In Small Claims court the clamant is protected from paying the defendants costs, so the risk is confined to claimants own costs and the full contract costs if the cases fails. Where the claimant is a consumer the cases is heard local to them, Leetline would have to travel. So while not without risks a claim after rejection of a letter before claim could see Leetline fold when solely looking at the £ outcome of defending a claim.

Anyway not there yet, still time to negotiate a way out based on lack of performance before considering using legal guns.

Edited by kommando (Sun 27-Mar-22 10:34:28)

Absolutely correct. I seem to have started this legal argument off and then had some pushback, no idea why but that often happens here, but my first advice was to speak to Leetline to see if they could resolve the problem. I'm sure Leetline will attempt a resolution (e.g. a move to a different backhaul supplier) and if unable will let them out of their contract early.

I wonder why Zen can't play sensible and route traffic on the shortest route? Anyone near Manchester or north of would not see much if any extra latency, but routing someone 2ms from the ISPs gateway on a round trip up to Manchester just doesn't seem sensible. It's not as though this is the first complaint of latency differences on connections with Zen (or those using Zen backhaul).

Edited by E300 (Sun 27-Mar-22 10:47:50)

In reply to a post by E300:

I seem to have started this legal argument off and then had some pushback, no idea why but that often happens here, but my first advice was to speak to Leetline to see if they could resolve the problem. I'm sure Leetline will attempt a resolution (e.g. a move to a different backhaul supplier) and if unable will let them out of their contract early.

This approach seems sensible with the threat of legal action in the OP's back pocket if they start trying to play hardball.

Certainly, I would expect Leetline to let the customer out of the contract early, to get them off their back if nothing else. All I'm saying is, going to court isn't going to achieve anything more than that.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

Certainly, I would expect Leetline to let the customer out of the contract early, to get them off their back if nothing else. All I'm saying is, going to court isn't going to achieve anything more than that.

That’s what you’d expect.

I had a read of this “our commitment to you” page from their website which is all full of lovely waffle, and grandiose statements.

However getting down to it, yes the legal T&Cs is far more revealing…in particular clause 15.1 is quite revealing given all the previous waffle:

15.1 The Services include support only to the extent specifically provided for within the Services and by the contact methods specifically provided for. We do not guarantee that any specified response times or particular outcome will be achieved.

16.1 We do not guarantee that the Service will be uninterrupted or error-free. We are entitled, without notice and without liability (a) to suspend the Service for repair, maintenance, improvement or other technical reason and (b) to make changes to the Service so long as these don’t have a seriously adverse effect on the Service.

So there it is. There is no SLA. It’s best endeavours. As you’d expect.

Edited by Pheasant (Sun 27-Mar-22 21:58:47)

15.1 is regarding support e.g response times to reported issues and 16.1 (b) is a little more relevant in that it states they 'seriously' cannot degrade the service at any time.
The issue will be determining what constitutes 'seriously' as it is not defined.

Also don't forget consumer law doesn't just work from a contract. Leetline's contract can only add better terms than the protections a consumer already has by law, they can not take away a consumers statutory rights. Consumer law takes into account how the product was sold and what promises were made at the time of sale. A company can't just make a load of stuff up on it's website then hide or omit those benefits in its terms and conditions then try and get out of it.

Leetline also state the person can leave after one month, whilst that isn't in their contract that I can see, it still legally applies.

We promise to be the best gaming ISP you have ever had. To prove this if you are not impressed after your 1st month we will rip up the contract! We will help you move and cancel any outstanding contract.

Hopefully the OP can get them to resolve the issue. If not, then if they are true to their word, he should be released from the contract without penalty and chalk it up to experience.

Double check is not a talktalk backhaul as Zen sneakily did mine without telling me from BTw for whatever reason.

Zen have/had a issue before where if i was connect to interxion london gateway (ending in 51.XX.XX.23 and 51.x.x.x.24 my ping would double from 6ms -> 18-21ms however this was a talktalk backhaul issue but since moved back to BT wholesale it resolved the issue, Telehouse was unaffected.

In reply to a post by E300:

I wonder why Zen can't play sensible and route traffic on the shortest route? Anyone near Manchester or north of would not see much if any extra latency, but routing someone 2ms from the ISPs gateway on a round trip up to Manchester just doesn't seem sensible. It's not as though this is the first complaint of latency differences on connections with Zen (or those using Zen backhaul).

Very large portion of zen users would be FTTC/ADSL2 business lines where latency dosnt matter to them, along as they can access emails and social media everythings great, Is only going to affect most home users that are into Gaming and VoIP users that will complain.

Edited by francisuk25 (Tue 29-Mar-22 10:26:36)

Is only going to affect most home users that are into Gaming and VoIP users that will complain.

Excess jitter on a live connection is public enemy number one of VoIP.

A 20, 30, 40 even an 80ms ping is fine - as long as it’s stable - and will not deleteriously affect a single or even several VoIP users on a broadband connection.