Home Move Confusion

[#1]

Quote from: Anotherone

Well according to the OFCOM rules quoted in this thread it seems Plusnet should be getting onto Sky and requesting removal of the cease.

We're not allowed to get onto Sky on and EU's behalf to be honest.
Theoretically; if I got an email from Sky asking me to cancel an order I've placed, then I'd immediately be suspicious as to why. I know it's hard work for the end user, but personally I'd prefer that than letting your ISP become your spokesman.

[#2]

So what about these OFCOM rules Matty?
@NMennell
You definitely need to get onto OFCOM, if Plusnet are indeed "not allowed" to contact Sky, then Sky's action is preventing a seamless hassle-free transfer and OFCOM's rules are not fit for purpose. As I said previously, don't be fobbed -off, make a formal complaint to OFCOM about their own rules. They need to be amended. This problem comes up time and time again.

[#3]

Quote

Ofcom has today decided that consumers only need follow a single switching process in future, in which the new provider leads the transfer process on behalf of the consumer. Under this 'gaining provider led' process, which is already in use for most landline and broadband switches, consumers will no longer need to contact their existing provider.

These ones?
Under this circumstance we didn't need the end user to contact Sky. We still had everything we need to get the end user up and running. However, it really isn't the most cost effective way, and it results in downtime.
That being said, Sky wasn't really technically the EU's old provider as he was moving into the property so I'm not even sure if it would apply.

[#4]

Well, it's clearly a debatable point, but what is quite clear is that current OFCOM rules, or lack of clarity therein, prevent seamless hassle-free transfers in these situations and something needs to be done about it.

[#5]

I think MattyC may have hit upon a point that is confusing the whole situation and needs clarifying.
The wording we are referring to (and I don't know if OFCOM have made any clearer statements) does primarily seem to relate to a customer changing service providers while remaining at the property.
What we haven't seen (and it may not exist) is guidance about moving into a property and taking over a line that previously had phone & broadband services (supplied to someone else) and changing these to a new resident customer and/or new supplier(s).
Back in "the old days" BT (and the GPO before them!) were remarkably relaxed about this situation (as long as someone paid), but then there was no competition.
I recall that when my father died BT just cancelled any outstanding bills and left the line running (and didn't block outgoing calls) until his house was sold and the new owner just took it over immediately.
A question (or 3) for PN - does such guidance exist? Do PN have their own internal guidelines? Is there any guidance for "departing" customers that would ease the takeover for those moving in?

[#6]

I'm not sure how much literature there is on this as the majority of OFCOM ruling is dictated to guide a single end users experience, rather than potential incoming end users (correct me if I'm wrong there).
For Plusnet, we will cancel the cease if the existing customer who is leaving the property asks. If someone moved into that property and signed up with Sky, then rang Plusnet to ask to remove the cease we wouldn't do it. This is because of DPA procedures, amongst other things.
We treat these cases differently based on the circumstance, and don't have a stonewall procedure as far as I know. So if they ask to keep the line active for a new customer, then fine. We will charge them up until the switchover date. For "departing" customers; if you are friendly with the people moving in, then maybe you can agree to keep the line on.
If a customer is in a house move with us, we will cease the line at the old place unless somebody has already placed an order on it.
Hope this clarifies it a bit more from our side anyway.
Matty

[#7]

The real point is that a cease order made by a losing CP (which can seem quite reasonable if someone is moving/cancelling a line) should not inhibit an order for the take-over of the line by another CP (even if it's for a new customer, rather than a transferring customer).
In such cases the line itself should not cease as such, merely the accounts that had been previously associated with it.
At the instant that cease comes into effect the new provide should become effective immediately without any delays due to the new CP having been blocked from placing an order on the line until that time.
Clearly there may be a short break in service where some jumpering is required at the exchange if there's a change to MPF/SMPF.
But the delays are caused by either the way Openreach choose to operate (which clearly causes great inconvenience for the EU) or lack of clarity or a specifc rule from OFCOM. It's clearly OFCOM's responsibility to resolve this.

[#8]

Quote from: Anotherone

The real point is that a cease order made by a losing CP (which can seem quite reasonable if someone is moving/cancelling a line) should not inhibit an order for the take-over of the line by another CP (even if it's for a new customer, rather than a transferring customer).

I agree, but the company who is in ownership of the line will always have their orders take priority over a new provider.

[#9]

I may be getting confused with something else, but wasn't part of the tighter rules (and inbuilt waits) around this put in place to stop "slamming"?
That said, there ought to be some way, which would probably require the cooperation of the "mover out" to bypass any resulting block.
Not sure where/what needs to change though as I don't know enough about the specifics of the processes in the various organisations involved and external rules applied.
Remember, potentially we are talking about at least 4 different consumer suppliers plus various "arms" of BT and OFCOM, so there's plenty of opportunity for jobsworthness!

[#10]

Quote from: MattyC

I agree, but the company who is in ownership of the line will always have their orders take priority over a new provider.

That rather detracts from what I am saying. If they have placed a cease order, then they are giving up "ownership" of the line - not that it belonged to anyone else other than Openreach of course.
@HP, not really, under the present system, BB is an asset on the phone line, so the phone line order has to be in place (and I believe completed) before a BB order can be put in, although if the same CP is providing both services they can place an order for a simultaneous provide. This has nothing to do with slamming and in any event is irrelevant when the current provider has placed a cease. In a slam situation there is merely the order to take over the line and that is where the "delay" is required so that the losing CP can notify the EU to check that's what is happening.