Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi, If they haven't followed the court's directions there will be little tolerance of the court. Anyway please can you upload a copy of the court paperwork
    • Yes, you should have applied for an immediate strike out as soon as the deadline expired. Without the agreement, they are stuffed Forget Barclaycard, Asset link is now the creditor, and it is down to them to provide the agreement.  That needs to go into the witness statement. They have not provided the agreement contrary to directions of the court and request the court strike out the claim as to the original court directions.
    • I did not receive a notice via post but in my claim status it shows my claim was transferred to a court I requested in my DQ, as it is closer to me.    Defense I filed:  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 defendant paid the lead tenant a fixed sum monthly bill without fail for the extent of the rental period of the accommodation their contract was associated with who was responsible to make payments to the claimant, ending in June 2023. 3.       After moving out, a month later, the claimant wrote to state that an outstanding sum existed. Further stating, as one of the 10 tenants at the time, I now owed them the full sum instead of my 1/10 proportion of said debt, as 10 students were at the dwelling. They also intimated that they were legally allowed to charge me the full sum if the other renters were not to pay their share under some equal and joint severity rule. 4.       Despite sending numerous requests prior to the court claim being raised for copies of said bills for said utilities covered by the agreement, the claimant failed to send any clear bills. This included a CPR 31.14 on xx/xx/xxxx sent via post. 5.       The defendants stress that they acted in good faith to settle the outstanding balance, as evidenced by the confirmation received from the claimant.  Any subsequent demands for additional payments are unwarranted and contradict the claimant's previous acknowledgment of settlement. 6.       Pursuant to OFGEM code of back billing rules the alleged charges relate to charges which have not been billed correctly by Co-operative Energy and are therefore prevented from charging. 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. 7.As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation                  that the money is owed. 8.It is therefore denied that the defendant is indebted to the claimant as alleged or at all.
    • Paint is a free programme on any Windows PC. But don't worry, the choice here is not either perfection or nothing. As you say, use your scanner, save the file ... and then use the "choose files" option when you post to CAG to add the file. We can do all the redacting and converting to the correct file type at this end.  The important thing is just to get the info to us. Why not do an experiment this afternoon and see if the above works?  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Can BT Do This........


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6488 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

Hi

My telephone line went down due to the storms the other week, phoned BT, they sent an engineer out, my master socket box had blown, he was there about 10mins, replaced the box and as he was walking out of the door, he said BT could charge me £55+vat, now if he had told me this before he started the job I might have reconsidered having it fixed and gone without a telephone line.

 

Now as far as I understand it, I thought the master box was their property and nobody else could touch it, so why should I have to pay to have their property repaired, I don't believe I could have got someone else in to fix it. So where are my options, as a consumer? It seems to me that BT have this completely sown up and its all one sided.

 

Anyway got a bill last week for £135.13p :-x I phoned them up and they said yes it was my responsibility to pay to have my line fixed, but because I was quoted 2 figures, apparently £55+vat is the call out charge for their engineer, they would have a look at the bill and get back to me.

 

Now to me this sounds really overpriced for 10mins work and replacing a box.

 

Any advice would be gratefully received.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure of the answer to this but it seems strange. The BT lines immediately around my home went down earlier this year (water seepage apparantly) and they certainly didn't charge me. Actually they paid everyone compensation as it took them a while to completely dix it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

My telephone line went down due to the storms the other week, phoned BT, they sent an engineer out, my master socket box had blown, he was there about 10mins, replaced the box and as he was walking out of the door, he said BT could charge me £55+vat, now if he had told me this before he started the job I might have reconsidered having it fixed and gone without a telephone line.

 

Now as far as I understand it, I thought the master box was their property and nobody else could touch it, so why should I have to pay to have their property repaired, I don't believe I could have got someone else in to fix it. So where are my options, as a consumer? It seems to me that BT have this completely sown up and its all one sided.

 

Anyway got a bill last week for £135.13p :-x I phoned them up and they said yes it was my responsibility to pay to have my line fixed, but because I was quoted 2 figures, apparently £55+vat is the call out charge for their engineer, they would have a look at the bill and get back to me.

 

Now to me this sounds really overpriced for 10mins work and replacing a box.

 

Any advice would be gratefully received.

 

Thanks

 

BT are responsible for the line up to and including the master box.

 

If you damaged the line or master box while carrying out repairs around the area it come into your property they could bill you for making good their line/box. (unlikely if its was an accident and you have been a good customer).

 

Any other cause of damage outside your property and not caused by your negligence is their responsibility. The blowing of the master box is very likely when lines are brought down during adverse weather conditions.

 

Furthermore, the engineer should have made you aware of any possible charges, preferably in writing prior to carrying out the repair. ie. If its your responsibility your entitled to get the best quote for the job.

 

I would tell them in no uncertain terms that you will not be paying and if you are in an area cover by cable threaten to move over to them.

  • Haha 1

PUTTING IT IN WRITING & KEEPING COPIES IS A MUST FOR SUCCESS

Link to post
Share on other sites

NO you should definately NOT be billed for that work the only way they can bill you is if they state that you had damaged it and only then if it was causing the fault and only then if they tell you what the cost will be and why.

 

If they wont rescind it I would be tempted to raise a charge back to them for having to wait in for the line to be repaired down to their negligence at not putting filters on the line to protect from lightning damage.

 

I used to work for a company supporting EPOS in shops and there was this little shop on the edge of this housing area which went round a massive big green playing field and the only thing in the field was a BT telegraph pole every single time there was a storm the modems and credit card systems got knocked out, they went for BT everytime (as we billed them about £1000 each time) and they got the money back it happened about 20 times over 6 years, clearly BTs negligence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Thanks for all your replies, appreciate them

 

Just been on to BT complaints dept, she said they would not rescind the bill and it stands, she said according to the engineers report,it was my phone that had blown the master socket and she wants £135.13, so I said then I will see you in court because I am not paying this.

 

Got a phone call 10mins later, from another complaints manager, she said that because I was quoted £55.+vat, (call out charge for the engineer) she will take this away and she will amend the bill, and I now owe £64.63.

They are adamant that because it was the lighting that caused the damange, just as accidental damage would not be covered by them, then it is not their responsibility but mine and that I could claim this back on insurance. :o

 

So what do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Yes and I missed that, the first woman I spoke to said in the engineers report, the lightning had hit our phone and this had blown out the master socket.

 

The second woman just said the lightning had damanged it.

 

So who knows, mind you I was so incensed after talking to the first woman, I probably wasn't even listening properly. I just couldn't get over the first woman saying "you called us" and I said who did you expect me to call "British Gas" but because I had the audacity to call them out, I was expected to pay, because on their automated message they tell you that then can charge if the fault is not theirs, and she kept telling me the fault wasn't theirs or their responsibility. :confused:

 

So who knows, not me thats for sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right lets get this sorted out for you....

 

If lightening hits THEIR property and does damage to THEIR property they want YOU to pay to get it fixed?

 

They are having an absolute LAUGH, if it was because your phone had caused the damage (cant see how this could happen at all) then fair enough, if you were moving furniture and smashed the NTE5 (master socket) then fair enough.

 

Lightening hits their lines and through their negligence they fail to provide an adequate earth and lets not beat around the bush had someone been using that phone at the time they could have potentially been killed (a bit dramatic but it is entirely possible).

 

BTs responsibility lies with everything from that master socket backwards out of your house. Consumers are not allowed to move or otherwise replace an NTE5 so if thats the case then they have admitted that it belongs to them ergo if lightening hits and causes damage they must replace their own property as it does not belong to you.

 

Put it simply to them:

 

The wires are theirs

The Exchanges are theirs

The drop wire from the pole is theirs

The NTE5 master socket is theirs

 

The phone is yours

 

Where did the fault lie? Ask them all that and then say well how can it be my fault/responsibility then?

 

I would go back to them and tell them the damage to the NTE5 (use the terminology) was caused by lightening damage which they are not disputing this damage is the result of negligence on their part in fitting an adequate earth to allow high voltages to safely dissipate and should they persist in their claim against you then you will file a counter claim along these lines and claim for the cost of your expensive DECT phone that was blown up

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Again, thanks for the replies, really appreciate it

 

No my phone was not damaged or blown up in anyway, its still working. How do I know that the phone blew up their master socket, I only have their word for that. I argued and argued that the master socket does not belong to me, so why should I pay? But they are adamant that I have to pay, its my responsibility, even though they have now cut the bill in half.

As a consumer I just can't get my head around this, that I or anybody else can touch the master socket, nobody else can repair it but them, but they expect me to pay. I don't know how anything can be this one-sided and that BT can get away with this.

 

But reading the replies on here, I think I will be phoning them again, and again and again until I can get this sorted out.

 

 

Really big thanks to all that have replied.

 

PS Could I ask to see a copy of the engineers report, and would they give it to me.

 

Marie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Marie,

 

The engineer is saying your phone caused the socket to blow, yet the person from complaints says it was lightning? Seems they can't make their mind up. I would be asking to see the engineers report.

 

It might be a good idea to phone up BT and ask them what their complaints procedure is as well. I am pretty sure they have one. Ultimately it must lead to OFCOM.

 

PS. Quick edit. Did the engineer actually test the phone itself? I've not known them to do that because the phone is usually the property of the householder, not BT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Marie,PS. Quick edit. Did the engineer actually test the phone itself? I've not known them to do that because the phone is usually the property of the householder, not BT.

 

Hi Rob

No the engineer didn't test the phone, but once he had replaced the master socket, I plugged the phone in while he was there, and then it rang, and he said it was the phone test, so that was all fine.

 

Thanks

 

Marie

 

PS I think the first woman was trying to say, the lighting hit my phone and this in turn blew the master socket.

Link to post
Share on other sites

exactly the point I have been making if he replaced the box and you are using the same equipment then its obviously not your problem or fault BT do this all the time, the amount of times I phone them saying theres a fault on the line, they deny it and test it and lo and behold it starts working again BT operators are im sure told to get away with anything possible and pass the problems on to the customer

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Thanks to everybody that has replied, and especially to Rob & Rich, for taking the time to help me out.

 

I'm going to phone BT again and tell them that I'm not paying the bill and that I will see them in court.

 

I honestly don't believe its my fault and that I should have to pay to have their equipment repaired.

 

I'll let you know how I get on.

 

Thanks everybody, I really appreciate it.

 

Marie

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your phone caused the problem surely it wouldn't still work and as the engineer tested it when he was there and it was still working, it proves that your phone did not cause the problem? It was the lightening hitting the outside equipment so its BT's responsibility. Surely not

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your phone caused the problem surely it wouldn't still work and as the engineer tested it when he was there and it was still working, it proves that your phone did not cause the problem? It was the lightening hitting the outside equipment so its BT's responsibility. Surely not

 

Hi

I agree with you, and I've been arguing this all along, but BT say No, the lightening blew out the master socket, but its my responsibility to pay to get it repaired.

I will check out the complaints procedure, and I will also be asking for the engineers report.

 

I live in hope :)

 

Thanks

 

Marie

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had a very similar experience.

 

I was looking back over previous bills and discovered a £55 charge.

 

Queried this as I had no recollection of a visit from an Engineer. However it was before Xmas. After chatting with the other half she reminded me that a bloke had called after I had reported a fault. He was in the house 5 minutes.... removed something from the master box .... made a test call a..... and left.

 

I rang BT in Bangalore or wherever it is this week to contest this. They are going to raise the issue but were unable to give me any reference that would enable me to prove that I had logged this issue.

 

I aint paying this...... its cr@p..... and I can have cable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it helps at all, it's impossible for your single line telephone to have caused any damage at all to the master socket. Even if you had a DECT (cordless) phone (which is mains powered) plugged in which suffered a power spike, it wouldn't carry down your line cord to the socket.

 

The socket is 100% their responsibility (so long as you've not been doing any crazy wiring changes), even if it's lighning that's caused it to malfunction.

 

First Direct - Settled in full 01/07

Capital One - Settled in full 06/10/06

MINT - Settled In Full 30/08/06

HSBC - Settled in Full 15/12/06

Barclays - - Settled in Full 29/11/06

Morgan Stanley - Settled In Full 03/10/06

MBNA - Settled In Full 23/09

American Express - Settled in Full 30/11/06 via bailiffs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, and external bell is also a single line device, it just terminates in the master socket on different pins (3 & 5). So again, this wouldn't be to blame, even if it was functioning.

 

First Direct - Settled in full 01/07

Capital One - Settled in full 06/10/06

MINT - Settled In Full 30/08/06

HSBC - Settled in Full 15/12/06

Barclays - - Settled in Full 29/11/06

Morgan Stanley - Settled In Full 03/10/06

MBNA - Settled In Full 23/09

American Express - Settled in Full 30/11/06 via bailiffs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, and external bell is also a single line device, it just terminates in the master socket on different pins (3 & 5). So again, this wouldn't be to blame, even if it was functioning.

 

What possible use would talking sense be when discussing things with BT ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...