| 366 |
Hi, We have performed the diagnostics on the line and below are the latest details. Please see the Openreach engineer notes. Openreach Reference: 4-1231171044176 INC000101127857 SGEA82275617 SOGEA Open Cleared KCI history: 22/05/2026 16:00:35 1B81 4150 Response Required - Fault Report Cleared Y End Customer Domain - Non Openreach Maintained Equipment Engineer note: ==Customer Report: End customer informed of intermittent performance issue.\n\n Actions to resolve: Engineer has resolved the fault at the end customer's equipment.There was a fault within the end customer's wiring / equipment but was not fixed as the end customer declined the completion of the repair.End customer declined repair as they preferred to fix it themselves.===QBC Summary End=== Test details: Pass Please retest and if the fault still persists, please reopen the ticket and provide 3 x access times & dates so that we can progress this for you if required. Kind Regards, Rahiman P. |
Based on the information provided, here are the findings regarding the Openreach engineer's visit:
### Engineer Visit Summary:
- **Openreach Reference**: 4-1231171044176
- **Incident Number**: INC000101127857
- **Service Type**: SOGEA
- **Date of Engineer Visit**: 22/05/2026
- **Time of Visit**: 16:00:35
### Engineer's Notes:
- **Customer Report**: The end customer reported an intermittent performance issue.
- **Actions Taken**: The engineer identified a fault within the end customer's wiring/equipment but did not fix it as the end customer declined the repair, preferring to handle it themselves.
### Decision:
- **Non-Chargeable Visit**: Since the fault was identified within the customer's own equipment, and the customer chose not to proceed with the repair, this visit is **non-chargeable**. The engineer did not find any external faults or issues outside the customer's responsibility.
### Additional Notes:
- If the customer experiences continued issues after retesting, they are advised to reopen the ticket and provide three access times and dates for further assistance.
### Conclusion:
The visit is categorized as **non-chargeable** based on the customer declining the repair of their own equipment, despite the fault being identified. |
2026-05-23 05:35:36 |
Yes |
Incorrect call out/Fault at EU side/Abortive |
| 296 |
Full Fault Clear Notes: Notes: ===QBC Summary Start===Customer Report: End customer informed us their broadband speed is not achieving predicted speed.\n\n Initial xDSL test results: The initial xDSL test performed at master NTE / SSFP was carried out where the modem / router is connected.The connection is stable with slower than predicted speed on 17/02/2026.There was no REIN issue identified.\n\n Initial test results: PQT test performed at NTE back plate.The test passed on .Engineer has not done anything with star wiring / bridge taps .No star wiring / bridge taps / VRI / power line technology issue found.Engineer has not provided / replaced NTE.Engineer has not provided / replaced SSFP.Engineer hasn’t found any issue with modem / router.Engineer hasn’t found any issue with extension wiring.\n\n Additional information: Engineer has proved a working connectivity to end customer .Engineer has completed the handover with Andrew.Customer’s modem / router is plugged into the NTE master socket.\n\n Final test results: Final PQT to FED performed by connecting HHT at the NTE back plate.FED has been connected at the NTE back plate.The test passed on 2026-02-17T07:59:34.\n\n Final alternate test results: xDSL test performed at the NTE / NTP.xDSL test indicated line was OK on 17/02/2026.Final FastTest completed.The test passed on 17/02/2026.===QBC Summary End=== |
Based on the provided notes, the engineer's visit on 17/02/2026 indicated that:
- The initial and final tests for the broadband connection were conducted at the NTE (Network Termination Equipment) with stable but slower than predicted speeds.
- No issues were found with the customer’s equipment, including the modem/router, extension wiring, or any star wiring/bridge taps.
- The engineer confirmed working connectivity to the end customer and completed all necessary tests without identifying any faults.
Given this information, the visit would be classified as **Non-Chargeable** because the engineer found no faults caused by the customer, and the connection was stable, albeit below expected speeds.
**Summary:**
- **Visit Date:** 17/02/2026
- **Visit Classification:** Non-Chargeable
- **Reason:** No customer-caused faults identified; stable connection confirmed. |
2026-04-25 09:32:30 |
Yes |
If engineer found no fault would be chargeable/ Disputable |
| 266 |
Raised out non appointed = 01347838261, LTOK. CUSTOMER EQUIPMENT DETECTED.\nCustomer has multiple internal extensions causing fault. Ltok at nteDemonstrated to Issacs.\nWriteback line test: LTOK. CUSTOMER EQUIPMENT DETECTED. |
Based on the provided notes, the scenario indicates the following:
1. The engineer detected customer equipment during the visit.
2. There are multiple internal extensions causing a fault, which suggests that the issue is related to the customer's setup rather than an external fault.
3. The line test also returned as "LTOK," indicating that the line itself is functioning correctly.
Given these details, the visit falls under the **Chargeable Scenarios** due to "Wasted Callouts" as the engineer visit was the result of customer error (i.e., issues caused by the customer's equipment/extensions).
**Conclusion:**
- **Chargeable Visit**
- **Customer-Caused Issue:** Multiple internal extensions causing the fault.
- **Date and Time:** Not specified in the provided notes.
Further action may involve informing the customer about the chargeable nature of the visit due to their equipment causing the issue. |
2026-04-14 14:46:11 |
Yes |
Raised out non appoiinted |
| 255 |
Would this be classed as chargeable? its the MDU form comment that is throwing me off - CUSTOMER IS WAITING ON PERMISSION FROM THE LANDLORD BEFORE DRILLING CAN BE DONE. 1ST FLOOR FLAT, MDU FORM DONE. |
Based on the provided information, this scenario indicates that the customer is waiting for permission from the landlord before proceeding with necessary work (drilling), which suggests that the issue is related to access rather than a fault within the customer's property.
Since the reason for the delay is external (waiting for landlord permission) and not caused by any fault or error on the part of the engineer or the customer, this visit should be classified as non-chargeable.
However, it is essential to gather more details regarding the specific circumstances, including the date and time of the engineer's visit, to ensure a complete understanding of the situation. If there are any further complications or disputes, those would need to be considered separately. |
2026-04-10 10:56:04 |
Yes |
Chargeable |
| 179 |
Hi, Following the recent visit by CF, please see the resolution notes: Drop replaced as low light at wall box new 40 meter drop hung and spliced Please retest and if the fault still persists, please reopen the ticket and provide 3 x access times & TRC so that we can progress this for you if required. Regards, Mukesh C |
Based on the provided resolution notes, the following points can be assessed:
1. **Nature of the Visit**: The engineer (CF) replaced a drop due to low light at the wall box, which indicates that there was an identified fault that was not caused by the customer.
2. **Chargeability**: The visit appears to fall under the category of **Non-Chargeable Visits** since there was a genuine fault found related to the network infrastructure (low light at the wall box).
3. **Follow-Up Action**: The notes suggest retesting the connection and reopening the ticket if the fault persists, which implies that further investigation may be needed if issues continue.
4. **Date and Time**: Unfortunately, the date and time of the engineer's visit are not provided in the notes, which would be helpful for record-keeping and clarity.
**Conclusion**: The visit is classified as **Non-Chargeable** based on the resolution notes indicating that a legitimate fault was identified and addressed. If the fault persists, further action may be required. |
2026-03-16 08:39:02 |
Yes |
No ONT on move in - Should be non chargeable |
| 87 |
20-08-2025 13:51:17 - Mohammed Tayyab (Additional comments) Hi Team, Please see Engineer notes. ===QBC Summary Start===Customer Report: End customer informed us there is no broadband connection. Initial test results: PQT test performed at NTE back plate.The test passed on 20/08/2025. Actions to uplift Openreach / customer network: Engineer has uplifted the EC Wiring / equipment.to improve speed / stability.as EC equipment faulty. Advice given to end customer: Possible issue with EC equipment / Wi-fi, advised EC to contact CP. Final test results: Final PQT performed at the NTE back plate.The test passed with amber parameters on 2025-08-20T11:04:25.Final Eclipse test performed at the NTE.The test passed on 20/08/2025 11:13:20.===QBC Summary End=== Regards, Mohammed |
Based on the provided engineer's notes and the details of the visit, here is the classification:
**Date and Time of Visit:**
20-08-2025, 13:51:17
**Summary of Engineer's Findings:**
- The customer reported no broadband connection.
- Initial tests at the NTE back plate passed.
- Engineer identified possible issues with EC equipment and advised the customer to contact their service provider.
- Final tests also passed but indicated amber parameters.
**Classification:**
The visit is classified as **Non-Chargeable**.
**Reasoning:**
- The engineer identified a possible fault related to external equipment (EC equipment) and advised the customer to contact their service provider.
- No customer-caused damage or misdiagnosis was indicated in the notes, and the tests performed passed, suggesting that the fault lies outside the customer's responsibility.
If any further information or clarification is needed, please let me know! |
2025-08-21 09:13:50 |
Yes |
issue with EC equipment faulty. |
| 79 |
would this be chargeable""" On arrival to property no one home and battery contact online. Worked from pcp. Dis at 25 meters from pcp. Battery contant relived after re terminating joints in UG pit. After works complete ltok with customers equipment detected. Un able to do full investigation because of access but dial tone in and out from DP out Side customers property. Unable able to complete PQ test as Ive never be shown how to do it and with no access to property \n\n01604891361, LTOK. CUSTOMER EQUIPMENT DETECTED.Writeback line test: LTOK. CUSTOMER EQUIPMENT DETECTED.""" |
Based on the provided notes, the engineer arrived at the property but found no one home, which indicates a missed appointment. The engineer was unable to complete a full investigation due to lack of access to the property.
Since the customer was not available for the scheduled appointment, this scenario falls under the "Chargeable Scenarios" category due to "Missed Appointments."
Therefore, the visit would be chargeable to the customer.
**Summary:**
- **Chargeable**: Yes
- **Reason**: Missed appointment (customer unavailable)
- **Date & Time**: Not provided in the notes. |
2025-06-12 08:57:23 |
Yes |
No one was home, but notes state Dis at 25 meters from pcp. External fault repaired |
| 35 |
CF Cityfibre - 24/03/2025, 12:38 Hello, Please see the update below; Situation: Following our engineers visit to site and work we now believe the service to be restored for INC0262535. Action: Our engineers will remain on site for 30 minutes following this mail to ensure the site is left tidy. Next Step(s): Please confirm by email or phone that the service is now working as it should. If we do not hear from you within five working days, we'll assume everything is ok and your ticket will be closed automatically. Expectation: We believe service has been restored and so have stopped troubleshooting and fault fixing activities. Your ticket details are: Ticket Number: INC0262535 Ticket State: In Progress Date and Time Raised: 2025-03-22 10:08:17 Kind Regards CityFibre Technical Service Centre |
Based on the information provided, the engineer's visit seems to have resulted in the service being restored for ticket number INC0262535. The engineer notes indicate that the troubleshooting and fault fixing activities have been stopped as they believe the service has been successfully restored. This situation does not fall under the chargeable scenarios outlined in the guidelines.
However, it is important to note that if there were any customer-caused damage, wasted callouts, incorrect engineer booking, or missed appointments that led to this service restoration visit, those details would need to be considered to determine if the visit is chargeable. Since the information provided does not mention any of these chargeable scenarios, the visit appears to be non-chargeable.
If the customer were to dispute any charges related to this visit, it would be advisable to request additional information or evidence to verify the circumstances and reason for the visit to ensure a fair resolution. |
2025-03-25 09:22:39 |
Yes |
doesnt make it clear on what it should be |
| 33 |
24-03-2025 13:19:02 - Andrew Smelczerczyk (Additional comments) Good afternoon Team Update from openreach advises fault resolved. OR notes "Gone to HOUSE found water inside of above ground closure at house end, re-terminated, Carried out line test through my services app, LTOK ######, CableSize:0, PairChangedFrom:0, PairChangedTo:0" Site has been online and stable for 2+ hours Feel free to re open this ticket if fault continues |
Based on the provided engineer notes, the fault was resolved by the engineer who found water inside the above-ground closure at the customer's house end. The engineer re-terminated the connection and conducted a line test, which indicated stability for over 2 hours. In this case, the fault was within the customer's property, specifically at the house end. Therefore, this visit would be considered chargeable as it was a fault within the customer's curtilage. |
2025-03-25 07:55:58 |
Yes |
disputable |
| 23 |
Customer Report: End customer informed us there is no broadband connection.\n\n Initial xDSL test results: xDSL test was not carried out.Tester found to be faulty.There was no REIN issue identified.\n\n Initial test results: PQT test not carried out.There was no NTE or wiring.FastTest performed.The test passed on 22/03/2025.\n\n What was found: Openreach network fault.\n\n Actions to resolve: Fault identified at the NTE / NTP.This was caused by damage to wiring (inc concealed where faulty) / missing.The source of the damage was identified as unknown third party.Engineer replaced.\n\n Actions to resolve: Wiring up to NTE / NTP upgraded.Engineer has not done anything with star wiring / bridge taps .No star wiring / bridge taps / VRI / power line technology issue found.I have provided / replaced NTE because NTE damaged.Engineer has provided / replaced SSFP because upgradation of SSFP is required.Engineer hasn't found any issue with modem / router.Engineer hasn't found any issue with extension wiring.\n\n Additional information: Engineer has proved a working connectivity to end customer .Engineer has completed the handover with Tash Horton.\n\n Maintenance work: Lead-in not faulty but upgraded for quality purposes (working but at risk of future deterioration).Customer's modem / router is plugged into the NTE master socket.\n\n Advice given to end customer: Optimal speed already achieved.\n\n Final test results: Final PQT to FED performed by connecting HHT at the PCP.FED has been connected at the NTE back plate.The test passed on 2025-03-22T12:03:24.\n\n Final alternate test results: xDSL test performed at the NTE / NTP.xDSL test indicated line was OK on 22/03/2025.Final FastTest completed.The test passed on 22/03/2025. |
Based on the provided information, the engineer visit in this scenario would be categorized as non-chargeable. The fault was identified at the NTE / NTP due to damage to wiring caused by an unknown third party, which falls outside the customer's responsibility. The actions taken by the engineer to resolve the issue, such as replacing the damaged NTE and upgrading the wiring up to the NTE, were necessary to restore the service and were not caused by any customer error.
Therefore, the customer should not be charged for this visit as it was related to an Openreach network fault caused by external factors beyond the customer's control. |
2025-03-24 10:12:11 |
Yes |
null |