tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post1834299262739773372..comments2024-03-28T09:19:27.451+00:00Comments on RevK<sup>®</sup>'s ramblings: Further in to the rabbit holeRevKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369263214193333422noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-44589396018083119292015-04-28T20:50:46.038+01:002015-04-28T20:50:46.038+01:00Fraud under the Fraud Act 2006 requires dishonesty...Fraud under the Fraud Act 2006 requires dishonesty. BT would probably state that they're incompetent, rather than dishonest.DrAlbanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18200275249304885716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-7724835836387737072015-04-22T12:55:08.721+01:002015-04-22T12:55:08.721+01:00I guess they are thinking well, we pass on the SFI...I guess they are thinking well, we pass on the SFI2 charges already, so let's pass all other Openreach charges on as well (as I imagine the actual jumpering is done by Openreach engineers and not TalkTalk ones) - someone hasn't really thought it through.<br /><br />The only situation I can imagine it being justified is if they didn't believe a re-jumper would solve the underlying problem, but you insisted on them doing it anyway, and indeed it didn't solve the issue - I'm guessing this is not the case here, and even so they should have stated in advance that the charge would be made if it didn't fix it...Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13535977952530779134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-44166568724299268442015-04-22T11:50:57.436+01:002015-04-22T11:50:57.436+01:00Adds insult to injury really doesn't it?Adds insult to injury really doesn't it?Alexis Threlfallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792447399167532389noreply@blogger.com