arren's Rabbit Run"Please forgive the delay in this update - mostly I was waiting for various BT operatives, blah-blah. So, after much ado, another OpenReach engineer arrived, identified at least one external BT network cable fault, diagnosed another probable issue with something he called unexplained "spiking" - which he declined to further investigate. He did check back, as promised [unlike the first OpenReach guys], and it all tested fine ... HOWEVER only on one of my machines. The other is currently being investigated for network card issues. I've already been told by the highly experienced computer engineers who built my machine that it's at least a possibility that the external network faults may have had an effect on my card. That's still in train. One of the junior Newcastle tech complaints team has been authorised to offer me 3 months of free broadband as a "goodwill" gesture. Following is the message I've just sent him - which I hope may prove helpful to others who depend on an uninterrupted broadband service.
Thank for your message. I trust the below will address your comments therein.
As a general comment, I am not merely seeking some form of arbitrary "goodwill payment," as that begs the question of contractual breaches of service under the agreement I signed at the suggestion of Warren Buckley, and for which I've been paying at a premium rate.
I will not at this stage quote from the terms of service which I signed; I assume you are also familiar with them. BT has demonstrably failed me with direct relevance to those terms.
You categorise a total lack of a paid-for service over months as something for which I am "unhappy." Your message fails to deal with the breach and any of the substantive matters arising therefrom, including the effect on my health. As I'm sure you're aware by now, I suffer from a chronic life-threatening heart condition, for which I'm being treated at home with sanctions to avoid undue stress and with appropriate medication; I'm under the care of both my GP and a prominent cardiologist. BT has already been provided with a letter relating to my condition. I had previously been assured that letter would be added to my account information, but it appears that none of the operatives I've had contact with had any knowledge of it. This has meant that each time I had contact with a different operative at whatever level I needed to explain again the effect that the broadband network cabling fault was having on my health. The word "unhappy" is completely inappropriate in these circumstances.
If you're only able to deal with the standard customer service "goodwill" category of recompense, then, as stated in previous messages, I will need to negotiate with someone more senior to Tony Kidd. I strongly protest your unilateral assertion to refuse to escalate the matter. It goes to those of my rights which supersede BT's terms under UK law. If your remit does not include addressing the essence of my complaint, and you continue to refuse to escalate the matter, that will need to be taken into account in the event of any further action.
In answer to your request:
Your message implies several false assumptions. I can only assume these have been extrapolated from an OpenReach report précis, the full contents of which I understand I'm entitled to see. In that regard, you have not yet provided me either with that report and all the relevant internal documentation without my having to set in train an SAR request under my rights according to the Data Protection Act. I hope you acknowledge such action would only serve to prolong this already extruded matter, and put my own health at further risk.
As an aside, I have tried, and stated previously in writing that I have tried against all odds, to be extremely patient and polite in dealing with this matter. I only "lost it" once in a telephone conversation with one of your colleagues, and that was because the symptoms of my chronic heart condition were escalating to a major stress attack. What I'd been trying to do in that conversation was to avoid wasting time by having OpenReach reiterate what had already been dealt with, apparently.
Since I reported the total drop-out of my broadband connection in November 2014, your message indicates that BT deems that I have had "regular use of my broadband." No matter how many GBs of data I may or may not have used, especially in light of the paid-for unlimited nature of my alleged service, the words "regular use" imply the service was in any sense continual. This implication directly contradicts the repeated reports I lodged that the service was being disconnected about every 1½ - 2 hours. I don't believe that can be accepted as a definition of "continual."
It is almost irrelevant that the connection could be reinstated by a re-boot of my machine, because during the inevitable drop-out I lost service in various reported online transactions. These included uniquely-coded streamed viewings in preparation for my participation as one of the voters of the BAFTA film and television awards; and in ordering various items online, which is essential, as due to my vulnerable and chronic heart condition I can no longer shop for anything, except that I do so online. eMail drop-outs also have an additional detrimental effect on my health, in that I need to renew prescriptions online and arrange collection times - this is for my dependence on vital heart and related medication. Thus, the disruption of my so-called premium broadband service has had severe effects on my vital usage.
As just one example: some time after I'd reported the fault I was attempting to order my shopping online. This can take me several hours as I buy in bulk to minimize deliveries. In the middle of ordering and starting payment, the broadband connection failed and I lost all the items in the shopping basket. I had to do it all again, and the next day, to waste more time trying to track down whether or not any of the payment procedure had already been started. This is an example of how a BT network cable fault can affect coronary stress levels.
I do not consider your so-called arbitrary "goodwill" discretion goes anywhere near compensating me for such a contractual breach.
I agree that only after several months of completely unacceptable treatment by a variety of well-meaning but inadequate customer service operatives, you personally did arrange to send yet another OpenReach engineer.
You fail to refer to the first OpenReach engineer visit on 12 December - at least six weeks after I first reported the fault - during which a BT network cable fault was identified and reported to have been fixed, but after which the problem of broadband disconnection every two hours continued on my internet access. You also fail to mention that visit was never followed up, and that the incident was nevertheless deemed closed. The only sliver of the report which was verbally quoted to me, and which I strongly contest as untrue, states that engineer "demonstrated" the network cable had been fixed. No such demonstration was provided, either at the time or afterward. And no effort was made to assess the situation two hours after the visit, which is the only way anyone could have ascertained whether or not my broadband service had been re-instated on the basis of the terms and conditions of my contract.
You also fail to mention that when I again tried to report the continuation of the fault I was told that because the matter had been closed I would need to begin the process all over again, starting with the same junior level of operatives. None of these appeared to be aware of any current status, either of the case nor of the vulnerable position regarding my health.
I have, of course, kept a record of all the personnel with whom I've had contact since the beginning of November 2014. I also have kept a diary of typical connection drop-outs over a period of about two days. These will probably prove useful in any further action regarding this matter.
I find the following quote from your message highly insulting and based either directly on misinformation or upon your mis-interpretation of the engineer's report.
"The engineer I sent last week appears to have found a fault but it's difficult to understand exactly how much this was affecting your service, given that there were possible issues with your own PC identified."
The engineer didn't just "appear" to have found a fault, he showed me the abnormal reading on his hand-held tester [JDSU]. He also asserted to me that he'd identified an anomaly in network cabling spikes, which he declined to investigate further at that time. Further, it's incontrovertible how much this was affecting my service - to the extent I didn't have the full premium service defined in my contract. I didn't have it from at least the beginning of November 2014.
You either failed to mention, or seem to be unaware, that before this engineer identified yet another network cable fault, my own internet connection was tested with both my machines. The connection on both was continually dead after about two hours. I have since had a highly experienced computer company [with whom I've been dealing for over 25 years] try to diagnose any internal issues.
Have you deliberately failed to mention, or were you not informed, that only after the most recent engineer professed to have fixed the identified BT network cable fault, was I able for the first time since November to enjoy the premium unlimited broadband connection on my 2nd machine. Furthermore, the investigating computer company has assured me that there is every possibility that the continual and ongoing BT network cable fault may itself have caused the network card on my other machine to malfunction. It has already been established by the OpenReach engineer that it was not my Ethernet port which was faulty. In fact, the first engineer categorically stated that none of the fault was due to any equipment in my flat. When I requested he put that in writing, he said he was not permitted to do that, but that he would put it in his report. So either he failed to do that, or somehow that item in his report was not made known to you. He also said I was not allowed to see his report, which I later discovered was not, in fact, true.
If you cannot categorically prove otherwise with regard to my own equipment, I request that you withdraw the comment quoted above which provides a false insinuation. I realise you are likely to have formulated all the phrases in your message based on some corporate legal instruction to protect the company against any future action. That cannot be my concern. Your wording potentially implicates me at BT's expense. That is unacceptable. I have always acted and continue to act in good faith, borne out by decades as a BT customer.
In addition to all the above, you may or may not be aware of some tangential external BT network cable problems affecting other broadband customers in this private park. I have only recently become aware of the extent of these, and I state them here in full knowledge that I am not attempting to report them as faults on the phone lines of any other customer. I mention them since the network cable faults identified as depriving me of a premium broadband service have also been affecting others; that is despite categorical assurances by some of your operatives that no other household in my immediate area was experiencing broadband network faults. That was clearly either a lie or an inference based on insufficient information. I assume, in the event this matter is taken further in a legal sense, the synchronicity of such multiple faults will be of interest. They comprise two other flats in this converted mid-19th century stately home which is sited within the grounds of private parkland; and one semi-detached 3-story home also sited within the park. The owners of these properties would be willing to testify in the event that further action is required.
In consideration of all the above, following is a list what I consider might compensate for the outrageous and potentially illegal treatment I've received.
As I understand your remit, it is to deal solely with the quality of treatment I've received in reaction to my perfectly reasonable complaint. But I am seeking redress for the actual substance of my complaint - as documented in various exchanges since November 2014.
If, in your relatively junior position within the company, you cannot address these matters, I repeat my request to deal with someone at a more senior level than your line manager Tony Kidd. It would seem logical that these matters go beyond the remit of customer service.
1. A full written apology on BT headquarters letterhead and signed by someone in senior management in a corporate department separate from customer service. This apology should encompass corporate responsibility for the lies I have been told by various customer service operatives, as documented; and the failure to take seriously the vulnerable state of my physical health.
2. An acknowledgement that the delay in addressing the substance of my complaint not only countermands the terms and conditions of my contract, but has provoked a serious effect on the precarious chronic heart condition from which I suffer and which BT has been aware of for over two years [as per a letter from my doctor].
3a. A clear written assurance that my own records will be permanently amended to include reference to my vulnerable health condition, as implied in BT's agreement with Ofcom.
3b. A clear written assurance that if I have cause to complain about BT-provided equipment or loss of paid-for service, etc that my records will permanently show the address of such complaint be deemed to receive priority treatment.
3c. I do not ever again want to have to endanger my health by dealing with scores of junior customer service operatives who are briefed not to escalate any reported problem - as was continually the case in this instance. Therefore I will expect a written statement confirming that all this has actually been done.
4. A discretionary amount of money deemed adequate by mutual negotiation and not presented unilaterally by you in compensation for the disruption to my broadband usage as a factor of the several specific projects explained in detail in various previous communications, and to the detrimental effects thereto. This amount to be made as a monetary deposit to my bank account within a defined time limit, and to be apart from any so-called "goodwill" allowance of free monthly broadband access. I believe consideration via the lower courts when dealing with similar matters is capped at £10,000.
Thank you for your attention. I await your reply.
As a general comment, I am not merely seeking some form of arbitrary "goodwill payment," as that begs the question of contractual breaches of service under the agreement I signed at the suggestion of Warren Buckley, and for which I've been paying at a premium rate.
I will not at this stage quote from the terms of service which I signed; I assume you are also familiar with them. BT has demonstrably failed me with direct relevance to those terms.
You categorise a total lack of a paid-for service over months as something for which I am "unhappy." Your message fails to deal with the breach and any of the substantive matters arising therefrom, including the effect on my health. As I'm sure you're aware by now, I suffer from a chronic life-threatening heart condition, for which I'm being treated at home with sanctions to avoid undue stress and with appropriate medication; I'm under the care of both my GP and a prominent cardiologist. BT has already been provided with a letter relating to my condition. I had previously been assured that letter would be added to my account information, but it appears that none of the operatives I've had contact with had any knowledge of it. This has meant that each time I had contact with a different operative at whatever level I needed to explain again the effect that the broadband network cabling fault was having on my health. The word "unhappy" is completely inappropriate in these circumstances.
If you're only able to deal with the standard customer service "goodwill" category of recompense, then, as stated in previous messages, I will need to negotiate with someone more senior to Tony Kidd. I strongly protest your unilateral assertion to refuse to escalate the matter. It goes to those of my rights which supersede BT's terms under UK law. If your remit does not include addressing the essence of my complaint, and you continue to refuse to escalate the matter, that will need to be taken into account in the event of any further action.
In answer to your request:
Your message implies several false assumptions. I can only assume these have been extrapolated from an OpenReach report précis, the full contents of which I understand I'm entitled to see. In that regard, you have not yet provided me either with that report and all the relevant internal documentation without my having to set in train an SAR request under my rights according to the Data Protection Act. I hope you acknowledge such action would only serve to prolong this already extruded matter, and put my own health at further risk.
As an aside, I have tried, and stated previously in writing that I have tried against all odds, to be extremely patient and polite in dealing with this matter. I only "lost it" once in a telephone conversation with one of your colleagues, and that was because the symptoms of my chronic heart condition were escalating to a major stress attack. What I'd been trying to do in that conversation was to avoid wasting time by having OpenReach reiterate what had already been dealt with, apparently.
Since I reported the total drop-out of my broadband connection in November 2014, your message indicates that BT deems that I have had "regular use of my broadband." No matter how many GBs of data I may or may not have used, especially in light of the paid-for unlimited nature of my alleged service, the words "regular use" imply the service was in any sense continual. This implication directly contradicts the repeated reports I lodged that the service was being disconnected about every 1½ - 2 hours. I don't believe that can be accepted as a definition of "continual."
It is almost irrelevant that the connection could be reinstated by a re-boot of my machine, because during the inevitable drop-out I lost service in various reported online transactions. These included uniquely-coded streamed viewings in preparation for my participation as one of the voters of the BAFTA film and television awards; and in ordering various items online, which is essential, as due to my vulnerable and chronic heart condition I can no longer shop for anything, except that I do so online. eMail drop-outs also have an additional detrimental effect on my health, in that I need to renew prescriptions online and arrange collection times - this is for my dependence on vital heart and related medication. Thus, the disruption of my so-called premium broadband service has had severe effects on my vital usage.
As just one example: some time after I'd reported the fault I was attempting to order my shopping online. This can take me several hours as I buy in bulk to minimize deliveries. In the middle of ordering and starting payment, the broadband connection failed and I lost all the items in the shopping basket. I had to do it all again, and the next day, to waste more time trying to track down whether or not any of the payment procedure had already been started. This is an example of how a BT network cable fault can affect coronary stress levels.
I do not consider your so-called arbitrary "goodwill" discretion goes anywhere near compensating me for such a contractual breach.
I agree that only after several months of completely unacceptable treatment by a variety of well-meaning but inadequate customer service operatives, you personally did arrange to send yet another OpenReach engineer.
You fail to refer to the first OpenReach engineer visit on 12 December - at least six weeks after I first reported the fault - during which a BT network cable fault was identified and reported to have been fixed, but after which the problem of broadband disconnection every two hours continued on my internet access. You also fail to mention that visit was never followed up, and that the incident was nevertheless deemed closed. The only sliver of the report which was verbally quoted to me, and which I strongly contest as untrue, states that engineer "demonstrated" the network cable had been fixed. No such demonstration was provided, either at the time or afterward. And no effort was made to assess the situation two hours after the visit, which is the only way anyone could have ascertained whether or not my broadband service had been re-instated on the basis of the terms and conditions of my contract.
You also fail to mention that when I again tried to report the continuation of the fault I was told that because the matter had been closed I would need to begin the process all over again, starting with the same junior level of operatives. None of these appeared to be aware of any current status, either of the case nor of the vulnerable position regarding my health.
I have, of course, kept a record of all the personnel with whom I've had contact since the beginning of November 2014. I also have kept a diary of typical connection drop-outs over a period of about two days. These will probably prove useful in any further action regarding this matter.
I find the following quote from your message highly insulting and based either directly on misinformation or upon your mis-interpretation of the engineer's report.
"The engineer I sent last week appears to have found a fault but it's difficult to understand exactly how much this was affecting your service, given that there were possible issues with your own PC identified."
The engineer didn't just "appear" to have found a fault, he showed me the abnormal reading on his hand-held tester [JDSU]. He also asserted to me that he'd identified an anomaly in network cabling spikes, which he declined to investigate further at that time. Further, it's incontrovertible how much this was affecting my service - to the extent I didn't have the full premium service defined in my contract. I didn't have it from at least the beginning of November 2014.
You either failed to mention, or seem to be unaware, that before this engineer identified yet another network cable fault, my own internet connection was tested with both my machines. The connection on both was continually dead after about two hours. I have since had a highly experienced computer company [with whom I've been dealing for over 25 years] try to diagnose any internal issues.
Have you deliberately failed to mention, or were you not informed, that only after the most recent engineer professed to have fixed the identified BT network cable fault, was I able for the first time since November to enjoy the premium unlimited broadband connection on my 2nd machine. Furthermore, the investigating computer company has assured me that there is every possibility that the continual and ongoing BT network cable fault may itself have caused the network card on my other machine to malfunction. It has already been established by the OpenReach engineer that it was not my Ethernet port which was faulty. In fact, the first engineer categorically stated that none of the fault was due to any equipment in my flat. When I requested he put that in writing, he said he was not permitted to do that, but that he would put it in his report. So either he failed to do that, or somehow that item in his report was not made known to you. He also said I was not allowed to see his report, which I later discovered was not, in fact, true.
If you cannot categorically prove otherwise with regard to my own equipment, I request that you withdraw the comment quoted above which provides a false insinuation. I realise you are likely to have formulated all the phrases in your message based on some corporate legal instruction to protect the company against any future action. That cannot be my concern. Your wording potentially implicates me at BT's expense. That is unacceptable. I have always acted and continue to act in good faith, borne out by decades as a BT customer.
In addition to all the above, you may or may not be aware of some tangential external BT network cable problems affecting other broadband customers in this private park. I have only recently become aware of the extent of these, and I state them here in full knowledge that I am not attempting to report them as faults on the phone lines of any other customer. I mention them since the network cable faults identified as depriving me of a premium broadband service have also been affecting others; that is despite categorical assurances by some of your operatives that no other household in my immediate area was experiencing broadband network faults. That was clearly either a lie or an inference based on insufficient information. I assume, in the event this matter is taken further in a legal sense, the synchronicity of such multiple faults will be of interest. They comprise two other flats in this converted mid-19th century stately home which is sited within the grounds of private parkland; and one semi-detached 3-story home also sited within the park. The owners of these properties would be willing to testify in the event that further action is required.
In consideration of all the above, following is a list what I consider might compensate for the outrageous and potentially illegal treatment I've received.
As I understand your remit, it is to deal solely with the quality of treatment I've received in reaction to my perfectly reasonable complaint. But I am seeking redress for the actual substance of my complaint - as documented in various exchanges since November 2014.
If, in your relatively junior position within the company, you cannot address these matters, I repeat my request to deal with someone at a more senior level than your line manager Tony Kidd. It would seem logical that these matters go beyond the remit of customer service.
1. A full written apology on BT headquarters letterhead and signed by someone in senior management in a corporate department separate from customer service. This apology should encompass corporate responsibility for the lies I have been told by various customer service operatives, as documented; and the failure to take seriously the vulnerable state of my physical health.
2. An acknowledgement that the delay in addressing the substance of my complaint not only countermands the terms and conditions of my contract, but has provoked a serious effect on the precarious chronic heart condition from which I suffer and which BT has been aware of for over two years [as per a letter from my doctor].
3a. A clear written assurance that my own records will be permanently amended to include reference to my vulnerable health condition, as implied in BT's agreement with Ofcom.
3b. A clear written assurance that if I have cause to complain about BT-provided equipment or loss of paid-for service, etc that my records will permanently show the address of such complaint be deemed to receive priority treatment.
3c. I do not ever again want to have to endanger my health by dealing with scores of junior customer service operatives who are briefed not to escalate any reported problem - as was continually the case in this instance. Therefore I will expect a written statement confirming that all this has actually been done.
4. A discretionary amount of money deemed adequate by mutual negotiation and not presented unilaterally by you in compensation for the disruption to my broadband usage as a factor of the several specific projects explained in detail in various previous communications, and to the detrimental effects thereto. This amount to be made as a monetary deposit to my bank account within a defined time limit, and to be apart from any so-called "goodwill" allowance of free monthly broadband access. I believe consideration via the lower courts when dealing with similar matters is capped at £10,000.
Thank you for your attention. I await your reply.
xx
Leave a comment: