SUB STANDARD RSAWEB FIBRE INSTALLATION & POOR LINE SPEEDS

I am the account holder of three RSAWEB internet contracts. Across all installations, I have consistently experienced internet speeds well below the contracted range of 200–100 Mbps, frequently dropping to as low as 10–30 Mbps.

At one installation, the internet service ceased entirely, prompting me to lodge a complaint. RSAWEB assured me that a technician would attend to the issue on Saturday, 2 August at 09:30. I rearranged my schedule accordingly, yet the technician failed to arrive or notify me of any cancellation. A second appointment was scheduled for Monday, 4 August, during which the technician identified the fault as stemming from a substandard and unprofessional fibre installation.

Specifically, the cable had been glued externally to the building wall without protective trunking, drilled through a wooden kitchen window frame, and routed above the sink into the loft. Inside, it was laid unprotected across loft boards and hot geyser piping, exposing it to potential damage. This method of installation is clearly inadequate and falls short of accepted industry standards. At the time of installation, the property owner was an 84-year-old woman, not qualified to assess the technical quality of the work.

Prior to the complete service failure, internet speeds had been deteriorating over several weeks, reaching as low as 10 Mbps. RSAWEB’s technician confirmed the poor quality of the original setup and rerouted the cable using existing external trunking, avoiding heat exposure and ensuring proper protection. The revised installation now delivers speeds of approximately 70 Mbps, which is more consistent with RSAWEB’s contractual obligations.

Despite this, RSAWEB has informed me that I am responsible for the cost of the repair. I wrote to RSAWEB on 4 August requesting that the cost be borne by the company, given the original installation’s deficiencies. In response, I received a dismissive and flippant reply from Mr. Nabeel Geydien, Escalations Acting Technical Lead, stating:

“The service has been active since 2019 and was processed as a new installation at the time. The person on-site was happy and approved the way the installation was done.”

This response fails to acknowledge the technical shortcomings of the original installation and the fact that the person on-site was not qualified to assess its quality. It also reflects poorly on RSAWEB’s commitment to customer service and quality assurance. I urge RSAWEB to ensure that all installations are executed to a professional standard from the outset, rather than relying on non-technical clients to identify faults post hoc.

Desired Outcome: I respectfully request that RSAWEB cover the full cost of the fibre cable reinstallation, which was necessary due to the original installation’s failure to meet professional standards.