In reply to a post by NilSatisOptimum:

I suggest you read up on the Equality Act 2010, you will end up in hot water very soon if you keep applying the narrow view of everyone who mentions an illness is worming their way out of paying.

I don't have any issues with a disability. What I do have a issue with is people using a disability to avoid admititng their error. When it has no bearing on the issue.

In reply to a post by vivaciti:

I think I have posted further up, but the first MAC was valid, it had just not been used and expired.
When the customer contacted us to request a new MAC the cs person clicked the request MAC button and put a note in to check back for it (this is how we do things here and is the correct process)
when the cs person dealing went back to check for the MAC in our portal he copied and pasted it back to the customer, not realising it was the same one already sent (unless he was looking for it, he would not have seen it as it was a new ticket, not the original ticket for the first MAC) the customer contacted us back saying the MAC was invalid (this is the second one that was sent) when looking into the matter it was found that the customers line was part of a bulk regrade from 20CN to 21CN, the customer was informed of this and the date the modify order was due to complete, an option was given to cancel the modify. Before a response was received on this the customer contacted us to say they had lost broadband, and this is when it was found the PSTN line was ceased, and the rest you all know.

Because you failed the second time around to provide a vaild MAC code Makes you in part responsible because the your staff did not check the MAC before re sending it for the second time,

And this bulk regrade from 20cn to 21cn doesn't really come into this situation, has the old mac was re issued albeit in error, but things like Mac codes should be properly checked before they are forwarded to the customer

And like it or not the customer does have a valid recourse and the adr scheme will probably find in favor of the customer so possibly loosing the company more ?

In hindsight if this had been spotted this bulk work which included this customers connection, could of been canceled in order to of generated a new vaild MAC Within the ofcom Time frame , or failing that informed the customer exactly when the MAC would be available , maybe they would of been patent and waited for it,before embarking into a sign up process without a valid MAC
The fact that you re issued the now outdated unused MAC code that you originally issued back in DEC11,The Cease charge that you have from BT openreach will be for ADSL not PTSN ,
it is IMO that you would probably loose if it's taken to the ADR

I think your points, Andrew, are probably the most balanced and fairest I have seen across this entire thread (including my own posts).

I agree, given the unfortunate set of circumstances that happened with this entire fiasco, that Vivaciti should absorb the cease charge as a good will gesture. It is not like such occurrences happen every day, and if Vivaciti can't absorb a one off £30 charge, they have much more underlying problems than any detailed in this thread.

I also agree they have been far too hasty and ruthless with proceeding with debt recovery - in fact, laughably so, but on the flip side, the OP has not helped matters by "terminating communication" with them (this is probably why they have acted this way).

If I was the OP, I would certainly not be recommending them to any one else, and maybe Vivaciti need to step back and think about that for a moment. Absorbing such a small charge would end things between the customer on good terms, and they are likely to recommend them to others.

But I guess business is business. Thankfully, not all companies run their business affairs in such "clear cut" "black and white" ways, and over all, that's what makes good business.

In reply to a post by JohnR:

In reply to a post by NilSatisOptimum:

I suggest you read up on the Equality Act 2010, you will end up in hot water very soon if you keep applying the narrow view of everyone who mentions an illness is worming their way out of paying.

I don't have any issues with a disability. What I do have a issue with is people using a disability to avoid admititng their error. When it has no bearing on the issue.

That�s about issued (discriminatory) as they come, I may be missing the irony. I strongly suggest you do you read up on the Equality Act 2010, It covers these situations with illness and disability regardless what you think they do effect decisions, hence why we end up with such Acts. Its open as far as I can read on the thread with regards to who is to blame, that aside, the op has offered to pay in instalments for some reason this has escalated, since that offer.

You need to read the thread properly, it WAS a PSTN cease, not an ADSL cease, so try again.

In reply to a post by vivaciti:

You need to read the thread properly, it WAS a PSTN cease, not an ADSL cease, so try again.

yes i read what you said about that, but you would not of been charged if you where not supplying an adsl service on that line, therefore even though it may of been a PTSN cease order, you are being charged only because of the ADSL service that you supplied upto the day of this cease,

if there is a difference in the charges for ADSL PTSN cease then how can Open reach pass on a ptsn cease charge to you if you never supplied PTSN to your customer ? surely it's bt who should be getting a cease order for the ptsn side of things ?

Its a broadband cease charge because of PSTN cease.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

3. The alternative may be that the customer enters ADR, disputing the charge.

ADR is the way to go. Vivaciti are a member of Cisas and they are highly likely to drop the charge rather than go to ADR.

If the OP does choose to go to ADR, stick to the relevant fact that Vivaciti have charged cease fees for a migration and given an invalid MAC.

Forget about Orange and any poor health issues. Orange are not the party that have raised the charges and that and your health will not factor in the adjudicators decision.

Vivaciti have been active in this thread yet have not mentioned Cisas and ADR. There is a reason for that.

In reply to a post by NilSatisOptimum:

It covers these situations with illness and disability regardless what you think they do effect decisions,

So someone who is fit enough to start the process, can then use a illness/disability to avoid their obligations, when things go pear shapped.....

That is exactly what is wrong with the world today....

Far to many people are not prepared to take responsibility for their own actions.

Most genuine people with a disability want to be treated just the same as everyone else.... Only a few play the card....

I'm not Doctor neither can I ascertain the extent of the OPs circumstances nor I�m presumptuous enough to be judge and jury regarding fitness. What is clear to me, OP has made a health disclosure to Vivaciti and that falls under the Equality Act 2010 and with that Vivaciti should be adapting their procedure to meet OPs needs with regards to this matter? Mmmm responsibility now thats a strange one!