BT threatening court- help needed!

[solomondogs]

Afternoon all, I am Asking for some help on behalf of a friend of mine. About six years ago he left his rented accommodation Paid up BT and moved about 4 miles away. All was well and good until last year when he received a bill for 5 years worth of line rental at his old address, the house I believe has now been sold. Despite continually telling BT that he has moved, that the account was closed and paid up in full before he departed, they have now employed their solicitors and are threatening court action to recover these 5 years worth of line rental charges when he wasn't there? Bt appear to be trying to force him to pay a bill he doesn't owe. Any advice would be gratefully received

[dx100uk]

are you sure these are solicitors, or a DCA?
what is the name

dx100uk

[solomondogs]

The DCA I think were Moorcroft and they seem to have passed it to S C Gray Solicitors.

[buzby]

Does he have a 'Final Bill'? Did he cancel in writing or by phone? A final bill or a cheque in refund would have beth the either/or outcome.

[solomondogs]

The account was settled in full over five years ago now. He telephoned BT said he wanted the service to stop as he was moving, the account was then settled in full and BT was also informed by writing. What BT appear to have done without his knowledge is to then redirect the original number to his mothers house. This only came to light last summer when he had a bill for five years worth of redirected numbers, which came to £400. The account is noe running at just under £1000.

[buzby]

From what you've said, they not terminated his account, but simply transferred it. They do not do this automatically, and would have to have been told what number his mother used in order to set up the diversion. Actually, it seems a pretty good idea if you plan to return and retain your number, so in that case the charges would be quite valid.

The trouble here, is the only person to benefit from this arrangement was the original customer, and coupled with the fact that BT did provide the service, it would be difficult to argue anything different, other than why they didn't disconnect service when the bills weren't paid. It might also be worth asking WHERE those bills were actually sent.

[solomondogs]

Well this seems to be the problem, Bt were not told to divert to his mothers number, nor were they aware of what it was. This redirect only came to light last summer when on returning from holiday, his mother presented him with about five years worth of bills for phone calls to be redirected to her number. these bills all arrived within about a month of each other and they were addressed to his mothers house, where he doesn't live. At no time did he instruct BT to redirect to his mothers number so we are a little unsure as to how BT made the connection between him and his mother and then redirect the number to his mothers house without his or his mothers knowledge and then after five years decide to issue the bills?

[buzby]

Who's bill does the diversion appear on? The mothers, or the original account of the person giving up the line? There has to be more to this as BT couldn't initiate a fee for an inbound diversion on the mother's account - and wouldn't know what number connected them. It would be easier for BT to explain how the diversion was set up, and why the hadn't billed for it until now.

[solomondogs]

It is billed to the original account. My friend cancelled the redirected calls as he was moving to an address without a landline and was not in a position to pay for one to be installed, the Bt account was then cancelled and paid in full. The bills he has received are for a redirect from his original number to his mothers number and addressed to his mothers house. He is currently sorting out the paperwork which he has kept as he is self employed this includes the original letter to BT asking to cancel the service. He is quite certain that he has the paperwork to show that a cheque was sent to settle the account and cashed.

[buzby]

Ah - now we're getting somewhere. Was the diversion pre-existing? (I mean had he set this up himself anyway as a facility before cancelling?). I have heard of cancellations NOT going through due to BT error, and the line set-up features continue because they were not deactivated at the exchange. This could be pursued as a full BT complaint. However, if he never had a diversion set up in the first place, I'm at a loss to work out how they hit on the right number to divert to. Also, it would be useful to know if any manually made calls were made on the line/bill. This would mean the BT master socket was still live in the old premises....

[solomondogs]

No the diversion wasn't pre existing. His mothers number ws not used or mentioned at all. As you can imagine he is somewhat worried at the moment as the bill is now just below £1000. I am going to help him draft a letter of complaint to BT and Otelo this evening to try and get this resolved. There is just one small point of interest his last name isn't exactly exotic but it is unusual, as far as the directory shows there are two listed with such surnames, his brother is one, and his mother is the other.

[Janet-M]

Why don't you just get him to send a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) and see exactly what BT have .You will then see where they got the redirection from etc