OK, BT plc t/a BT Wholesale try to charge us for SFI2 engineers to fix a broadband fault (if the line meets SIN349)...
But Talk Talk are going further.
TalkTalk Communications t/a TalkTalk Business are charging us for exchange work. Re-jumpering the line in the exchange.
You really do not get much more "their side of the demarcation point (master socket)" than that!
We will never pay any broadband provider any extra to fix the broadband service they already sell us. That is about as simple as you can get.
One of our guys (Stuart) actually dug out and quoted sections from the Fraud Act in explaining this. Well done Stuart. Yes, it may even be CRIMINAL FRAUD for people to try and extort money from us to fix the service we already buy from them, in my opinion.
We'll try and keep it breach of contract and not involve the police at this stage, but it is an interesting option...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Deliveries from China
I have PCBs made in China (well Hong Kong). This is all my many small PCB projects (not FireBrick). I would rather use UK suppliers but I am...
-
Broadband services are a wonderful innovation of our time, using multiple frequency bands (hence the name) to carry signals over wires (us... -
For many years I used a small stand-alone air-conditioning unit in my study (the box room in the house) and I even had a hole in the wall fo... -
It seems there is something of a standard test string for anti virus ( wikipedia has more on this). The idea is that systems that look fo...
Adds insult to injury really doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteI guess they are thinking well, we pass on the SFI2 charges already, so let's pass all other Openreach charges on as well (as I imagine the actual jumpering is done by Openreach engineers and not TalkTalk ones) - someone hasn't really thought it through.
ReplyDeleteThe only situation I can imagine it being justified is if they didn't believe a re-jumper would solve the underlying problem, but you insisted on them doing it anyway, and indeed it didn't solve the issue - I'm guessing this is not the case here, and even so they should have stated in advance that the charge would be made if it didn't fix it...
Fraud under the Fraud Act 2006 requires dishonesty. BT would probably state that they're incompetent, rather than dishonest.
ReplyDelete