Protection against slamming?

Does Plusnet have any plans to help protect customers from slamming that can occur with the new migrations process?

What I would like is an option in the control panel that would stop any migration?

This could be combined with when you go to the member area an alert would be displayed that would ask you to confirm the migration? If this is NOT pressed it would default to not allowing the migration?

At a minimum I would expect several emails to all my registered email addresses and SMS to my mobile to alert me that something is going on?

Thanks

Have you seen the discussion in this thread? Which starts with a link to the AAISP policy.

Have you also read this guide to how the process works and the compulsory safeguards?

I feel a setting in the Member Centre that simply blocks the migration would be a good idea, and that is all that is required. The problem with that however is if you forget to unset it before ordering from your new supplier you would have to start all over again.

I'm not sure what your "combined with" paragraph is trying to say. Particularly the circumstances in which you would receive such an alert.

Re the multiple emails and text messages, on top of the letters (or possibly email to your specified notification email address) you should be receiving from both ISPs very early in the process, are you sure you don't want a personal visit from a member of staff to let you know?

You are aware that you get posted a letter as a notification from PlusNet if someone is trying to migrate your line. This puts a 10 day pause in the process to give you time to complain and get the move cancelled.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I feel a setting in the Member Centre that simply blocks the migration would be a good idea, and that is all that is required.

I would hope under the new system, the losing ISP has absolutely no power to block transfers, be it at the customer's request or otherwise. Notification letters + a mandatory 14 day waiting period would seem all that is necessary.

Edited by Oliver341 (Sun 21-Jun-15 22:31:52)

The new system is designed that the losing ISP has full power to block transfers. It relies on that power.

Just as they can stop a line transfer now. And we do see people on here getting invalid line move notifications due to a simple clerical error elsewhere and a wrong number being entered. A typo is sufficient.

However instead of the user having the power and comfort feeling of having set a No-migration marker, it requires the customer to receive at least one of the two notifications of the forthcoming migration and contact them to stop it. Plenty of people take out-of-the country trips of more than 14 days. Even a fourteen night holiday involves 15 days, when on return you aren't looking for emails or bothering with a huge pile of mail a neighbour has kindly built for you.

Users do not always see notifications. We both know that. 99.9% of the time, they do. But 0.1% of Andrew's 9 million is 9 thousand.

Plus - your post doesn't make sense. If the losing ISP can't block it at the customer's request, what's the point of the notification letters. Particularly theirs?

Edited by RobertoS (Sun 21-Jun-15 23:18:35)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

The new system is designed that the losing ISP has full power to block transfers. It relies on that power.

I think you have more faith in ISPs not to incorrectly block wanted migrations than I do.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Plus - your post doesn't make sense. If the losing ISP can't block it at the customer's request, what's the point of the notification letters. Particularly theirs?

That's an explicit request to cancel a migration, as opposed to some kind of flag on the system to automatically reject migrations at the first instance.

I replied to "I would hope under the new system, the losing ISP has absolutely no power to block transfers, be it at the customer's request or otherwise."

It appears that isn't what you meant.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I replied to "I would hope under the new system, the losing ISP has absolutely no power to block transfers, be it at the customer's request or otherwise."

It appears that isn't what you meant.

To clarify, I was meaning on an ongoing customer-requested flag-based system as opposed to the current gaining-provider led system whereby a customer can explicitly block a transfer by contacting the losing ISP after a letter is received during the 14-day window (which I have no issue with).

If they are around to get the letter.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

If they are around to get the letter.

Broadband slamming is rare. I'm happy to be corrected on this point if there is evidence to the contrary, but I for one have not seen it.

Given that it's rare, the likelihood of it happening to someone is also rare, and the likelihood of it happening whilst the customer has not read their post or emails for 14 days is even more rare.

To me, the much greater risk is introducing a system whereby an ISP can "accidentally" set a flag to automatically block a customer from migrating, but obviously we are not going to agree on this point.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

If they are around to get the letter.

Broadband slamming is rare. I'm happy to be corrected on this point if there is evidence to the contrary, but I for one have not seen it.

Um, given that until Saturday (eg 2 days ago), it wasn't an issue because the MAC system made slamming practically unviable, you'd struggle to find evidence.

However, look at the telephone market where this same "gaining lead" model is used and there is plenty of such evidence.

In reply to a post by therioman:

Um, given that until Saturday (eg 2 days ago), it wasn't an issue because the MAC system made slamming practically unviable, you'd struggle to find evidence.

Most migrations have been gaining-provider led for a long time. Only WLR3 -> WLR3 migrations have been MAC based. Migrations, to, from and between MPF have been gaining-provider led for about 10 years, and no-one on WLR3 has been "safe" from slamming for around 10 years.

However, look at the telephone market where this same "gaining lead" model is used and there is plenty of such evidence.

When MPF became reality, yes, there were instances, but it's rare now. I don't even see how one can be slammed without providing billing details first, unless the ISP slamming wants to provide free broadband.

Please explain how that helps if you are away on a 2 week holiday.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

However, look at the telephone market where this same "gaining lead" model is used and there is plenty of such evidence.

When MPF became reality, yes, there were instances, but it's rare now. I don't even see how one can be slammed without providing billing details first, unless the ISP slamming wants to provide free broadband.


I need nothing more than the telephone number. I'm *supposed* to have evidence in case of dispute of course (and being legitimate I do), but in practice, the only information I require is the circuit number(s) to move. I do this daily. Nothing tricky required.

In reply to a post by therioman:

I need nothing more than the telephone number. I'm *supposed* to have evidence in case of dispute of course (and being legitimate I do), but in practice, the only information I require is the circuit number(s) to move. I do this daily. Nothing tricky required.

And how would you bill a slammed customer without obtaining their billing details?

Tell them that if they use the service they must pay for it which leaves them between a rock and a hard place. They can't access the internet using their old credentials but if they use the new credentials it confirms the transfer and they have to pay for it.

It doesn't, but as this notification system has existed for years on full LLU and WLR3 moves and there is not 100,000's of complaints one presumes that the providers are not about try to and do mass slamming during the school holidays.

In reply to a post by jelv:

Tell them that if they use the service they must pay for it which leaves them between a rock and a hard place. They can't access the internet using their old credentials but if they use the new credentials it confirms the transfer and they have to pay for it.

Which I think is a very rare form of slamming. The cases of slamming I've heard the ISP seems to have the billing details already, which leads me to believe they are mostly cancelled orders (via doorstep selling, cold calling or otherwise).

Having checked, the losing provider can cancel a transfer if slamming has occurred. But Ofcom require that the losing provider take reasonable steps to establish that slamming has actually occured, and in guidelines they do state this can only �follow a conversation with the customer about an order�. Ofcom also say this should involve asking whether the order matches the name of another decision-maker in the household and if so slamming is only established if they speak to that person and determine consent was not given, there can be no deference to the account holder�s instructions in such circumstances. They must also ask how the slamming occurred - whether there was no contact with the gaining provider or whether there was contact but no consent given, and record this in the reason code when cancelling the transfer.

have you a link for that as I was under the impression that phoning up wasn't allowed as that could be said to be coercion

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by therioman:

I need nothing more than the telephone number. I'm *supposed* to have evidence in case of dispute of course (and being legitimate I do), but in practice, the only information I require is the circuit number(s) to move. I do this daily. Nothing tricky required.

And how would you bill a slammed customer without obtaining their billing details?

I think you're missing the point. It isn't about who can bill them in the future, it's about who is suddenly no longer billing them. If I was a slammer, I'd have adequate information already to bill them - the issue is that the losing supplier and the customer are the ones who lose out - not the slamming party.

In reply to a post by therioman:

I think you're missing the point. It isn't about who can bill them in the future, it's about who is suddenly no longer billing them. If I was a slammer, I'd have adequate information already to bill them

I suspect most people would not comply with an ISP saying "Hi, we have slammed your number, please provide your bank account and sort code so we can fleece you". In fact I'd go as far to say after a few instances of this, the ISP would be shut down by the authorities and prosecuted for fraud.

@ All
In case anyone's interested, I've posted a link to the Ofcom September 2014 document about the new system in this post.

As per Oldjim's request. I don't recall seeing this in Condition 22 or in the Ofcom Consumer Guide.

The nearest is:-

A1.3 Before using Cancel Other in cases of Slamming and/or Failure to Cancel, the Losing Provider shall take reasonable steps to establish that Slamming and/or Failure to Cancel has actually taken place.

but that doesn't contain that guidance.

It could get very messy if that guidance is true. It would mean that the gaining ISP could legitimately refuse to cancel the order even if the account holder at the losing ISP instructs them to.

The account holder at the gaining ISP would of course be the person placing the order. The annoyed previous account holder could immediately after the migration completion order a move back or elsewhere! With rather nasty domestic costs and repercussions.

What is "another decision-maker in the household"? What if the last thing before, or first thing after, another adult there moved out they ordered the migration out of spite?

Edited by RobertoS (Mon 22-Jun-15 17:58:11)

The requirements and applicable guidance issued by Ofcom can be found from here: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ga-scheme/...

You need to pay proper attention before you jump to conclusions and ideas. You say guidance to the losing provider on slamming must therefore suddenly apply to the gaining provider cancelling due to change of mind, rubbish. I think also Ofcom explain in their guidance that those sort of domestic scenarios you mentioned are why the losing provider should not get involved and interfere by siding with the losing account holder. So long as a householder who had a right to do so placed an order, it can't be classed as slamming, and any issues or disagreement should be resolved amongst themselves.

I may be missing the point here
My opinion is that the account holder can't have his or her rights affected by a third party even if the gaining provider thinks they have a legal agreement with such a third party even though they may be the householder

The whole system is not fit for purpose. I've just seen a post on the Plusnet forums where they (inadvertently) slammed a business line:

In reference to community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,140706.msg1241215.html#msg...:

Hi Rajan, welcome to the forums. I'm sorry to hear of the delays you have experienced.

Basically, the delays up to this point have been out of our control, I am sorry to say.

There was a line registered to your address when you signed up and we tried to take it over. The provider of this line denied the takeover on a few separate occasions and each take this meant we had to start again which involved a 10 working day lead time each time.

Unfortunately there's no way for us to expedite the takeover of a phone line as we are required to give 10 working days notice to the losing provider each time a new order is placed.

When the provider finally allowed us to take over the line, our suppliers contacted us shortly after the orders had completed, advising we needed to cease the services as we had actually slammed a business line that was registered to the wrong address (This has since been updated which is why there are no lines showing at your address to take over)

As it currently stands, the only way for us to proceed would be for us to install a new line and given the circumstances I have waived the charge that would generally come with the installation of a new line.

I've placed the order with the earliest available installation date and updated the ticket on your account.

I'll excuse you on the grounds that post was long before our dispute in the General Chatter thread.

"You say guidance to the losing provider on slamming must therefore suddenly apply to the gaining provider cancelling due to change of mind". I don't believe I do say that.

Why have you omitted to link to the guidelines referred to here:-

In reply to a post by vimto_girl:

... and in guidelines they (Ofcom) do state this can only �follow a conversation with the customer about an order�. Ofcom also say this should involve asking whether the order matches the name of another decision-maker in the household and if so slamming is only established if they speak to that person and determine consent was not given, there can be no deference to the account holder�s instructions in such circumstances. They must also ask how the slamming occurred - whether there was no contact with the gaining provider or whether there was contact but no consent given, and record this in the reason code when cancelling the transfer.

as requested by Oldjim

In reply to a post by Oldjim:

have you a link for that as I was under the impression that phoning up wasn't allowed as that could be said to be coercion

and referred to by myself. Where are these guidelines please?

You have again referred to guidance in this post but as far as we know you have misread or misunderstood something else.

Once again you also add gratuitous insults. "You need to pay proper attention before you jump to conclusions and ideas." Two in that sentence.

Please stop doing this. Both accusations are utterly false, just as they were in the other thread.

This has been the case with moving telephones from BT to VM and Vice versa.

I wanted a VM line and to keep our BT line. I inadvertently ticked the "do you want to keep your old number?" box, on the VM web site, and VM moved my BT number to their new line.

The letter from BT " Sorry you are leaving us" , etc, arrived after the number change and it took 3 weeks to get things put back to how I wanted them.

As long as the letter goes out in plenty of time then all should be well with the system. But as we all know the waters can be choppy and it is not always smooth sailing.