Legal thoughts on phone line slamming.

[loopinlouie]

Right I have the other thread which is quite long due to amount of time problem has been going on.

 

In general then if one provider slamms your phone line and despite email recently from them telling you they have done it after all, but adding not their fault, then today says they do not and never have had your line. Also that ofcom today confirms fears are true and that on the information they have they did slamm your line, their words. It sounds pretty obvious that they the slammer are responsible.

 

You would think so.

 

What do you do when they then describe what I call contractor they refer to as business partner bt, and then add they issue over the cease order not being stopped was due to their error, what do you do?

 

They say as they cancelled the order which previous supplier contradict. One says cease order shown as not cancelled, one shows cease order cancelled their end so not their fault.

 

They dont want to even look into why your line has had two cease orders carried out when in first case transfer failed therefore line dead in second order cancelled but line still dead.

 

So we know I am again on about sky.

 

Sky despite Ofcom saying it is them are saying no. I asked them why would ofcom say such a thing if not true, after all they would have seen the information tesco and sky did and they say well I wouldnt want to say you are lying, I just cant explain it.

 

I remind them of the email saying they have my line and he disputes they would have sent this.

 

 

Now I have sent in formal complaint which apparanlty they have eight weeks to respond to!!!!!!!!

I then if still not happy can go to otello or court.

 

Otello tell me they are not in business of fining companies but can look at gesture of goodwill and take up to three months to sort it. They also give both sides chance to respond to their findings.

 

Now I can see why sky are in no fear of ofcom or otello. Ofcom only act when mass complaints come in and otello take months to sort. I am worried they are not going to learn by what has happened to me and in the intervening four months how many others are they going to slam, so wonder would court be the better option. I think so, feedback appreciated.

 

Remeber sky admit some work was carried out on my line by who they describe as business partner, they say they are not responsible and I then said who is, to which they say they wouldnt like to say. I remind them of ofcoms findings and they are responsible as the business partner was acting for whatever reason on their behalf and therefore I find them responsible for putting me at risk and liable for expenses and distress.

 

They say nope not responsible for any of the actions.

 

I ASK WHO IS, FEEDBACK APPRECIATED, I MEAN IT SEEMS SKY NEED A LESSON AND I THINK A JUDGE WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT FOR ME.

 

Tesco willing to back me up

 

Sky not responding to emails and today for two hours on phone telling me they are not liable for actions of bt openeach on their behalf.

 

What do you think?

 

I think sky stink and will carry on the way they are if not stopped to feel how it felt to me, crying, not leaving my bed for fear of collapsing. How would you feel?

[loopinlouie]

Dont get me wrong otello were nice and did say I could go with them and then still court if want to. But no wonder sky is in no hurry when they have so long to even respond. It took tesco an hour to unravel what happened and after nearly three weeks despite sky confirming most of what happend they shuffle away and say they are not liable.

 

Did I sign a disclaimer when verbally paying 39.00 in that we if we mess it up will leave you to float in the ether and then not give a damm, no I didnt.

 

Say it is openreach, I thought sky would be responsible to me and then they harass openreach. I mean not as if we can go after openreach ourselves and to be honest I dont believe sky. Why openreach say to tesco sky didnt cancel cease order sky say to me openreach for whatever reason let it go through.

 

Once you can forgive a hick up, first three days, but three weeks, incompatence xxxx

 

Would a judge with info from tesco etc and all bits I get have the power to find against them. I think he would xxxxx

 

Comments appreciated. For day to day updates of the mess hopefully ending in 17/8 line back up xxxx I will keep to other thread, this is for legal help and thoughts of best and quickest way to kick their *** xxx

[loopinlouie]

Turn it the other way could I sue sky and openreach, I mean if openreach say sky didnt cancel order they will show that to court wont they? When asked why sue both, add sky are saying opnreach is their business partner and yet they are not liable for them, so have to raise both companies on court summons. xxx

[loopinlouie]

Sky said they basically as far as their concerned cant see how ofcom would have come to conclusion sky slammed my line. Are they thick? xxxxxx

[IdaInFife]

a few questions first?

 

how would ofcom know who slameed/closed the linf if a formal complaint has not been closed?

 

Do you have it in wiriting from ofcom that this has happened?

 

what paper evidence do you have to confirm that the line was slammed/closed?

[loopinlouie]

Ofcom said they got the information from openreach I suppose the dept they normally get it from. On monday to look into who was at fault they said they would source the information and today I rung back and told it was as expected. Think the search was the same as in when leaving tesco to sky, sky were able to indentify cable and wireless ran my line for tesco. It took them from monday to yesterday to source it, so must be somthing they do regular. I have an email contact in ofcom as was passed to ofcom also by oftta or otta as they were concerned so could request for it to be in writing.

 

Ofcom described it as slamming today, but it was over the phone on the 0300 number. I mean if they had any doubt surely they wouldnt have said it.

 

They said they could clearly see what happened and does confirm what sky email said, saying have your line afterall.

 

So could request it in writing and tesco after tuesday will do so for me as well with details as to what happened as far as they are concerned xx

[loopinlouie]

mass purchase dept mean anything, something like that xx

[IdaInFife]

you would need this in writing to be able to take it further - although you do not want to wait - i would suggest you do so as this would be better for you as it shows you are willing to try each avenue before going to court.

 

I beleive you have wrote a detailed complaint to sky? when did you send this?

[loopinlouie]

'William' Also said to me today that on the 15/6 they had the go ahead of tesco for vic and portal, therefore know as far as tesco concerned, they had done their bit. First time line went dead was due to dropped order, yet cease order still in place for dropped order.

 

Second time was told cease order allowed to go through despite cancelling it with business partner bt according to sky.

 

I mean goodness why did they blame poor old tesco. I mean there is even a note according to william fromsky on system that if customer loses line earlier to get her to contact previous supplier. They must have had sus****ions at bt or sky something was wrong.

[Surfer01]

Why don't you start harassing Mark Garnie your MP about the toothless telecom watchdog?

[loopinlouie]

Sent formal complaint in by email to [email protected] about 40 odd hours ago, so not long. It basically said I hold sky responsible for actions carried out on my line by contractor acting on their behalf relating to order wether cancelled properly or not. That I expected them to be responsible as not my place to persue contractor for them to take responsibility and then if need be persue their contractor for any outof pocket expenses and distress caused.

 

Today told not their fault as sky, but nagging doubt as tesco say they saw the cease order was not cancelled. Surely cable and wireless, tesco would see the same infor as sky apart from skys owne compueters of course, if order was cancelled, surely it wouldnt have shown up to tesco.

[loopinlouie]

Ofcom have been helpful as in I know I am not going round the bend if they call it slamming. I mean I need to after tuesday get sar from everyone an include data relating to communciations with openreach. Its jsut that ofcom tend to then say put a complaint in and I dont see sky shaking in their boots xxxx

 

I expect that a lot of people give up due to telecom ping pong alone and then when sky after confirming they have my line and me saying well I know one thing, its not my fault, they add well it was our business partner.

[loopinlouie]

I thought legally it would be same as buying whole kitchen package. If contractor on behalf of diy store messes up, the diy store,should step in and sort it and then persue contractor if they need to. xx

[loopinlouie]

I out of the last six weeks will have had four weeks no line in total. I have received bill in meantime from tesco, who hopefully will suspend it, but if not I will pay and persue that ammount also.

[IdaInFife]

It may be best send a hard copy via recorded post as well as the email address in not a recognised or stated complaints address.

 

 

what confuses me is you keep repeating that a cease order was not cancelled - it shouldn't have been cancelled

 

cease order means a company stopping the original order therefore not allowing the order/sale to go through in which is what you asked for - to stay with the original company.

[loopinlouie]

The firm who cut the line was called TV INSTALL, mean anything, could that be the business partner sky refer to?

[loopinlouie]

The origianl cease order that would have cut tesco when going to sky is what was caried out. I dont know why its refered to as that but tesco network manager cancelled order for customer going to tesco from sky who changed mind. They noticed the supposed cease order automaitaccly ordered to cancel sky service was still in place and then cancelled that also so not to cut womans line, if that makes sence.

 

But in any case whatever it was a transfer from tesco to sky that was allowed to take place, ofcom refered to them having line, so something happened apart from obvioulsy sky recodnising I was now with them as canceled on their systems. My number appaaranlty happily floating in ether, gets ring ring when ring it, but not connected, it was the number transfer that didnt go ahead as cancelled but cease order did go ahaed.

 

Too technical for me but good enough if ofcom can jsut hear basics and make up own mind sky took my line slamming. Exhausting business though, I shouldnt be involved in all the carp of this and that, jsut one firm said sky have line, they said no we dont, what can you do?

 

Thanks for input by the way, its a shame as I had a lot or respect for sky before this and they could easily still regain that if they truly wanted to help, hey I might have even let them turn the telly back on, but they dont want to know, so I cant trust them.

 

Willian said cut by tv install but untill then all refered to bt, wonder if tv install is the tv bit or wether they are involved with phones as well.

 

Hecky thump hey xxxxx

[loopinlouie]

Because its an llu llu transfer its known as cease and restore, cease previous service, restore to new provider. The restore was cancelled as not going to sky now, but the cease order bit went on. Cease not as in getting sky to cancel. But as in they cancel tesco service and restore to sky. For some reason sky say one bit was cancelled but automatically generated at point of order, cease order was not. Tesco say they routinely check that cease orders if appear on cancelled transfers are stopped so not to cut line. They say they are fairly new to telecom business compared to sky but able to see possible errors adn intervene. xx

[loopinlouie]

William in sky talk escallations was able to confirm as above post 18 as the error that caused second line to go dead. I jsut wanted sky to admit they have responsibility for it happenening, ofcom say sky are responsible, jsut exhausting so many people in sky talk, no offence to call handlers, but they havnt got a clue passed seeing cancelled on a screen.

 

To be fair lovely woman called pam today listened and did understand and passed me to wiliam who did understand ins and outs as spoke to their business partner and was told.

 

 

SO WHO DO I WHEN GOT ALL INFO, SUE, AS THEY SEEM TO THINK ONE PERSON DOESNT COUNT I FEEL.

[loopinlouie]

In any case formal letter of complaint in post soon adn sar on the way, michael ritchie I believe it was was sending subject access request to me and asked me to email him back if needed more help.. No replies to emails and no sar, so going to formally request one. xx

[loopinlouie]

But back to legalities, are sky responsible for the actions of their contractors or business partners if error made relating to sky account? I think the are as order placed by sky in first place.

[loopinlouie]

I suppose it would have been restore to the bt line service that sky use. Thing is couple days after my line went dead openreach were at the exchange, wonder what they took out Whole line to me, well anyway sar will show it all I hope.

 

But sky saying they have the line after all should count in court I would have thought as proves carried out on their behalf xxx.

[IdaInFife]

an operator telling you that over the phone won't hold - you need that in writing

 

you need to see out the complaints procedure . then if not happy - go to otelo - ans then wher you want after that if you don't not get the resolution you want

 

unless you have hard evidence in writing you wonlt get anywhere going via court - and what actually woudl you be taking them to court for?

[loopinlouie]

I have email and on bottom says from [email protected] and says sorry sky have your line after all, but its not our fault. So talking I was just hoping they would n that information at least give me an apology and say hey yes we messed up. But its not our fault doesnt quite cut it.

 

I have out of pocket expenses breaching 300.00 (can provide receipts) mostly phone credit (payg as dont have contract, one call alone 10.00) and asking for help, and I want recognition of the distress caused. I mean you have to be in my shoes to understand how distressing it is knowing your fall detector is caput and theres nowt you can do about it. Its not as if I want to make a quick buck as they say out of it, I want recognition and in turn to hope they are more careful to others. I even due to the distress started to find my hair falling out. Worst thing of all is them telling me tesco was at fault, I would ring them up repeating as updated on the other thread mostly and they would say again and again sky have your line.

 

Thing is and i am confident ofcom will confirm in writing, that the information as they said they could see was visable just as easy to sky adn the whole messing about was leaving my number in legal beurocracy apparantly.

[loopinlouie]

I dont know what sky tv think of sky talk losing them money. I had no problem with sky tv (apart from taught instalation wire, but could have sorted that at later date) and respected them. Now their name is tainted with the same tarnish of sky talk and as a result they lost long term hd contract. I dont think unless sky cannot go running and blame others that they should even hold a telecom license.

 

Said to me today that they are aware of cases where virgin and talk talk have deliberatley tried to prolongue portal transfers to poss keep the customer, and added he wasnt aware of tesco showing a case of that. I added they have done nothing wrong as on 15/6 they had all they needed and they should be very careful of mentioning practices of other companies when they couldnt show perfect colors themselves. I believe william is an example no offence of how sky can be seen to be showing a blame the current supplier when orders go wrong.

 

Its just wrong and they knew I was recording xxx