Sheer BT incompetence

[seftonview]

... It was the contempt with which they treated my initial complaint that concerned me most as it shows an inherent lack of understanding of their customer, or indeed of their own procedures.

 

I shall look at the info provided in more depth shortly, which should also give BT enough time to reply to my latest correspondence. I'm not trying to bring the company down!!! Simply to highlight that their behaviour on this occasion has been wholly unacceptable.

 

It comes down to two options then:-

 

(1) Accept the £20 being mindful it won't ultimately lead to procedural change at BT or any material acknowledgement that they have acted poorly;

 

(2) Pursue the complaint to ADR, where your compensatory payment may be increased by £30-£70 at best, being mindful it won't ultimately lead to procedural change at BT or any material acknowledgement that they have acted poorly.

 

The latter option is likely to require a number of hours of your further input.

 

I'm not trying to disparage you, if you choose to go for (2) then it's an entirely reasonable path to follow, my concern is that its a lot of effort for ultimately very little to gain.

[locutus]

Many thanks, but it is actually a new line i.e. new as in a new development, phone sockets in but line had never been connected.

 

p.s. I'm well past the cancellation period if its the standard 14 days, will have to check

 

Update: Just checked and you can only cancel the order PRIOR to your activation.

 

If you ordered over the phone it is 14 days. (they'll say it's up untill activation but you have 14 days to cancel any services ordered over the telephone!)

 

It comes down to two options then:-

 

(1) Accept the £20 being mindful it won't ultimately lead to procedural change at BT or any material acknowledgement that they have acted poorly;

 

(2) Pursue the complaint to ADR, where your compensatory payment may be increased by £30-£70 at best, being mindful it won't ultimately lead to procedural change at BT or any material acknowledgement that they have acted poorly.

 

The latter option is likely to require a number of hours of your further input.

 

I'm not trying to disparage you, if you choose to go for (2) then it's an entirely reasonable path to follow, my concern is that its a lot of effort for ultimately very little to gain.

I agree that nothing in BT is going to change. I'd personally take this as far as possible to penalise them to the max for messing me around.

[legalpickle]

Having less holidays isn't a financial loss - there is no monetary detriment. I'm not disputing that judgement may have been made in some cases that it should be reimbursed, but I'd imagine that to be under specific circumstances where there was aggravation. Can you give any more information on the particulars of these claims, and the judgements made?

The most information I can give is this. One of the claims was for damages relating to numerous promises from a large company and their contractors to deal with some issues in a persons property. They missed 4 appointments and then took triple the time to deal with the issues than they had promised. The person involved then took a claim against them both for certain damages that they caused and for loss of earnings as he had to take off. Between the date of the claim and the final date by which the parties had to file all relevant documents upon which they intended to rely upon, the Claimant left his job for a better job and his previous employers were annoyed with him, so knowing about the case told the Defendant that the Claimant had taken holiday leave for all but the last of the days that he had claimed to have lost from work.

They dropped that on him by this deadline - 14 days before the hearing, offering to settle the damages plus the 1 days alleged lost work. He refused and responded that the result was, that he had to lose money later when he took off holiday.

The District Judge accepted that most employees will have holiday leave and the first days within the year that they take off they will take out of the holiday leave [unless it is sick leave], but when they want to take a holiday, they have used all those days up - which is what had happened here, the last of the days was beyond the Claimants holiday leave allocation - so the Claimant had made a loss on that and awarded the full amount of days to be paid.

Thanks for explaining a little more clearly what you were trying to demonstrate

No problemo.

 

There is a three rung test under the tort of negligence:

1. is there a duty of care between the parties? - if so then

2. has there been a breach of that duty of care? - if so then

3. is it reasonably forseeable that this breach could cause the loss experienced?

 

I would hold that a simple contract, which ultimately this is, does not amount to a duty of care in this context.

I don't fully agree, but do agree that calling it a breach of contract is better for the OP, as then he would legally be able to cancel the contract due to the breach of contract.

 

I personally feel, in all the circumstances, that £20 is reasonable. Whilst this has been an inconvenience and an annoyance, it was only so in passing. I'd point out that I did state:

 

For a dispute of this nature, my take on things would be to consider is the act of going through dispute resolution worth it for in the region of £30, which is potentially around what I stand to gain?

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I disagree with you, as does locutus, who I believe has more experience than both of us in telecoms issues.

 

 

I have been in similar situations, and I really can empathise with how much of a pain in the backside it can be. However, in the grand scheme of things, it won't really achieve much to challenge this. There has been no criminality, or mailicious intent, or infringement of civil liberties. With some disputes I think there comes a point where you have to think, is this worth wasting any more of my own time?

I agree that there are some issues where this is a question that needs to be looked at seriously, but I don't agree that this is one of them. I completely disagree that where the case is a matter of civil liberties there is any larger issue. What it boils down to is how it affected the OP and how ****ed off the OP is with this issue. I personally would take it the full way as I have done with 99% of my issues with telecoms companies.

 

I'd disagree. The threads to which you refer involved certain forum users making wild assumptions, trying to force their own opinions (without merit or citation) on others, and behaving in a childlike manner.

 

What I have done is offered my own opinion on the situation as I see it, and as my experience and knowledge as a consumer and a litigator have led me.

Yes, there were posters who were making "wild assumptions, trying to force their own opinions (without merit or citation) on others, and behaving in a childlike manner", there were also posters who voiced their disagreement without stepping into your shoes for a few minutes. I feel that this is what you are doing here.

 

It will result in a loss to BT, but not one of such significant or brevity to make them ensure they get there backsides in gear in the future.

No issue below probably £1m or so is of "such significant or brevity" to make any large company ensure they get there backsides in gear in the future. If that would be the reason behind your recommendation, then I would have recommended in your case not to take the case further. Most large companies will ignore small claims or even slightly larger but not significant claims from the average citizen.

 

If he has, which as a contentious issue hasn't yet been clarified, I agree whole-heartedly that the OP should move in the direction of a Court claim.

As stated previously, even if it was off leave, he still made a monetary loss - in my opinion.

[seftonview]

The most information I can give is this. One of the claims was for damages relating to numerous promises from a large company and their contractors to deal with some issues in a persons property. They missed 4 appointments and then took triple the time to deal with the issues than they had promised. The person involved then took a claim against them both for certain damages that they caused and for loss of earnings as he had to take off. Between the date of the claim and the final date by which the parties had to file all relevant documents upon which they intended to rely upon, the Claimant left his job for a better job and his previous employers were annoyed with him, so knowing about the case told the Defendant that the Claimant had taken holiday leave for all but the last of the days that he had claimed to have lost from work.

They dropped that on him by this deadline - 14 days before the hearing, offering to settle the damages plus the 1 days alleged lost work. He refused and responded that the result was, that he had to lose money later when he took off holiday.

The District Judge accepted that most employees will have holiday leave and the first days within the year that they take off they will take out of the holiday leave [unless it is sick leave], but when they want to take a holiday, they have used all those days up - which is what had happened here, the last of the days was beyond the Claimants holiday leave allocation - so the Claimant had made a loss on that and awarded the full amount of days to be paid.

 

So, in your cited case, the DJ made a favourable order for the one day that was not paid holiday leave? That kinda backs up my point.

 

I don't fully agree, but do agree that calling it a breach of contract is better for the OP, as then he would legally be able to cancel the contract due to the breach of contract.

 

The first element of the test, and arguably the basis for the tort of negligence, is found in Donoghue vs Stevenson (1932), in which Lord Atkins established the principle of 'love thy neighbour'.

 

The test was expanded in Caparo vs Dickman (1990) to the full three (occasionally four) point test.

 

There is other case law, but these are the most basic and generically relevant to defining the tort.

 

 

No issue below probably £1m or so is of "such significant or brevity" to make any large company ensure they get there backsides in gear in the future.

 

I agree.

 

If that would be the reason behind your recommendation, then I would have recommended in your case not to take the case further. Most large companies will ignore small claims or even slightly larger but not significant claims from the average citizen.

 

The material difference is that it was quite foreseeable that my case going to court, and being won (which I still feel was extremely likely, had settlement not been made), it would have opened the floodgates significantly to other claims along the same lines. Anecdotally, since discussing my claim on this and another forum, I'm aware of twenty-three claims that are being made as a direct result of my own. (Edit: twenty-four, if we include the fact that you are considering bringing such a claim)

 

SV

[legalpickle]

So, in your cited case, the DJ made a favourable order for the one day that was not paid holiday leave? That kinda backs up my point.

No. Maybe I was unclear. The DJ accepted that the other days would have been offset of the Claimant's earnings and therefore awarded the full losses he had claimed. This doesn't back up your point.

 

 

The first element of the test, and arguably the basis for the tort of negligence, is found in Donoghue vs Stevenson (1932), in which Lord Atkins established the principle of 'love thy neighbour'.

 

The test was expanded in Caparo vs Dickman (1990) to the full three (occasionally four) point test.

 

There is other case law, but these are the most basic and generically relevant to defining the tort.

There are others. Not that this is relevant, I have accepted that breach of contract would be more beneficial to the OP than negligence.

 

 

The material difference is that it was quite foreseeable that my case going to court, and being won (which I still feel was extremely likely, had settlement not been made), it would have opened the floodgates significantly to other claims along the same lines. Anecdotally, since discussing my claim on this and another forum, I'm aware of twenty-three claims that are being made as a direct result of my own. (Edit: twenty-four, if we include the fact that you are considering bringing such a claim)

I would only bring such a claim if I actually encounter that circumstances again. The last time I encountered it was over a 8 months ago and I don't have the exact details, a court claim would therefore most likely be thrown out in that case. Unfortunately - or fortunately - my local Tesco has more than sufficient parking spaces to cater for "ignorant plebs" at most times of the day, at least whenever I visit.

 

But that in itself wouldn't be reason for bringing the claim. And how many of these claims are phrased properly and don't get caught out on technicalities or other problems is another question.

 

Whilst I accept what you are saying, I still don't believe that any large company would change their policies because of one - or even 23 - claimants with a similar claim.

 

To prove this, I know of 73 claims against BT for a variety of issues mainly relating to installation of lines and broadband, many of them with similarities to the OP's claim, but this has not affected British Trouble and is unlikely to do so. That's only the claims I know of, it's reasonable to assume that there are many more claims that I don't know of.

 

So, whilst I agree with your claim, and agree with the OP's claim, I think it's incorrect to only bring claims on the basis of assuming that it will cause sufficient damage to the large company involved that they will change their policies in future. Even in the bank charges claims most of the financial institutions have still not changed their policies - some have made them worse.

[Hullabaloo27]

Their latest response was much along the similar lines as before, in that the level of compensation is a standard across the company and therefore cannot be changed, although no mention of the connex discount (which I'm actually entitled to). I have emailed back, stating that although I don't agree with it, I'd be willing to accept it subject to confirmation that the BT connection discount will be applied within the next bill. Which is what I was hoping for to begin with.

[legalpickle]

Their latest response was much along the similar lines as before, in that the level of compensation is a standard across the company and therefore cannot be changed, although no mention of the connex discount (which I'm actually entitled to). I have emailed back, stating that although I don't agree with it, I'd be willing to accept it subject to confirmation that the BT connection discount will be applied within the next bill. Which is what I was hoping for to begin with.

 

I repeat my recommendations to write a complaint and send it special delivery to the complaints address and the registered office and then to consider if to take the complaint to Otelo or to issue court proceedings.

 

E-mailing back and forth will just make them think you aren't serious and they won't give you what you want. Also, the e-mail team is most likely a bunch of low-level incompetent nincampoops that have no idea how to deal with anything even if it bit them in the bums!

[Hullabaloo27]

I repeat my recommendations to write a complaint and send it special delivery to the complaints address and the registered office and then to consider if to take the complaint to Otelo or to issue court proceedings.

 

E-mailing back and forth will just make them think you aren't serious and they won't give you what you want. Also, the e-mail team is most likely a bunch of low-level incompetent nincampoops that have no idea how to deal with anything even if it bit them in the bums!

 

I understand, but my view is that I'm giving them as much opportunity to resolve the issue as is possible, before escalating it as this should hopefully not then look like a hasty action. Do you have said Complaints Address to hand?

 

p.s. FAO Locotus - As per my original posts, the line was connected on the 22nd July, so I'm unfortunately well past my cancellation period.

[legalpickle]

I understand, but my view is that I'm giving them as much opportunity to resolve the issue as is possible, before escalating it as this should hopefully not then look like a hasty action. Do you have said Complaints Address to hand?

 

p.s. FAO Locotus - As per my original posts, the line was connected on the 22nd July, so I'm unfortunately well past my cancellation period.

 

You have already gone over and above what you are obligated to do. It is my opinion that getting into further e-mail correspondence will not assist you any further.

 

I don't have the complaints address to hand, but if you call Otelo on 0330-440-1614 [number is charged at the same rate as calls to 01 & 02 numbers but is non-geographical] they'll be able to give it to you.

 

I suggest you send the letter to both the complaints address and registered office to allow you to take up either option of complaining to Otelo or taking court action.

 

Whilst others may disagree, it is always best to write to the registered office before issuing court action, because they can say they didn't receive the letter at the correct department. It is generally accepted in the legal world - from my understanding and experience - to send pre-action letters to the registered office when taking action against large companies.

 

However, Otelo will only take on complaints if the complaint letter to the company was sent to the complaints address, which is quite often and I'm almost certain in British Trouble's case, different to the registered office. I think the complaints address is in Warrington.

[Hullabaloo27]

My latest (and now final) email to them has suggested something new in that I'm willing to forget the compensation subject to the connex charge discount being applied (as it should have been anyway!!) I shall read their final response by email, and follow up with said letters to both the registered and complaints address.

 

Couple of questions:

 

1. Should they basically be a summary of the whole affair (including actual copies of email correspondence)?

2. Should I be quoting any consumer or telecom law within them as the basis of my claim?

[legalpickle]

My latest (and now final) email to them has suggested something new in that I'm willing to forget the compensation subject to the connex charge discount being applied (as it should have been anyway!!) I shall read their final response by email, and follow up with said letters to both the registered and complaints address.

 

Couple of questions:

 

1. Should they basically be a summary of the whole affair (including actual copies of email correspondence)?

2. Should I be quoting any consumer or telecom law within them as the basis of my claim?

 

1. Yes. If you want post the letter here and I will try and proof it for you.

2. No.

 

I would say that if you have to write a letter because the latest e-mail has not helped you should not offer to waive anything.

[Hullabaloo27]

1. Yes. If you want post the letter here and I will try and proof it for you.

2. No.

 

I would say that if you have to write a letter because the latest e-mail has not helped you should not offer to waive anything.

 

I'm not waiving anything? I'm merely accepting their comensation, subject to their own standard discount being applied.

[legalpickle]

I'm not waiving anything? I'm merely accepting their comensation, subject to their own standard discount being applied.

 

If you offer that, then you are waiving the right to even more compensation that you would be entitled to. £20 is frankly adding insult to injury for such a matter.

 

Whilst, I understand doing so in favour of a quick settlement without writing a letter, once you have reached the stage of the several e-mails you have written till now and have to write a letter, I don't think it is apt for you to waive British Trouble's liabilities to the compensation amount you should be due.

[locutus]

Hullabaloo, If you get the connection for £29.95 deal, that gets approved with your order and you only pay £29.95. I don't know if you can get it added retrospectively. If you did get that added as well as £20 compensation that would make you better off by £115. If you get that and are happy with that, good for you

[legalpickle]

Hullabaloo, If you get the connection for £29.95 deal, that gets approved with your order and you only pay £29.95. I don't know if you can get it added retrospectively. If you did get that added as well as £20 compensation that would make you better off by £115. If you get that and are happy with that, good for you

 

They can do anything they want retrospectively. Obviously if they don't want to do it, they won't, but anything is possible. They only need to add some credits on the bill, it isn't anything major. If they can add £20 credit they can add £500 credit!

 

I agree that if you, Hullabaloo, are satisfied with such a result, then great for you, but advise you not to offer this and to actually say you are no longer willing to accept this in full and final settlement due to the added charges you are incurring by taking the matter further [special delivery will total £9.20 (2x£4.60)] as well as the added aggravation incurred.

 

I ask you to do this both for your benefit and to hit British Trouble [whilst it won't hurt them and they'll continue to deal unfairly with other customers] on behalf of everybody else - including myself - who has suffered because of their incompetence. Please take it all the way!

[Hullabaloo27]

They can do anything they want retrospectively. Obviously if they don't want to do it, they won't, but anything is possible. They only need to add some credits on the bill, it isn't anything major. If they can add £20 credit they can add £500 credit!

 

I agree that if you, Hullabaloo, are satisfied with such a result, then great for you, but advise you not to offer this and to actually say you are no longer willing to accept this in full and final settlement due to the added charges you are incurring by taking the matter further [special delivery will total £9.20 (2x£4.60)] as well as the added aggravation incurred.

 

I ask you to do this both for your benefit and to hit British Trouble [whilst it won't hurt them and they'll continue to deal unfairly with other customers] on behalf of everybody else - including myself - who has suffered because of their incompetence. Please take it all the way!

 

If I had the time, or more importantly the money I would indeed screw them for as much as possible, but not this time unfortunately!

[legalpickle]

If I had the time, or more importantly the money I would indeed screw them for as much as possible, but not this time unfortunately!

 

Thanks for making an already bad day go a lot worse

[Hullabaloo27]

I think someone, or rather some firm, is beginning to extract the urine slightly:

 

Thank you for your E-mail dated 9/9/08 about the compensation.

 

I am sorry to know that the compensation given to you is up to your expectation. However, we tried best to provide you the maximum compensation as we can provide £10.00 for the missed appointment by an engineer.

 

I can understand that you want the written confirmation for the same. You can see the adjustment in the next bill. This is the only confirmation I can send you in written.

 

For further queries please do not hesitate to contact us again via e-mail.

 

Thank you for contacting BT.

 

The poor grammar and sentence structure in their response above, indicates quite forcefully that my complaint is not being taken seriously whatsoever. Considering that BT have been in the wrong from day one, and could have resolved this easily, means that I shall now be taking the issue further, starting with special delivery and simultaneous complaints to both the registered BT office and OTELO, as kindly advised by Legalpickle.

 

I shall keep updating the thread as and when news is received.

[legalpickle]

I think someone, or rather some firm, is beginning to extract the urine slightly:

 

Thank you for your E-mail dated 9/9/08 about the compensation.

 

I am sorry to know that the compensation given to you is up to your expectation. However, we tried best to provide you the maximum compensation as we can provide £10.00 for the missed appointment by an engineer.

 

I can understand that you want the written confirmation for the same. You can see the adjustment in the next bill. This is the only confirmation I can send you in written.

 

For further queries please do not hesitate to contact us again via e-mail.

 

Thank you for contacting BT.

 

The poor grammar and sentence structure in their response above, indicates quite forcefully that my complaint is not being taken seriously whatsoever. Considering that BT have been in the wrong from day one, and could have resolved this easily, means that I shall now be taking the issue further, starting with special delivery and simultaneous complaints to both the registered BT office and OTELO, as kindly advised by Legalpickle.

 

I shall keep updating the thread as and when news is received.

 

I'm not surprised!

 

I repeat that you can't complain to Otelo till the complaint to BT's complaints office is handled and you have a "deadlock" letter or 12 weeks have passed with no result or no satisfactory result. The purpose of sending the letter to BT's registered office is so that you can issue court proceedings if you decide to do so. So you must send the letter to both addresses.