Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for '"british telecom"'.


Didn't find what you were looking for? Try searching for:


More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Campaign
    • Helpful Organisations
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - you need to register to access the CAG library
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries
  • Shopping & Money Saving Tips
  • chilleddrivingtuition

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Quit Date

Between and

Cigarettes Per Day


Cost Per Day


Location

Found 138 results

  1. Hi I have started to put my defence together, below is the one for talktalk not sure what to do about vanquis !. Talk Talk Ltd 1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2.The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) Failing to respond to completed Response pack. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC. 3. It is admitted that I have entered into a supply and service agreement with Talk Talk Ltd in the past. However from July 2015 my supplier was switched to British Telecom. Due to a data breach at Talk Talk exposing my personal information to hackers. 4.Furthermore, the claimant has given no details as to the breakdown of their claim, so the defendant is unable to defend specifically. 5. The claimant openly admits that they do not have access to the agreement nor was the Assignor required to retain a copy. Therefore, their claim is unsubstantiated. Pursuant to the civil procedure rules Practice Direction 16 (7.3) Where a claim is based upon a written agreement: (1) a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing. With the court’s permission the Claimant is put to strict proof to:- a) show and disclose how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; b) show and disclose how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed ; c) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 6. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 7. It is therefore denied that the defendant is indebted to the claimant as alleged or at all.
  2. Dear BT, I am a new customer - I switched because I was told you were 'The Best'. I am happy with the Broadband services For the most part, I am happy with the telecom services, however, you MUST cease blocking calls to my land line. Specifically, you must cease telling the people you are blocking - that I have made the request to block them. I haven't - the reasons I have not asked you to do this, are A: one of the numbers you appear to be blocking is a hospital and I need to receive these calls - the other is a good friend ... and B: I wasn't even aware this service was available? How many other customers are not aware that calls are being blocked simply because the person making the call chooses to with-hold their number for one reason or another? Please don't try and say it is because of SPAM callers - with the technology you have - you should be able to differentiate, aside from which - I have already received 3 SPAM calls today.. why weren't they blocked?. Please take note that I am rapidly becoming an unhappy customer ! cagger citizenB
  3. Yes, so it turns out that we don't really know what has happened at all. If you have been slammed – then who was it? Did you actually end up in a contract with the new supplier? I'm not sure if it still goes on but a few years ago slamming happened a great deal. It seemed to have been accepted throughout the industry – even by the big players like British Telecom. There were industry agreements which simply meant that if they were approached by another supplier, then they honoured that suppliers instruction to close you down and to transfer your service without any authority from the customer. It was assumed that the new supplier had obtained this authority. In fact this wasn't the case. I don't know what happened but I can imagine that unscrupulous employees were selling off data to unscrupulous suppliers who would then use the slack systems and not worry about data breaches in order to get customers transferred from their existing suppliers. Of course, it is entirely possible that the cancellation occurred as a result of a move – but even that would be recently easy to defend against based on what I have seen in TalkTalk's terms and conditions. Although you have tried to lay out methodically – I'm afraid it's still not massively clear. Did you have one move or two moves? For some reason or other it occurs to me that you had two moves and that in one move they transferred without any difficulty and in the second move we have the issue cancellation – which may or may not have coincided with you being slammed. Who was the new supplier and did you use them? By the way, have you filed an acknowledgement of service? You should do this immediately
  4. That's very strange. This is what it produced for me - https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/search/?q="british telecom"&sortby=relevancy
  5. I wasn't a great fan of the old site layout. I prefer the look and feel of this new site, keep up the good work. Hopefully these type of errors are temporary Sorry, there is a problem The page you requested does not exist Error code: 1S160/2 and Sorry, there is a problem Please wait 4 seconds before attempting another search Error code: 1C205/3 and a search for "BT" and "British Telecom" produced no results. Who would have thought it!
  6. As the topic asks Do we have the email address of the BT executive Complaints, not the normal phone drones. I did have Ian Livingston but i do not think he is with BT any more Thanks
  7. I have no idea why that is suddenly happening. I'm not aware that it is anything that we have changed. Personally I find adds extremely annoying – but there have been discussions about this kind of thing before. It is only the large well resourced companies that can afford not to have ads. Examples include Lloyds bank, TSB, Barclays, HSBC, Nationwide, RBS, Currys, PC World, various debt collection agencies, various private parking companies, lots of cowboy building companies, Tesco's, Sainsbury's, O2, Vodafone, EE, 3, EDF, Npower, Scottish Power, SSE, Thames Water, Welsh water, British Gas, British Telecom, virgin, TalkTalk,… and the list goes on. None of these people have ads appearing on their websites to bother their customers. People who visit this forum can always get ad blockers – but what this means is that we lose the little bits of revenue that we do get – whereas to all the big companies – some of which I've listed above – it doesn't matter a jot. In fact if you want to know, the companies I have listed above would probably be very pleased if everybody installed ad blockers. This would mean that all of the help forums, hobby forums, the community interest forums, all the little sources of interesting information which are put up by means of people and socially conscious groups around the world would probably cease to exist. We haven't done anything to change the way ads have been displayed so I don't understand why it is happening but if it is bringing us a bit more revenue then that is a great thing – I can tell you that we really need it because by and large we struggle.
  8. Hi all, I am probably flogging a dead horse here but..... We have recently changed from Sky to BT as we are moving house and I wanted to keep my phone number (Sky cannot do that but BT can ) So we had BT activated just yesterday at our current address. This had to be done so BT had our line when we move - next Wednesday. They are now saying they cannot activate a home move for our line until the day we move then it could take up to 10 days for the line in the new house to be activated. I have been passed from pillar to post today trying to get them to sort the mess out and am no further forward... Is there any way I can cancel my 18month contract straight away and go back to Sky? I now completely remember why I went to Sky in the first place...
  9. Im guessing this is relating to the dreaded provider British Telecom, Im having the same issue with them there engineers wouldnt install it where i wanted so when i left they left me without a working wireless hub so i tried to contact them again and again and told them i want it relocating like i asked in the first place oh sorry you will need to pay £130.00 for that so i refused, refused to pay for it and said i wanted it cancelling but they decided to use my cooling off period before the services was installed. So time has passed ive sent Ian Livingston at BT a really nasty abusive email had a few unkind works to him in there. But he never replies so it was a waste of my time really. I received a letter this morning stating i pay £577 when BT's cancellation agreement was £467 so they basically put £113 admin fee on there what gives them a right to place a £113 admin fee on top of something ?
  10. Hi guys BT are trying to chase me for £461 i have never been one for debt but when i don't get a service i for one will not pay for it. Back in October 2011 i had BT installed and originally had a BT line in this house the reason for this was we was going to move to a private rent and they didnt have cable services in that area when i had Virgin at the time so i cancelled Virgin and went to BT. One day in October BT arrived to install my services i asked the engineer if he could install it upstairs as my PC was in the back room, He refused as there was already a phone socket behind our TV in the living room so when he left i could not get a wireless signal in my home so i contacted BT about this only to get through to a non English person as usual brain dead muppets so i gave up and went through to the CEO office via email to have a big argument with a non cooperating woman saying all customers are treated fairly this was after i refused to pay them £130 for a phone box relocation to my room after the engineer refused to put it where i wanted it. So i lost my rag with this woman via email told them that BT are nothing but rip of merchants and dont treat any customer fairly whats so ever kept coming back saying this is how everyone is treated so unless i pay the £130 they won't relocate it. So i had 8 weeks of non working internet as i couldn't get a signal and i couldn't use an Ethernet cable due to renovation work and nothing to put the cable under etc carpet. So i escalated my claim to OS Communications where as i expected told me via letter they was happy with BT's decision and would not take any further action and i was liable to pay all costs but i could appeal so i appealed saying i was not happy with the decision and they said they would look into it but not heard nothing back in 3 months i sent them an email i was ignored. BT seem to think its the structure of my home but im now back with Virgin Media had one hiccup and it was sorted quickly and i can connect to the internet the same place where the BT hub was so its not the structure BT has sent me a letter this morning saying they will pass the debt of £461 to a debt recovery agency which i will face other costs and penaltys. What makes me laugh with BT is when i took out the broadband with them i had 14 days to cancel my services, it took them 17 days to install it when i did want to cancel using my cooling off period they said ive passed it so they started the cooling off period before they even installed the services (the day i ordered it)
  11. Hi,had a contract with bt,moved house last august,so an estimated 8 months into contract. They passed the debt onto ccs..which added rougly 238 in there own charge on top of the debt,there was a remaining balance of debt of 348,which i owed,fair enough,then they added equipment charges,final charges for moving house! which added up to 914! then ccs added a charge,ccs first refused my offer of £20 a month, since then it has changed because i sent them a fairly brunt email stating they were in breach of oft guidelines in many ways and thats what they were getting when i dont even agree with the bill in the first place! my question anyway to get bt to knock these charges off,they complaint department just rejects it out of hand
  12. After months of poor service, overcharging and getting nowhere with BT i moved my line rental to Sky. BT are now harrassing me by phone and letter demanding advance charges as i was 'in contract' when i moved and threatening to pass on to their external debt collection agency even though i am trying to communicate with them. I argued that i wasn't in contract and finally got the response that the 12 month contract automatically renews unless cancelled. I thought that under contract law a contract could only be renewed by 'positive action' and that silence was not acceptable. My questions are: Is the contract enforceable meaning i have to pay these advance charges? Can the debt be passed to an external collection agency and be enforced? Many thanks in advance for help & advice.
  13. Hi, Im hoping someone can help me out. Ive just discovered BT have issued me with a default notice for an account they closed in error. The amount is the cancellation charges. A couple of years back they closed my account without me requesting it. I had a new account set up straight away due to an error on there part. I am no longer with them & was totally unaware of this. I have spoken to them & they have said the default & disputed amount still stand as I cancelled the contract early. This is totally untrue. Im hoping for some advice on what to do next & how I go about getting the default removed. Thanks. Cosy.
  14. Good morning, My ex-partner, more specifically her sons ran up my telephone bill to £1000 before I had to have the old bill remove them. I was paying BT back but the majority of monies was going to council tax arrears. BT passed the debt to Moorcroft in January. I continued paying Moorcroft until it became apparent that my complaints about a £263.46 'admin fee' which had immediately been added to the account were being ignored. I have written to British Telecom and the meat of their response was; "The Debt Collection Agency (DCA) admin charge is only applicable to those customers who. despite numerous reminders, do not pay their telephone bills and are then passed to an external debt collection agency to pursue. The administration cost is not a charge in respect of BT supplying a service, but is to compensate BT for the costs incurred as a result of referring the account to a Debt Collection Agency. The pertcentages applied will represent the lowest DCA commission rates in place for these debt types. It was felt appropriate for BT to make a positive margin for these charges and so the design ensures the revenue generated does not exceed the total cost of collection" I have sent Moorcroft an SAR request for a breakdown of fees, and have written to British Telecom again as they did not clarify whether they have sold the debt to Moorcroft or Moorcroft are acting as their agent. Any ideas? CH
  15. at the moment i am in a tizwas and its pandomonium BRITISH TELECOM ggggrrrrr i have a contract with them that was arranged on the 8 oct and was confirmed in writing and by post the contract states your broadband starts on the 10 oct 2011. speed 8 mb your package is broadband and calls your contract is for 12mths starting on 10/oct/2011 BT TOTAL BROADBAND OPTION 3 Broadband and Calls........................£23.00 Special Offer Discount......................£-10.00 your special discount lasts for 12mths so i then receive a letter last week telling me that this deal is no longer and to ring them and revise my account.. i have been with bt broadband for the last 20 years ever since it first came out so they have rung me several times and they at one point two days ago threatened to pull the plug on my broadband , i have never defaulted nor missed a payment i have never been late so why they change , well it gets better they want me to cancel my landline calls from the post office who we have been with for over 7 years this is the crux of their arguement i am to cancel my landline with the post office otherwise the deal/contract i have with them is null and void ? here is the last letter i have received since todays arguements all over the same thing again let me know what you think will start a new thread when i sus it out how to lol dementure my brain is starved of oxygen an i forget things lol any i digress here is what i have just received Hello Patrick, Thank you for taking my call today. I’m really sorry for the problems you’ve encountered with the billing of your BT broadband service. I can see you’ve tried to sort this out we’ll make sure lessons are learnt here. Sorry. What I’ve done I have checked your BT account today and I can confirm that as you do not have a line and calls with BT, we can only give you a standalone package for BT broadband option 3 at £21.60 per month. If you returned your line and calls to BT we would be able to get you a package at a good price. The outcome of our conversation comes to an end at, I can supply you with BT broadband option 3 at £21.60 per month (New 12 month contract). However due to you being advised you would get the service for £13.25, I am willing to credit you the difference per month at £8.35 over a 12 month period totalling £100.00. On your BT bill you will see the full rental charge of £21.60 if your accept this however a credit of £100.00 will be applied to your account to cover the difference on your 12 month contract. I’m hoping everything’s OK now, but if there’s anything I’ve missed, just give me a call on 01977597831 or drop me an e-mail (eamon.fee@bt.com). As you might be really busy right now, and I don’t want to hassle you, I’m going to keep things open until 23/12/2011 just to make sure everything’s OK. If I don’t hear from you I’ll close things down this end. I hope everything's done and dusted, if you need to talk to me, you know where I am. Otherwise, our customer services are always happy to help on 0800 800 150. And you can get all the latest BT news from Best wishes
  16. Welcome to the world of British Telecom. I imagine that there are hundreds maybe thousands of other people in similar positions to yourself you can't get the attention that they need. Just imagine what is going to happen when British Telecom finally takes over EE. It's clear that they simply aren't up to running a large organisation in a customer facing way and I expect it's going to be disaster for everyone. I think that the first thing you need to do is to decide who you going to go with. Are you going to go with Talk Talk? Are you going to go to British Telecom? Once you have decided this, we can then set about examining exactly what your losses are including inconvenience, expenses, loss of service, loss of one days holiday – etc. and then decide what action to take. I should warn you now that I am always in favour of direct action in the Small Claims Court. It is quick and effective. However, if you wanted you could go to the communications ombudsman but you will get a half-hearted and lukewarm response, a very niggardly settlement – and also you will not really know what's going on because the communications between British Telecom and the ombudsman will not be revealed to you. Decide what you want to do first If you decide to talk to their customer services then the customer services guide which is in our library
  17. I would put a formal complaint into a formal letter rather than email and send it at least by recorded delivery and if possible special delivery so that the delivery is fully logged. Don't forget that you are dealing with an extremely reluctant and incompetent dinosaur outfit and you need to take all precautions to protect yourself against these people. You don't need to transcribe calls. If it really comes to court and the evidence that you have is important then you can transcribe the bits which are relevant to you. You don't need to start committing everything to hardcopy. In terms of warnings – no you don't have to give warnings if you are using your recordings for your own purposes which includes giving evidence in court for using them to defend yourself in some way. Without warning you would not be allowed to use the recordings on you tube on this forum et cetera. But you can still refer to them.. However, if you had really incriminating stuff then I would be more than happy to reproduce@click here. We've done it before. What are they going to do – sue us? Bring it on. I think at the end of the day it all depends on what you prepared to do. From reading your posts so far, I'm afraid that it seems that you are disinclined to take the really serious action that it will need to sort this out. I think that until you change your mind on this I'm not too sure how we can help you I noticed for the second time in this thread you are referring to the procedures and policies and so forth which apparently are meant to control the way that British Gas and the other utilities companies behave towards you. I think that you are obsessing about this – I hope you are my me saying so. You misunderstand the function of these rules. You seem to think that these rules exist so that the company recognises its limits and operates within them. Bless. The companies routinely ignore these as you are finding out. If they did what they were meant to do then they wouldn't be mucking up your account and you wouldn't be here complaining. The real function of these rules is to provide you with a clear basis for making trouble when they decide to ignore them. The trouble is that you have already hobbled yourself by saying that you don't have time to bring a legal action. If you're not prepared to enforce the rules then nobody else will and you may as well pack up and go home. I notice also that you say that you wouldn't have the money to pay their legal costs if they win. However you're talking about small claim in the County Court here. It is precisely the small claims rule that each side has to pay their costs win or lose which empowers you and gives you the opportunity to enforce the rules which you seem to be so keen on quoting. If you're not prepared to make the time to take the action and if you're not prepared to avail yourself of the very good small claims rules that we have in this country, then I'm really not quite sure what else you can do. Don't expect British Telecom to come to the table willingly and don't expect much support from the ombudsman.
  18. I have received a demand from a D.C.A. (Robinson Way) re an alleged B.T. debt. Could someone advise please if the alleged debt is subject to request Consumer Credit Act regulations sent to Robinson Way or A Subject Access Request to B.T. Or does the disputed alleged debt not come under the Consumer Act Regulations?? If not what regs.do disputed alleged debt to B.T. come under. "EXEMPLO DUCEMUS":?
  19. Hi All, I know everyone knows just how much trouble having any dealings with BT is, but I just need to have a rant about them. Apparently BT sent me a bill. I don't use Direct Debits any more for obvious reasons and prefer to phone and pay. Every letter (apart from personal ones) gets scanned into my computer and indexed (a bit anal, maybe, but you wouldn't believe how useful it is). There was no bill from BT. Anyway, as I don't use the landline for much as I prefer to use either my mobile or a Linux Skype equiv. I didn't notice that they had restricted my line to incoming only for some time. I tried to phone them, but after roughly four hours in a queue I gave up. I tried the next day, gave up after about 2 hours. A friend tried to phone them to pay over the phone for me, but again had to give up due to stupidly long waiting times. I even registered on their site and tried to pay on-line, only to be told, after entering what felt like my life story, that that part of the site was down for 'maintenance'. As it was the next day, and the day after that. So, eventually I get cut off completely. Including my ADSL line. Great. I tried to phone again, and this time I was lucky. My phone call was answered at 1 hour and 38 minutes. I was told I would be phoned back by 5pm. ....you know what's coming....yep...no phone call, so I phone back the next day and finally, after being passed to no less than 5 different people - 4 of which were in the same dept. despite being told each time that I was being put through to the accounts/billing dept, I finally get a date for 're-connection' - today, by 4pm apparently. Well, it's now 19.21 and I am still without phone. I've just phoned them, and after a suprisingly short wait (23 minutes) I get to speak to an indian chap who informs me that it will be done today, probably before 8pm. I ask him if he's just fobbing me off and that I have heard very similar things from BT, and as such am a little distrusting. He tells me that he is not lying, and I'll just have to trust them. So: "At BT our focus is on excellent customer service. We always aim to be within easy reach and we want to make sure you get the answers you want quickly and easily." According to their website, this is what is they consider excellent service, and being within easy reach. I may have gotten the answers I wanted, so that bit is right, but sadly, that's all they were, answers that I wanted, not actually the service I wanted, or indeed for the answers to actually be true. Anyway as they have a monopoly there's very little anyone can do but choose these bunch of wasters, so I suppose a review of them is pointless. /rant. EDIT: This lot are a joke. I have been given 3 different times for activation. Now I phone just to keep chasing them, and am told it was booked for next Tuesday. NOT yesterday like they kept telling me. Why? No-one seems to know, so again I am in a queue waiting to find out - so far it's only been 15 mins, and I keep getting a recorded voice telling me I can purchase products and services on their website - er...no I can't, and even if I could, why the hell would I do business with this shower of ***** when I didn't have any other choice! I can't wait until we have a government in power with some balls - that way they can start to dismantle BT and I might get some competition for the 'copper mile' and I will no longer have to deal with this monolithic, useless excuse for a 'communications' firm.
  20. OK. Here is some industry knowledge that I will share with you. Firstly, let me explain the link between Shire Leasing, BNP and HFGL. Shire Leasing are a leasing broker. They work with a number of finance companies and place your business with the most appropriate funder that they can find, in much the same way that an insurance broker would find the best insurance company for your car insurance. HFGL and BNP are the same company. Shire Leasing have been working very hard in the telecoms market and have recently been involved in a number of 'scams' involving telecom companies where they have misrepresented the solution to the funder. Global Telecom and Business Telecom are two prime examples. It would appear that in the case of Global Telecom they were funding call packages as well as the hardware, but not informing the finance company. Global Telecom went into administration last summer and it was at this point that it came to light to both the customers and the finance companies that 'calls' as well as the hardware were included in the lease. In order to retain their credit lines and continue trading, Shire Leasing are being asked to repay all these agreements as they default. Business Telecom were pertaining to be a subsidiary of British Telecom and advising their customers that they had to convert to a Business Telecom solution. trading Standards were called in on this ocassion. On both occasions, Shire Leasing were alledgedly shown to be in the know about what was going on and hiding the information from the leasing companies. What this means to you is that Shire Leasing's involvement in the transaction, whilst putting you in a vulnerable position, should provide some support on the trading inconsistencies moving forward. I seriously suggest that you google "Shire Leasing + Global Telecom" and "Shire Leasing + Business Telecom". It will give you an insight. Now, about your predicament. Whilst everyone will initially huff and puff and insist that you make payment, you need to stand firm on where you are denying liability. I will leave kiptower to discuss the whereto of the solution delivered and focus solely on where my knowledge stands, which is around the lease agreement itself. First off. Searching the internet on VDI Telecom would suggest that they are merely selling franchises, and so it is a franchise of this company from whom you allegedly purchased (maybe a company called Digilink). The leasing company will have no knowledge of, nor sight of an engineers report and this will not form any part of your agreement with them. Your agreement is with HFGL (BNP) as a result of an introduction from the Broker, Shire Leasing. Your points of contention need to be made with the leasing company. They, from their end, will then take this up with Shire Leasing (whom they expect to undertake necessary supplier checks) and with Digilink. Don't get confused by the chain of command. Just deal with HFGL (BNP). Advise them that you are a sole trader, that all discussions were held with Digilink whom trading standards have advised you don't hold a consumer credit licence and are under investigation. Also, the 'Delivery Form' that both HGFL (BNP) and Shire Leasing will be falling back on is the 'Certificate of Acceptance'. You really need to advise HFGL that you believe that you have not signed one and would like a copy. HFGL will be aware that there is a very high chance that the deal has been missold. Shire Leasing will also be aware that if HFGL believe this to be the case, they will be required to repay any commissions (upto 10% of the capital cost) and, possibly, the whole invoice value. If you can post up those documents that I asked for, namely 1. The Lease Agreement 2. Schedule of Equipment 3. Certificate of Acceptance I will be able to give you the full perspective of a leasing company's stance. Kind regards, Sweeney
  21. There is a practice where telephone services are taken over by competing providers and it tends to be a very haphazard sloppy arrangement where it seems that it can happen without even the customer knowing about it. I know because I've been on the end of it happening with British Telecom. I certainly agree that the first thing to do is to send off an SAR, and you seem to have done this. Not a lot you can do until you receive the results. When you receive the disclosure then you will need to go through it very carefully not only to find out what is there – but also to try and figure out what is not there. I'm very interested to learn that they have responded to you refusing to give you certain information which applies to you on the basis that it is subject to the Data Protection Act. I'd be very grateful if you could post up a copy of that letter in PDF format – redact the identifiers of course.
  22. I received my telephone bill the other day showing a late payment charge for the previous bill, and after less than two weeks, I had a phone call from BT (The person spoke barely recognizable english). Surely, this is harassment? And surely, isn't this late payment charge just as ulawful as the bank late charges? I intend to pay my bill by cheque and deduct the late payment charge. has anyone else done this with BT? Most businesses are given 30, 60 or 90 days to pay their bills. Why is the private consumer penalised (Illegally) with such charges??? Rhino69
  23. A friend has had problems with a stalker to the point that she moved houses. She made her phone and address ex-directory, but it seems to have become available. This has made her ballistic. I haven't had a landline in a while, but I thought they can't have your number in the directories without your permission? Should she sue them about this happenstance? I don't even know where to start. Ofcom?
  24. Bankers, agents, fixers: the middlemen behind China's global soccer splurge SHANGHAI A former property banker, Briton Alex Jarvis, said he fell into China's football boom with a chance encounter in the first class lounge of a cruise liner bound for New York in 2011. 3:34pm GMT BT Group faces U.S. lawsuits as Italian accounting scandal deepens NEW YORK BT Group Plc has been hit by at least two shareholder lawsuits in the United States, after one-fifth of the telecommunications company's market value was wiped out on Tuesday, due in part to an accounting scandal in Italy. 3:33pm GMT EU gets tougher with its members over policing carmakers BRUSSELS The European Commission issued guidance on Thursday on how EU members should be policing carmakers, a move EU officials said would likely lead to legal action against countries that fail to clamp down on cheating of diesel emissions regulations. 3:13pm GMT Greek economy seen surging this year, but not as much as government, creditors say ATHENS Greece's economy will accelerate at a far faster rate this year than last, ending an eight-year nightmare of recession or stagnation but still performing less well than the government and its creditors project, the IOBE think tank said on Thursday. 3:05pm GMT Irish finance minister says AIB share sale likely in May or June DUBLIN Ireland will likely sell a 25 percent stake in state-owned Allied Irish Banks (AIB) in May or June, Finance Minister Michael Noonan said on Thursday. 3:04pm GMT Johnson & Johnson refills drug cabinet with $30 billion Actelion deal ALLSCHWIL, Switzerland U.S. healthcare giant Johnson & Johnson will buy Swiss biotech company Actelion in a $30 billion (23.76 billion pounds) all-cash deal that includes spinning off Actelion's research and development pipeline, the companies said on Thursday. 2:30pm GMT IMF wants to participate in Greek bailout in full - Eurogroup head BRUSSELS The International Monetary Fund wants to fully participate in the latest Greek bailout, the head of euro zone finance ministers Jeroen Dijsselbloem told reporters on Thursday. 2:28pm GMT BT's Global Services head Alvarez to oversee Europe - source LONDON Luis Alvarez, the head of BT's multi-national corporate division, will take direct responsibility for the firm's European business following an Italian accounting scandal, a person familiar with the situation said. 2:02pm GMT How an Italian scandal brought British Telecom low LONDON Britain's BT Group lost a fifth of its value this week after it said a scandal in Italy had blown a 530 million pound hole in its accounts and warned that demand for its business and government services had slowed. 2:01pm GMT Soccer-China's Lander buying stake in buoyant Southampton SHANGHAI/BENGALURU Southampton were set to become the latest English Premier League team to get Chinese investment, with stadium builder Lander Sports Development saying on Thursday it was taking a stake in the club.
  25. Hi- I'm hoping someone here can help- I was told that this place has a good reputation for helping with debt. * I had a final bill with British Telecom of £33.61 which I paid. About two months later,I'd gotten another demand for this- I contacted British Telecom who to be fair said straight away that they'd made a mistake. I then had gotten a letter from them confirming I had paid the bill and my balance was zero. * I have now gotten a letter from a debt collector called NGS. I told them I had paid this bill and I had proof from British Telecom. The man told me that this was not relevant as it was NGS dealing with this now and not British Telecom. * I said that since it was British Telecom I was alleged to owe the money to, and they had stated I didn't owe them anything, there was nothing to be collected. * NGS told me that since they had taken it over, they became the creditor and it didn't matter whether or not I had paid British Telecom, but until I paid NGS the amount they were allowed to take any action needed to recover it. Surely this cannot be right. I have paid what I owe. I don't owe NGS anything. What can I do next? Thanks
×
×
  • Create New...