Nah the car drivers should get their clog down a bit and stop holding everyone up behind them, or are the narrow lanes a bit too daunting for them ? most lorry drivers have timed deliveries to make is why they need to drive at the correct speed this countries motorway network is really foobarred currently theres far too much money being lost to it, without the sunday driving brigade adding to it

In reply to a post by broadband66:

Sorry about the deviation. I got bored with certain posters attitude!

No problem with me. I can handle it

In reply to a post by ian72:

(after all, it is maximum speed not a target).

And, like the Plusnet Profile, we'd all like to get close to it - even in busy periods!

On broadband that is understandable. On the road, the fact there is a maximum speed limit in no way says that at any particular time it is safe to drive at that speed. Even in the outside lane of a motorway where for some strange reason everyone else is in the inner two and going slower.

In reply to a post by broadband66:

I know someone that decided to take a leak after having climbed over some scaffolding and fell off. His employer didn't specifically say don't do that. He didn't have a leg to stand on (excuse the pun).

In this scenario, there might be a duty owed under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 (the broader duties owed under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 do not apply, as the person was making wrongful and dangerous use of the scaffolding). However, the feature of the scaffolding that the person climbed over was protection against the danger of falling, the presence of which likely discharges any obligation under the 1984 Act.

In reply to a post by broadband66:

And is it not your responsibility to use common sense and think. If YOU add an extension to your phone line and in some way the wiring is wrong and causes a broadband or phone issue then who should pay to have it fixed?

You persist in trying to do law by logic. It doesn't work that way.

In the Case of Prohibitions [1607] EWHC J23 (KB), Sir Thomas Coke stated that "causes ... are not to be decided by natural reason but by the artificial reason and judgment of law, which law is an act which requires long study and experience, before that a man can attain to the cognizance of it".


It is true that ignorance of the law is no defence, but you cannot discern the effects of a contract by any process other than applying the law to the facts of the case. As I indicatedin my earlier reply, whether a visit charge is enforceable against a customer is not a matter of common knowledge, and it is not a matter of common sense, either.

You keep quoting precedents but until someone had gone to court about this particular issue then the precedent hasn't been set.

Check any BT phone book.
It states that BT own the line up to and including the master socket. After that it is the owners responsibility. There will be a charge if an engineer is called and a problem is found to be with the wiring after the Master socket

That is not he case. A precedent is: 'Law. a legal decision or form of proceeding serving as an authoritative rule or pattern in future similar or analogous cases.' A precedent has been set for future similar or analogous cases

In reply to a post by broadband66:

You keep quoting precedents but until someone had gone to court about this particular issue then the precedent hasn't been set.

As wingco1 correctly says, case law applies by analogy. The law could not operate if every circumstance required an individual ruling.


The aim of the legal system is to be consistent by deciding a matter of law in the same way as previous decisions. This does not always happen in practice, but the system of precedent mostly works well.

Consistency is mostly achieved through the operation of binding precedent, which can only be departed from if there is something amongst the facts that distinguishes the matter being decided from the matter behind the precedent.

Cases that are not strictly binding are usually regarded as persuasive authority on the matter decided. Judges will usually attempt to honour persuasive authority unless there is good reason to depart from it. Relatively few matters require true judicial innovation.

In reply to a post by broadband66:

Check any BT phone book.
It states that BT own the line up to and including the master socket. After that it is the owners responsibility. There will be a charge if an engineer is called and a problem is found to be with the wiring after the Master socket

This raises the question of whether a BT Phone Book can speak to the terms and conditions of a Plusnet contract. I believe it is BT Retail who produces the book these days.

Unless a party has a reasonable opportunity to acquaint themselves with the terms of a contract before entering into that contract, then, barring a few narrow exceptions, they are not bound by any alleged terms that they subsequently encounter. The scenario behind a key piece of case law here was whether a hotel guest was bound by the terms in a notice in their room limiting liability for lost or stolen items. The court held the guest was not bound, as the contract was formed no later than checking in, at which time the guest had no idea about the exclusion clause in the notice.


If a Plusnet contract says that you are bound by terms printed in the BT Phone Book and you are given an opportunity to read the current version of those terms before entering into the contract, you may well be bound by them. In all other scenarios, it is doubtful the Phone Book speaks in any way to the terms of a Plusnet contract.

Apologies for replying to you but I don't have any idea of a better place
References to analogies in law etc. don't seem to be valid in this case
I refer to the Plusnet Terms and Conditions which seem to cover it albeit with a sort of catchall http://www.plus.net/info2/legal/index.html

Where we arrange for an engineer to visit your Premises for activation of the Service, or for resolution of a fault, you will be responsible for any costs incurred owing to any of the following:

<snip>
you report a fault, an engineer attends your Premises, and discovers the fault is not the result of the Service;
<snip>.

Where the reference to the service presumably includes all the wiring up to and including the master socket

With respect to the Meltdown theme of this thread, which seems to have been lost, and further to my earlier post about Madasafish poor performance during evening and failure to respond to tickets, I decided, after more than ten years, to move on.
Phoning Madasafish this morning to finalise cancellation of course I got PlusNet, who asked me why I was leaving and if they couldn't do a 'better deal.' But their lack of response when I had a problem has caused me to move on, in this case Sky (being a TV customer, it's a hard deal to resist.) I got charged £25 termination fee which after ten years and failure to respond to a problem seemed unfair to me, but I simply grinned and took it.
I'd tested all my side, different router, different computer etc etc and the problem is not on the line.
I'm now connected to Sky, 6 times faster, stable and the same cost. Madasafish used to be pretty good, if not very progressive, PlusNet I have to say has failed to impress when I'm seeing good speeds by day, extremely poor speed by evening, even though they're still pushing those ads on TV about how good they are.
I wonder how many 'ex-customers' this performance has generated.