According to C&WA, when it connected new customers to fully unbundled local loops during the period 16 December 2004 to 30 June 2006, it submitted a “new provide order” to BT, which required that an engineer visit each and every site in question to install a new line (hereafter referred to as the “new provide service”).

C&WA considers that BT’s charge for the new provide service during this period was contrary to Conditions FA3 and FA9 because it did not reflect BT’s actually incurred costs and/or efficiently incurred costs and/or fair and reasonable costs.

In particular, C&WA states that in a significant number of cases, BT overcharged C&WA because a new line was not in fact required (and a site visit by an engineer was unnecessary) or, even where a new line was required, it was provided in an inefficient manner. C&WA further state that in certain cases it considers that BT may not actually have made a site visit but C&WA were still charged as if there had been a site visit.

C&WA has also stated that during this time, it requested a different service from BT which would connect customers to fully unbundled local loops but did not require that an engineer visit each and every site in question to install a new line (the “stopped line provide service”).

C&WA considers that BT did not provide the requested stopped line provide service as soon as reasonable practicable, in accordance with Condition FA1, despite repeated requests from C&WA that it do so. C&WA states that the fact that BT already provided a stopped line provide service for WLR services during this time is a material consideration in this respect.