>> Because a standard contract for telecoms provision will have a clause stating that any compensation
>> for loss of service is limited to the cost of the service and they will
>> not be liable for any consequential losses.
>>
>> If you want compensation for consequential losses you will need to negotiate your own insurance
>> cover and the cost will reflect the risk and cover amount. Someone running a multi-billion
>> dollar financial trading empire from home might want more cover than an ebay mogul.
>>
>> Is this Openreach's shoddy service?
>>
>> www.basingstokegazette.co.uk/news/20209997.repair-work-continues-almost-week-thousands-left-without-internet-phonelines/
But is there a point where that that becomes an unreasonable term?
Fifty years ago loss of the phone line meant we could not phone Granny in the morning to chat/check she was OK.
If mine was down this morning then I'd not be able to work. Part of the sales pitch in the latter situation is the speed etc of the connection and its resilience to support WFH.
Maybe, just maybe, a court looking at recompense for system failure might looks at those two scenarios in different lights.
If Openreach were in the frame for the loss you mention then they, or their insurer, can can add the errant contractor for Hants CC into the claim.
|
