|
Hi everyone,
I would welcome a sanity check on the strengths, weaknesses and practical risks of declining the Ombudsman's final decision and pursuing a county court claim concerning the contractual minimum speed and the ISP's duty to exercise reasonable care and skill under section 49 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
The Ombudsman did not uphold my claim for automatic compensation because it regarded the fault as intermittent dropping and retraining rather than a continuous total loss of service. It directed the ISP to reinstate a £50 goodwill offer.
I am considering declining the decision because the ISP's evidence appears to contain several technical or contractual inconsistencies. I would limit any claim to evidenced losses directly connected with the alleged breaches.
The main evidence is:
• Contractual minimum speed: The ISP's initial record states a minimum guaranteed speed of 40 Mbps. The visiting representative later recorded 34 Mbps and said the area was limited to 30 Mbps. I would rely on this as a material inconsistency and ask the ISP to explain which contractual figure applied.
• The first visit: On 28 July, the representative recorded that the NTE/master socket could not be located and that a new socket could not be tested. The replacement router was left connected through an extension and microfilter, after which the connection entered an extended loss-of-signal cycle. I would argue that the court should consider whether the visit met the section 49 standard of reasonable care and skill.
• The external fault and repair: On 30 July, Openreach located the fault outside my property and recorded damp or corrosion affecting the external cable. After the cable was replaced, the line synced at 79.999 Mbps and remained stable. This appears inconsistent with the earlier diagnosis of an internal extension fault and a 30 Mbps local limit, although further evidence may be needed to exclude every possible internal factor.
Total loss versus unusable service
The ISP told the Ombudsman that no total loss of service occurred. However, its internal log described an “unusable internet connection”, and the router records included a 0.0 dB SNR reading. I would welcome technical views on what those records establish about the nature and duration of the fault.
Earlier line performance
The ISP's 12-month graph appears to show the line operating at about 55 Mbps before the July fault. Following replacement of the external cable, the sync increased to 79.999 Mbps. This may indicate that the cable had previously limited performance, although the graph alone cannot establish when degradation began or exclude other network-management factors.
The upstream figures also improved from an automated test result of 11.0 Mbps before the repair to a current sync of 19.598 Mbps. As these readings may come from different tests and times, I would welcome views on whether they are directly comparable.
________________________________________
Proposed next steps
My present plan is to decline the Ombudsman decision, send a Letter Before Claim and, if the matter remains unresolved, consider a county court money claim for a pro-rata service refund and evidenced additional mobile-data costs. I am uncertain whether compensation for my own time and inconvenience would be recoverable, particularly for network reconfiguration.
I would particularly welcome views on:
• whether declining the Ombudsman decision affects any part of a later claim;
• the evidential weight of the ISP and Openreach records;
• whether I am applying section 49 correctly;
• which losses are realistically recoverable; and
• how ISPs generally approach mediation or settlement in a modest, document-based claim.
I can provide a redacted chronology, the relevant contract wording, the full service dates, the Ombudsman's reasoning and an itemised proposed claim.
Thanks in advance!
|
Print Thread
