Migration policy change

Anyone thinking of migrating from PN in the near future would do well to have a look at the "Email access terminated!" thread on the PUG forum.

If you think, on the basis of James Bailey's assurances on this forum, that your email will be "safe" in PN's hands after migration, then think again!

Of course most readers here will not be surprised that PN have yet again made a significant change in policy/procedures without bothering to inform anyone. And even as I speak, misinformation about this subject continues to be doled out on the PN forum.

sb248

There's nothing wrong with the policy, as outlined there by IW. The implementation of the policy is where it goes belly-up -- as is sadly quite normal for PlusNet.

I thought that these dichotomies were all going to be cured by the move to the new offices. At least, that was the promise.... But still the left hand (comms) doesn't seem to know what the right hand (csc) is doing.

Simon

The real problem, as I see it, is when PN policy becomes embedded in a single post in a long thread on some particular forum - PN, PUG, AG or some other.

Policies should be enshrined in a dedicated area of the portal where every user can clearly access the current version at any time, and PN reps in the various forums can point to it, instead of giving their own version in response to a post.

sb248

Indeed. This has recently been promised by IW in a PUG discussion I think. But I imagine it will take them a very long time to produce, not least because different PN people and departments seem to have different takes on what the policies actually are.

Simon

Maybe if Plusnet did what honest ISP's do and didn't change their policies every 5 minutes they wouldn't have customers with "issues" like they do?

Bring it upon themselves time and time again they do. I could name names but it wouldn't serve a purpose, and everyone knows who the problem is due to.

In reply to:

---

different PN people and departments seem to have different takes on what the policies actually are.

---

Probably because theres a "week 1 policy", "week 2 policy", "week 3 policy" .........etc etc etc ?

Question: Whats wrong with just having 1 fixed policy that don't need changing?
Answer: Because then plusnet customers would know exactly where they stand

Remember the "transparency" that keeps being promised?
Changing policies as often as plusnet do, it will NEVER EVER be a transparent operation.

When I left PN I got this e-mail

In reply to:

---

Your request to move away from PlusNet has been received and processed.

Move details
Move date: 19/09/2006

Moved from: PlusNet Broadband Premier Option 1 (Monthly Contract,
Activation and Modem Offer)

Please note: Your account will be cancelled in 60 days time. Up until then
you will have access to your PlusNet email and webspace, after which these
will be stopped.

Kind regards,

PlusNet Customer Support

---

Didn't bother me, as I never risked PN email service anyway.

There doesn't appear to be any consistency about this. That message is certainly not standard.

My friend applied for a MAC for TalkTalk (NB he did not ask to Cancel) on 01Sep. He received the MAC in an email on 04Sep and went "live" with TT on 27Sep. His next communication from PN was an obscure email dated 06Oct:

From: <[email protected]>
To: <postmaster@****.plus.com>
Cc: <****@****.plus.com>
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 5:15 AM
Subject: Important: About your cancellation request

Your username: ****

Dear Mr ****,

We're emailing you to let you know that as your cancellation request has now been placed. Your cancellation will take place on 12/09/2006.

I can only assume that the date given at the end, "12/09/2006", is an error. They probably meant "12/10/2006", but we weren't to know at that time. My friend was able to send/receive email on his PN account, and access the portal, up to 13Oct, then suddenly all access failed. Clearly his account was completely terminated at that point. I raised a ticket on my friend's behalf, and the account was "reactivated", but by then his mailboxes had been trashed.

Now Ian Wild, in a new version of the "Leaving PN" policy on the PUG forum, seems to be saying that if a customer requests a MAC key for "Sky or another LLU provider", then the request is "handled as a cease and not as a MAC migration".

What is still not clear from Ian's statement is, if a customer requests a MAC for Sky or another LLU provider, and at the same time makes an explicit request for their account to be downgraded to a free PAYG (dialup) account (you have to "raise a question" to complete the MAC application process), then they will keep your account open.

sb248

> What is still not clear from Ian's statement is, if a customer requests a MAC for Sky or another LLU provider, and at the same time makes an explicit request for their account to be downgraded to a free PAYG (dialup) account (you have to "raise a question" to complete the MAC application process), then they will keep your account open.

It might not be possible to do that as the cancelling of the contract via the Sky/LLU route would supercede any requests for downgrading?

Maybe someone who is already thinking of moving to Sky anyway should give it a try?

Maybe the computer says NO?

Edited by caesar_salad (Tue 17-Oct-06 16:43:09)

A friend recently migrated to TT and his account was changed to a free dialup as he requested.

Did your friend migrate to LLU or stay on BTw when they moved to TT?

I'm not sure if TT have got LLU running at all their supported exchanges.

When I migrated away I asked for a MAC and that was all I requested. I moved away and I only realised a month or so later that my account had been downgraded to PAYG. I didn't ask for it and I didn't need it. I could have posted in the forums during that time too but chose not to because it would have been unfair. In the end I had to raise a ticket asking them to delete my details and remove my account from their system.

He migrated to an exactly similar product: DslMax to DslMax. His exchange is not unundled yet.

His TT connection went live on 27Sep. He raised a ticket on 05Oct simply to inform PN that his migration had completed, and to ask if he could cancel his DD with his bank (note: cancel his DD, NOT cancel his account!). The response to the ticket on 06Oct was:

From: <[email protected]>
To: <****.plus.com>
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 5:16 AM
Subject: PlusNet - Question has been amended or escalated

Username ****

We are pleased to be able to inform you that a member of our Customer Support Centre has now escalated your Question [number 20430613 ] for further investigation.

The following comment was added to the Question Dear Mr ****, On inspection, I can confirm that no further paymen ts are due, and as such, i ahve clsoed the account.

You can indeed cancel the Direct Debit with the bank.

Unforutnatly, the card details cannot be removed via the portal. I ahve however removed these for you.

Regards,
Agent Name

So it looks like that particular "agent" took it upon himself to trash my friend's account. I didn't realise the significance of "i ahve clsoed the account" at that time. I assumed it just referred to account management on the portal - he could no longer log into the "Member Centre", but he continued to have access to his email. However on 13Oct that, too, ceased.. When the account was reactivated later that day, his mail was gone!

sb248

I would have thought that you'd still have access to the portal even if you are a PAYG customer, you wouldn't have access to any webspace any more but I believe that it used to be standard practice to downgrade everyone to PAYG upon leaving so that they could bolster up their customer numbers.

AFAIK they don't count PAYG customers toward the important numbers now so this is why they cancel them instead?

Don't expect sense or logic.

They make their policies on the hoof, don't live by them and foget to tell anyone else on the team when a new one has been born.