re BT

[sonic007]

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?

[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?

[Weird Al Yankovic]

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?

[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?

 

 

Incorrect (and not very helpful to op)

 

 

 

BT Price List

 

section 1 paragraph 3 (in particular the last word)

[Weird Al Yankovic]

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!

[Guest louis wu]

and your advice to op is.....

[sonic007]

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

[sonic007]

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.

[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.

[Guest louis wu]

perhaps wording was wrong on my o/p post, a fault of trying to do more than one thing at a time

[Weird Al Yankovic]

and your advice to op is.....

 

 

Not to listen to you.

[sonic007]

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.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

 

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?

[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

[Guest louis wu]

like I said, careful, with W-A-Y, I find it best not to get involved in the personal side of things with him.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

like I said, careful, with W-A-Y, I find it best not to get involved in the personal side of things with him.

 

Oh give us a kiss!

[flappy]

Getting back to the point however

 

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.

[Guest louis wu]

Getting back to the point however

 

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.

[flappy]

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?