Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Great thanks, will leave 2 in then, replace 3 and I think its good to go.    This is exactly what I have in my word file ready to send, I think im happy with it and can send to mcol monday morning. Any further thoughts or things to update please let me know.   Again thank you both for your help, really is priceless.         Defence:   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) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   3.     Paragraph 1 is noted. It is accepted I have in the past had agreements with New Day LTD RE Aqua. I do not recall the precise details or agreement nor the claimant either having failed to plead an agreement/account number within its particulars of claim and have therefore sought verification from the claimant.   4.     Paragraph 2 is noted but until such time the claimant can clarify the agreement account number any breach has yet to be proven.      5.     I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served by either the Claimant or New Day LTD RE Aqua pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925.   6.     It is denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant. The Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of the Agreement/Assignment/Default notice or Termination requested by CPR 31. 14, and will shortly be in default of my section 78 request, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a)   show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and; (b)   show and evidence the breach and service of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) CCA1974 on which the Termination referred to relies upon. (c)   show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d)   show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   7.     As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   8.     On the 17th of November I requested to The Claimants Solicitors, Mortimer Clarke by way of a CPR 31.14 copies of the documents referred to within the Claimants particulars to establish what the claim is for. Mortimer Clarke have failed to fulfil my CPR 31:14 request.   9.     On the 16th of November I made a section 78 legal request to the claimant for a copy of the Consumer Credit Agreement. The claimant has as of of 06/12/21 failed to comply.   10.  By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Hi just a quickie   Now in reference to my Post#2 here have they actually provided you with those policies that I pointed out and importantly a copy of there Public Liability Insurance?   If they haven't   Make sure and send them a little reminder adding to the letter in Post#32 that so far they have failed to provide these and you require clarification as to their reason for this failure     Dear Sir/Madam   Complaint Reference: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX   Further to my recent letter about this matter Dated XX/XX/2021 I would also like to add that so far you have still failed to provide the following:   Copy of your Compensation Policy (not the leaflet) Copy of your Complaints Policy (not the leaflet) Copy of your Customer service Charter/Policy (not the leaflet) Copy of your Public Liability Insurance (not the leaflet) Copy of Repairs an Maintenance Policy (not the leaflet)   I asked for these is my letter to yourselves dated XX/XX/2021, to date you have failed to respond to this request nor is the Housing Association being Open and Accountable to it's Service Users and I require full clarification for the reason for this failure and when you are going to provide what I have requested.   If you refuse to provide these I require full clarification as to your reason with links to the relevant legislation and exactly which parts you are relying on for your refusal of my request.     Note: If they have answered this please ignore but from your responses I think they have tried to ignore this so you add this to put a rocket up their 'beep' so to speak.   You are more than welcome to the help it's what we are here for, you just look after yourself and take care     
    • The DVLA know less about POFA than my dog that died twenty years ago. They also never admit they have made an error.   Trading Standards would probably be a better avenue for you either on Council inaction on no pp thus appearing to aid and abet a PE scam, condoning PE committing an offence and allowing them to rip off the Council customers as well as financial impropriety by not insisting that PE pay for the requisite fees for permission. You could also complain to the ICO on the same grounds and get two investigations going.
    • I am surprised that POPLA found that your appeal had failed when Initial's response to the appeal had been withdrawn. There was no need for them to adjudicate. POP.LA should have agreed that you had won your appeal. I wonder if Initial  knew something that you and obviously POPLA didn't.  Ignore DRP. I was going to advise  you  write to Initial stating that as they had withdrawn their PCN on appeal so if DRP were acting on instructions from Initial they have breached your GDPR. However on second thoughts you may be best to send them a SAR first to get confirmation that they had withdrawn their claim before going for the breach.
    • so the eon A/C was never in her name anyway?
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

re BT


sonic007
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5126 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Can anybody give me any advice? My Mother-in-law was flooded out of her home in July she lost all of her belongings and was not insured! She is 86 years old and she has had the help of the ROYAL BRITISH LEGION which they have suppled her with all of the items that she has lost which is brilliant of them, she thought she was getting her belongings back UNTILL she had a phone bill from BT! wait for it! £260.00 They have charged my Mother-in-law for repairing the phone line and because she was not insured they have said that she has to pay it. Can anybody give me any advice what i should do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest louis wu
Can anybody give me any advice what i should do?

 

Perhaps you could pay the bill for her, then ensure she gets insurance to make sure this unfortunate episode is never repeated.

 

Is there any reason you feel the £260 should not be charged? I am not sure if other flood victims have to pay, but assuming they (or their insurance company) have to, shouldn't your M-I-L?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest louis wu
The phone line is BT's and your mother just rents it, right? Surely it's for BT to maintain?

 

Does your M-I-L have to pay for the local bus stop to be repaired when it is damaged just because she may use it?:confused:

 

 

Incorrect (and not very helpful to op)

 

 

 

BT Price List

 

section 1 paragraph 3 (in particular the last word)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Incorrect (and not very helpful to op)

 

 

 

BT Price List

 

section 1 paragraph 3 (in particular the last word)

 

Hang fire Homer!

 

All the OP has posted is that her ma in law has been charged for 'repairing the phone line.'

 

Where is the location of the phone line that needed repairing? Outside? If so it is for BT to maintain and pay for.

 

And your first post was rather curt.

 

The lady is an eldery woman on a meagre pension, no doubt, presented with a huge bill just after a disaster.

 

If she is indeed liable then BT should arrange an affordable payment scheme due to her age and the crisis she experienced or even waiver it as a gesture of goodwill.

 

She no doubt is unable to afford home insurance to save pennies to pay her council tax.

 

D'oh!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you could pay the bill for her, then ensure she gets insurance to make sure this unfortunate episode is never repeated.

 

Is there any reason you feel the £260 should not be charged? I am not sure if other flood victims have to pay, but assuming they (or their insurance company) have to, shouldn't your M-I-L?

I take that reply in the disrespect it was written, why should she and other flood victims have to pay for damage that is not their fault. OBVIOUSLY I,VE HIT A SORE SPOT

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hang fire Homer!

 

All the OP has posted is that her ma in law has been charged for 'repairing the phone line.'

 

Where is the location of the phone line that needed repairing? Outside? If so it is for BT to maintain and pay for.

 

And your first post was rather curt.

 

The lady is an eldery woman on a meagre pension, no doubt, presented with a huge bill just after a disaster.

 

If she is indeed liable then BT should arrange an affordable payment scheme due to her age and the crisis she experienced or even waiver it as a gesture of goodwill.

 

She no doubt is unable to afford home insurance to save pennies to pay her council tax.

 

D'oh![/quote

 

Yes was a bit abrupt, 1. the fault was outside her property

2. the phone socket that was in the property was on the skirting board which was flooded under the water.3.as you said she only rent,s the line she,s not responsable for the outside.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest louis wu

I think you mis-understand.

 

I am sure it has been awful for you MIL. A friend of mine was in a position where his mum could not afford insurance, so he paid for it. She told him not to, but then when she needed to claim it took a lot of stress away from an already very stressful position (a house fire).

 

As to paying the bill, it takes the immediate issue away in the short-term, something the elderly are normally all to happy to do.

 

So it was said in seriousness. As to the second paragraph, I have found the charges list, and found flood damage is payable (according to the BT site), and was wondering if there were any special circumstances that can be used to form a basis for a reduction/waiving of the bill.

 

It is a shame you chose to take it the wrong way, although not uncommon at cag at the moment.

 

As to the comments by the other poster, in case you haven't seen his advise on other threads, it is generally a good idea to check all his advice thoroughly before relying on them, but thats up to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you mis-understand.

 

I am sure it has been awful for you MIL. A friend of mine was in a position where his mum could not afford insurance, so he paid for it. She told him not to, but then when she needed to claim it took a lot of stress away from an already very stressful position (a house fire).

 

As to paying the bill, it takes the immediate issue away in the short-term, something the elderly are normally all to happy to do.

 

So it was said in seriousness. As to the second paragraph, I have found the charges list, and found flood damage is payable (according to the BT site), and was wondering if there were any special circumstances that can be used to form a basis for a reduction/waiving of the bill.

 

It is a shame you chose to take it the wrong way, although not uncommon at cag at the moment.

 

As to the comments by the other poster, in case you haven't seen his advise on other threads, it is generally a good idea to check all his advice thoroughly before relying on them, but thats up to you.

 

I,m sorry to hear about your friend , i have every simpathy with all victims unless you have experienced them it is hard to emagine what they are going thru.We didnt know that my m.i.l. didnt have insurance else we would of done something about it, she only had ins for fire! But the trouble with the older genaration they do tend to skip on things thats important as they go on in life! Thank you for your advise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As to the comments by the other poster, in case you haven't seen his advise on other threads, it is generally a good idea to check all his advice thoroughly before relying on them, but thats up to you.

 

Yes, you went silent on the Carpet Right Hidden Charges thread when Buzby agreed with me that those charges have nothing to do with Carpet Right.

 

Had a bad day on the Duff?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest louis wu

Did you look at the link, it is pretty clear. I think I would write a letter explaining the circumstances, and see what they come up with.

 

It may work, quite often you need to talk to the correct person, so if at first you don't succeed, maybe try again. I have always found that the staff in durham (it's generally for complaints, but they will look at other things) are very helpful. If I can find the number i will pass it on

Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to the point however :smile:

 

BT's responsibility ends at their line jack (main/master phone socket) which is possibly the one that was flood damaged.

If it is the socket that is damaged it is BT's responsibility and your MIL shouldn't have been charged at all.

 

The first part of S1, P3 (BT price list) makes it clear that if it is their property, they'll repair it at their cost.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest louis wu
Getting back to the point however :smile:

 

Sticking to the point is very difficult with some of the comments made by other members, it's best just to ignore them.

 

BT's responsibility ends at their line jack (main/master phone socket) which is possibly the one that was flood damaged.

If it is the socket that is damaged it is BT's responsibility and your MIL shouldn't have been charged at all.

 

The first part of S1, P3 (BT price list) makes it clear that if it is their property, they'll repair it at their cost.

 

 

However, this part paints a different picture

 

-the fault is found not to be with any BT service or equipment. In particular this covers the situation where no fault is found, or the fault is found to be on non-BT equipment, or is due to damage caused by someone at the customer's premises, or due to theft, loss or removal of equipment, or in the case of customer owned or rented equipment (but not BT's network) faults caused by damage by external or environmental factors (eg lightning, electrical surges or floods) .

 

I am not defending the pricing policy, just showing the relevant part. I hope I am reading it wrong, or this part is not relevant to OP, but I suspect it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that as the master socket is part of BT's network, no charge should have been made as long as the socket in question is the damaged one.

 

Phone BT, they'll confirm this.

 

I had a very similar problem in July after a flash flood and BT replaced the main/master socket free of charge as the engineer said it was their equipment and therefor their responsibility.

 

Was he wrong?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...