Sheer BT incompetence

[seftonview]

Originally Posted by legalpickle

This is only relevant to if it was paid holiday. If the OP took holiday days for those days, then he would have less holiday days to take when he wants a holiday. This in my opinion - and in previous cases of mine and colleagues before the courts - is a financial loss.

Having less holidays isn't a financial loss - there is no monetary detriment. I'm not disputing that judgement may have been made in some cases that it should be reimbursed, but I'd imagine that to be under specific circumstances where there was aggravation. Can you give any more information on the particulars of these claims, and the judgements made?

Originally Posted by legalpickle

I admit, I could have been clearer. "Cause of action" is the underlying problem that caused the action, it is not the monetary claim. The monetary claim arises out of the cause of action. If the cause of action is extinguished no monetary claim can be made, however if the cause of action remains, just one specific monetary claim is removed, there still may be what to claim.
The cause of action is still there, the events still happened. The question is if monetary loss arose out of that cause of action.

Thanks for explaining a little more clearly what you were trying to demonstrate

Originally Posted by legalpickle

Negligence can be claimed also in cases where there is no "duty of care" as such. True, negligence hasn't been alleged, but that's what I would call this.

There is a three rung test under the tort of negligence:
1. is there a duty of care between the parties? - if so then
2. has there been a breach of that duty of care? - if so then
3. is it reasonably forseeable that this breach could cause the loss experienced?

I would hold that a simple contract, which ultimately this is, does not amount to a duty of care in this context.

Originally Posted by legalpickle

You are of course entitled to your opinion, I completely and utterly disagree. Otelo quite often gives awards of £50-£100 at least for similar cases. £20 is adding insult to injury.

I personally feel, in all the circumstances, that £20 is reasonable. Whilst this has been an inconvenience and an annoyance, it was only so in passing. I'd point out that I did state:

The ADR scheme would not in my opinion make any award in excess of what has been offered; or if it did it would unlikely be a sum of significant brevity to make going through the ADR process beneficial or worthwhile to the OP.

For a dispute of this nature, my take on things would be to consider is the act of going through dispute resolution worth it for in the region of £30, which is potentially around what I stand to gain?

Originally Posted by legalpickle

From your own threads, I'm sure you've learned that it's hard to assist an OP without "stepping into their shoes" so too speak. The aggravation the OP would have suffered from this issue, would be hard to imagine unless you have been through similar situations.

I have been in similar situations, and I really can empathise with how much of a pain in the backside it can be. However, in the grand scheme of things, it won't really achieve much to challenge this. There has been no criminality, or mailicious intent, or infringement of civil liberties. With some disputes I think there comes a point where you have to think, is this worth wasting any more of my own time?

Originally Posted by legalpickle

You are now behaving just like posters in some of your threads have behaved, so I request of you, seftonview, to act just the way you would want those same posters to behave. What goes around comes around.

I'd disagree. The threads to which you refer involved certain forum users making wild assumptions, trying to force their own opinions (without merit or citation) on others, and behaving in a childlike manner.

What I have done is offered my own opinion on the situation as I see it, and as my experience and knowledge as a consumer and a litigator have led me.

Originally Posted by legalpickle

The other advantage of taking a case to Otelo is that BT would have to pay a case fee, of, I believe, £50. That combined with compensation, reduction in connection charge and hopefully loss of customer, would result in a definite loss for British Trouble on the OP - which I'm sure we'd all be happy to see.

It will result in a loss to BT, but not one of such significant or brevity to make them ensure they get there backsides in gear in the future.

Originally Posted by legalpickle

If however the OP has suffered financial loss in the days off work, then court action - in my opinion - would be more appropriate, and would also cause British Trouble to make a loss out of the OP.

If he has, which as a contentious issue hasn't yet been clarified, I agree whole-heartedly that the OP should move in the direction of a Court claim.

[Hullabaloo27]

A startling amount of views and opinions posted in reply to my OP, so thanks to all that contributed. To try to clarify my position somewhat, my major issue concerns BT's obvious lack of concern that one of their customers has now lost 2 additional half days of leave, as their engineer has not turned up, despite two forms of notification on each occasion. It was the contempt with which they treated my initial complaint that concerned me most as it shows an inherent lack of understanding of their customer, or indeed of their own procedures.

I shall look at the info provided in more depth shortly, which should also give BT enough time to reply to my latest correspondence. I'm not trying to bring the company down!!! Simply to highlight that their behaviour on this occasion has been wholly unacceptable.

[Hullabaloo27]

BT response:

Dear Hullabaloo27,

Thank you for your E-mail dated 3/9/08 about the refund.

I am sorry to hear of the difficulties you have experienced with BT regarding the refund due to no engineer visit.

I can understand your concerns regarding this matter as you were promised that the refund will be given to you for the problems you have faced while activation of BT line but after repeated contact no action is taken to resolve your matter.

I can confirm you that the refund of £20.00 is already approved on your account and I assure you that it will be adjusted in your next bill. I assure you that you will get the best services available in the telecom industry in future. If you have any other concerns please revert to me at the earliest.

Once again please accept my apologies for the problems you have experienced with BT recently.

Thank you for contacting BT.

Firstly, this email does not make any physical or grammatical sense. Secondly, there is no mention of their own discount for the connection.

[locutus]

As I said, if you are still in your cancelation period, cancel the order. Phone lines have 3 options when setting them up. Active, stopped and ceased. An active line is one in use by someone, a stopped line is one that was active but has been stopped (the analogy I'd make is this was turned off like flicking a switch) and a ceased line is one that is unplugged from the main server so needs a BT engineer visit. You had a ceased line, ordered the line, and BT have sent the engineer to the exchange to connect you. Now you have an active line. If you cancel this you will have a stopped line, and you can go with any other telecom provider with no connection fee (some may charge you if they use a different server but that would only be £30ish)

[Hullabaloo27]

Many thanks, but it is actually a new line i.e. new as in a new development, phone sockets in but line had never been connected.

p.s. I'm well past the cancellation period if its the standard 14 days, will have to check

Update: Just checked and you can only cancel the order PRIOR to your activation.

[seftonview]

Originally Posted by Hullabaloo27

... It was the contempt with which they treated my initial complaint that concerned me most as it shows an inherent lack of understanding of their customer, or indeed of their own procedures.

I shall look at the info provided in more depth shortly, which should also give BT enough time to reply to my latest correspondence. I'm not trying to bring the company down!!! Simply to highlight that their behaviour on this occasion has been wholly unacceptable.

It comes down to two options then:-

(1) Accept the £20 being mindful it won't ultimately lead to procedural change at BT or any material acknowledgement that they have acted poorly;

(2) Pursue the complaint to ADR, where your compensatory payment may be increased by £30-£70 at best, being mindful it won't ultimately lead to procedural change at BT or any material acknowledgement that they have acted poorly.

The latter option is likely to require a number of hours of your further input.

I'm not trying to disparage you, if you choose to go for (2) then it's an entirely reasonable path to follow, my concern is that its a lot of effort for ultimately very little to gain.

[locutus]

Originally Posted by Hullabaloo27

Many thanks, but it is actually a new line i.e. new as in a new development, phone sockets in but line had never been connected.

p.s. I'm well past the cancellation period if its the standard 14 days, will have to check

Update: Just checked and you can only cancel the order PRIOR to your activation.

If you ordered over the phone it is 14 days. (they'll say it's up untill activation but you have 14 days to cancel any services ordered over the telephone!)

Originally Posted by seftonview

It comes down to two options then:-

(1) Accept the £20 being mindful it won't ultimately lead to procedural change at BT or any material acknowledgement that they have acted poorly;

(2) Pursue the complaint to ADR, where your compensatory payment may be increased by £30-£70 at best, being mindful it won't ultimately lead to procedural change at BT or any material acknowledgement that they have acted poorly.

The latter option is likely to require a number of hours of your further input.

I'm not trying to disparage you, if you choose to go for (2) then it's an entirely reasonable path to follow, my concern is that its a lot of effort for ultimately very little to gain.

I agree that nothing in BT is going to change. I'd personally take this as far as possible to penalise them to the max for messing me around.

[legalpickle]

Originally Posted by seftonview

Having less holidays isn't a financial loss - there is no monetary detriment. I'm not disputing that judgement may have been made in some cases that it should be reimbursed, but I'd imagine that to be under specific circumstances where there was aggravation. Can you give any more information on the particulars of these claims, and the judgements made?

The most information I can give is this. One of the claims was for damages relating to numerous promises from a large company and their contractors to deal with some issues in a persons property. They missed 4 appointments and then took triple the time to deal with the issues than they had promised. The person involved then took a claim against them both for certain damages that they caused and for loss of earnings as he had to take off. Between the date of the claim and the final date by which the parties had to file all relevant documents upon which they intended to rely upon, the Claimant left his job for a better job and his previous employers were annoyed with him, so knowing about the case told the Defendant that the Claimant had taken holiday leave for all but the last of the days that he had claimed to have lost from work.
They dropped that on him by this deadline - 14 days before the hearing, offering to settle the damages plus the 1 days alleged lost work. He refused and responded that the result was, that he had to lose money later when he took off holiday.
The District Judge accepted that most employees will have holiday leave and the first days within the year that they take off they will take out of the holiday leave [unless it is sick leave], but when they want to take a holiday, they have used all those days up - which is what had happened here, the last of the days was beyond the Claimants holiday leave allocation - so the Claimant had made a loss on that and awarded the full amount of days to be paid.

Originally Posted by seftonview

Thanks for explaining a little more clearly what you were trying to demonstrate

No problemo.

Originally Posted by seftonview

There is a three rung test under the tort of negligence:
1. is there a duty of care between the parties? - if so then
2. has there been a breach of that duty of care? - if so then
3. is it reasonably forseeable that this breach could cause the loss experienced?

I would hold that a simple contract, which ultimately this is, does not amount to a duty of care in this context.

I don't fully agree, but do agree that calling it a breach of contract is better for the OP, as then he would legally be able to cancel the contract due to the breach of contract.

Originally Posted by seftonview

I personally feel, in all the circumstances, that £20 is reasonable. Whilst this has been an inconvenience and an annoyance, it was only so in passing. I'd point out that I did state:

For a dispute of this nature, my take on things would be to consider is the act of going through dispute resolution worth it for in the region of £30, which is potentially around what I stand to gain?

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I disagree with you, as does locutus, who I believe has more experience than both of us in telecoms issues.

Originally Posted by seftonview

I have been in similar situations, and I really can empathise with how much of a pain in the backside it can be. However, in the grand scheme of things, it won't really achieve much to challenge this. There has been no criminality, or mailicious intent, or infringement of civil liberties. With some disputes I think there comes a point where you have to think, is this worth wasting any more of my own time?

I agree that there are some issues where this is a question that needs to be looked at seriously, but I don't agree that this is one of them. I completely disagree that where the case is a matter of civil liberties there is any larger issue. What it boils down to is how it affected the OP and how ****ed off the OP is with this issue. I personally would take it the full way as I have done with 99% of my issues with telecoms companies.

Originally Posted by seftonview

I'd disagree. The threads to which you refer involved certain forum users making wild assumptions, trying to force their own opinions (without merit or citation) on others, and behaving in a childlike manner.

What I have done is offered my own opinion on the situation as I see it, and as my experience and knowledge as a consumer and a litigator have led me.

Yes, there were posters who were making "wild assumptions, trying to force their own opinions (without merit or citation) on others, and behaving in a childlike manner", there were also posters who voiced their disagreement without stepping into your shoes for a few minutes. I feel that this is what you are doing here.

Originally Posted by seftonview

It will result in a loss to BT, but not one of such significant or brevity to make them ensure they get there backsides in gear in the future.

No issue below probably £1m or so is of "such significant or brevity" to make any large company ensure they get there backsides in gear in the future. If that would be the reason behind your recommendation, then I would have recommended in your case not to take the case further. Most large companies will ignore small claims or even slightly larger but not significant claims from the average citizen.

Originally Posted by seftonview

If he has, which as a contentious issue hasn't yet been clarified, I agree whole-heartedly that the OP should move in the direction of a Court claim.

As stated previously, even if it was off leave, he still made a monetary loss - in my opinion.

[seftonview]

Originally Posted by legalpickle

The most information I can give is this. One of the claims was for damages relating to numerous promises from a large company and their contractors to deal with some issues in a persons property. They missed 4 appointments and then took triple the time to deal with the issues than they had promised. The person involved then took a claim against them both for certain damages that they caused and for loss of earnings as he had to take off. Between the date of the claim and the final date by which the parties had to file all relevant documents upon which they intended to rely upon, the Claimant left his job for a better job and his previous employers were annoyed with him, so knowing about the case told the Defendant that the Claimant had taken holiday leave for all but the last of the days that he had claimed to have lost from work.
They dropped that on him by this deadline - 14 days before the hearing, offering to settle the damages plus the 1 days alleged lost work. He refused and responded that the result was, that he had to lose money later when he took off holiday.
The District Judge accepted that most employees will have holiday leave and the first days within the year that they take off they will take out of the holiday leave [unless it is sick leave], but when they want to take a holiday, they have used all those days up - which is what had happened here, the last of the days was beyond the Claimants holiday leave allocation - so the Claimant had made a loss on that and awarded the full amount of days to be paid.

So, in your cited case, the DJ made a favourable order for the one day that was not paid holiday leave? That kinda backs up my point.

Originally Posted by legalpickle

I don't fully agree, but do agree that calling it a breach of contract is better for the OP, as then he would legally be able to cancel the contract due to the breach of contract.

The first element of the test, and arguably the basis for the tort of negligence, is found in Donoghue vs Stevenson (1932), in which Lord Atkins established the principle of 'love thy neighbour'.

The test was expanded in Caparo vs Dickman (1990) to the full three (occasionally four) point test.

There is other case law, but these are the most basic and generically relevant to defining the tort.

Originally Posted by legalpickle

No issue below probably £1m or so is of "such significant or brevity" to make any large company ensure they get there backsides in gear in the future.

I agree.

Originally Posted by legalpickle

If that would be the reason behind your recommendation, then I would have recommended in your case not to take the case further. Most large companies will ignore small claims or even slightly larger but not significant claims from the average citizen.

The material difference is that it was quite foreseeable that my case going to court, and being won (which I still feel was extremely likely, had settlement not been made), it would have opened the floodgates significantly to other claims along the same lines. Anecdotally, since discussing my claim on this and another forum, I'm aware of twenty-three claims that are being made as a direct result of my own. (Edit: twenty-four, if we include the fact that you are considering bringing such a claim)

SV

[legalpickle]

Originally Posted by seftonview

So, in your cited case, the DJ made a favourable order for the one day that was not paid holiday leave? That kinda backs up my point.

No. Maybe I was unclear. The DJ accepted that the other days would have been offset of the Claimant's earnings and therefore awarded the full losses he had claimed. This doesn't back up your point.

Originally Posted by seftonview

The first element of the test, and arguably the basis for the tort of negligence, is found in Donoghue vs Stevenson (1932), in which Lord Atkins established the principle of 'love thy neighbour'.

The test was expanded in Caparo vs Dickman (1990) to the full three (occasionally four) point test.

There is other case law, but these are the most basic and generically relevant to defining the tort.

There are others. Not that this is relevant, I have accepted that breach of contract would be more beneficial to the OP than negligence.

Originally Posted by seftonview

The material difference is that it was quite foreseeable that my case going to court, and being won (which I still feel was extremely likely, had settlement not been made), it would have opened the floodgates significantly to other claims along the same lines. Anecdotally, since discussing my claim on this and another forum, I'm aware of twenty-three claims that are being made as a direct result of my own. (Edit: twenty-four, if we include the fact that you are considering bringing such a claim)

I would only bring such a claim if I actually encounter that circumstances again. The last time I encountered it was over a 8 months ago and I don't have the exact details, a court claim would therefore most likely be thrown out in that case. Unfortunately - or fortunately - my local Tesco has more than sufficient parking spaces to cater for "ignorant plebs" at most times of the day, at least whenever I visit.

But that in itself wouldn't be reason for bringing the claim. And how many of these claims are phrased properly and don't get caught out on technicalities or other problems is another question.

Whilst I accept what you are saying, I still don't believe that any large company would change their policies because of one - or even 23 - claimants with a similar claim.

To prove this, I know of 73 claims against BT for a variety of issues mainly relating to installation of lines and broadband, many of them with similarities to the OP's claim, but this has not affected British Trouble and is unlikely to do so. That's only the claims I know of, it's reasonable to assume that there are many more claims that I don't know of.

So, whilst I agree with your claim, and agree with the OP's claim, I think it's incorrect to only bring claims on the basis of assuming that it will cause sufficient damage to the large company involved that they will change their policies in future. Even in the bank charges claims most of the financial institutions have still not changed their policies - some have made them worse.

[Hullabaloo27]

Their latest response was much along the similar lines as before, in that the level of compensation is a standard across the company and therefore cannot be changed, although no mention of the connex discount (which I'm actually entitled to). I have emailed back, stating that although I don't agree with it, I'd be willing to accept it subject to confirmation that the BT connection discount will be applied within the next bill. Which is what I was hoping for to begin with.

[legalpickle]

Originally Posted by Hullabaloo27

Their latest response was much along the similar lines as before, in that the level of compensation is a standard across the company and therefore cannot be changed, although no mention of the connex discount (which I'm actually entitled to). I have emailed back, stating that although I don't agree with it, I'd be willing to accept it subject to confirmation that the BT connection discount will be applied within the next bill. Which is what I was hoping for to begin with.

I repeat my recommendations to write a complaint and send it special delivery to the complaints address and the registered office and then to consider if to take the complaint to Otelo or to issue court proceedings.

E-mailing back and forth will just make them think you aren't serious and they won't give you what you want. Also, the e-mail team is most likely a bunch of low-level incompetent nincampoops that have no idea how to deal with anything even if it bit them in the bums!