£170 victim surcharge
oh dear, that'll teach them! :)
Virgin Media is facing a £385,000 fine after its cable expansion plans in the northwest of England wrought havoc on the streets of Carlisle. The penalty was imposed after the broadband provider pleaded guilty to seven breaches of street-works safety rules at Carlisle Magistrates' Court. Contractors failed to provide proper …
They don't care about their existing network/maintenance.
That's correct, Virgin Media don't give a shit about delivering the contracted service by keeping the existing network in good nick.
But now they don't care about new networks/installs either.
Oh, they do care passionately about installs and new connections. They just don't care how shoddily the job is done, so long as it is cheap. They adopt the same approach to customer service, as VM customers know only too well. Vermin Media (and parent company scumbags, Liberty Global) are really keen to sign up new customers, and cross sell to existing customers, in order to put a "growth" story gloss onto the business, so that if and when a mug comes along (potentially Vodafone) and wants to buy Vermin Media, the valuation comes back considerably higher than is actually warranted. This is why the whole Project Lightning fiasco is unfolding, and why VM are offering a 350 Mbps speed upgrade for customers that their equipment often struggles to deliver. The point of the upgrade is not just the extra money for the same thing, but the opportunity to lock customers into further contract periods - again, because that reduces churn, and helps bolster an business valuation.
Oh look another person ready to bash a company because of contractors.
Virgin are taking the hit, because the contractors didn't do the job properly and you say it's because Virgin pay a pittance but the contract, companies bid for the work and if the contractors say they can do it for a value that is cheaper than another company then it makes, sense to go with them in terms of business revenue etc.
I have worked with and for contractors in the past on the Virgin network and to be honest it would be better if Virgin just got there own staff, in to do the work because at least they could be trained correctly to do the work, instead of the contractors they currently use who will just take anyone and throw them a uniform and tell them to dig or pull a cable.
I have no issue's with my VM connection, and the one time I did it was sorted inside of a couple of week's, that's not to say some people don't have issues because I know people do but thankfully I am one of those that don't, because let's face it BT and other's don't offer anywhere near the same level of connection where I live, so I would be a fool to pay the same price for a slower and less reliable connection.
No mate, Virgin hire the contractors, Virgin are responsible for checking their work is being done properly, safely and up to the relevant standard.
If the contractors cock it all up it's Virgin's fault because they hired them, that's how it works.
There are no get outs here, the blame lands firmly on Virgin for hiring the cheapest cowboys they can find and the court made that very clear by fining Virgin Media.
As for your 'I have no issue's with my VM connection, and the one time I did it was sorted inside of a couple of week's'
'Let's just drill down into that statement...
'inside of a couple of weeks' to sort out?
Are you on drugs or do you work for Virgin/Liberty (or all)?
Oh look another person ready to bash a company because of contractors.
Too right I am. The performance of the contractors is ENTIRELY WITHIN VM'S CONTROL. They set the standards and terms, they are responsible for supervising the contractor, and even more importantly they are legally responsible - you did you notice it was VM getting fined, not the subbies?
I've worked for big companies doing billions of pounds of work through contractors, and there's no magic here. You make sure that you are doing business with a reputable contractor, you issue a crystal clear specification, you use your own staff to supervise the contractors, you keep relations open with residents and local authorities so that you know what's happening on the ground, you move quickly to get the contractor performing, and if things are really going badly you cancel the contract. What you don't do is let the contract to shit company for a pittance where they can't possibly make a sustainable commercial margin, then walk away, ignoring whatever they are doing, and stick your fingers in your ears whilst the residents complain - or rather, you do all those things if you're Virgin Media.
Note that your point about cable laying and pulling refers to VM specifics - that's not the issue, the problem they got nailed for was blatant and repeated failure to adhere to NRSWA which has been in force for just short of three decades. That's bread and butter stuff, there's no excuse, and the buck stops with VM, who richly deserve their fine.
For starter's I am not saying that Virgin has no blame here because they do, they have PSE's which are supposed to check the work is completed to the required standard's but, clearly that didn't happen.
The contract company though should have done the work to the correct standard in the first place, and clearly they didn't and because of that the company that, hired them get's all the bad publicity and fines etc, which I don't care how you try and swing it, is not right.
The other problem here is that, because they use multiple contract companies throughout the country they are all smaller companies who will just get any unqualified muppet to work for them.
You wouldn't blame Ford or BMW if a mechanic did a piss poor job of replacing your breaks would you?
As for it taking a couple of week's to fix an issue, I knew what the fault was and yes a couple of weeks to sort out that issue was quick compared to what it could have been, especially since it involved the replacement of several key pieces of network infrastructure.
Either way people like to bash Virgin for any reason, and it just annoys me because unlike any other ISP in my area they actually offer a good connection, I get my full speed, with no latency issues other than the one caused by Intel, my connection doesn't drop randomly and I don't have to live within 100 meters of the exchange to get more than 0.5Mb.
Say what you want I know what is involved when it comes to the design, delivery, cost etc of these networks and I also know what the contractors are like that offer there services, to Virgin Media and BT and the only thing I can say that you will agree with is that, this will not be the last time Virgin are blamed for the incompetence of a contract company.
"You wouldn't blame Ford or BMW if a mechanic did a piss poor job of replacing your breaks would you?"
Rubbish analogy.
Try, if you took your car to a mechanic that was contracted to BMW to do the work and he did a piss poor job, yes, I bloody would have a go at BMW.
If you buy a new build house of Barrett or Persimmon and the house collapsed, who do you think is legally responsible, the self employed guy that built the wall or the house building company.
It's up to Virgin if they now want to pass the costs onto the contractor.
starters, not starter's
PSEs, not PSE's
standards, not standard's
gets, not get's
brakes, not breaks
weeks, not week's
That said, VM do a moderate job of running a very high speed consumer network. It's not perfect (of course). I wouldn't regard them as "very good" either. Right now we have customers getting notifications that VM will be cutting their services during core hours to perform maintenance. Well that's no use for businesses (and yes, they're on business contracts). They are notoriously bad for the quality of SIP/RTP connections, and they seem to have a fetish for mangling SMTP sessions heading out of their network (even if you start playing musical port numbers). But you know what? They're cheap for the bandwidth you get.
But yes, they are ultimately responsible for the conduct of their contractors. Just like McDonalds is ultimately responsible for the quality of their burgers. Just like my boss is ultimately responsible if I bin an email server by mistake. The buck stops at the top. That's how it works. That's how it needs to work.
If VM have appointed a contractor that does a piss poor job, they have to get that contractor in line. If the contractor can't do a good job for the price then that's the contractor's problem, but it's ultimately VM's responsibility.
Thank you for your "public School Mr Chips" beginning to your post. I don't know what was in your post as I had switched of by then, as I (mistakenly) thought I was in some alternative reality in which Grammar had become the be all and end all. Feel free to use the red pen on grammar as I do not give a shit if you ned to assert your literacy superiority!!
" I was in some alternative reality in which Grammar had become the be all and end all."
It is, when it comes to interpreting the written word. You can have the same words in a sentence where different punctuation giving them different meanings.
Same with code. It does what you wrote, not what you meant. You have to correct that part yourself. It's just code for meat space with really dodgy compilers ;)
So an apostrophe can mean a word has been missed out or mashed together, such as "it is" = "it's".
Using it after a noun indicates a form of possession, rather than pluralisation. The form of possession is indicated by the apostrophe being either before or after the s.
So the plural of teacher is teachers, no apostrophe.
Something belonging to a particular person uses the apostrophe before the s. The teacher's apple is an apple that belongs to *a* teacher.
Something that belongs to all persons in a group uses the apostrophe after the s. The teachers' lounge is a lounge to which all the teachers own.
That's the formal and correct way of using them.
In normal practise, you would expect to only see the first two cases, since they make a large change to the possible meaning. I don't think I've ever used the last case outside of very formal writing, in most situations the last apostrophe is left off if the context is clear.
So unless you're selling fruit and veg from a market stall, no need for an apostrophe if you want the plural.
"You wouldn't blame Ford or BMW if a mechanic did a piss poor job of replacing your breaks would you?"
Actually is a good analogy because BMW is exactly who would be blaming if the dealership contracted by BMW did the work. BMW trained the mechanic to their spec and certified them to work on their behalf.
I would say the VM should pass on the fine to the contractors but they most likely can't because VM's own inspectors probably signed off the work. So the blame here is fair and square with VM.
"Actually is a good analogy because BMW is exactly who would be blaming if the dealership contracted by BMW did the work. BMW trained the mechanic to their spec and certified them to work on their behalf."
It's funny you bring up BMW. This is the exact scenario that's happening in the UK with Mercedes-Benz at the moment. Substandard repairs and vehicle-damaging shoddy workmanship at the dealerships is par for the course.
"the only thing I can say that you will agree with is that, this will not be the last time Virgin are blamed for the incompetence of a contract company."
One might take that as an admission that Virgin are incompetent and not fit for purpose.
A contract company they had a duty of care to ensure were up to the job and were actually doing the job.
Properly.
SO, Virgin are culpable, the courts think so, we think so, yet somehow you still want to shuck the responsibility onto their employees.
I don't care how you try and swing it, is not right.
You are 100% wrong, mate. It is *TOTALLY* the responsibility of the company hiring the subbie. That has been a legal principle for hundreds of years and it remains so because that *IS* right and just. So swing it or not, you are totally in the minority in believing VM have no responsibility for the mess.
The other problem here is that, because they use multiple contract companies throughout the country they are all smaller companies who will just get any unqualified muppet to work for them.
Again, in this example, VM's problem. Not directly, but they have to keep supervision on every job and make sure any deviations are jumped on, right away, before it comes to litigation. Which they clearly didn't do in this case.
You wouldn't blame Ford or BMW if a mechanic did a piss poor job of replacing your breaks would you?
Abso bloody lutely I would. Seriously, if you took your BMW to a BMW agent and some half-arsed mechanic did a botched job, and you were injured as a result, do you honestly not believe BMW is not responsible?
If not you are a dream customer, letting companies get away with any damn thing they please.
And its BRAKES, not breaks.
"they have PSE's which are supposed to check the work is completed to the required standard's but, clearly that didn't happen."
Not as if that isn't rampant across sectors.
The local council (Surrey) has inspectors who've been signing off streetworks as completed and remediated for decades without bothering to actually set foot on site. In many cases it's turned out that the work that contractors were paid for, wasn't even started.
the level of fraud runs into the millions, but large companies and councils are afraid to call in the police because it would expose how slack they've been - one spooks investors and the other results in voter anger.
I have no issue's with my VM connection, and the one time I did it was sorted inside of a couple of week's
Damien, I'm not going to downvote you, or criticise your view of the contractor relationship with VM. What I will say, though, is get a grip on your apostrophes, man. It's an infestation!
@damien C you are talking absolute twaddle. If Vermin Media (I use that phrase as well) choose a cheap contractor, they are entirely to blame. It was their decision, on their watch, to choose whatever crappy contractor they chose. They could have gone with a contractor who did good work, or a contractor that did bad work. They chose the wrong one.
I've talked to people who've been the unfortunate victims of this shower of shit. In one instance, the contractors managed to cut off the electricity three times, cause a gas leak and make a total muddy mess of the pavement somehow. Nobody could talk to them because they didn't speak English. Virgin needs to be taken down a peg or two. Their network doesn't make sense, they lie about 'fibre' and their cable internet service is no good for business. I wouldn't trust them.
Same story round our way (Royal Berkshire, dontcha know). They dug up the village for months and badly fenced off really long stretches of road at once with no traffic control, which really clogged things up. Road repairs were pretty patchy too. Then when it was done, they couldn't even tell me what services were going to be available, if any...
Standard operating procedure for Vermin Media, or rather the goons that they (sub)contract to dig holes for them.
(not at all annoyed because I had a twatting great hole with various bits of cable and ducting sticking out of it outside my house for the thick end of 2 months - ended up taking to Twitterto actually get something done about it)
I always wonder how much Virgin subscribers pay to subsidise their marketing department? I've been receiving junk from them (sometimes nice glossy magazines) every week or two for the last 15 years or so "inviting me back" to their service! I've never even been a customer - I think the previous house owners were with Comtel or whatever they were then. Virgin have somehow managed to figure out that we're different people to send the invites to but not managed to notice that we're not interested over the previous few hundred times they've written to us!
@AC - same here. And months after Virgin Media stopped sending junkmail to Flat 6 after I wrote to them to let them know that there is no flat 6 here, the junk mail to flat 6 resumed (and I'm still getting junkmail from VM despite my having been with PlusNet (and prior in their incarnation as Tiscali) because their service is so damned good at a sensible price). I won't touch ANY Virgibn-branded product with a bargepole, for choice, it's simply a marque of shite quality all round IMHO. Damned shame as I recall how pleased I was with the quality of record pressings from the Virgin label back when beardy Branson's empire was just a record company.
They (or, rather, their contractor) made an utter mess of cabling our Surrey street a year and a half ago, having to rip up loads they'd bodged, and cutting through an elderly neighbour's phone line and trashing at least three water meters in the process. They gave less than 24 hours notice before starting. Yellow tabarded inspectors with clipboards and cameras have been a common sight since. And to add insult to injury, a year and a half on, the service is still not available to sign up to.
Well yes, there is that! All the more reason to be more than happy with our 55/10 Plusnet, though choice is generally a good thing. But having first hand experience of some of Virgin's other business interests, quite glad not to have to have anything to do with them.
Virgin were using Actavo for ductwork around Wrexham, but the roll out was put on hold until areas previously covered were reinstated correctly. A lot of the defects have been incorrect depth of ducting, and insufficient distance between other utilities.
The re-work and future expansion in the area now seems to be underway again, but with Litespeed as the main ductwork contractor.
From what I can see, the latest contractor is doing a better job than the previous, despite being a smaller operation.
Was thinking of switching ISP to Virgin FTTH when it passes me. They can't be that bad, can they?
"Was thinking of switching ISP to Virgin FTTH when it passes me. They can't be that bad, can they?"
When it works it works. When something goes wrong, well all I can say is good luck. Their "Super"hub is shite, especially the 3.0 version which is PUMA 6 based. My hub is currently up and down like a hookers knickers.
VM contractors flew through my area last year.
Pedestrian safety violations - Check
Some substandard trench reinstatement - Check
Damage to existing curbstones and surfacing - Check
Chewed up grass verges - Check
Accidental damage to other utilities for the odd unlucky home - Check
Minor littering of duct materials - Check
Indiscriminately covering cars and driveways with dust - Check
Trespassing gardens and driveways with heavy equipment - Check
Can't think of a better way to create a positive corporate image amongst a whole community of potential new customers...
We had somebody take out our phone line in similar circumstances. I promptly got some photos of the digger in question (knowing full well BT will get the money for reinstatement work back from the people who cause the damage when they can identify them) before getting a bit of CAT5 and splicing it in to put my line back in use (obviously without soldering it!)
When the BT engineer turned up within an hour I was to put it mildly a bit surprised at the response time, and he was just as surprised to find the severed cable neatly spliced and working...
"When the BT engineer turned up within an hour I was to put it mildly a bit surprised at the response time, and he was just as surprised to find the severed cable neatly spliced and working..."
Isn't that one of those "ask a busy person" tricks?
Something needs fixing.
Johnny on the spot bodges it and calls it in.
Call is put in busy engineers queue.
Engineer checks status for each call.
One call is apparently working.
Schedule to do that one first, since it'll either be a false alarm, or if you've been tricked by Johnny, it's probably a quick upgrade of the bodge.
Has this story been lost in a time warp for 25 years?
I remember telewest or cable and wireless or whatever they were called at the time, having the same issues in Liverpool. They got hit for a massive amount of money and were banned from doing any further pavement digging in Liverpool.
IIRC, they got told time and time again to go and fix the mess and failed to do so. Then Liverpool City Council sent out teams to fix the mess then billed them for it..... at massively inflated prices.
Those cowboys dug up a private road without permission, cutting through the tree roots so the trees will die (or fall over) in a year or two.
When challenged, they initially said they had the council's permission (a lie- the council doesn't own that road and had told them so). Then they claimed the work hadn't started on that road yet. (It had started and finished by then).
The careless incompetent of the contractors is nothing to the unbelievable ineptitude of their admin and planning.
If they run their network as well, you should buy some carrier pigeons before signing up with Virgin.
Many years ago now, I went over the mother of all holes in the road and wrecked the suspension on my 1 year old Mini. I contacted the council and they said it was the responsibility of the local Gas Board who had just finished work there. On to the Gas Board and they said it was the contractor I needed. On to them and lo and behold, they had sub-contracted the job out to another lot.
After going through about 7 different companies/contractors etc, I ended up with a one man band - some Irish bloke living in a caravan who said he couldn't afford anything as he was skint.
As with Virgin Media, I concluded that the council should be held responsible because their clerk-of-works should have ensured that the road was filled in, and then tarmacked with a barrier around it until it hardened off. None of that had happened.
I took my case to the small claims court and the council agreed to pay for the repairs to my Mini.