In reply to a post by uno:

No, this is not a valid reason to block an outward migration and is against the Ofcom code for transfers.
Matt

Just out of interest is Ofcom's transfers code a kind of gentlemen's agreement of expected levels of service or is it something more binding?

In reply to a post by vivaciti:

The service at the OPs last address was 12 months (although he was out of his 12 month contract when he moved home) and the new service was also 12 months.
Broadband Activation costs us £40.00 + VAT and that's what we charge it out at we do not make any profit on this.

Well if it isn't you making a profit on this who ever charges you £48 (inc Vat)
is making a profit on it, because they won't be getting charged that much by BT
Especially when there is a 12mth min term involved the charge should be less or none existent
Also it would appear that you have contravened ofcom's rules by preventing the OP's outward migration , although i can understand your reasons for doing it, it doesn't really give a great impression does it

In reply to a post by bernado:

In reply to a post by uno:

No, this is not a valid reason to block an outward migration and is against the Ofcom code for transfers.
Matt

Just out of interest is Ofcom's transfers code a kind of gentlemen's agreement of expected levels of service or is it something more binding?

under the MAC system there was certainly a ruling that the existing provider could not prevent or hinder the migration because the customer owed them money, So i can't really see that this will of changed since the introduction of the GPL migration system in place now

In reply to a post by vivaciti:

The service at the OPs last address was 12 months (although he was out of his 12 month contract when he moved home) and the new service was also 12 months.
Broadband Activation costs us £40.00 + VAT and that's what we charge it out at we do not make any profit on this.

This is just plain wrong. I signed up for a monthly contract back in 2013. It was a monthly contract. It has always been a monthly contract. Nobody told me about this change. Nobody told me about the 12 month thing until TODAY.

This is from the first email you sent me, in 2013:
"As contracts are monthly it is advisable to check you have read and understood our terms and conditions regularly."

I was not told ANYTHING at all, at any point during the three years I was with you, about a 12 month contract, literally until today. This is completely new to me.

In reply to a post by Bastien:

"by just cancelling your direct debit this gives us no alternative than to temporarily suspend your service until this issue is resolved."



If not, what are my options for complaint about poor communication and my internet being unfairly suspended?

No alternative? Assuming 12.3 is the relevant clause Vivaciti does have an alternative to suspension. I would ask what this alternative is - reconnection while the dispute is settled for instance? If I have a problem with a supplier I dispute charges rather than tell them to delete charges as that would suggest I have no intention of ever being persuaded to pay.

You have cancelled all payments? Offer to pay the usual rental/call/broadband charges accrued and for the disputed charges to be put on hold while whatever settlement process progresses.

http://www.vivaciti.net/termsandconditions

12.3 If any of the events detailed in 12.2 occur as a result of Customer default, Vivaciti Broadband may suspend the Service without prejudice to its right to terminate this Contract.

In reply to a post by vivaciti:

The service at the OPs last address was 12 months (although he was out of his 12 month contract when he moved home) and the new service was also 12 months.
Broadband Activation costs us £40.00 + VAT and that's what we charge it out at we do not make any profit on this.

Wow the idea of another 12 months contract by mainstream suppliers is normally to cover the costs of migration. You cannot change for the move and another 12 months that is just greedy...

In reply to a post by ehteam:

You have cancelled all payments? Offer to pay the usual rental/call/broadband charges accrued and for the disputed charges to be put on hold while whatever settlement process progresses.

I have already asked for a bill with just the monthly fees (which I have always expected to pay so no problem with that) so I can pay those first. I am no thief.

I cancelled my direct debit yesterday because they have entered the full amount to be taken out, which I was/am still trying to dispute.

Ignorance is no form of defence.

As T&Cs seem to be made more beneficial for the customer nowadays the companies have to make some money when customers change their contract.

Unless I'm wrong, a supplier is supplying a service at a particular address and they are under no obligation to supply at a different address with the same contract. Granted if you have been on a monthly contract then that should be offered at the new address.

If you look throughout these forums then you will see that major changes seem to form a new contract. Eg new router, upgrade to faster speed (VM), etc.

I offered to pay the monthly fees. No reply from them.

In reply to a post by bernado:

In reply to a post by uno:

No, this is not a valid reason to block an outward migration and is against the Ofcom code for transfers.
Matt

Just out of interest is Ofcom's transfers code a kind of gentlemen's agreement of expected levels of service or is it something more binding?

See http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/telecoms/g...

A1.2 covers the circumstances losing providers can cancel migrations