Had a letter from BT today advising that as I requested they will be no longer supplying my line from 17th Jan.

AS the thread title says I have not requested to switch and got on the phone to BT this morning. Spoke to a very helpful lady who said a utility company were behind me switching and made sure I had not inadvertently requested the move (Which I definitely havnt). BT have stopped the planned move and with my consent instigated a formal complaint to the regulator which will include the recorded call to BT.

How dare some company try to pull this $hit without any interaction with me at all. I really want to find out what company is behind this GRRRR

It's so common that we've even imported the American word for it.

It's called 'slamming'.
Last edited by Heinz : 08-01-2007 at 14:11

It's interesting too that the letter you received was from the 'losing' provider when the specified procedure is for both the 'gainer' and 'loser' to write to the customer.

How strange that the 'gainer' should forget.

I would think that the 'gainer' in this case probably doesn't want the customer to know theyve been switched until they get the first bill by which time is more difficult to switch back.

By which time the 'salesman' has had his commission and buggered off.

This has just happened to my 80 year old mother in law. She recently changed her utilitities provider to British Gas through a door knocker & her phone seems to have been changed too, without her knowledge, which has really worried her.

My partners going to take a look at what she's signed up for tomorrow & try to cancel it.

If they find out those responsible they should send the offender(s) to prison for a very long time. But with like every crooked scumbag in any business little will ever be done, we have crooks in all businesses ranging from dodgy electricians, plumbers, builders, garages, double glazing etc., etc. and still we get them reoffending time after time.

Advice from the regulator on TV the other week was people should move FROM British Gas because they're so expensive!

Only the losing provider would write to the customer, to try and save them from porting out (disconecting) and also to stop terrible things like this happening.
Last edited by twtco : 12-01-2007 at 18:55

This has happened to two people I know. How come these people can get away with this (Bring back watchdog on TV).

its actually a new agreement that BT have brought in for OLO's that allows this to happen. It is of course a mistake but BT have let this happen to make their work load easier.

What a load of tosh.

BT do not set up the agreements between OLO's. That is what OFCOM are there for.

You really do come out with some rubbish on these forums.

Its actually fact.

BT have a porting agreement with TW. In that agreement they trialled and now have fully agreed not to validate for moves (of address as per new ofcom regs) or by bt account number. They never validate on names either. So the only thing that could stop a port order with bt now is either error code 41 (normally postcode) or multiline (homehighway).

What this means for customers is that I can send BT an order to port any single line NGNP number that BT have active with a customer. The only reason why they should not let me have it (as long as other procedures are followed) is 1) I haven't given BT my customers postcode or BT have the original customer down as a homehighway. Most old fail codes like err8 (bt acc numb incorrec - the most common rejection code) are now not used.

This is great for BT as it complies with ofcom regs, however it also means there automated system for electronic orders, passes nearly everything it receives - meaning problems like this. You can in theory (and practice) port an active BT customers number just for the sake of customer services typing in an incorrect digit on the order screens when you ring them.

You really should try and do some research before you start shouting your mouth off. My full time job is a switch engineer attached to switch portability faults with TW and we work with bt import & export desks daily as well as local & national OMC depts.

Thanks
Last edited by twtco : 03-02-2007 at 17:01

I think timbo is talkin about wholesale line rental (wlr) and carrier pre select (cps).

And twtco is talkin about cable, tw? Telewest??
Number portability between Cable and BT is completly different to that of services being transfered within the BT network.

Just to let you know that when there was the first transfers of BT line rentals to other companies within the BT network named "calls&access", it was a requirement for written confirmation to be given by the customer to the loosing provider before any orders could be placed . But many customers could not be bothered to give their consent therefore ended up not switching. This was complained about by BTs compettitors so Oftel (as it was called then) deemed that for calls&access and wlr1, wlr2 cps that if a company requested a transfer of service, the loosing provider just had to accept the order even if the service had been slammed and rely on its customer to contact them to say the transfer was erroneous so they could then put a stop to it.

twtco is absolutly correct when stating there has been a change to the number portability process to make the workload easier but not sure if its relavent in this thread as the OP states its a utility company. However if its an LLU operator, number portability does come in to it but again in a different way!

I hope this stops a disagreement that I could forsee brewing between you guys

I'm talking about number portability between operators. Not about transferring line rentals or anything like that. I thought I made that clear. I only deal with ports between telewest (not ntl) and bt.

So perhaps on transfering line rental etc (which I know nothing about) you are the authority on this matter
Last edited by twtco : 03-02-2007 at 19:28

That is exactly what I was talking about as it was what the OP was talking about.


Nah, twco is too busy sending private messages calling me stupid.

So, I hope now you understand your original comment was not really needed as the O/P was talking about a utility company, not Telewest, and it just confused the issue.