BT Call Out Charges????

[XxElainexX]

On the 18 Nov 2007 I noticed the wires that go into my BT phone box in the livingroom were hanging out & loose. I have a 3 year old son who is into everything so I was worried he could get a shock if he touched them, so I called BT to ask some advice, they said they would send an engineer out the next day who replaced the wire.

 

On the 28 January 2008 I recieved my phone bill with a charge on it for £189.88 for the call out charge. I have been in touch with BT as at no point was I told I that there would be a charge as I would have told them not to come out as I am single parent on income support & I would have got a friend to look at it for me.

 

They are saying I asked for an engineer to come out, I only phoned for advice ( I have asked to listen the phone call I made to them on 18 Nov as I know they record all calls to prove I did not ask for anyone to come out or that I was informed of any charges)

 

This dispute has been on going now since 28 January where they failed to call me back twice when promised & they only replied after I made two complaints online to them.

 

They said they would not charge me for the call out but just for the wire £99!!!! I told them I am still not happy as I can not afford to pay.

 

I have just had another call off them to say the engineering team have investigated and say the charges stand

 

Does anyone have any advice as everytime I ask to hear the first conversation they will not answer my plea but just keep repeating the charges stand, I have requested to speak to the manager again as last time he told me I could complain to someone higher .................... CAN ANYONE HELP????

[honey5]

im not so sure you can get a shock from the box, as if you have a powercut and electricity is off normally your phone still works

honey x

[XxElainexX]

I didnt know this thats why I called for advice and surely the person I spoke to at BT should have told me this

[skbuncks]

They are saying I asked for an engineer to come out, I only phoned for advice ( I have asked to listen the phone call I made to them on 18 Nov as I know they record all calls to prove I did not ask for anyone to come out or that I was informed of any charges)

 

Does anyone have any advice as everytime I ask to hear the first conversation they will not answer my plea but just keep repeating the charges stand,

 

Hi Elaine,

 

You could submit a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) requesting a transcript of the telephone conversation

 

skb

[skbuncks]

im not so sure you can get a shock from the box, as if you have a powercut and electricity is off normally your phone still works

honey x

 

I didnt know this thats why I called for advice and surely the person I spoke to at BT should have told me this

 

I am no expert on things electrical but I wouldnt risk it myself.

Have found these little gems of knoweledge

 

When the telephone is NOT in use (on hook) the voltage across the two wires (tip and ring) is about 48 volts D.C.

 

When the telephone IS in use (off hook) the voltage across the tip and ring wires drops to about 6 volts D.C.

 

When a ringing signal is being sent there is an A.C. voltage "superimposed" on top of the normal D.C. voltage. This "ringing voltage" is nominally about 90 volts at 20 Hertz (cycles) but could be as high as 130 volts and at different frequencies.

 

A large number of electrocution and electrical shock injuries occur in both the industrial and home environment. There is almost always a chain of events leading to an electrocution accident. Most electrocution injuries occur at voltages above 50 Volts AC or 100 Volts DC however sometimes the voltage can be much lower. The "cant let go" current level for adults is about 10 milliamps for adults and 5 milliamps for small children (I think the current through a phone line is between 25 and 45 milliamps)

Electrocution Investigation - John M. Bass P.E.

 

On the face of it it would seem that the voltage is just about high to give a shock, probably not enough to kill you (I've had a shock from the lighting circuit at home in the past myself and it certainly chaffed a bit) but worth avoiding.

Again I know virtually nothing about electricity but better safe than sorry.

 

skb

[buzby]

On a more practical note - the matter hinges on WHICH wires were 'hanging out'. Was it up to BT's 'Master Socket' from the exterior, or your internal wiring to another socket in the room?

[Guest Screw The Bailiff]

because if its their wires, or the fault is because of faulty BT workmanship then BT is responsible for putting it right.

[JOSH_IOU]

Not sure if your aloud to do this.

Take a photo of the loose wires. (well that you can)

 

Get some wire cutters and cut up to the box then tape it.

Thats only if the wire's are not live.

 

If the BT engineer has left live wires hanging out, with children in the house of that age then there may be grounds to take em to court. Even if they fix it.

 

It all lies down to if the BT engineer actually done the job or not.

 

If there is a term that is in the contract that prevents you from seeking costs then its an unfair term.

[Guest Screw The Bailiff]

hmmm £189.88 seems a lot of money for a few loose wires...

 

I had a new driveway built last summer and a builder ruptured a gas pipe under our garden with his mechanical digger, I called Transco who arrived within an hour and fixed it.

 

A few weeks later, the the Bill arrived - £76.44.

[robin9342]

It all depends on what caused the wires to become loose in the first place and on where exactly those wires were. BT is responsible for the wiring up to and including the first (master) socket in the house. They are not responsible for extensions except when they installed them and only for the first year.

 

BUT, they will charge if its not their fault including if a vandal cuts or damages their external cables.

 

As for electric shock, usually the line voltage is safe. You might notice a small tingle if you have wet hands. If you touch the exposed wires when the line is ringing, you will definitely notice the ringing voltage! However its very unlikely to cause any harm.

[gyzmo]

You could dispute that the price is not reasonable, and obtain qutations from elsewhere that might demonstrate this. In such a case, write to BT and offer them something more reasonable. If you wish, take it to court. Alternatively, you could pay the amount asked but mark it as "paid under protest". This allows you to challenge it later.

[JOSH_IOU]

Sounds like you need to sue the previous workers baliff

[Son of Shoestring]

This matter hangs entirely on what was said in the original phone call you me.

 

Write to BT formally by recorded delivery (addressed to their Complaints Review Team at Durham --- keep a copy of your letter and the recorded delivery receipt safe). Sa in the letter that you absolutely dispute asking for an engineer to attend you, but that you phoned simply to ask for advice about the wires. The decision to send an engineer, or not, is entirely theirs and you are not liable.

 

Insist they provide a copy of the tape of your conversation (not a transcript -- as who can trust them to be accurate?). Say that if the tape shows you to be liable then you will agree to pay. But if it doesn't they must withdraw all charges.

 

Tell them you intend to elevate this matter to an official complaint with Otelo and that a copy of your complaint will also be copied to the OFT.

{EDIT}

 

Shoestring

[Guest Screw The Bailiff]

You could dispute that the price is not reasonable, and obtain qutations from elsewhere that might demonstrate this. In such a case, write to BT and offer them something more reasonable. If you wish, take it to court. Alternatively, you could pay the amount asked but mark it as "paid under protest". This allows you to challenge it later.

 

The consumer can dispute the charge as too high under Schedule 2(i) of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

 

Sounds like you need to sue the previous workers baliff

 

Over 70-odd quid? its not really worth it. Besides the builder did an excellent job on the driveway.

 

Sa in the letter that you absolutely dispute asking for an engineer to attend you, but that you phoned simply to ask for advice about the wires. The decision to send an engineer, or not, is entirely theirs and you are not liable.

 

Thats a good point, maybe challenge it under Section 2 of the Unsolicitoed Goods and Servcies Act 1971

 

{EDIT}.

 

{EDIT}

[Son of Shoestring]

Dear moderator,

 

In regard to your edit of my earlier post, it is not considered actionable to state a personal view (i.e., "imo") in the context of what I posted, but rather is regarded as "fair comment".

 

Definition of fair comment:

 

fair comment legal definition of fair comment. fair comment synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

A form of qualified privilege applied to news media publications relating to discussion of matters that are of legitimate concern to the community as a whole because they materially affect the interests of all the community. A term used in the defense of libel actions, applying to statements made by a writer (e.g., in the news media) in an honest belief in their truth, relating to official acts, even though the statements are not true in fact. Fair comment must be based on facts truly stated, must not contain imputations of corrupt or dishonorable motives except as warranted by the facts, and must be an honest expression of the writer's real opinion.

 

In order for a statement to fall into the category of a fair comment, it must not extend beyond matters of concern to the public. It must be a mere expression of the opinion of the commentator.

 

Moreover, it is not possible to libel the entire business community or even a sector of the business community. The deleted part of my post was, as you know, clearly and unambiguously directed towards the entire UK business community.

 

I believe that my forementioned post and opinions stated in that post, fall well within the definition of fair comment in every material regard, as I do absolutely believe that business has become tricky, deceitful and crooked and that we all must become more aware of this. As a nation we are too naive and too honest for our own good.

 

I would appreciate your response please with regard to reinstating the edit you made.

 

Thanks

 

Shoestring

[buzby]

What you've overlooked, is that whilst it is permissible for you to state your considered views, and accept any consequences these may bring - this CAG forum is the route you took to promote this view. As the 'publisher' of your view, they become liable jointly with you for their part in publicising this viewpoint.

 

If you want to stand outside their HQ in Newgate Street with a placard, I'm for your 'fiar comment' scenario will apply - as it doesn't involve others or this forum.

 

If you agree to pay all their legal expenses with regard to defending your viewpoint, they might reconsider, but with better things to do, everyone gets the point you don't hold BT in high regard, so why not leave it at that?

[gyzmo]

Agreed. I think I have demonstrated my contempt of the vast majority of corporations without being edited

[Son of Shoestring]

Forgive me Buzby, but I question the rationale of three words you used in your post with such obvious relish. Despite trying hard, I don't at all see their relevance. (not-with-standing your entire post either, as a matter of fact -- since mine was directed to a particular individual, the "moderator" and not you -- hope you don't mind me pointing this out ).

 

The first of these three words is "overlooked" as pertaining to a general fair comment in a public forum. As a retired professional journalist/writer and current testy poster, I am familiar with libel laws. After all, I have had published many sensitive stories over a decade and a half that exceed what I wrote above, by a factor of, well, lots and lots and lots.

 

The second is Liable - but for (or to) what precisely?

 

And finally "legal" as in legal charges arising from...?

(poor writing skills perhaps?

 

Do you imagine that making a general statement about the parlous nature of British business is going to result in a beckoning finger to the headmaster's study for a serious raised eye-brow talk and six of the best from his twitchy and trusty birch?

 

Perhaps you think it will result in a libel suit? But from whom? The Institute of Directors? The Confederation of British Industry? The Institute of Bankers? Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs maybe?

 

Are you aware that a libel action is solely based on libeling a living person or persons - with malice?

 

Even if I set out to try and libel British Business trends, they could not bring an action because they don't exist as a legal entity. They're a Collective --- mostly a god awful collective at that.

 

I'm sure you now understand my confusion with your confusion...

 

Shoestring

 

See: libel - definition of libel by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

and

 

http://www.google.co.uk/searchhl=en&cr=countryUK%7CcountryGB&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUK261&defl=en&q=define:libel&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

[buzby]

Certainly not getting into a slanging match, but you're not the only hack (retired or otherwise) on this Forum, and what you continue to overlook is it doesn't matter what the underlying rules are - if CAG is taken to court then it must defend itself. The party who wins invariably is the one with the biggest bank balance. Fair? Of course not, but let's be reasonable here. If you want to badmouth a legal entity - go for it, but not on a site that doesn't employ legal teams to weed out possibly defamatory pieces - like newspapers do, or work on the probability of getting away with it.

 

Sling in as many smileys as you like - I'm with the mods that pulled your post. Why not re-word your post slightly and send it to any paper you like as a reader's letter. No editor I know would print it...

 

As for fair comment - nope, I think it was unfair comment. You didn't ask them for their side of the story, like any good journalist would do. All I saw was an op-ed, and not a great one either.

[Guest Screw The Bailiff]

I think the moddies censored because of the Defamation Act 1996 - which applies to demation of a person, and the case of Laurence Godfrey v. Demon Internet Limited that an action could be brought against CAG.

 

To be technical, it's the hosting company (in this case Bytemark Ltd) that has liability and not the owner of this website, but the owner of this website might get a few snotty emails from the hostmaster is a complaint was made.

 

It doesnt hurt to be over-cautious since the Godfrey case.

[Son of Shoestring]

With the greatest respect the quintessential point is being either missed, muddled or befuddled here.

 

My post was directed towards big business and British business in general not a person, persons or entity. It was clearly stated as my opinion ("imo" = "in my opinion") and was without malice.

 

Ergo: it cannot be libel.

 

If we have reached the point where commenting on business trends in a forum dedicated to "consumer action", is no longer acceptable and is disallowed, then so be it. While I would regard this as censorious in the extreme, if that is the case I will honour that level of censorship and moderate my outspokenness and simply find other ways of saying the same thing that doesn't raise hackles.

 

But until told otherwise I continue to regard this episode as a simple misunderstanding or misreading of the law by the moderator and nothing more than that.

 

Shoestring

[gyzmo]

I think, disregarding the law, that the site owner does not want to run a risk - real imagined or otherwise - of the cost, expense or hassle of dealing with some company tht has taken umbrage at what a person on this forum may have said. One may not like it, but the site owner has set their rules, and it is for us to play by them. I am not that keen on censorship (I have been censored a few times) but I do accept it

[Son of Shoestring]

If that is the case then fair enough, gyzmo. But I would stress that providing a statement is made as a personal opinion, is not made with malice, is not directed at a person, persons or entity then it is not actionable as libel.

 

I labour this point only to underscore the fact that I acted appropriately.

 

It is true that I do hold strong views about the increasingly unethical and immoral strategies employed by big business that is (imo) directed towards emptying the pockets of the ordinary person - who I believe have been largely disenfranchised and rendered impotent by successive governments.

 

This is a disgraceful state of affairs that is set to become worse over time, not better, I think. And so I argue that people need to become increasingly aware of these business strategies and need also to unharness their naiveté if they are to have any chance of recapturing rights that were extant and considered natural, obvious AND legal... only three decades ago.

 

That is the sum total of the time it has taken to turn civilized history on its face.

 

Sad, eh.

 

Shoestring

[Guest Screw The Bailiff]

I dont normally give this kind so advice but...

 

Its well within tthe means of CAG to rehost this site with a host in the state of California for under £80 a year - such as this one and it would indemnify the owner, the hostmaster and anyone posting on the forums of liability.

 

Just dont use the site for criminal activity & everyone will be OK.

[goodwill]

It is true that I do hold strong views about the increasingly unethical and immoral strategies employed by big business that is (imo) directed towards emptying the pockets of the ordinary person - who I believe have been largely disenfranchised and rendered impotent by successive governments.

 

This is a disgraceful state of affairs that is set to become worse over time, not better, I think. And so I argue that people need to become increasingly aware of these business strategies and need also to unharness their naiveté if they are to have any chance of recapturing rights that were extant and considered natural, obvious AND legal... only three decades ago.

Well said. Absolutely agree.

and (imo) they all appear to share a common factor.

They all operate in the 'regulated' ("regulation with a light touch") sector of UK commerce.

Telecoms, Energy Suppliers, Water Companies, Financial (Banking,Insurance). Train Companies, Airline Companies...etc,etc...