Compensation scheme

[#1]

The Plusnet chap said it was a very unusual case, after reading through all the emails etc he spoke to his manager, and they confirmed compensation is not due, but as a gesture of goodwill they will credit my account with 29 days x £6.10 as I was misinformed from the outset about potential compensation. They were quite adamant about the ruling.

[#2]

Is an ‘upgrade of fibre to full fibre’ the provision of a new service, or to use @Johno108‘s words, an upgrade of an existing service? 

Is the change from fibre to SOGEA the provision of a new service? Where do you draw the line?

[#3]

And this is where the lawyers step in.

In either of the cases described above if there is a change in provider (and the given date is a CONFIRMED date) then there is no question that compensation would be payable. Whatever, the measure of failure is set against Openreach’s performance / failure. Valid claims are reimbursed by OR

This case pivots on the precise wording of the email referencing the 24th September. Previously we have seen FTTP stage 1 / complex installation communications (“we aim to”) as being CONFIRMED activation dates as relevant in the compensation scheme.

As with many business processes there’s devil in the details - and some staff will get things wrong. Such infuriated me when working, but I got told it’s part of being human!! If BTOR are not backing the failure, then the best one might get is Plusnet’s goodwill offers.

[#4]

For such a small amount the moment someone mentions Lawyers I'd just accept the offer and say "Thank You".

[#5]

In my case, Plusnet staff appeared to offer the compensation as an incentive/insurance as a way of keeping me happy to wait for 2/3 months before full fibre was installed. Otherwise I may have looked elsewhere. Then after 30 days after install the goal posts had moved again! Hence the goodwill gesture.

[#6]

If it is a confirmed date then I would expect there to be an associated agreed am/pm appointment for the final installation.

[#7]

Plusnet fully accept they gave me a confirmed date. The issue is (Their argument) I did not lose any service during the delay. The date is not in question, an upgrade to full fibre in their eyes does not qualify you for compensation if no break in service.

[#8]

I did eventually accept the offer but the whole situation seemed very woolly, Just thought I would put it out to the community for feedback.

[#9]

I escalated this case and today received a full explanation. As I said previously …

“ This case pivots on the precise wording of the email referencing the 24th September. Previously we have seen FTTP stage 1 / complex installation communications (“we aim to”) as being [misunderstood to be] CONFIRMED activation dates as relevant in the compensation scheme. ”

That is a key matter to which you did not reply, nor did you mention that there was another date provided for the final install. On rereading the above was not as clear as it could have been [as amended above].

Sometimes FTTP will be a two stage installation with two dates provided - the first is to install the CSP and the second is to install the ONT and commission the services. With respect to the compensation scheme, the CONFIRMED date is the date of the latter.

The compensation scheme has always been clear that it relevant date is the CONFIRMED date, not a provisional date, nor the CSP install date if a split installation is found to be necessary.

[#10]

Plusnet have stated compensation is NOT payable (when changing packages in house) if there is no interuption to any service. So any communication with planned dates is irrelevant.

[#11]

That’s a very different statement to the escalation feedback.

There is nothing to support the reported explanation documented in the compensation scheme; someone is being economical in the circumstances. However, there is evidence to support the characteristic of the communicated dates. The difference between a provisional date, a date for a pre-install and a CONFIRMED date for service commissioning is a difference which needs better clarification.