BT - Late Payment Charge & Payment Processing Fee

[buzby]

now just have to get the number withheld service from them. Don't want those tricksy DCA's getting the phone number by mistake...

 

Sorry Uncle Ken, your boys and girls still wont get the number.

 

Oh yes they will!

 

A little aspect of Caller Display that is not well known (but should be) is that when a call is made, the actual number of the line making the call is delivered as part of the call set-up process, it is NOT withheld at this stage. Ths is to allow both the originating network to know who to bill for the call, the delivering network to identify who to bill for call completion (usually the originating network), and the call is then sent out for delivery to the final destination. If this is a standard telephone line, then the equipment at the delivery exchange then looks at the call ID field to see if the 'Withhold' flag is raised, if it is - then the delivery network prevents the number being displayed.

 

Now, should this call be delivered by digital means to an outfit capable of handling it (usually ISDN 30) then the call set up and identifiers are passed on to the delivery point - so if a destination firm has a digital connection, then the ability to restrict the number rests with the recipient, who may (or may not) have this implemented correctly. This means as it is more useful to have the number for their own audit trail, they can process the number or block it, as they see fit - irrespective of what your wishes are.

 

A case in point is Sky - call their CS centre, their systems know your number - even if withheld, as it is presented as part of the ETSI C7 signalling of each and every call recieved. Even if firms like DCAa do not have the capability of their own ISDN 'pipe' they can go to an intermediate telco and ask them to let all C7 data through. Many do.

 

So, if your intention is to somehow thwart Collection Firms, it won't work, all you'll do is hack off those people friends/family who'd really appreciate knowing you called, and of course, you'll come across those people (like me) who block all calls that are withheld - called 'blocking the block'.

 

The ACR (Anonymous Call Reject) service is a far better use of technology, as it prevents these inbound calls connecting with you. This is chargeable on BT, but free on Virgin lines.

[Guest Mrs Hobbit]

never had a problem with family not knowing who is calling as most overseas the number is automatically unidentified. Late Mr H was a telecomms guru and set a lot things up through the computers in the house, not saying much more.

 

Don't talk to me about Sky. New Mr H is a sky fan...the phone line remains unplugged something I learnt from the late Mr H. Sky can't get any info from us that they want. As we don't use the interactive gizmo, it doesn't amtter. Sky tried to get us to plug back in so I used the T & C's on them and reminded them it is NOT part of the contract.

 

If people want to block my calls, that's fine with me.

 

My bank keeps asking for a phone number, I just tell them NO and they accept it.

 

BT never made much money out of us, just the line rental really, our calls never amounted to any more than £10.00 a quarter...

 

I don't have Facebook either. The curent Mr H, loves his mobile, I have one, buit could never text until I bought a pay as go with a qwerty keyboard. I put £50.00 on it two years ago, use it enough to keep the number active and never use it for anything other than texting Mr H to bring something back from the outside world if it is needed. We do live out in the Boonies.

 

Cabot still doesn't have my number

[buzby]

Sky's only requirement for a connection expires after the 1st year (it is in the contract), owever as others have found out, taking the same stance when using Sky Multiroom is an expensive mistake.

 

As for giving out a phone number, all these firms see is an empty field on their screen that requires filling. Get a free forwarding number (Perhaps 0871?) with routes to your real number, that you never disclose. This keeps your privacy, and if calls from someone become a problem, you can abandson it and change to another.

 

Perfect! I'm surprised Late Mr H hadn't set you up for this.

[Guest Mrs Hobbit]

The late Mr H set something up through the computer. he always warned me, 'don't unplug that' pointing to a box, 'when you start getting the cleaning bug'. We do have multiroom here and Sky tried something, so I sooled Mr H onto them, they backed off and plugged us back in. He told them Mrs H would gladly take them apart using their T & C's...and if they want to take me on, do so at their peril....

 

Don't get me going over the BT Payment Processing lot. Maybe others should look at leaving BT over this issue. Now I am not with them, I am going to have a go at getting back this fee, I know others have tried and not succeeded. I am going to send them an invouice for this fee with the County Court Stat interest added and start the process. I might not win, but will have fun doing it. Nothing like being a thorn in the side.

Edited June 15, 2010 by Mrs Hobbit

[45002]

Oh yes they will!

 

A little aspect of Caller Display that is not well known (but should be) is that when a call is made, the actual number of the line making the call is delivered as part of the call set-up process, it is NOT withheld at this stage. Ths is to allow both the originating network to know who to bill for the call, the delivering network to identify who to bill for call completion (usually the originating network), and the call is then sent out for delivery to the final destination. If this is a standard telephone line, then the equipment at the delivery exchange then looks at the call ID field to see if the 'Withhold' flag is raised, if it is - then the delivery network prevents the number being displayed.

 

Now, should this call be delivered by digital means to an outfit capable of handling it (usually ISDN 30) then the call set up and identifiers are passed on to the delivery point - so if a destination firm has a digital connection, then the ability to restrict the number rests with the recipient, who may (or may not) have this implemented correctly. This means as it is more useful to have the number for their own audit trail, they can process the number or block it, as they see fit - irrespective of what your wishes are.

 

A case in point is Sky - call their CS centre, their systems know your number - even if withheld, as it is presented as part of the ETSI C7 signalling of each and every call recieved. Even if firms like DCAa do not have the capability of their own ISDN 'pipe' they can go to an intermediate telco and ask them to let all C7 data through. Many do.

 

So, if your intention is to somehow thwart Collection Firms, it won't work, all you'll do is hack off those people friends/family who'd really appreciate knowing you called, and of course, you'll come across those people (like me) who block all calls that are withheld - called 'blocking the block'.

 

The ACR (Anonymous Call Reject) service is a far better use of technology, as it prevents these inbound calls connecting with you. This is chargeable on BT, but free on Virgin lines.

 

 

Isn't that against the law what Sky are doing ?

 

"their systems know your number - even if withheld"

 

I understood that only 999 service where allowed to use a systems know's your number if it is withheld.

[buzby]

I'm not aware of any law that explicity prohibits this - it is not the 'display' of the callers number, if - as is likely that it is simply 'stored' and not displayed in real time, there's plenty of leeway. The trouble is, all this technology pre-dates Caller Display - when you realise telco's and high end users get the number anyway, and there is only a tacit agreement that it will not be 'displayed' or withheld from being displayed on a conventional phone, you can see how easy it is to be fooled by an aspiration. It makes the poachers gamekeepers (IYSWIM)..

 

As to the emergency services knowing your number, the call is handled by BT, who get on their display TWO numbers, the actual line number, and the presentation number used on that line (if present). So, firms that send a 0800 number to callers (called CLIP) is shown, but the real number is revealed too - because it is send as part of the call set up information. BT then send this information on to the relevant service, or did - these days, they are all on ISDN 30, so get the data field anyway, BT therefore only provide the physical address to aid a response.

[justaguy]

Friends,

 

According to their most recently published annual accounts, "BT Payment Processing Limited" made a NET PROFIT over 41 MILLION POUNDS for the year ending 31 March 2009. That's AFTER expenses. Robbery!!

 

Their gross income from the payment processing fee was over £100 MILLION POUNDS. That works out to an average of over 5.5 MILLION customers (£4.50 x 4 per bills per year) who are getting zapped every year by this con.

 

Remember, this is separate from the £7.50 late payment charge.

 

You can download the accounts from http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/ for one pound (yes, just £1)

 

Imagine going to the supermarket for your weekly family shop of around £100 (amount like your quarterly phone bill), week in week out, year in year out. Suddenly, the shopkeeper says: "Unless you give me your bank details so I can take money from your account in advance, as I please, I'm going to charge you £4.50 for the pleasure of taking your cash." Crazy.

 

Let's keep fighting this ridiculous charge.

Write to your MP! Write to the press!

[buzby]

Or better yet, hit them where it hurts. I left them after being a 'loyal' customer of 30+ years. I wasan;t being valued, and probably neither are you. Not being a customer is the most effective vote of no confidence.

[InformedSearcher]

The biggest problem is that the Ofcom (yet another quango) allows them to operate like this. In fact they allow all operators to treat people in the same way. Invariably you are going to speak to someone getting paid circa £14.5 pa and whatever training they get I doubt their heart is in it.

 

Michael

[Guest Mrs Hobbit]

BT aren't getting another penny off me and I am going to try a reclaim for the £4.50 fee. I do owe them about £34.00 my final bill before switching, so instead of sending them the money I am sending them an itemised invoice claiming back the £4.50 for each quarter since it was introduced, also the the two £7.50 late fees plus 8% interest and see how they respond to my bill for payment from them

Edited July 3, 2010 by Mrs Hobbit

[buzby]

Illogical, and pointless, I'm afraid.

 

By all means, send them an itemised invoice - bus since you cannot provide a Purchase Order number (proving that they authorised the expenditure), it will be ignores as a [problem]. In pretty much the same way CAGgers ignore patking 'tickets' from private parking companies.

 

Youre late patment fees have been deemed lawful because they advised this would be the amount charged if bills were not paid on time. You didn't, they charged it. As for 8% interest - you only get this on Judgement (from the date of), not before - so they'll simply bin your invoice and get on with penalising others who have not made the brafe decision to dump the,

 

What you've done is the most effective way to hit them where it hurts. Making up bogus bills will just make them think you've lost your marbles, nothing else. Since they won't pay, and you'd have to take them to court and WIN (unlikely, as nobody else has in he 3 reported cases) you might as well save your time and sanity and move on.

[Guest Mrs Hobbit]

buzby I realise all of this, but for once I want to do something illogical. I am not new to this at all. I have been fighting problems and winning every one since 2006.

 

Funny thing about the late payment amounts..they involve the date time line, technically I did pay on time GMT time to boot. This one I would love to see debated in a court room. I know the 8% interest is only from the day of judgement; funny thing about this, every claim I have fought I have included this in my calculations on my spreadsheet and got it without going into a court room. I negotiate hard. MBNA gave up their fight with me as did Capital One and they both paid up the 8% interest I claimed.

 

It has also worked with the PPI clams I have made.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Mrs Hobbit

[buzby]

As long as you know it is.... I don;t want you to give the impression that's all you need to to successfully get your monry back. As for interest negotiatrions, you can often factor this in prior to court, because if the defender doesn't really wish to follow this route, it is cheaper for them to settle any 'reasonable' claim and move on, being much cheaper than defending it in court. With the clock ticking, you often have the upper hand, but with what you described, BT have BT & DT, and have no worries in this regard. (Unfortunately).

[45002]

BT aren't getting another penny off me and I am going to try a reclaim for the £4.50 fee. I do them about £34.,00 my final bill before switching, so instead of sending them the money I am sending them an itemised invoice caiming back the £4,500 for each quarter since iut was introduced, also the the two £7.50 late fees plus 8% interest and see how they respond to my bill for payment from them

 

Hello Mrs Hobbit

 

If you have alook here BTCare Community Forums - BTCare Community Forums a lot more upset BT customer about these BT charges,which are used to bump there profits up

 

What makes me Laugh is how can BT caller there forums

 

BTCare:evil:

[Mark_Blackpool]

Youre late patment fees have been deemed lawful because they advised this would be the amount charged if bills were not paid on time. You didn't, they charged it.

 

On that specific point - BT send bills which are virtually impossible to pay on time, since they're due for payment on or the day after the bill arrives.

 

Therefore, it's effectively a trap and a downright deceitful one at that.

 

I'd thought that unless specific payment terms are advised e.g. when you subscribe to something, you're told that you must always pay on the day the bill arrives - at which point most people would laugh and hang the phone up and go elsewhere - then there must be something in consumer law that protects people against this type of activity.

[Guest Mrs Hobbit]

The bill is printed on day one, I generally get mine about day 12, so if it arrives on a weekend or there is a public holiday on the dure date how can it be paid on the due date?.oh I remember they want a DD set up...if like me, your money comes from overseas, you are at the mercy of the banks as to the day the money is deposited into your account. Catch 22 situation

[Mark_Blackpool]

If there is nothing in law to protect people from this, then I'm a millionaire. Seriously. All I need to do is to send all my customers invoices backdated a bit, make sure the due date is such that they cannot be paid on time, and then impose a late payment fee of 100k per invoice per customer. I'll lose all my customers, but I'll be in a nice pad in the South of France and won't need them any more.

[InformedSearcher]

I'll reiterate my earlier point - Ofcom allow this! They allow ALL communication companies things that others do not. The nearest you get is calling Ofcom who'll give you an authorisation number to use to call BT. The way BT accept the calls shows that these numbers are issued so often it means very little. The real argument should be with Ofcom and NOT the trading companies they are supposed to regulate.

Unlike financial institutions I'm afraid you'll find BT (and the like) hold the upper hand and your 'fighting' with them both frustrating and hopeless.

 

I, also think I can fight well against companies when the situation arises but I quickly found that BT have answers for everything and sadly at the end of the day do not give in. Going to court with them is doomed with precidents of the past and failed arguments. You never know though 'Mrs Hobbit', you might be the first to prove otherwise - I hope you are as the proverbial can of worms could then be opened.

 

Michael

[buzby]

Pay on time? If you pay them when you recieve the bill, there is no problem, but the expectation of 30 days from the bill to make a payment is long gone as the squeeze is on to get the money earlier and earlier.

 

Sure, the date the bill is 'prepared' is much earlier than the day I recieve it. It used to be the following day, now? It can be anthing up to a fortnight. The change to using Mailsort or 3rd Party (cheaper) mailing contractors where mail could take up a week to arrive was convenent for the sender, as it opened the door for folk to believe that as they recieved their bills late, they're payment date would similarly slide. Which of course, it didn't!

 

All this is designed to make DD seem more palatable, use this method and we'll take care of it all for you. Yes, right!

 

It is manipulation, but if you wish to prevent the imposition of charges, you need to note the subtelties that can end up costing you more. As is the case described here.

[Guest Mrs Hobbit]

I am older and wiser than when all of this started and I have the luxury of time to try something new. I am very good at opening cans of worms.

OFCOM need a reality check and perhaps they can be challenged again on this matter.

 

I have dug around to find out if I ever signed a contract with BT and surpisingly I can;t locate anything.. I am a pack rat. There is nothing in the late Mr Hobbit papers either. I am sure when we arrived in England all we did was lift the phone and request the phone be connected and transferred to our name. Even with the various bits and pieces of paper from BT we never subscribed to any plan as our phone usage was/is low and it was just line rental to be paid quarterly. never had the friends and fmaily plan and when they tried the ten family and friends numbers with us for a discount we didn't play that game with them. I know I never signed anything even when the late Mr Hobbit died and the phone was tranferred to my name, I just rang them and told them he had died and the next bill arrived in my name. So if my signature isn;t on anything, how did I sign a contract with them? just might DPA SAR them

[buzby]

There has been no requirement to 'sign acontract since 1992. Electronic commerce changes allowed people to arrange to apply for services without signing a contract for them, as courts now take any payment made for those services as confirmation that the purchaser has accepted those terms. Only if you have never paid, would you have any opportunity to reject a contract existed. (On the basis that why would you be payingf them if you weren't using or paying for their services).

 

So, as you've paid BT in the past, your contract is confirmed and valid. No magic bullet - just a waste of £10 for a SAR that has no need to show what you are looking for.

[Guest Mrs Hobbit]

Ah. that explains why no contract exists and you are right by making payment to them, there is a contract. Every other institution required me to produce a death certificate for the late Mr Hobbit, BT didn't even bother to ask for one.

 

I am not looking for a way to get out of paying them, just a way to hammer home those payment processing fees and late payment fees are not acceptable.