[WXC/VFX] Responsibility for reporting faults

Forums › One NZ (including Farmside) › [WXC/VFX] Responsibility for reporting faults

1 | 2 | 3

459 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 48

#1097236 28-Jul-2014 16:55

Meanwhile, Chorus getaway with knowingly committing fraud...

Demeter

709 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 391

Trusted

One NZ

#1097242 28-Jul-2014 17:08

SCM: Meanwhile, Chorus getaway with knowingly committing fraud...

....What? Misjumpering is a human error, how on earth does that constitute fraud?

SCM

459 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 48

#1097246 28-Jul-2014 17:14

Demeter:
SCM: Meanwhile, Chorus getaway with knowingly committing fraud...

....What? Misjumpering is a human error, how on earth does that constitute fraud?

Yes, but if they refuse to reimburse the ISP for the ~6 months someone else was using (and paying for) said line for, that is fraud. And if the ISP in question also refuses to reimburse the client that also is fraud.

sico77

37 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 2

#1097264 28-Jul-2014 17:46

gchiu:

The onus is on you to make sure its working. In fact the act of giving someone else access to a service you are responsible for as the account holder AND you advertise it is more than likely a breach of contract.

You made that up didn't you! Otherwise you're saying that every motel or hotel you go to that advertises internet or a phone is in breach of some contract.

The only accommodation I've been to had commercial grade connections, and if there was a problem i would let someone know.
However the below are the immutable facts ftom the T&Cs.
"You have agreed that WXC will not fix faults unless told about them"
You (or persons you are responsible for) therefore need to inform of any faults.

gchiu:
And I did report it as soon as I knew about it. There's nothing in the T&C that specify when reporting is related to billing.

What the T&C DO say is nothing will get fixed unless you tell them, and you have also agreed to pay your invoices on time.
Any complaints with your bill will be dealt with within 60days. (which it seems they have done but you rejected it).

gchiu:
Incidentally, Telecom refunded users for a service that they could not deliver for faults due to technical issues.

Citation is needed here, But its not needed if the follow questions are answered with a yes.

Were the issues with the service reported?
Did the fault involve more than 1 circuit/connection?

Look, I'm not trying to stop you continuing with this query.
But i don't think you have the right complain about it here.
That's just my opinion as one person and its not intended to offend.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1097271 28-Jul-2014 17:54

SCM:
Demeter:
SCM: Meanwhile, Chorus getaway with knowingly committing fraud...

....What? Misjumpering is a human error, how on earth does that constitute fraud?

Yes, but if they refuse to reimburse the ISP for the ~6 months someone else was using (and paying for) said line for, that is fraud. And if the ISP in question also refuses to reimburse the client that also is fraud.

Which is akin to "if a tree falls over in a forest and nobody hears it did it really fall over".

Fraud is "deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain". Human errors happen all the time and misjumpering is a reality of life. Claiming fraud is really pushing the boundaries of any logic.

Ultimately the end user is the only person who could tell if there was an issue, and that didn't happen.

gchiu

1211 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 259

Trusted

#1097272 28-Jul-2014 17:59

"You have agreed that WXC will not fix faults unless told about them"

Nope, no such agreement there.
I've only agreed to tell them about faults when I know about them.

One would expect any reputable ISP to monitor for service outages and repair them without each paying subscriber to inform them.

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

gchiu

1211 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 259

Trusted

#1097275 28-Jul-2014 18:01

sbiddle:

Which is akin to "if a tree falls over in a forest and nobody hears it did it really fall over".

Actually the saying is about whether there is a sound. Of course it falls.

gchiu

1211 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 259

Trusted

#1097279 28-Jul-2014 18:04

sbiddle:
Fraud is "deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain". Human errors happen all the time and misjumpering is a reality of life. Claiming fraud is really pushing the boundaries of any logic.

Charging for services you couldn't possibly deliver even after being told about it seems to meet the definition of a fraudulent practice.

SCM

459 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 48

#1097287 28-Jul-2014 18:16

sbiddle:
SCM:
Demeter:
SCM: Meanwhile, Chorus getaway with knowingly committing fraud...

....What? Misjumpering is a human error, how on earth does that constitute fraud?

Yes, but if they refuse to reimburse the ISP for the ~6 months someone else was using (and paying for) said line for, that is fraud. And if the ISP in question also refuses to reimburse the client that also is fraud.

Which is akin to "if a tree falls over in a forest and nobody hears it did it really fall over".

Fraud is "deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain". Human errors happen all the time and misjumpering is a reality of life. Claiming fraud is really pushing the boundaries of any logic.

Ultimately the end user is the only person who could tell if there was an issue, and that didn't happen.

So what do you call an issue like this then, taking in to account 2 people/accounts have been paying DSL on the same line ( we all know there can only be one DSL connection per copper pair)

Before you all scream "it was a mistake" remember that someone has to pay for it. Why should the OP have to pay for it, if anyone was to be held accountable for the cost of said mistake it should be the contractor (that stole the line from a paying client) not the client.

IMHO, Chorus should refund the 6 months back to WXC whom should refund at least the wholesale component back to the OP.

At the end of the day, Chorus and WXC both have been charging (and making profit ) on a nonexistent service.
Chorus is making money for providing Nothing, if not fraud, what would you call it?

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1097289 28-Jul-2014 18:18

gchiu:
sbiddle:
Fraud is "deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain". Human errors happen all the time and misjumpering is a reality of life. Claiming fraud is really pushing the boundaries of any logic.

Charging for services you couldn't possibly deliver even after being told about it seems to meet the definition of a fraudulent practice.

Based on your comments above the issue was resolved in a reasonable timeframe after your ISP (and then Chorus) were informed of the issue. I'm totally lost here where fraud comes into it.

How do you reasonably expect Chorus or your ISP to have known about the fault?

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1097291 28-Jul-2014 18:21

SCM:
So what do you call an issue like this then, taking in to account 2 people/accounts have been paying DSL on the same line ( we all know there can only be one DSL connection per copper pair)?

Fraud infers deceptive practice. You've totally lost me claiming when there is been nothing in this thread so far that suggests that.

Nobody has said anything about the same copper pair being used twice, and it's highly improbably that this was the case.

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

InstallerUFB

840 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 219

#1097292 28-Jul-2014 18:21

SCM:
Demeter:
SCM: Meanwhile, Chorus getaway with knowingly committing fraud...

....What? Misjumpering is a human error, how on earth does that constitute fraud?

Yes, but if they refuse to reimburse the ISP for the ~6 months someone else was using (and paying for) said line for, that is fraud. And if the ISP in question also refuses to reimburse the client that also is fraud.

BTW who said that Chorus wern't reimburseing the ISP for any loss of service?

IMHO for Chorus to defraud the ISP they would have to have deliberatly and knowingly disconnected a working circuit then they would have to have deliberatley charged a rental on that circuit knowingly that it had been disconnected -

Accidentaly rejumpering of a working circuit by a service tech doesnt realy constitute a deliberate act - and untill they (Chorus) are notified by the ISP of the loss of service and the service techs subsequent visit there is no way of Chorus knowing that such an event had accured (appart from a posssible random QA check) and it would be from that point on that they may be able to calculate any compensation to the ISP from the time the first tech did their work untill service was restored by the second tech.

IMO for a tech to have taken (part of ) the circuit for another customer generaly means that there was no tone on the pair and that there was no xDSL running on it @ the time he was checking for a spare circuit and he may have assummed (wrongly as we know it that case) that it was not working and available. If that is the case then I would suspect that the modem was turned off before the pair was taken.

SCM

459 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 48

#1097317 28-Jul-2014 18:30

sbiddle:
SCM:
So what do you call an issue like this then, taking in to account 2 people/accounts have been paying DSL on the same line ( we all know there can only be one DSL connection per copper pair)?

Fraud infers deceptive practice. You've totally lost me claiming when there is been nothing in this thread so far that suggests that.

Nobody has said anything about the same copper pair being used twice, and it's highly improbably that this was the case.

gchiu:

...

It seems that several streets away, at the termination point, a Chorus tech or contractor had taken the pair allocated for the home and used it for someone else's new connection. So Chorus had been billing WXC for this now non-existent line and WXC had added their value to the same non-existent line.

...

Why would WXC refuse to refund the service missing for 6 months unless Chorus also refuse to refund..

gchiu

1211 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 259

Trusted

#1097327 28-Jul-2014 18:37

InstallerUFB:
BTW who said that Chorus wern't reimburseing the ISP for any loss of service?

I'm now being told that Chorus are denying responsibility for the whole 6 month outage. I don't know how much, if any of the period they claim responsibility for, they are going to reimburse the ISP.

InstallerUFB:
IMO for a tech to have taken (part of ) the circuit for another customer generaly means that there was no tone on the pair and that there was no xDSL running on it @ the time he was checking for a spare circuit and he may have assummed (wrongly as we know it that case) that it was not working and available. If that is the case then I would suspect that the modem was turned off before the pair was taken.

So, you're saying that if someone who has naked DSL turns off their modem, there's no way for a tech to determine the circuit is in use, and so they risk losing their pair to someone else?

gchiu

1211 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 259

Trusted

#1097346 28-Jul-2014 18:45

sbiddle:

gchiu:
sbiddle:
Fraud is "deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain". Human errors happen all the time and misjumpering is a reality of life. Claiming fraud is really pushing the boundaries of any logic.

Charging for services you couldn't possibly deliver even after being told about it seems to meet the definition of a fraudulent practice.

Based on your comments above the issue was resolved in a reasonable timeframe after your ISP (and then Chorus) were informed of the issue. I'm totally lost here where fraud comes into it.

How do you reasonably expect Chorus or your ISP to have known about the fault?

So, now they know. They've been charging two customers for the same pair.
Refusing to refund is clearly a fraudulent practice.

1 | 2 | 3