Openreach & PN are in breach of contract over FTTC

Yesterday, a very long story. My parents have complaint that their FTTC service 80/20 was not working, went downtime 10am all day yesterday until I come over to their house to investigate of what going is on. I can see the fibre router DSL light was flashing on/off. I switch off router wait for 30 minutes, turn back on, the same DSL light was flashing on/off. So, I went upstair via my parents pc and logged in of the router and found out myself that under VDSL2 was blank, no sync rate at all. So, I went back downstair and checking DSL cable from telephone line to the router as everything was fine. So, I try master socket and reconnect router, same thing, no sync rate at all. I went back home and try to think what was caused the VDSL2 loss of service, looged onto plusnet service status, checking exchange status, nothing was reported. So, I try to bring my spare unlocked openreach modem to test it just in case if their router is faulty. I put openreach modem on and connect via laptop using ethernet and logged onto modem stats, bingo, the problem of VDSL2 was not working because of shocked to my own eyes 'WHAT THE HELL GOING ON? - it was connected to ADSL2+'. So, I switch off the modem and go back to router and change setting from VDSL2 mode to ADSL2+ mode and it now connected as 13 Meg downstream and 445kbps upstream. My parents spoken to Plusnet this morning (broadband fault team) they apology as it was incorrect ADSL2+ from FTTC as they blamed on openreach engineer could be at the cabinet mistaken put my parents line to ADSL2+ without premission.

My parents never asked or downgrade on the product as their FTTC 80/20 still under contract. Cannot believe how on earth this has happen to my parents and now the fault team have placed an order to put it back on the correct product 80/20 from ADSL2+ but it will take 7 working days to completed.

Openreach blamed on PN but PN blamed on Openreach. I do feel Openreach engineer have no rights to put my parents line on ADSL2+ without their knowedge and without premission. Who are to blame?

I feel Openreach & Plusnet are in breach of contract against FTTC loss.

Never happen before at Plusnet. This is the first time I am shocked to learn from this. Without openreach modem, I wouldn't be able to find out what was wrong and why is no FTTC sync cos it removed it off.

Openreach screwed something up, Plusnet is resolving it through the usual channels (where did you get the information that Openreach was blaming Plusnet?). It's a shame it may take 7 days to fix it but once it is fixed, Plusnet will compensate for the time on ADSL I'm sure. If they don't offer, ask, but wait until it's fixed, no point in getting het up about it.

It sounds like the FTTC jumpering at the PCP might have been mistakenly removed from your parents' line rather than the line that was supposed to be unjumpered.

The usual practice is not to remove the exchange jumpering to the DSLAM on an ADSL(2+) upgrade to FTTC, as there is no need - the filtering in the FTTC cabinet stops the exchange DSLAM from interfering. The jumpering will be removed if the exchange DSLAM port is needed for another customer. If the FTTC jumpering has been mistakenly removed, the exchange DSLAM port might still be active, hence the ability to connect to ADSL2+.


I strongly suggest not going down the "breach of contract" route at this stage, especially as you will likely turn a simple error into a scenario where every party acts defensively in the expectation of receiving a Letter Before Claim, rather than concentrating on sorting out the problem. You will also open up debate about what the actual financial loss is (the basis of contractual damages) considering that there is a functional but low speed service and that your parents are contractually entitled to a pro-rata credit under section 13 of the Plusnet terms and conditions.

I urge you to co-operate with Plusnet, so that they can work with Openreach to sort out the problem as quickly as possible.

Sadly the order will be completed in 25th July say bt

In reply to a post by David_W:

I strongly suggest not going down the "breach of contract" route at this stage,

I urge you to co-operate with Plusnet, so that they can work with Openreach to sort out the problem as quickly as possible.

Unfortunately, adslmax is an either/or person. Either the service is entirely brilliant, or the sky has fallen in. Nothing inbetween. No room for mistakes or errors. No understanding that the contract includes terms for when things go wrong, either.

As a consequence, he's either blissfully happy, or suing the pants off suppliers.

On the basis that an order to reconnect VDSL is required rather than a fault/repair request, I would suggest that an order to return the line to ADSL/ disconnect VDSL originated from somewhere, rather than a random disconnect in error by an engineer.It's unlikely (perhaps not impossible) that it originated within Openreach.A moot point really

In reply to a post by Ribble:

On the basis that an order to reconnect VDSL is required rather than a fault/repair request, I would suggest that an order to return the line to ADSL/ disconnect VDSL originated from somewhere, rather than a random disconnect in error by an engineer.It's unlikely (perhaps not impossible) that it originated within Openreach.A moot point really

A mistaken order seems more plausible in the circumstances than a mistaken removal of the FTTC jumpers by the engineer. As you say, it's a moot point, really - the important thing is to take the necessary steps to restore FTTC.

The last time this was reported happening on these forums wasn't long ago, and the cabinet was full. (I don't remember the ISP, just the problem). The unfortunate punter had to wait a while in the queue waiting for ports to come available. Seemingly not even being able to jump it.

In reply to a post by adslmax:

Sadly the order will be completed in 25th July say bt

As it's more likely that plusnet are responsible for this , they should be getting it expedited

Edited by tommy45 (Wed 13-Jul-16 15:46:28)

A letter is now on the way to openreach chief to suing BT for compensation & complaints for engineer mistake removed FTTC on my parents line and not happy to wait until July 25th to reconnect it back. (But plusnet say there is no gaurantee if the port is available at the cabinet on the day July 25th)

Edited by adslmax (Wed 13-Jul-16 17:52:34)

I hope you got someone else to write it for you!

Yes my father write a letter, not me!

http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/fibre/t/4482949-mis...
That seemed to be as a result of an ISP error. I would be inclined to suspect this is the same

In reply to a post by adslmax:

A letter is now on the way to openreach chief to suing BT for compensation & complaints for engineer mistake removed FTTC on my parents line and not happy to wait until July 25th to reconnect it back. (But plusnet say there is no gaurantee if the port is available at the cabinet on the day July 25th)

Good luck with that.

Better sent to the ISP. You may get an apology or even a bunch of flowers

Thanks Ribble . That is indeed the thread I was thinking of.

Compensation.

What have your parents lost with regard having no FTTC?

In reply to a post by broadband66:

Compensation.

What have your parents lost with regard having no FTTC?

There is a differential in price , and should the port be snaffled in the meantime there would be a even greater case for compensation, as plusnet have failed their customer in more ways than one, CISAS could be the way forwards for the op if the port is lost, failing that the small claims court

Edited by tommy45 (Thu 14-Jul-16 22:33:33)

Yes. War, war is always better than jaw, jaw.

Not !

In reply to a post by tommy45:

There is a differential in price , and should the port be snaffled in the meantime there would be a even greater case for compensation, as plusnet have failed their customer in more ways than one, CISAS could be the way forwards for the op if the port is lost, failing that the small claims court

That doesn't need 'compensation'. It just needs the ISP to refund the price differential for the period during which the OP only has ADSL.

Compensation is usually additional money given to make up for hardship or loss. It is going to be very difficult for the OP to prove that they have suffered hardship from being on ADSL instead of FTTC. It wouldn't be easy to prove that even if they had been left without any service at all.

As long as the OP is not charged for something they weren't getting no-one is likely to be interested.

As for 'breach of contract' that's questionable. The law 'allows' services to go wrong occasionally. It's the nature of services that sometimes things don't go to plan so they get quite a bit of latitude. Only a court can decide if they are in breach of contract and it can't decide that until PN have been given a reasonable amount of time to rectify the issue. As long as it does so and sorts out the charges it's unlikely any breach would have occurred.

Edited by Andrue (Fri 15-Jul-16 08:53:39)

In reply to a post by Andrue:

In reply to a post by tommy45:

There is a differential in price , and should the port be snaffled in the meantime there would be a even greater case for compensation, as plusnet have failed their customer in more ways than one, CISAS could be the way forwards for the op if the port is lost, failing that the small claims court

That doesn't need 'compensation'. It just needs the ISP to refund the price differential for the period during which the OP only has ADSL.

Compensation is usually additional money given to make up for hardship or loss. It is going to be very difficult for the OP to prove that they have suffered hardship from being on ADSL instead of FTTC. It wouldn't be easy to prove that even if they had been left without any service at all.

Even in the unlikely event that the OP could prove a loss (maybe they failed to place a bid on ebay in time or some such) the T&Cs of the service will make it hard to claim against PN. Not impossible of course but pretty much a none-starter.

As long as the OP is not charged for something they weren't getting no-one is likely to be interested.

As for 'breach of contract' that's questionable. Services are 'allowed' to go wrong occasionally by the law. It's the nature of services that sometimes things don't go to plan so they get quite a bit of latitude. Only a court can decide if they are in breach of contract and it can't decide that until PN have been given a reasonable amount of time to rectify the issue.

Well if they lost the port they would be binned, contract or not, as i wouldn't be getting the service that i had purchased ( paud for FTTC not adsl 2+ ) and they would n longer be able to supply that service, so not as described maybe even the SOGA be in breach this, let them off the hook is a no no. they should pay for their incompetence only then will they learn

Edited by tommy45 (Fri 15-Jul-16 09:01:31)

Small Claims Court for what?

The best they could get is their broadband for the ADSL price as that is what they are getting.

The other option is to leave for breach of contract.

In reply to a post by adslmax:

A letter is now on the way to openreach chief to suing BT for compensation & complaints for engineer mistake removed FTTC on my parents line and not happy to wait until July 25th to reconnect it back. (But plusnet say there is no gaurantee if the port is available at the cabinet on the day July 25th)

You have no relationship with BT Openreach.

In reply to a post by somerset:

In reply to a post by adslmax:

A letter is now on the way to openreach chief to suing BT for compensation & complaints for engineer mistake removed FTTC on my parents line and not happy to wait until July 25th to reconnect it back. (But plusnet say there is no gaurantee if the port is available at the cabinet on the day July 25th)

You have no relationship with BT Openreach.

The only way to sue Openreach is in tort of negligence, as there is no contract. As the duty of care owed in relation to negligence is based around reasonableness, mistakes happen, and Openreach might have been mistakenly instructed by Plusnet to cease the FTTC (in which case Openreach are not negligent), I think such a claim is on a hiding to nothing.

Moreover, tort damages are based on restitutio in integrum - putting the claimant back into the position they would have been were the tort not committed. Damages beyond restitution are severely limited in tort. As there is already restitution available via Plusnet's contractual terms, which allow for a pro-rata refund, suing Openreach in tort is pointless.


My earlier advice in this thread was based on a good understanding of the underlying legal issues, but I'm not surprised adslmax has chosen to ignore it.

A breach of contract claim against Plusnet might distract attention from getting the service reconnected, whilst it is doubtful that any damages could be obtained beyond the pro-rata credit that likely only has to be requested from Plusnet. The Civil Procedure Rules are clear that legal action should be seen as a last resort when all attempts at a negotiated settlement have failed. Moreover, it is unusual to sue the supplier of a party you are in contractual dispute with in tort when the supplier is still in operation and capable of responding to a contract suit, especially as contractual damages are generally more advantageous to the claimant than tort damages.

In reply to a post by broadband66:

Small Claims Court for what?

The best they could get is their broadband for the ADSL price as that is what they are getting.

The other option is to leave for breach of contract.

They did not want or order adsl2 therefore a full refund should be the very least , and should the port not be available and they aren't able to re instate fttc why couldn't they sue PN for any remaining months
As if the other way around they would be chasing the customer

The OP not having gone through the standard Plusnet complaints procedure, but started off with this talk of suing, you are just talking poppycock.

As for any legal action the OP could think of taking, David_W has completely torn that idea apart. He does post from a position of considerable legal knowledge.

If the OP wants more than a refund of part-charges, plus a goodwill gesture, his only sensible course of action would be to invoke the ADR process, either through a formal deadlock letter issued by Plusnet or after an eight-week wait.

Any court would chuck out any claim if those steps had not been followed.

In reply to a post by tommy45:

Well if they lost the port they would be binned, contract or not, as i wouldn't be getting the service that i had purchased ( paud for FTTC not adsl 2+ ) and they would n longer be able to supply that service, so not as described maybe even the SOGA be in breach this, let them off the hook is a no no. they should pay for their incompetence only then will they learn

They will have paid. Both PN and openreach will eventually have lost some revenue for the period during which the OP only had ADSL. openreach and/or PN will eventually have lost money reconnecting the OP for free.

Other than that mistakes happen. There's nothing useful to be gained by being an [censored] about it. Don't forget that whatever money you think should be given to the OP is going to come out of our pockets in the form of higher fees in the future. It is very difficult if not impossible to actually fine(*) a company. They can just pass the costs onto someone else. Their customers (higher prices), their shareholders (lower dividends) or their staff (lower remuneration packages).

(*)And the same applies for taxation.

Edited by Andrue (Fri 15-Jul-16 15:57:44)

It's a good job you aren't a lawyer. A small claims court won't entertain any claims until the supplier's standard problems and dispute resolution processes have been exhausted. Only if things can't be resolved in a reasonable time using this (with appropriate compensation) is it worth pursuing small claims courts.

Updated, Openreach have messed up my parents line today as the ADSL2+ went disconnected, and reconnect at ADSL (up to 8Mbps). It's was suppose to be Fibre. It's getting frustrated now and what a joke from BT.

BT Speedtest

Download speedachieved during the test was - 4.39 Mbps

IP Profile for your line is - 5.27 Mbps

Edited by adslmax (Fri 15-Jul-16 20:19:49)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Yes. War, war is always better than jaw, jaw.

That's probably the norm where adslmax comes from.

adslmax does tend to make extreme statements, but backtrack on them next day.

The person that post was addressed to loves to stir up anger rage against Plusnet. To do it with adslmax makes no sense at all. He isn't interested in adslmax's parents' welfare and getting the best result for them. Only in creating bad publicity for Plusnet for his own personal reasons.

In reply to a post by TheEulerID:

It's a good job you aren't a lawyer. A small claims court won't entertain any claims until the supplier's standard problems and dispute resolution processes have been exhausted. Only if things can't be resolved in a reasonable time using this (with appropriate compensation) is it worth pursuing small claims courts.

Indeed. See CPR 1 and, especially, paragraph 3 of the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, which reads:

In reference to www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action...:

Objectives of pre-action conduct and protocols

3. Before commencing proceedings, the court will expect the parties to have exchanged sufficient information to�

(a) understand each other�s position;

(b) make decisions about how to proceed;

(c) try to settle the issues without proceedings;

(d) consider a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to assist with settlement;

(e) support the efficient management of those proceedings; and

(f) reduce the costs of resolving the dispute.

The civil courts do not exist as a platform for pursing every trivial dispute - there simply isn't sufficient judicial resource available for that. The civil courts are there to dispose of matters that have failed to reach resolution despite reasonable efforts by the parties.

It is understood that litigants in the small claims track of the County Court might well be representing themselves and will lack legal expertise, but the courts are nevertheless required to implement the law, not what people believe the law might be. A claim that is not properly framed in legal terms, where the pre-action protocols have not been followed and where ADR has been shunned may well be struck out at the court's initiative pursuant to CPR 3.4(2). If the court doesn't strike out the claim at its own initiative, the defendant may well succeed in an application for the claim to be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.3(1). In a dispute with a telco, ADR is available at no cost to the customer, so the courts may well look particularly harshly on a failure to use this opportunity for dispute resolution.

The standard requirements for contract and negligence disputes on the small claims track can be seen in Appendix A to Practice Direction 27.

Talk of suing anyone in the first breath is just poppycock. Use of courts is an act of last resort, not first resort - especially if you wish to retain cordial relations in the future. Consider port availability only if it turns into a real issue (unlikely, given the responses when adslmax has previously asked about the cabinet fill levels).

Get Plusnet to fix the fault. Then, when they know what the cost of the outage has been, they'll offer to make good and more. I've always found them more than fair, without need to be chased.

Run around screaming "Sue!" and you put all the wrong attention on the matter, at the wrong time.

I wonder if adslmax showed his/her parents this thread before taking action.

Updated: My parents FTTC has restored now this morning.

1. Best Effort Test: -provides background information.

Download Speed
74.85 Mbps

0 Mbps 77.35 Mbps
Max Achievable Speed

Download speedachieved during the test was - 74.85 Mbps
For your connection, the acceptable range of speedsis 40 Mbps-77.35 Mbps .
Additional Information:
IP Profile for your line is - 77.35 Mbps

2. Upstream Test: -provides background information.

Upload Speed
18.27 Mbps

0 Mbps 20 Mbps
Max Achievable Speed

Upload speed achieved during the test was - 18.27Mbps
Additional Information:
Upstream Rate IP profile on your line is - 20 Mbps

Thus confirming your massive over-reaction. Glad it's sorted.

They also getting refunds of £7.85 for the loss of service.

I did make reference to adr

But if the port had been given to a new customer then what could the adr actually do?
And in the absence of any progress as far as restoring the service ,going the small claims may have been an option, unless of course Cisas where able to get a satisfactory result

In reply to a post by tommy45:

But if the port had been given to a new customer then what could the adr actually do?
And in the absence of any progress as far as restoring the service ,going the small claims may have been an option, unless of course Cisas where able to get a satisfactory result

The starting position is that the contract is defined by the terms that both parties agreed to when entering into the contract, but there is a recognition under EU law (which remains active in the UK unless and until it is repealed or replaced once the UK leaves the EU) that there is 'inequality of arms' between a customer and a business dealing on the business's standard terms that the business will likely use to protect its interests so far as possible. There is therefore the requirement for fairness in consumer contracts found in what is now Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (previously it was in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations). A non-exhaustive list of matters that are unfair are found in Schedule 2 to the Act.

If no FTTC ports were available for reconnection, Plusnet would have been entitled to exercise their right to terminate the contract under section 16.1.1(i) of their terms and conditions. This terms appears to be fair when taking into account paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 CRA 2015 - a term is unfair if it "has the object or effect of enabling the trader to terminate a contract of indeterminate duration without reasonable notice except where there are serious grounds for doing so". FTTx is not based on a high cost wholesale product with a plethora of guarantees, but a relatively inexpensive wholesale product provided pretty much on a 'best efforts' basis. If Openreach notified Plusnet that they were unable to restore service, this would be "serious grounds" for Plusnet to terminate the contract.

Whilst a court does have equitable jurisdiction to order specific performance - that a particular act is done - it will not use specific performance to order the impossible. If there are no usable ports remaining for reconnection and no prospect of a port becoming available in the near future, the only just thing is to permit contract termination pursuant to the terms the customer agreed to when forming the contract. One example where specific performance is used is in cases of wilful breach of contract for gain, especially in property transactions.


There is a common misconception that a contract is an absolute right to insist on the other party carrying out the acts or promises within that contract. This is not the case; the law recognises that performance of contractual obligations might become impossible. Resolution of the matter then falls to any contractual term about remedy (so-called liquidated damages) or, if there is no applicable liquidated damages term, to the general contractual damages regime where actual financial loss is the primary consideration.


This was a ludicrous scenario for adslmax to threaten legal action. The situation appeared to be headed to resolution by reconnection within a few days, which is exactly the scenario where you should avoid 'going legal' in order to stop the ISP switching its primary focus from resolving the problem to protecting its legal position. The contract made provision for pro-rata refund for service disruption. In the event, reconnection took place sooner than expected, and the pro-rata refund was less than £10.

If speedy reconnection had not taken place, and the parties failed to reach an agreement founded on the contract terms, presumably with some sort of ex gratia offer on top by Plusnet, ADR was available at no cost to the customer. Failing to pursue ADR without good reason would weaken the claimant's position significantly and could result in the claim being struck out on the court's own initiative or at the defendant's application. The courts are a last resort when all other attempts to resolve a dispute have failed, not the playground of those who wish to make their point at disproportionate cost.

If all else had failed, it's still debatable that this was worth paying a court fee over. It costs £25 to claim up to £300 via an online filing - the fees are higher is the claim is filed other than via the online system or a larger sum is claimed. Is it worth risking £25 and all the effort involved for a likely small sum of money if you won? If the court feels that the costs claimed were disproportionate, it does not have to award the full sum.


Though the cost is a not inconsiderable part of most people's monthly bills, consumer broadband is a high volume low margin product with almost no service guarantee. Even business broadband with enhanced fault resolution can still be down for days in a worst case fault scenario.

If your connection is important to you, it is important to have some sort of backup. This might be as simple as tethering your mobile phone or having a mobile broadband dongle with a prepay SIM to hand. The law imposes a duty to mitigate loss in the event of breach of contract (so if, for example, your roof blew off, you would be expected to take reasonable steps to make the property watertight as soon as possible, rather than delaying in the hope that you'll get a new lounge carpet out of it). Moreover, claims for consequential loss will be looked upon harshly on a residential broadband product that has clear terms forbidding other than incidental business use (paragraph 2.1.3) and excluding liability for consequential financial loss to the fullest extent permitted by law (paragraph 12.1.1; note that the law imposes the exclusions on liability found in 12.3).

I was looking at the worst case scenario ,and the isp's negligence/ineptness in causing the problem , But it was resolved ,what would of angered me is the isp's lack of offering to expedite whatever BTOR work required to reinstate the service ASAP so that the service wasn't lost , ( if i had been their customer in the same situation )on a full cab the situation could of been a lot worse ,

As the saying goes you get what you pay for ,certainly true regarding plusnet

Edited by tommy45 (Sun 17-Jul-16 21:28:19)

And you don't sue for £7.83.

Was all the ranting worth it?

In reply to a post by tommy45:

As the saying goes you get what you pay for ,certainly true regarding plusnet

It seems to me that Plusnet handled the situation very well.

Openreach ONLY do what their customers (the CP's) request. That there is service via the ADSL port in the exchange means that PN had requested it be live, and also that the FTTC ties in the cabinet be removed.

Openreach do not 'dream up' stuff like this to do. If the FTTC ties were disconnected in error, then your parents would have a NDT fault as well.

Was all the ranting worth it?

In 'Max-land*' !









*Nowhere I EVER want to visit.

In reply to a post by kasg:

In reply to a post by tommy45:

As the saying goes you get what you pay for ,certainly true regarding plusnet

It seems to me that Plusnet handled the situation very well.

of course they caused the problem in the first place and then failed to offer a fast solution by having the service reinstated by expediting it , just how that is a sign of a competent isp i don't know

Not quite a follow on but tonight we had an outage, though when I managed comms with Plusnet they informed me that this was planned maintenance being conducted, to which I replied no nothing is on your site and it 7pm, which is not the usual tine that OpenReach 'conduct's' these things, this is an Outage. It was via my mobile's browser and I was not going waste my time.
I'd say that Plusnet is in BT's pocket, no pun intended, otherwise why would they take that approach and yes I know they are a subsidiary.
I/we are not happy bunnies and again I ask myself why am I still with them after 13 years. Its the overall package, and I'll look again at Zen's. Nobody has a bad word for them.
Their CRM has gone south and I only have myself to blame for not organising a back up SIM dongle, still I got a static IP earlier this month but yet to see any call quality improvement.
That is my next job, the question is which network as my giffgaff also went down and I'm told by O2 that I should have 4G. They do just around the corner, fat lot of good that is to me!
BC

In reply to a post by tommy45:

I was looking at the worst case scenario ,and the isp's negligence/ineptness in causing the problem

As I explained, it is unlikely a court would order reconnection if no ports were available when Openreach received the reconnection request. In this scenario, it is near certain that the court would accede to Plusnet's request, in line with its terms and conditions, to terminate the contract. Whether reconnection was possible or not, damages would almost certainly be a pro-rata refund plus proportionate costs.

As this is exactly the same scenario as when dealing directly from Plusnet or pursuing the matter via ADR, there is no advantage in going to court. The civil courts operate in such a way as to encourage disputes to settle out of court and to discourage recourse to the courts other than as a last resort.

In reply to a post by tommy45:

and then failed to offer a fast solution by having the service reinstated by expediting it , just how that is a sign of a competent isp i don't know

I'd be surprised if anyone could have got Openreach to fix it any sooner, anything less than a week is pretty much expedited I think.

It's annoying when things go wrong especially when you don't think you are getting anywhere - but it seems that the parties involved have rectified the situation and followed their own guidelines in respect to a refund.

I've recently had "issues" with PlusNet in as much as the'yve changed my Christian name on my DirectDebit to something totally unconnected to me. However they were apologetic and helpful and I couldn't ask for more - providing that is the incorrect Direct Debit now in progress doesn't cause their other systems to send me a "strongly worded letter".