Good morning,

I am new to the concept of posting threads and would like to request any advice on the proceedings I am about to undertake with BT,

I am sure this subject has been discussed many times before, however not with me and therefore would like direct advice.

BT has issued my partner and I a charge of £130.00 for an engineers visit due to a diagnosis of a faulty router.

However the router was not faulty as when he left everything came back on and has been working for months correctly with no problems.

Phoned BT to ask what the charge was for and they said...(see above).

Complained to them regarding an incorrect diagnosis.

Three telephone conversations later they imply the router was faulty and imply I am using an after market router purchased by me subsequently.

This is not true and I have video evidence of the router in full working order with the serial number on the rear with which BT can cross reference to the last one they sent out.

The diagnosis was incorrect so should not have been issued the charge.

If the diagnosis had been correct it clearly states on BT website I may not be charged for a faulty router as it is under warranty due to us being in a legally enforceable contract.

I requested a letter of deadlock as BT refused to issue any refund or redress.

Went through the procedure of the Ombudsman.

This took quite a few weeks.

The result being the Ombudsman sent a proposal of £50 gesture of goodwill, a new router, and letter of apology from BT.

I rejected the offer as £50 does not cover my loss of £130(plus bank charge)

New router is obviously not required.

Therefore a letter does not constitute a full redress of our issue.

As a law student, I am now seeking to take BT to the small claims track first tier tribunal for a breach of the 'Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982' as it states they must carry out the service with reasonable care and skill.

Any further advice on this topic before I commence anything would be much appreciated. As I say, I am a law student, but do not confess to knowing everything as I am in the early stages of my degree.

Many thanks in advance.

snailandgingerbeer.

Let me first say that I hope that you aren't asking us to help you out with one of your end of term assignments. It wouldn't be the first time that it happened and we routinely report these incidents to the university authorities.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I think you better start dismissing notions of the Supply of Goods and Services Act because it has been overtaken by the Consumer Rights Act for contracts which were entered into from October 2015.

If SGSA in your contract/consumer law course in the first year of your degree, then you better have a word in someone's shell-like because they clearly aren't keeping themselves up to date.

Your account of the problem is a little on clear to me but I gather that you have a and Internet service provided by BT. It stopped working satisfactorily and you contacted the BT helpline and their online help diagnose that it was a faulty router. An engineer was sent out to deal with and it was then discovered that the router was not faulty and it was some other problem – although you don't seem to have told us what that problem might have been.

I understand that you have paid BT £130 but you are now challenging it and in fact the communication ombudsman has broadly found in your favour but simply offered you a £50 goodwill gesture instead of the entire £130.

You have rejected it because you want the entire £130 and you are prepared to take legal action.

If this is all correct, then firstly if you have any more telephone calls with BT about this or anyone else, first of all read our customer services guide and diplomat the advice there and make sure that no calls are made without a recorder in place and working.

Secondly, well done for getting a positive result from the ombudsman. Ombudsman services are marginally useful and the communication one is particularly bad. So you've done well. However, as an example of the limp wristed nonsense approach taken by the communication ombudsman, they seem to have upheld your position and yet they still don't want to put you back in the position that you would have been if BT had done their job correctly. This is very typical. What is very helpful though is that you are probably got a decision from the ombudsman which shows that BT were in the wrong. Please will you post up the ombudsman decision here in PDF format so they can understand exactly what has been said and the strength of your position.

You have rejected the offer – and once again well done. Stand by your guns.

You want to bring a small claim in the County Court. Yes, absolutely. Why not? BT need more of this kind of treatment and also it will be extremely good practice for you – but I advise you not to start getting to "lawyer-ish" about it. If you let us guide you through it then we can help you to do it in a recently quick, non-complicated, non-strutting way which will help you to get the results you need without being pompous about it.

On the basis of what you say I estimate your chances of success as better than 90% – although we need to see the ombudsman letter. If you threaten the action against BT they will ignore you because they never take these kinds of things seriously. Once you see the court papers that will change. Either they will put their hands up immediately to avoid court action, or they will spend several times the value of the claim trying to oppress you and to crush you – and then eventually put their hands up.

The chances of this actually getting to court are probably about 20%.

BankFodder;

Many thanks on your informative and immediate response to my query.

Firstly let me assure you that this query is in no way related to any end of tern assignment.

Secondly allow me to thank you for correctly pointing out that the Supply of Goods Act 1982 has been overtaken by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (however under s49 the appropriate heading still applies 'service to be carried out with reasonable care and skill')

This error is a personal error and not due to any academic guidance from the University so I shall refrain from abusing their 'shell-like'.

Yes BankFodder, you seem to be on the right track concerning the dispute, however please let me clarify the issue before any further comments are posted.

A BT (Open-reach) engineer came out to the property, and after tests informed us that the router was faulty.

It was not replaced.

When the engineer left, the router started to work correctly and has been working correctly ever since for months.

BT informed me the charge was for an engineers visit due to him diagnosing a faulty router (that being equipment within the boundary of my property).

However if the router is working I consider this a faulty diagnosis, not a faulty router as a router can not 'un-damage itself'. (admitted to by BT).

We have had a number of issues with the service of broadband by BT with a number of engineers being called out in the past.

The issue is always 200 meters away from the property on a pole.

I suggest this issue was the same cause, and not due to a faulty router (which is not faulty).

My gut instinct is to, yes, carry it further to civil proceedings.

Yes I agree BankFodder, that I do not want to complete the process by seeming 'Lawyer-ish or pompous' about it as you refer to it, but just as a normal member of society and an average Jo, (by no means am I implying Lawyers are 'abnormal' I might add).

Another point I want to clarify is that, if it is an incorrect diagnosis of a faulty router, then this charge should not apply, as it is not faulty.

If the router was faulty, it clearly states on BT website that you may not get charged if your router is faulty due to it being under warranty under contract.

I do not mind it going to county court as I say it can be deemed good practise for me,

and if I lose I lose, it is no big deal, I can put it aside into my box of experience and just crack on.

However, I do feel compelled to fight a profit fuelled unsympathetic service provider that believes it can eradicate any consumers right with eccentric terms and conditions and wave them away like an unwanted vagabond.

The Ombudsman findings and offer is below.

Based on the evidence available, your account records demonstrate you initially contacted BT on 5 August 2017, to report a fault with your service.

Your account records demonstrate BT made an appointment for an engineer for 7 August 2017, and they identified a fault with external lines.

Following this, you contacted the company again on 20 August 2017, and reported you had no dial tone.

Your account notes record BT ran a test and identified a problem, and arranged an engineer appointment for 22 August 2017.

BT records state this fault was a follow up on the line issue, and Openreach was aware of this and had an open fault ticket on the matter.

The records state you declined to complete diagnostic checks with the company and requested an engineer, for which you accepted the potential charges.

Your account notes record the Openreach engineer’s report from 22 August 2017.

The report states the engineer identified a fault with your router.

The engineer swapped your router for a test router and received a dial tone.

The note records the engineer advised you to contact BT, and request a replacement router.

On 27 September 2017, and 16 October 2017, you contacted BT to report faults with your broadband speed and connection.

On 19 October 2017, you contacted BT to dispute the engineer fee of £129.99.

Your account records demonstrate you informed the advisor the Openreach engineer had told you the fault was with external wiring,

and had not told you a replacement router was required.

BT considered the charge to be valid and issued a deadlock letter at your request.

During our telephone conversation on 14 December 2017, you told me BT refused to refund the engineer charge as the router was faulty.

I confirmed to you I had identified the reason for the charge was because you declined to complete diagnostic tests with the company prior to it arranging an engineer.

You stated you were not comfortable in opening the BT box, although this is within your property.

You informed me the service resumed shortly after the engineer left and you had not experienced any further problems with the service, however had previously experienced issues which resulted in four or five engineer visits.

You advised me the engineer had not told you to call BT and request a replacement router but had informed you there was an issue with it.

You agreed to send our service a video demonstrating the router was in working order and showing the serial number.

In its case file to our service, BT states as you did not go through the diagnostic checks before the engineer was arranged, it considers the charge valid.

It states had you completed these checks prior to the appointment being made, it could have identified the issue with the router and would have replaced it, without the need for an engineer appointment.

The evidence shows you declined BT‘s request to complete diagnostic checks in an attempt to resolve the fault you reported to it, and requested an engineer.

BT would need to complete diagnostic checks with you prior to appointing an engineer as this rules out any fault with your equipment and may avoid possible charges. I am satisfied you confirmed acceptance of the potential engineer charges with the company.

BT’s website states the following about engineer fees:

“There may be a £129.99 charge if we send out an engineer to fix a fault or make an improvement, but it's free of charge if the problem is with our network outside the boundary of your premises.

You'll be charged if the problem is caused by things like:

• Your main socket, due to damage you've caused

• Your home phone extension wiring

• The way you've connected up your equipment

• Interference from something else in your home, like your phone, alarm system, or a faulty microfilter

• A faulty BT Home Hub that's out of warranty (your Hub is in warranty if you're in contract)

• Damage caused by damp, flood, fire, or building work

• Damage outside caused by things like broken guttering or trees

• Telephone wires that have been accidently cut

We won't be able to tell you if there's a charge until after an engineer visits your premises.

So it's worth trying our landline and broadband trouble-shooters to test your line and run through some quick checks.

If we can't find a fault or fix the problem online, we'll give you the option to book an engineer appointment”.

Thank you for all this information.

Some of the information you have provided – in particular the opinion from the ombudsman rather changes things.

I understand that as part of their preliminary diagnostic procedure, BT asked you to perform some of your own tests at home. You declined to do this – for various reasons.

I'm afraid that this puts a completely different spin on the story. Maybe you would like to describe to me the steps that you were asked to take – and your reasons for refusing to do so. The ombudsman says that you declined to do so because you are not confident in opening a BT box. I wonder what BT box that might be? I can scarcely imagine that BT expected you to take a screwdriver and start opening up their equipment. I think we need to know far more about this but at the moment I'm afraid that my view of your chances of success have substantially changed and I think that you would be risking a lot of time and also costs if you sue BT and without further information I rate your chances of success at less than 20%. On the basis that you have already received 50 quid, 20% would not be enough to prompt me, at any rate, to begin a legal action.

BankFodder;

Initially, BT done the usual over the phone checks ie: line check, speed check, fault check, exchange check etc.

Then they asked me to take apart the main BT master socket.

As not being trained in any engineering or wiring or diagnostic genre,

I refused to take it apart,

stating that (and enquiring with BT) that if I did and subsequently damaged it who would be liable for the repair charge? they said me.

I refused as I am not obliged to dismantle a BT socket under any domestic law.

This issue relating to the refusal to check outcome of the Ombudsman is irrelevant.

The issue is for a charge for faulty equipment within the boundaries of my property.

The equipment within my boundary was not faulty.

If BT are stating the charge is for refusing to initiate checks, then, as clearly stated and highlited below from the BT website.....

"We won't be able to tell you if there's a charge until after an engineer visits your premises."

This implies without doubt they cannot charge me before an engineers visit, thus standing the charge cannot be for refusal to check.

Many thanks,

snailandbeer.

Hi;

Just to make clear, It seems to me that BT need to give a definitive statement as to what the charge is for.

According to the Ombudsmans report, it is for declining a master socket check.

If it is for refusal to carry out checks, then they cannot charge me an engineers fee. (stated on their website).

If it is for a faulty router (that being within my properties boundaries) then it is covered under warranty (stated on their website).

If it is for the faulty router diagnostic, as the router is not faulty, the charge should not have been applied.

It should not be the duty of the consumer to carry out checks beyond their competency, which can be carried out by a trained professional when called out for a visit.

Again, many thanks in advance.

snailandgingerbeer.

trying to bend it your way sorry but you are wrong.

the choice was

1.remove 2 screws that allow you to get to the internal socket and plug a phone in there and see if its works

the outside socket on a master socket is simply an adapter

or

be charged because you wont do that.

clearly states as much above

dx100uk;

Please advise me where I am wrong?

You say it clearly states as much above.

States what? and where?

What it does clearly state is what I have previously said, "We won't be able to tell you if there's a charge until after an engineer visits your premises."

Then how can they charge me for prior to an engineers visit.

Also please inform me of where it clearly states there will be a charge for refusing to open BT equipment, as I cannot seem to locate this.

'Trying to bend it my way'.... is that an negative way of saying 'attempting to prove a case'?

Many thanks for all your comments.

snailandbeer.

BT would need to complete diagnostic checks with you prior to appointing an engineer as this rules out any fault with your equipment and may avoid possible charges.

I am satisfied you confirmed acceptance of the potential engineer charges with the company.

Many thanks, however, this did not answer the question asked of you.

The facts are I am not obliged to interfere with equipment, no matter how simple the task.

An acceptance of potential engineer charges is a standard acceptance, without it BT will not send an engineer.

And yes I did agree to potential engineer charges, but in the reasonable belief the said charges could be justified, not however for a charge for a faulty router when the router is not faulty.

If BT are not at fault (which I would take my chance are at fault), the the Open-reach is it fault of negligence, that being;

He owed a duty of care - in carrying out a diagnosis with care and required skill as manufacturer/engineer to consumer

There was a breach of said duty of care - failure to provide a correct diagnosis.

And a resultant or foreseeable loss - monetary loss due to the incorrect diagnosis.

I am very grateful for all your comments and have taken them all in.

They have all been invaluable and I appreciate your time taken to respond to my query.

I shall decide in due course on my option, but believe I will proceed with a possible claim.

If I hear anything in the future as a result I will post on here if the thread remains open.

Many thanks again,

snailandgingerbeer.

I'm not sure that you have really described to us what these diagnostic tests are. Once again, I can't imagine BT requiring you to take equipment apart. I can almost imagine that BT would claim that you had failed to understand what was being required because there had been a breakdown in the English-language communication. Do you think this could be the case?

I expect that if you Google the Internet that you will find a description of the diagnostic test that you were asked to perform. Maybe you could find it and then post it here or link to it – or both.

In terms of being forbidden from interfering with BT equipment, if they asked you to do a test then there is no doubt that BT is permitting you and so I don't think that your argument works there.

Finally, I'm afraid that you are taking a rather inflexible approach. I think that your whole approach needs to be more pragmatic and flexible and I think that you need to move away from what you see as the formal legal rules involved. I think that a relaxed approach to the problem will then result in a greater chance of a correct outcome.

Don't forget that nowadays the courts are concerned with serving the interests of justice – rather than implementing formal rules regardless of the outcome.

If you really want to make a claim then will support you and of course if you succeeded then we would be very pleased for you. It could well be that given the value of the claim – £130 minus the £50 you have already received – would prompt BT simply to decide to pay you out rather than go to the hassle and expense of confronting you in court.

If this happened then although it would present you with an economic victory, I don't think it would tell you very much about the operation of the law.

Its a theoretical question posed.

Its a classic 2nd year project on responsibilities of a consumer with contracted equipment.

The language used is too precise for a response.

Its an argument /counter argument.

If was anything else then the OP wouldn't require us mere mortals advise as they have sufficient knowledge to argue the case eloquently.

Ps BT always ask you to remove the cover on the master socket. All they ask you does it look like a wire is lose or signs of corrosion or verdigris.

They know your not an engineer and do not have you re-wiring the socket.

Pay the charge. In my opinion because of your stubbornness and single minded approach you should pay it.

doesn't want to understand - BF.

got that one after that 1st line.

you owe £130

you refused to simply remove one or 2 screws which doesn't expose anything at all

go do it now its simply a screw on adaptor

anyway not wasting my time

unsubbing.

dx

dx

signs of corrosion or verdigris.

.

ooi, if there is 'verdigris' on the master socket effecting things is that their responsibilty?

Bt are responsible from outside to your master socket.

You are responsible for anything plugged into master socket.

So bt responsible

So bt responsible

thanks. would though they have an argument trying to say that it was due to damp in the house?

re the thread;

unless someone is physically unable to unplug things and remove the faceplates for the line test (which they will then do when everything has been removed to discount things internal), it seems reasonable for them to ask someone to do so (partic as there are alot of third party faceplates available, custom wiring, etc, and it may well be internal) before sending out an engineer?