Any info on XLN Telecom Phone & Broadband

Link to XLN
A friend of mine have recently switched to them for broadband ,after being with them for the past 12ths for phone only,
From what i can find on XLN They would appear to be really bad, the broadband as far i can tell is either a white label resold bt 21cn product or possibly a C & W or tiscali (tt) llu product resold by Griffin , and they like to charge a hefty £200 cancellation fee if you don't give them 12ths notice,lol surely that can't be correct ,or legal ,can it ?
i have also read that their support staff are rude, they target people with their telemarketing campaigns that are registered with the TPS so they ignore that too

Is this just sour grapes or lies from competition or are they really one such company to be avoided

Edited by MrSaffron (Sun 29-Jan-12 12:09:06)

Did you copy that link from somewhere? Post is a little dubious as it contains an affiliate link.

Matt

In reply to a post by uno:

Did you copy that link from somewhere? Post is a little dubious as it contains an affiliate link.

Matt

Google search 1st result on the list ,so i dunno why it has the "?affl=xln&gclid=" bit after the address link without it
Here page looks the same ??

Edited by MrSaffron (Sun 29-Jan-12 12:09:29)

Another thing my friends number is no longer checkable on the bt wholesale checker it just says it's not recognised or maybe a new number, or the worrying bit not a bt line, but it was a bt wholesale line and as far as i'm aware has always been since installation, hope they ain't fully llu'd it without informing people first if they have it would be talktalk llu and would be a right pain to switch isp & phone provider at a later date

referral id removed from the post

The checker doing what it says they are doing sounds very like full LLU and to be honest is no surprise.

Full LLU is the way that firms can do mega cheap phone and broadband line rental bundles.

Most contracts do not define the delivery technology, so leaving the firm to use whatever they wish. The better providers do provide some information on this, but often it is hidden as an 'upgrade' letter when someone is moved from WLR/SMPF to full LLU.

As for comments people are making, generally with referral driven providers you find the distinction between happy and unhappy is a very wide gulf. The referral income can also mean some people stretch things a little sometimes.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

The checker doing what it says they are doing sounds very like full LLU and to be honest is no surprise.

Full LLU is the way that firms can do mega cheap phone and broadband line rental bundles.

Most contracts do not define the delivery technology, so leaving the firm to use whatever they wish. The better providers do provide some information on this, but often it is hidden as an 'upgrade' letter when someone is moved from WLR/SMPF to full LLU.

As for comments people are making, generally with referral driven providers you find the distinction between happy and unhappy is a very wide gulf. The referral income can also mean some people stretch things a little sometimes.

I 'm not sure how my freind go to know about them, could of been a marketing call or cold call in person to their premiss, I vaguely can remember seeing some flyer in the office laster with XLN on it some deals about phone , rental & calls,
From what my freind says the broadband is supposed to be upto 20mb ,which on the face of it says 21cn bt white lable, but reading their terms (which to me does not provide sufficient info, as a lot of key facts are not even given reference to,) I personally would not of done business with a company who expects a12mth notice to cancel without penalty they seem to be also still using the auto renewing of contracts , which i thought had been stopped as of dec 11 ? personally they seem to be operating IMO outside of the laws of this country
in particular the £200 cancellation fee, should you not give the 1yr notice in advance
That has to be wrong, i would take my chances with the county court on that every time, as i would be
1 surprised if they actually registered it in a county court

2, A county court judge finding in XLN 's favor, as that is an excessive amount by any standards

In your opening post you said "... or possibly a C & W or tiscali (tt) llu product resold by Griffin".

C & W is LLU and so could Tiscali have been. Tiscali is now part of TalkTalk. For the line still to work but not be showing on the BT Wholesale checker it would have to be LLU.

LLU broadband is "up to 24" Mbps and doesn't need BT 21CN. If it was 21CN then the phone would definitely show up on the BT Wholesale checker.

The footprint of Opal Wholesale ADSL2+ (TalkTalk to the man in the street) is greater than that of ADSL2+ from BT Wholesale

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

In your opening post you said "... or possibly a C & W or tiscali (tt) llu product resold by Griffin".

C & W is LLU and so could Tiscali have been. Tiscali is now part of TalkTalk. For the line still to work but not be showing on the BT Wholesale checker it would have to be LLU.

LLU broadband is "up to 24" Mbps and doesn't need BT 21CN. If it was 21CN then the phone would definitely show up on the BT Wholesale checker.

From what my freind has told me the broadband is upto 20mb, which would indicate a 21cn resold bt product, it could be they have mis sold this, as i seriously doubt my freind is aware that they are now Full llu on the opal talktalk or tiscali wholesale as all 3 are technically the same llu network,as far as i can tell,

The C&W suggestion was added because it one of the solutions that Griffin supply ,

But that was before i found that the bt number is no longer working on bt checkers

Looking at some customer reviews they make reference to opal and CPW as being the network used, one established IT business customer loosing their bt number as a result of bt bungling or and XLN after leaving XLN

Now that's interesting!

Is that just since the latest TT rollouts, or for quite a while now?

the broadband is upto 20mb, which would indicate a 21cn resold bt product

That's what I don't understand. Why does "up to 20Mbps" indicate 21CN?

XLN could quite easily market an "up to 20Mbps" product from TT Wholesale. There are plenty of ISPs market "up to 24Mbps" on BT Wholesale connections. There is no BT Wholesale "up to 20Mbps" product.

It's just that some ISPs sell what is actually "up to 24Mbps" service as "up to 20Mbps", as the number of people able to get 24Mbps is tiny. It saves a lot of hassle for their support, and helps to avoid customer dissatisfaction.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

the broadband is upto 20mb, which would indicate a 21cn resold bt product

That's what I don't understand. Why does "up to 20Mbps" indicate 21CN?

XLN could quite easily market an "up to 20Mbps" product from TT Wholesale. There are plenty of ISPs market "up to 24Mbps" on BT Wholesale connections. There is no BT Wholesale "up to 20Mbps" product.

It's just that some ISPs sell what is actually "up to 24Mbps" service as "up to 20Mbps", as the number of people able to get 24Mbps is tiny. It saves a lot of hassle for their support, and helps to avoid customer dissatisfaction.

Well even BT retail sell it as upto 20mb so most people would assume that that was the max sync possible, without getting into technical capabilities , So they offer a capped service, as do sky ,

This may well be the case here, as for the avoiding customer dissatisfaction ,it could also work the opposite way for those who can obtain a higher sync ,

But apart from the fact they seem to of not been very forth coming about the migration onto full llu , or several of their business practices that are unfair and possibly illegal and certainly put their customers at a disadvantage , most of which are not published on the web site infact their complete t&s's is not available for public scrutiny ,wonder why this is then?

So if a car manufacturer sell you a car with an "up to 120mph" statement, that is a cap? Even if we all know the car can actually do 155mph? (Which is in fact a cap in most such cases).

Is someone who buys this car going to complain when they find it can go faster than 120mph?

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

So if a car manufacturer sell you a car with an "up to 120mph" statement, that is a cap? Even if we all know the car can actually do 155mph? (Which is in fact a cap in most such cases).

Is someone who buys this car going to complain when they find it can go faster than 120mph?

But this isn't a car that we are talking about, so is somewhat irrelevant, but i do get the point your are trying to make, this post is to to argue about some technical limitations of ADSL2+ Nor do i wish to do that, there are cases for and against such caps,

But if a provider decides to sell a product with and upto speed that has a headline speed of some 4mbits less than is possible then they are applying an artificial cap to it, whilst that may reduce calls on a providers tech support,

And whilst i appreciate that the majority of customers lines would not support speeds above the cap of 20mbits, there are a minority who have lines that currently do get higher speeds than this cap,for those this would be a disadvantage sync wise, using such a product
My post is about how they XLN as a company operate and their apparently underhand methods they deploy starting with a lack of information on the KEY facts involved , if more or less all others can do this why don't they?

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

But if a provider decides to sell a product with and upto speed that has a headline speed of some 4mbits less than is possible then they are applying an artificial cap to it

It's rarely a hard cap, which is not worth putting in place, but a marketing ploy to manage expectations.

For a long time now.

90% (+/- 1%) of UK homes have access to TalkTalk full LLU both retail and wholesale ADSL2+ network. BT WBC network is no where near that coverage level, I think it may even be less than Sky.

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

they like to charge a hefty £200 cancellation fee if you don't give them 12ths notice

Or is it?

In reference to www.xlntelecom.co.uk/resources/prices/Additions%20to%20Online%20Tar...:

Cancellation Fee: £299.00 plus VAT for each fixed and mobile phone line

Note: all their prices are ex-VAT.

This could well be against Ofcom guidelines for early termination charges for UK consumers. OTOH would he count as a consumer as XLN markets themselves as a "business specialist"?

BTW: Firms don't register anything at County Courts (until they are sued).

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

But if a provider decides to sell a product with and upto speed that has a headline speed of some 4mbits less than is possible then they are applying an artificial cap to it

It's rarely a hard cap, which is not worth putting in place, but a marketing ploy to manage expectations.

If solely only for marketing purposes and speeds not hard capped ,then fine, but i have my doubts with this company,
But again that is not my primary concern here , some reports their is a trial period ranging from zero to 46days, surely they have to provide a cooling off period ?
Why such a long 24 mths contract ? again is such a lengthy period still above board ?
And finally the notice of i cancellation period a minimum of at least 12mths to be given or they can charge customers a fee which is reported as over £200 inc vat,is this enforceable or even legal ? personally i think that a notice of cancellation should be not longer than 30 days prior , how do sharks like XLN get away with even trading ?

It's unlikely they have the wherewithal to put a hard cap in place. They have to rely on their suppliers, be it BT Wholesale or the LLU resellers.

You are confused between the notice period of cancellation and the price of cancellation. It is reasonable that the latter is proportional to the contract term remaining.

You need to recognise that this firm markets to small businesses not consumers.

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

It's unlikely they have the wherewithal to put a hard cap in place. They have to rely on their suppliers, be it BT Wholesale or the LLU resellers.

You are confused between the notice period of cancellation and the price of cancellation. It is reasonable that the latter is proportional to the contract term remaining.

You need to recognise that this firm markets to small businesses not consumers.

Nope according to some ex -unfortunate customers the cancellation charge of £199 excl vat applies regardless of being in min contract term of 24mths some have been charges this fee after 6yrs ,
They apparently are in the practice of also charging any remaining term at full price ,on top of the cancellation fee resulting in some getting billed over £300 just to leave them this disgusts me to say the least if these claims are true, As it is in breech of consumer laws , Maybe they will one day get a mention on a consumer protection program if they haven't already done so,
But as the saying goes there is no smoke without fire

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

But if a provider decides to sell a product with and upto speed that has a headline speed of some 4mbits less than is possible then they are applying an artificial cap to it

My point was it is extremely unlikely they are applying a cap. That in fact customers close enough to the exchange would probably get over 20Mmps connection speed.

Also bear in mind that on a full 24Mbps connection, the maximum throughput possible is in the area of just above 21Mbps. A large number of people are not aware of the difference between the advertised connection speed and the speed test maximum they will be able to get. 20Mbps may even be such companies advertising the throughput speed rather than the connection speed.

Tree, wrong, barking up, in my opinion.

Whether or not they are a company it is wise to deal with I do not comment upon. I have no idea about that.

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

It's unlikely they have the wherewithal to put a hard cap in place. They have to rely on their suppliers, be it BT Wholesale or the LLU resellers.

You are confused between the notice period of cancellation and the price of cancellation. It is reasonable that the latter is proportional to the contract term remaining.

You need to recognise that this firm markets to small businesses not consumers.

Nope according to some ex -unfortunate customers the cancellation charge of £199 excl vat applies regardless of being in min contract term of 24mths some have been charges this fee after 6yrs ,
They apparently are in the practice of also charging any remaining term at full price ,on top of the cancellation fee resulting in some getting billed over £300 just to leave them this disgusts me to say the least if these claims are true, As it is in breech of consumer laws , Maybe they will one day get a mention on a consumer protection program if they haven't already done so,
But as the saying goes there is no smoke without fire

have a look see at this maybe old but........

In reference to stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/competition-bulletins/closed-...:

CW/00897/03/06

Complainant: Ofcom own-initiative investigation
Complaint against: XLN Telecom Ltd (�XLN Telecom�)
Case opened: 26 April 2006
Case closed: 25 October 2006
Issue: Whether XLN Telecom has breached the requirements of General Condition 14.5 (b) to comply with the provisions of its Code of Practice for Sales and Marketing activity.
Relevant instrument: General Condition 14.5 of the General Conditions of Entitlement governing the requirement to establish, and comply with, a code of practice for sales and marketing activity.

The obligations relating to Codes of Practice for Sales and Marketing were originally set out by General Condition 14.3. These were renumbered as General Condition 14.5 following other amendments to General Condition 14 which came into force on 19 June 2006 (see note 1 below).

Update Note � 22 November 2006

A non-confidential version of Ofcom�s notification of 25 October 2006 issued to XLN Telecom under section 94 of the Communications Act has now been prepared and is available from the link below.

End of update note

Summary

Ofcom has completed its investigation into XLN Telecom and has issued a notification to XLN Telecom under section 94 of the Communications Act 2003 (�the Act�).

Ofcom's investigation found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that XLN Telecom has breached Ofcom�s rules concerning sales and marketing activity by failing to comply with XLN Telecom�s Code of Practice for Sales and Marketing of fixed line telecommunication services (the �Code�).

The notification issued to XLN Telecom on 25 October 2006 sets out the breaches and the steps the company must now take. The Notification also requires XLN Telecom to remedy any consequences arising from its conduct. XLN Telecom has until 27 November 2006 (�the deadline�) to complete these actions and to make representations to Ofcom.

Specifically, XLN Telecom has failed to comply with the provisions of its Code by:

Failing to ensure that on making contact, representatives state clearly that they represent XLN Telecom and offer only factual and accurate information about XLN Telecom�s services and contracts, and not misrepresent its services or those of other companies (page 2 of XLN Telecom�s Code);
Failing to ensure that customers entering into a contract fully understand the terms, in particular the length of the contract and the level of the termination fee for terminating the contract within the term (pages 2-3 of XLN Telecom�s Code);
Failing to ensure that the person entering into a contract with XLN Telecom is authorised to sign a contract for services and be responsible for bills at the premises in question (page 3 of XLN Telecom�s Code);
Failing to ensure that XLN Telecom will terminate contracts without charge where customers had not understood the contract they entered into or had not agreed to a service transfer (page 4 of XLN Telecom�s Code);
Failing to ensure that all sales agents working on behalf of XLN Telecom acted responsibly by conducting recruitment and training according to strict procedures (pages 1-2 of XLN Telecom�s Code); and
Failing to ensure that the company�s remuneration systems are designed to discourage misleading sales practices (page 2 of XLN Telecom�s Code).

The notification requires XLN Telecom to comply with the requirements of General Condition 14.5(b) and remedy the consequences of its contraventions. Ofcom would expect that the steps XLN Telecom takes may include, but are not limited to refunding in full and/or waiving all early termination or other such fees paid and/or otherwise payable by a customer:

to whom any misrepresentation was made by XLN Telecom or one of its employees, agents or representatives;
who was not clearly informed during the transfer process of the length of the minimum contract term and/or the fact that early termination fees were payable and/or the nature of the early termination fee;
whose telephony services were transferred to XLN Telecom without the consent of the person or persons authorised to do so; or
who did not understand or intend to enter into the contract.

XLN Telecom has until the deadline to take steps both to comply with the provisions of its Code and remedy the consequences of its earlier failure to comply. If XLN Telecom does not comply by the deadline, Ofcom will consider whether further enforcement action, including a fine, is appropriate.

A non-confidential version of the notification and the accompanying explanatory statement are currently being prepared and will be published shortly.

Note 1

General Condition 14 was amended following consultation by the Notification of Modification to a General Condition � Providing citizens and consumers with improved information about Number Translation Services and Premium Rate Services � published by Ofcom on 19 April 2006, which came into force on 19 June 2006.

General Condition 14.3 was renumbered to General Condition 14.5. The obligations relating to Codes of Practice for Sal es and Marketing pursuant to General Condition 14.3 are now imposed by General Condition 14.5. The obligations have not changed, and only the numbering in General Condition 14 has. References to the obligations in General Condition 14.3 and General Condition 14.5 in this bulletin will be referred to as "General Condition 14.5" for ease of reference, though any references to the operation of these obligations prior to 19 June 2006 will be in respect of General Condition 14.3.

Case Leader: Anthony Szynkaruk (email: [email protected])
Case Reference: CW/00897/03/06

Text published when the case was opened

Investigation into XLN Telecom Ltd regarding allegations of misconduct in selling and marketing of telecommunications services
Complainant : Ofcom own-initiative investigation
Complaint against : XLN Telecom Ltd (�XLN Telecom�)
Case opened : 26 April 2006
Issue : Whether XLN Telecom has breached the requirements of General Condition 14.3 (b) to comply with the provisions of its Code of Practice for sales and marketing activity.
Relevant instrument : General Condition 14.3 of the General Conditions of Entitlement governing the requirement to establish, and comply with, a code of practice for sales and marketing activity.

Ofcom has opened this investigation following complaints about the sale of fixed line telecommunications services by XLN Telecom (company number 03902543). A number of complainants have alleged that they were misled during the initial sales calls made by XLN Telecom and/or that they have had their service transferred to XLN Telecom without consent.

This investigation continues a sequence of investigations Ofcom has commenced or will be pursuing into misconduct by individual communications providers. These investigations form part of a wider campaign that includes an active enforcement programme (CW/00838) to monitor compliance with regulations designed to prevent mis-selling in fixed-line telecoms and protect consumers from abuses such as �slamming'.

Case Leader: Anthony Szynkaruk ( e-mail: [email protected] )
Case reference: CW/00897/03/06
In this section
Notification of Contravention of General Condition 14 under Section 94 of the Communications Act 2003 PDF Document (224 kB)

Notice served on XLN Telecom Ltd (�XLN Telecom�) by the Office of Communications (�Ofcom�)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

But if a provider decides to sell a product with and upto speed that has a headline speed of some 4mbits less than is possible then they are applying an artificial cap to it

My point was it is extremely unlikely they are applying a cap. That in fact customers close enough to the exchange would probably get over 20Mmps connection speed.

Also bear in mind that on a full 24Mbps connection, the maximum throughput possible is in the area of just above 21Mbps. A large number of people are not aware of the difference between the advertised connection speed and the speed test maximum they will be able to get. 20Mbps may even be such companies advertising the throughput speed rather than the connection speed.

Tree, wrong, barking up, in my opinion.

Whether or not they are a company it is wise to deal with I do not comment upon. I have no idea about that.

I already addressed this once already

If solely only for marketing purposes and speeds not hard capped ,then fine, but i have my doubts with this company,
But again that is not my primary concern here ,

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

It's unlikely they have the wherewithal to put a hard cap in place. They have to rely on their suppliers, be it BT Wholesale or the LLU resellers.

You are confused between the notice period of cancellation and the price of cancellation. It is reasonable that the latter is proportional to the contract term remaining.

You need to recognise that this firm markets to small businesses not consumers.

Does it funny how they also do business from home too then, as for mobile phone who said anything about mobile phones ?

This is about fixed line communications, not mobile that's a non entity ,

And although in this case the line has been used for business in the past it was actually a residential BT line so there you go,

My freind took over the business and phone some time ago , and have since foolishly transfered that line to xln

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

Failing to ensure that customers entering into a contract fully understand the terms, in particular the length of the contract and the level of the termination fee for terminating the contract within the term

That shows that Ofcom is not concerned about the level of the cancellation fees nor the length of the contracts, per se, but solely that the customers are fully aware of them when signing up.

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

as for mobile phone who said anything about mobile phones?

I didn't! If you mean my quote from their website, it was an inclusive statement covering landlines. Not worth making a fuss about

Yes, your friend seems to have made a bad decision. However any consumer buying from a business facing firm has to accept that it is just that and that consumer protection may not be applicable. It was their choice!

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

as for mobile phone who said anything about mobile phones?

I didn't! If you mean my quote from their website, it was an inclusive statement covering landlines. Not worth making a fuss about

Yes, your friend seems to have made a bad decision. However any consumer buying from a business facing firm has to accept that it is just that and that consumer protection may not be applicable. It was their choice!

I agree that it was their choice although somewhat mis-sold /guided,
As for the customers being made fully aware at the time of sign up of, Extortionate cancellation fees or The unrealistic 1yr notice period rule , or in fact that the land line would become
Full llu as a direct result of taking phone & bb from them I have serious concerns about, if they are getting away with this sort of stuff then they should be stopped business customers or not ,they should not be allowed to operate in this way

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

as for mobile phone who said anything about mobile phones?

I didn't! If you mean my quote from their website, it was an inclusive statement covering landlines. Not worth making a fuss about

Yes, your friend seems to have made a bad decision. However any consumer buying from a business facing firm has to accept that it is just that and that consumer protection may not be applicable. It was their choice!

I agree that it was their choice although somewhat mis-sold /guided,
As for the customers being made fully aware at the time of sign up of, Extortionate cancellation fees or The unrealistic 1yr notice period rule , or in fact that the land line would become
Full llu as a direct result of taking phone & bb from them I have serious concerns about, if they are getting away with this sort of stuff then they should be stopped business customers or not ,they should not be allowed to operate in this way

my freind though wont suffer fools easily , they come the bs with them all they will get is the 9-10 jack boot in a place the sun don't shine,
but the clearly are reliant on those who fold just for an easy life,

Ofcom has no requirement to make a provider disclose what technology is used to deliver the service.

Neither do you expect to be told whether the private hire cab you request will be diesel, petrol, or whatever powered.

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/i/4277.html

How this applies to business is another issue, as the auto renewing contracts are more common in business contracts

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Ofcom has no requirement to make a provider disclose what technology is used to deliver the service.

that maybe so, but are this company disclosing these details ? no where on their web site do they confirm that a customer would become full llu ,
They may well refer to a llu network that in it's self is not conclusive,

In my book, and i doubt that they will of conveyed this to my Friend at the time they signed up for adsl services , but i shall get further info from them regarding the initial telephone conversation and associated contract paperwork if any
By all intents and purposes they appear to be one of few rouge companies out there, high time someone did something about such companies , they create dis -trust ect amongst the reputable companies that serve customers well in this economic decline

90% (+/- 1%) of UK homes have access to TalkTalk full LLU both retail and wholesale ADSL2+ network

So what percentage of UK exchanges would actually supply that 90% (+/- 1%) ?

Mac

2,208 exchanges taken from http://otp.investis.com/generic/regulatory-story.asp...

Thanks for:

Our unbundling programme continues at pace with 201 new exchanges added in the period extending the reach of our value for money products to 2,208 exchanges and approximately 89% of the population.

Have you an idea of how many exchanges there are in the UK, I assume the 2208 (all LLU) mentioned are not a large percentage of the UK total, especially when you take into account the many small rural exchanges.

Mac

5500