Very confusing bill April 2022

[#1]

@sg75 It is not just Plusnet - the majority of ISPs/telcos have done this.

[#2]

---

@sg75 wrote:

My contract is about 4 months old. I was paying £24 per month.

---

Which is still cheaper than 4mbps ADSL with bandwidth limits was 15 years ago!

[#3]

@Townman 

The price paid for a different service over a decade ago is irrelevant. Existing PlusNet customers are being charged more than a new PlusNet customer.

[#4]

Plusnet obviously haven't heard of plain English when it comes to explaining things.

I waited nearly 40 minutes on the phone to discuss my bill and gave up in the end as noone answered and the dire hold 'music' made it an unpleasant experience. Seeing as I can't get hold of them on the phone and they won't accept emails what are you meant to do?

I remember when the customer service was excellent. Obviously been with them too long, no such thing as looking after longstanding loyal customers. Will certainly be considering taking my buisness elsewhere on renewel.

[#5]

@rockposer 

Does post #8 not explain your first bill following the price increase?

[#6]

"Existing PlusNet customers are being charged more than a new PlusNet customer."

Indeed they are. I'm paying £29 a month for Fibre Unlimited Extra in a 2-year contract.
It's £24.99 for a new 18 month contract. Can I renew at that price 6 months early?

[#7]

Probably not, but the only people who can answer that question is COTs.

Contact Customer Options Team (aka COTS)

COTs is the place to go to if you want to find out anything to do with your contract in respect of leaving, renewing or simply enquiring about early termination charges (ETCs). They have their own number and tend to answer quicker than the general customer service number.

Direct dial numbers

• 0800 013 2632(from within the UK)
• +44 330 123 9197 (from abroad)
• Available...
  • 8am - 8pm Monday to Friday
  • 9am - 7pm Saturday
  • 9am - 6pm Sunday

[#8]

As I said in my post "Plusnet obviously haven't heard of plain English when it comes to explaining things."

The fact that more than one person has found their April bill confusing with all the additional lines speaks volumes.

Clear and concise make for better customer experiences.

[#9]

The real problem is that many users did not read beyond the summary page, to where the detail of the charging periods (dates) is made clearer.

The English is fine, if read.

The practice of retrospective adjustments in arears (which gives rise to refunds and recharges) is however a process issue, not a matter of plain English.

[#10]

I disagree.

The bill itself should be concise and in line with the previous bills. But hey ho Plusnet aren't the firm they used to be

[#11]

I hear the words, but not the point.

This is not a matter of "Plain English" but a choice over billing practices.  How is a bill which covers a change in charges supposed to be "in line with the previous bill"?  By the very fact that there is a change in charge rate part during the billing period, it cannot be exactly similar to the previous bill, where there is a single rate covering the whole period.  Concise in what way?  Just omit or hide the details?

Easy to criticise, much more difficult to come up with solutions.  Two alternatives have been suggested, neither of which will please everyone...

1. Apply the price change from the individual's next billing date - users whose billing date is immediately after the price change date will complain that they are having to pay increases before those billed later (up to a month) after the price change
2. Apply the price change on the bill prior to the increase date - this still needs part entries with detailed dates which will need to be read whatever language they are in - users will complain that they are being required to pay the increase prior to the price rise date

This is a process matter, coupled with users not looking further than the summary before seeing red; it is not a language matter - plain or otherwise.

[#12]

Your still missing the point so never mind I'll wait in vain for Plusnet themselves to respond.

It's a shame, they used to be a really good company, now their more like Talk Talk!

[#13]

I've also complained about this rapid instead of annual price rise and also got the above boilerplate reply.

As you say. it's not the sort of post that helps.

[#14]

So what would help?  Do you have something positive to contribute here?  Neither of you answered any of the questions posed.

The reason that there is a "boiler plate" reply is because the same question keeps being asked, by users who have not read the whole of the bill.  Might the answer be not to provide a simple the simple summary at the top, which otherwise works well eleven months of the year?

The issue here is that people are happy to carp - no matter which way something is done - but they are completely short of positive suggestions of what they would find more acceptable.  Unfortunately no price rises at all is not on the cards, therefore it comes down to how might the bill be presented better?

The two suggestions above have been put forward by the superusers.  They have been noted for consideration and nothing is "off the table".

If you want things to be different - possibly better - you need to generate ideas, not just carp because you can and have nothing to contribute to the community.

[#15]

@Kremmen  I would say that @Townman's boilerplate post is exactly what is required to explain the billing and is extremely helpful, Plusnet should have done something similar, it may have reduced the calls from customers complaining that their bill has gone up (it has because of a price increase) or it has gone up too much ( it has because there is a backdated amount to be added for one billing month).

Then there are others who just moan that it's not fair whatever happens.

@rockposer  In what way do you think a reply from Plusnet staff will change anything? The billing has been explained in detail in this thread.