upstairs window

Phil

[#5]

---

---

PeeGee wrote:

To state the obvious it is a reasonable assumption that the ISPs etc have a mainly accurate number/address combination as it is key to providing the service and obtaining payment. It should be a relatively trivial task for the supplier to reconcile their database entries with those of their customers and act upon any differences to ensure the database is correct.

---

The problem occurs when the addresses are very similar as in this case, and syncing our databases would cause problems, whos would have primacy? I have seen first hand mistakes in both sets of records.

[#6]

One would hope that the owner of the infrastructure had an accurate record of where they put it ... and maintained changes to the place's description by cross reference to the PAF.

I await the appearance of the FP from Phil's place!

[#7]

@JonoH   It appears, based upon forum comments, that everyone uses the same database to effect orders - that should be the primary database and needs to be correct. Databases should not be synced but errors corrected by determining the correct data; not guessing which variant is correct.

@Townman   In a forum where readers are of varied backgrounds and knowledge, it is preferable to use the military approach which can be summarised as "The first occurrence of an abbreviation should be in parentheses immediately following the expression that it represents".

Phil

[#8]

@phj

I've tried to call your Son to discuss the account and what our plans are to resolve this as sonn as possible, the below is basically the ticket harry added to your account earlier, with some things slightly changed as I thought it was important not to try to hide anything from the community.

Further to @HarryB's response we have had a response from our suppliers, however I'm afraid it is not the response we were hoping for.

Unfortunately the new provider of the line have had this re-routed to the address it is actually registered to in Openreach systems.

As the line is now provided at the address it is registered to on Openreach systems, and is now also working at the property, we will now have to arrange for a new line to be installed at your address.

As your address does not actually exist (Or more accurately is outdated) on Openreach systems, the type of order we have had to place will require our suppliers to perform a survey to assess hot to

Generally it takes around 5 working days for our suppliers to get back to us with results from their survey, followed by either a review date if further work is required, or an engineer appointment to install the new line if all the existing line plant is in place already.

 With this order type we are not given an option to select a preferred phone number, so we will have to wait until after the line has been installed to try and renumber the line back to your previous telephone number (we still cannot guarantee this will be a success)

In addition to this, we unfortunately cannot currently place a broadband order due to the address being outdated on Openreach systems. Once the line has been installed, this should update and reflect the relevant available broadband products for us to be able to proceed with re-providing your broadband.

[#9]

What an absolute mess! Are you suggesting that the OP's line has been taken over by the neighbour just because the addresses are similar. I fail to understand how that can happen, are there no checks made on the phone number, which was obviously on a working line? BT need some high level pressure to get their systems sorted out, but unfortunately I don't think PlusNet with do anything about it.

[#10]

@JonoH,

Whilst every pragmatic process needs to be followed to sort this out, are the no industry "oh we've made a big mess of this" escalation procedures?

BTw / BTOR applying standard operating procedures just does not cut the mustard.

What does one have to do to get BT to sort out this mess arising from their failure to maintain proper records of their infrastructure? Write to the CEOs of BT, BTOR and BTw?

Surely there must be some forming "do it quickly" process? How about re-routing the existing line to the other property to the one which has had its service stolen?

Yet sgain we see the BT are a total shambles and Plusnet suffers reputational damage and the cost of putting right BT's mistakes. How much more will it take for PN to make a formal complaint to Ofcom ... but then they are not likely to do anything useful this side of hell freezing over!

Some times I wonder how you guys can face yet another day dealing with such incompetence from your suppliers!

[#11]

If the Superusers can't flag this issue up to the senior management of Plusnet so that this can be discussed with equivalent level of management at BTOR, then I fail to see the point of Superusers.

It's not just a failing of BTOR here, @JonoH has already confirmed that a letter wasn't sent to the OP. Neither are their systems capable of flagging a potential error by the raising of an invoice for cancellation charges of over £200.

I hope that Plusnet offer the OP significant and appropriate compensation.

[#12]

@maranello,

Why do you persist in looking at consequential symptoms here?

The root cause failure here is poor quality BTOR data and an inadequate process for taking over a line / broadband service.  Even if PN had sent a paper letter, there is still a significant risk that it might not have been delivered, or the user was not around to receive it. A process which allows unauthorised take over of service by design will lead to situations such as this - it's inevitable.

Full protection from this kind of debacle will only be achieved by a return to a MAC like process for BOTH phone and broadband.  Such is way beyond the reach of the super user programme.

[#13]

---

@Townman wrote:

@maranello,

Why do you persist in looking at consequential symptoms here?

---

Because no system is perfect, mistakes happen, and as a customer of an ISP  rather than a supplier that is where the accountability lies. 

@Townman Can I suggest that instead of further discussion of this issue on this thread we agree to differ on our views on which organisation is failing the OP, and leave this thread for the OP and Plusnet to report on progress/resolution of the OP's woeful situation.

[#14]

Townman wrote:
Whilst every pragmatic process needs to be followed to sort this out, are the no industry "oh we've made a big mess of this" escalation procedures?

Yeah, we've already raised this to our suppliers "Directors Services Offices" as a DSO escalation. That's the highest escalation point we have, we have to wait for them to accept or reject this and we're expecting a response from them this morning.

Townman wrote:
What does one have to do to get BT to sort out this mess arising from their failure to maintain proper records of their infrastructure? Write to the CEOs of BT, BTOR and BTw?

That probably wouldn't make a difference in this case as it's already been submitted to for a DSO escalation , however as I always it's absolutely the customers right to complain in whichever way they prefer.

Townman wrote:

Surely there must be some forming "do it quickly" process? How about re-routing the existing line to the other property to the one which has had its service stolen?

Even though this is makes sense from our point of view as it is a customer of ours that is left without service, all this does is move the problem to another individual and our suppliers won't allow this to happen as from their point of view the line is routed to the correct address now.

maranello wrote:

If the Superusers can't flag this issue up to the senior management of Plusnet so that this can be discussed with equivalent level of management at BTOR, then I fail to see the point of Superusers.

I'm sure the Superusers won't mind me saying that this individual case is being discussed in their private area of these boards, Superusers can then choose what processes/problems/issues they wish to raise with the relevant senior people. I'd imagine its unlikely to be individual cases like this, more like seeking an improvement to the root causes of frequently seen issues.

maranello wrote:

It's not just a failing of BTOR here, @JonoH has already confirmed that a letter wasn't sent to the OP.

Slightly unfair, we did send a a letter via email, we just didn't also send it via normal mail as we normally would, this wasn't done on purpose and as explained earlier is a data matching error. No process will work correctly 100% of the time, our accuracy is currently over 90% we know it's not good enough and we're working on ways to improve that as we speak.

Neither are their systems capable of flagging a potential error by the raising of an invoice for cancellation charges of over £200.

This is part of the direct debit process, once we submit a request for payment we are unable to edit or withdraw it. This as far as I am aware is the same for all companies and is not a failure of systems.

[#15]

Hello @JonoH @HarryB

Thank you for the updates.

---

@JonoH wrote:

Neither are their systems capable of flagging a potential error by the raising of an invoice for cancellation charges of over £200.

This is part of the direct debit process, once we submit a request for payment we are unable to edit or withdraw it. This as far as I am aware is the same for all companies and is not a failure of systems.

---

I think the point being made here is not so much the lack of being able to edit the direct debit, more that the £200+ charge to break the contract only four months in did nothing to raise a suspicion this whole debacle started from an erroneous request.

@JonoH wrote:

As your address does not actually exist (Or more accurately is outdated) on Openreach systems, the type of order we have had to place will require our suppliers to perform a survey to assess hot to

Not to split hairs here, but outdated is not correct either. My house name has never changed, nor has next door's. The Openreach system is quite simply incorrect. Both addresses have had the same hardware in terms of physical lines attached to the respective properties since they were installed decades ago.

@JonoH wrote:

With this order type we are not given an option to select a preferred phone number, so we will have to wait until after the line has been installed to try and renumber the line back to your previous telephone number (we still cannot guarantee this will be a success)

I'm surprised at this response from Openreach. When my son signed up for a new provision of phone line, he was given a choice of numbers over the phone to pick from. I'm not going to accept not getting my old number back so I suggest this escalated in the DSO process as I will take this further and further until the number ending in 597 is returned to my line. Somebody high up the management scale in Openreach must be able to knock heads together to makes sure this happens? The time and cost to me to advise a new telephone number to all and sundry who've known me to be on my 597 number for the last 30+ years is immense. This needs to be escalated high up in Openreach to make sure the restoration of my number does happen. Surely just being able to stop the number being reissued to another address could at least be done?

In addition to this, it's somewhat angering that BT (that's the new neighbour's supplier), have steamrollered their customer's requirements over mine. I guess they have more influence over Openreach? The new neighbours have now had their services provided within a couple of days of the issue beginning, yet I'm left faffing around waiting on site surveys, delayed broadband re-provision and am at risk of losing my well known telephone number. More angering is that BT, PlusNet and Openreach are effectively under the same group ownership aren't they? Why is it then that this entire mess cannot be undone more easily? The system currently in place is frankly abysmal, seemingly cumbersome and almost unworkable for the guys trying to help here at PlusNet, or indeed any other customer facing supplier.

@JonoH wrote:

Slightly unfair, we did send a a letter via email, we just didn't also send it via normal mail as we normally would, this wasn't done on purpose and as explained earlier is a data matching error. No process will work correctly 100% of the time, our accuracy is currently over 90% we know it's not good enough and we're working on ways to improve that as we speak.

This is true, an email was sent (and junked) once. This is plainly not a robust enough system. As I've suggested previously, a letter must be sent 100% of the time in future. I don't understand why the billing address cannot be used, and the meaning behind the data not being good enough to send a letter 100% of the time and only 90% of letter sent? Also, as a further suggestion for improvement, should a reminder email perhaps be sent 7 days before termination and perhaps again 3 days before termination? There's a chance one of them might get seen then! 

Kind regards,

Peter Jones