Changing users on exisiting PlusNet service
I do not have a problem, however I am seeking clarity for users having difficulty in managing change of user details on existing PlusNet provisioned lines.
There are times in the customer relationship life cycle where a requirement to "transfer ownership" (billing responsibility) for an existing PlusNet managed service from one person to another arises. For example where the bill paying spouse (or parent) dies and there is a desire to simply take over the existing services as is. Similar situations arise where the bill payer leaves the household (separation, growing up and leaving home, moving into residential care) and someone else wants to take over the service as is.
There have been a number of recent posts where people have been faced with difficulty due to there being (or there needs to be) a cease placed on the line in order to effect the change in billing details. As we all know whilst there is an open cease order on a line, no other order can be placed on that line until the date of execution of the cease and BTOR's cash-register goes "cah-ching". This seems like total madness and is quite different to my experience of transferring billing responsibility with my business service in March this year.
Cease of an existing PlusNet service and re-provision of a PlusNet service appears inconvenient for every one and simply lines BTOR's coffers with even more ill-gotten dosh - £30 BB cease - £50 reconnection - £xx BB provision - where all that is required here is an internal PlusNet commercial change of billing details for the service. No agro for the customer, less BTOR / BTw contact for PlusNet and less no-effort revenues for BTx - seems like it is a winner for all of the important people and remove nugatory work from over worked BTx staff and systems.
When I left my business premises, I gave PlusNet the required notice period and then when I knew who the new tenants of the build were, I put them in contact with PlusNet, with details of the existing service / account having advised PlusNet that I agreed to them taking over the service. All went like clockwork - no fees to BTOR - no cease / provide fees to either of PlusNet's customers - PlusNet replaces one customer with another with no recruitment over heads... and I might add I got another referral. EVERYBODY IS HAPPY.
Of recent days there have been numerous posts from people finding it not quite so smooth to take over a line. Indeed on one thread Adam Walker has said that it is not possible due to 999 regulations.
A thread at the time of posting this has not had a CRT response.
How does the above apply in the context of numbers not being listed in the directory (which is what ex-directory means and is the default for all PN subscribers)? Surely if this is a requirement, cannot this be updated without a cease and re-provide procedure or indeed is it all just a cynical plot to generate revenues for BT Wholesale and BTOR and to hell with the needs of the real customers - CPs, ISPs and end users alike?
The above would rather suggest that where the current line owner PlusNet are quite content to ask the present subscriber to cancel the cease so that (sensibility) the line take orders can be placed and processed. This would seem to be contrary to the context of the regulatory reason referred to by Adam and indeed could appear to be double standards. the above cases seems to suggest that if the existing provider is not PlusNet there does not need to be a cease placed on the line - we will process it quicker as a take-over. However if the existing supplier is PlusNet, then it MUST go through a cease and wait for a re-provide
So in summary, have this changed so drastically in the wrong direction since the excellent service I received in March, or is there a need for a little education around the piece?
Cheers,
Kevin
There are times in the customer relationship life cycle where a requirement to "transfer ownership" (billing responsibility) for an existing PlusNet managed service from one person to another arises. For example where the bill paying spouse (or parent) dies and there is a desire to simply take over the existing services as is. Similar situations arise where the bill payer leaves the household (separation, growing up and leaving home, moving into residential care) and someone else wants to take over the service as is.
There have been a number of recent posts where people have been faced with difficulty due to there being (or there needs to be) a cease placed on the line in order to effect the change in billing details. As we all know whilst there is an open cease order on a line, no other order can be placed on that line until the date of execution of the cease and BTOR's cash-register goes "cah-ching". This seems like total madness and is quite different to my experience of transferring billing responsibility with my business service in March this year.
Cease of an existing PlusNet service and re-provision of a PlusNet service appears inconvenient for every one and simply lines BTOR's coffers with even more ill-gotten dosh - £30 BB cease - £50 reconnection - £xx BB provision - where all that is required here is an internal PlusNet commercial change of billing details for the service. No agro for the customer, less BTOR / BTw contact for PlusNet and less no-effort revenues for BTx - seems like it is a winner for all of the important people and remove nugatory work from over worked BTx staff and systems.
When I left my business premises, I gave PlusNet the required notice period and then when I knew who the new tenants of the build were, I put them in contact with PlusNet, with details of the existing service / account having advised PlusNet that I agreed to them taking over the service. All went like clockwork - no fees to BTOR - no cease / provide fees to either of PlusNet's customers - PlusNet replaces one customer with another with no recruitment over heads... and I might add I got another referral. EVERYBODY IS HAPPY.
Of recent days there have been numerous posts from people finding it not quite so smooth to take over a line. Indeed on one thread Adam Walker has said that it is not possible due to 999 regulations.
Quote from: anthony1968 After being removed from my property (unemployed) I'm no long able to keep up the payments, however the other tenant is quite willing to take on the phone/broadband direct debit.
Can somebody advise how to go about this.
Thanks in advance
A thread at the time of posting this has not had a CRT response.
Quote from: MJN On the 27th November we received a notification (ticket ref 95214648) advising us that the previous occupier had placed a cease order (which we now know was captured under ticket ref 94457028) on the line and hence, if this were allowed to continue, we would have to pay a £49.99 (re)activation fee. It was 'highly recommended' to us that we contacted the previous occupier and request them to cancel the cease order to not only avoid the fee but to not delay matters further.
This was done (see their ticket ref 95375598), just in the nick of time as it happens because it turns out they are in the process of emigrating to Australia. We also found out the previous occupier was also a Plusnet customer and so presumably this could only help matters? Well, apparently not...
Quote from: _Adam_Walker_ There is a regulatory reason as to why we can't transfer the ownership of a line from one person to another. It's because the directory entry (as used in the event of a 999 call) must reflect that of the line owner. The only way to resolve this is by ceasing and re-providing the line.
How does the above apply in the context of numbers not being listed in the directory (which is what ex-directory means and is the default for all PN subscribers)? Surely if this is a requirement, cannot this be updated without a cease and re-provide procedure or indeed is it all just a cynical plot to generate revenues for BT Wholesale and BTOR and to hell with the needs of the real customers - CPs, ISPs and end users alike?
Quote from: kamcnally A couple of days ago I received a text which says "There is currently a stop order on the phone line with the current provider which is due to complete on 12-Dec-2014 and this is preventing us from placing your order.Please can you contact the current provider to get this removed and then contact us ..."
Quote from: MJN One gotcha with this is if the previous provider is also Plusnet. In such cases a cease-and-reconnect is unfortunately the only option.
The above would rather suggest that where the current line owner PlusNet are quite content to ask the present subscriber to cancel the cease so that (sensibility) the line take orders can be placed and processed. This would seem to be contrary to the context of the regulatory reason referred to by Adam and indeed could appear to be double standards. the above cases seems to suggest that if the existing provider is not PlusNet there does not need to be a cease placed on the line - we will process it quicker as a take-over. However if the existing supplier is PlusNet, then it MUST go through a cease and wait for a re-provide
So in summary, have this changed so drastically in the wrong direction since the excellent service I received in March, or is there a need for a little education around the piece?
Cheers,
Kevin
Hi Chris,
Thank you, that is succinctly crystal clear in respect of presently owned by PN lines. It must be new guidance since March as my service reassignment (including setting up a new account) avoided the nugatory BTOR cease and re-provide expense.
Why then would PlusNet expect a different "approach" be acceptable to 3rd parties in respect of another present supplier not mandating a cease, as in the numerous instances where new-sign-ups are "recommended" to get the existing line owner / subscriber to lift the pending cease so that PlusNet can get the takeover of the line ordered for the required date in advance of that date.
It seems that the latter is most sensible, logical and beneficial to everyone. What you have described seems ... shall I just say ... not as helpful or as cost effective as the excellent service I had in March this year. I can only conclude that there has been a change in policy for some undisclosed reason(s).
I hope that the industry is working on making all of this much easier for end users.
@MJN if you come along this way - sorry!
Cheers,
Kevin
Thank you, that is succinctly crystal clear in respect of presently owned by PN lines. It must be new guidance since March as my service reassignment (including setting up a new account) avoided the nugatory BTOR cease and re-provide expense.
Why then would PlusNet expect a different "approach" be acceptable to 3rd parties in respect of another present supplier not mandating a cease, as in the numerous instances where new-sign-ups are "recommended" to get the existing line owner / subscriber to lift the pending cease so that PlusNet can get the takeover of the line ordered for the required date in advance of that date.
It seems that the latter is most sensible, logical and beneficial to everyone. What you have described seems ... shall I just say ... not as helpful or as cost effective as the excellent service I had in March this year. I can only conclude that there has been a change in policy for some undisclosed reason(s).
I hope that the industry is working on making all of this much easier for end users.
@MJN if you come along this way - sorry!
Cheers,
Kevin
