BT Fault Charge Con- Advice needed?

[bordercollie]

We have had a BT phone master socket in our hallway for over 20 years.

 

7 years ago, as we live over 4 miles from our village exchange and was getting low volume on received calls, BT came out and installed a mains powered line volume amplifier in our loft, between the hall master socket and the phone line coming in from outside. We have no access to this volume amplifier as it apparantly is sited high in the loft, under the roof eaves.

 

The engineer brought down a separate cable from the loft, with an AC Mains transformer on the end of it, and this had to be plugged in to a mains socket 24/7 to power the amplifier. The master socket in our hallway wasn't touched.

 

Last month, the original master socket in our hallway went dead- couldn't make or receive phone calls, and no broadband DSL signal, so phoned BT Faults who said there was a fault at the end of our phone line.

 

The engineer came out and found the original hallway master socket was corroded, he replaced it in 15 minutes, and tested everything was then working ok.

 

We got a bill from BT last week for a repair charge of £125 incl Vat.

 

After disputing this charge with the Faults section, BT phoned back to say the charge was being upheld as......

 

1) The hallway master socket WASN'T the master socket, as since BT installed the loft line volume amplifier 7 years ago, it had changed to being an extension socket, as unknown to me, at that time the engineer had added another socket under the eaves of the roof, in the loft, in order to add the AC mains powered volume amplifier to our phone line.

 

2) This new 'Master Socket' which is 15ft up in our loft, had a socket on it which a phone could be plugged into, thus the hallway socket is definitely only an extension socket (though it was the same socket that we have always had). We should have used the socket in the roof to plug our phone into !!!! )

 

3) Although the hallway master socket which was faulty was originally supplied and installed many years ago by BT (20 years ??), and is their property, as 7 years ago it changed to an extension socket, from that date was only guaranteed for 12 months, so any repair/replacement to it has to be charged- thus the £125 charge applied.

 

4) BT Faults also told me the engineer had reported that the hallway faulty socket had corroded, and also had old paint inside it. Our hallway hasn't been painted for many years, and the socket has worked fine up to last month- after all, it was over 20 years old!!!

 

5) Finally, I was told the £125 was to be added to our next bill and if I didn't pay it our phone would be disconnected.

 

I have already got a current investigation of a Formal Complaint against BT, being dealt with Otelo, regarding receiving automated calls about non-payment of our monthly bills, up to 5 calls daily, over a 6 month long period, sometimes starting on the actual day we had our monthly bill delivered to us, and although we have NEVER been in arrears with any of our bills, during the many years we have been with BT.

 

So, can BT disconnect me during this current Otelo investigation?

 

As soon as I receive the new bill with the £125 charge added to it, how do I dispute it on a higher level, in the meantime not getting disconnected?

 

Have I the right to ignore making another complaint about the £125 charge to Otelo, and instead immediately take out a civil claim for damages, court costs, and the removal of this charge, against BT, at our local Sheriff Court ( I live in Scotland) ??

 

Any advice or similar experiences would really help me with this problem.

 

Thanks.

 

Border Collie of Scotland.

[buzby]

This is an interesting problem - and the issue is an interesting one, as in my view BT should make a one-off goodwill gesture to resolve the dispute because at no time had you been told your Master socket had been relocated to under the eaves to facilitate the line booster installation. You would not normally have even been given an instruction sheet for CPE (Customer Premises Equipment) and additionally as you were precluded from disassembling BTs Master Socket, you would have been unaware that the fault was within the Secondary socket, as you had not been told that the change had been made - even if you had the technical expertise to know the physical internal difference on sight, you could not (legally) have interfered with it to discover the problem.

 

Ask BT to prove that you had been provided with the information that your master socket had been relocated and a secondary socket supplied in its stead - if they cannot, then the charge should be waived as a goodwill gesture.

 

Forget Otelo, take it to BT Chairman's Office.

[bordercollie]

Latest Update-

 

Received a 'Final Response' from BT last week, saying that they were upholding the £125 charge, as apparently "their Faults Department had already investigated my complaint" (?????)

 

Next day I received my October monthly bill from BT, which was for £147.60p which included the disputed £125 repair charge, and £22.60p for calls and line rental.

 

They admitted that they had no proof that I had ever been given a change of Customer Premises Equipment leaflet, nor that I had actually ever been informed that my Master Socket location had been changed to under my roof space 7 years ago.

 

Straight to "Otelo", who have accepted my Complaint as being 'valid' and started a new investigation.

 

Other Forum members might like to know that I was advised that...

 

...as my dispute concerned only an ancillary service charge of a technical supply nature, and not a dispute concerning call charges or line rental.......

 

AND....

 

...as I had agreed to pay the £22.60p line rental and call charges part of this month's bill...

 

AND...

 

I had put it in writing to BT that forthcoming call charges and line rental costs would continue to be paid each month until such time the dispute was resolved one way or another...

 

... No interruption, disconnection or other interference should be made to my phone line provision whilst "Otelo's" investigation was taking place, nor should any Penalty or Late Payment charges be imposed because of the non-payment of the disputed £125 Repair Charge.

 

I was surprised to hear from BT that they agreed completely to these conditions.

 

I can't be sure but I think "Otelo" frowns on disruption to telephone services, if the dispute concerns what was described as 'ancillary charges or services', and as long as current line rental and call charges are paid for, as billed.

 

Any other Forum member in a similar situation, might like to note these facts in case they need to use them themselves.

 

Meantime, the journey continues....

 

Border Collie, of Scotland.

[buzby]

Disconnection is always viewed as a last resort - and when the situation is like this (BT are right in their charge, but lose the argument due to their inability to advise the customer of the CPE change).

 

It is a shame the people who dealt with this at BT weren;t intelligent enought to spot the anomaly and give you the benefit of the doubt. It is important that you pay for all services NOT in dispute (as advised) and just await the outcome, which I remain convinced, will be in your favour.

 

Did you not get anywhere with the Executive Office?

Edited October 20, 2009 by buzby

[Human Writes]

Otelo have agreed to accept the wiring related aspect of your dispute?

 

Thats weird - their own guidance to customers states that:

 

What kind of complaints are excluded from the Service?...

 

Otelo may not handle complaints involving:

Cable and wiring inside your premises

 

Office of the Telecommunications Ombudsman - By customers of public communications providers

[bordercollie]

Think that they have accepted it as the £125 charge relates to the repair of a disputed moved master socket, rather than to cables or wiring connecting to or from the socket.

[hightail]

I had almost the same problem a couple of years ago. My phone socket was very old and had to be replaced because of corrosion. BT tried to charge me £80 because the engineer had put down that it wasn't BT equipment. That was strictly true as it was so old it wasn't current BT equipment. I did get them to back down but it was one mother of a fight.

[bordercollie]

Think that other Caggers should be aware of BT's current position on Master Sockets....

 

If you already have a BT Master Socket installed in your home, and for any reason BT needs to install a periphary new socket, before the old Master Socket and anywhere else in your property, (such as in the roofspace as in my case or under the flooring), not necessarily for connecting a phone or modem to, but for BT's own purposes)

 

1) Wherever this new socket is located, (even under the floorboards!) this is expected to be your new Master Socket where your phone and/or modem should be connected to from now on.

 

2) Your original Master Socket immediately becomes an 'extension socket' which is now your own responsibilty for repairing or replacing.

 

3) Even if the original Master Socket was BT's property, and could be 20 years old, from the date when the new socket was installed by BT, it now becomes your new property, with a 12 months guarantee only.

 

4) Apparantly you are now allowed to 'tamper or open' the original Master Socket, even if it is stamped with "BT Property-Do Not Open", as it is now your extension socket, and therefore your property.

 

5) Finally, BT will always inform the customer if a change of Master Socket takes place in their premises. Yeah, right... like they did to me.

 

So this means that BT equipment isn't always BT equipment.....

 

The journey continues....

 

Border Collie of Scotland.

[buzby]

Some observations in response;

 

(1) This would be done for operational reasons. As such, it is incorrect to refer to 'old' master sockets, an installation can only ever have one - any downstream sockets will all become secondary sockets (with no bell capacitor or lightening arrestor). Any new sockiet (Master) installed irrespective of its location will remain your ONLY master socket - and be your NTP (Network Termination Point) for all subsequent wiring.

 

(2) Youe old master socket doesn't 'become' anything. It is replaced as it is surplus to requirements, and cannot be used within the installation.

 

(3) There IS no change. The BT Master Socket remains their exclusive property. All the secondary sockets are your property, even if BT fitted them. I note you didn;t complain that they gave it to you for free!

 

(4) You are not allowed to tamper with the master socket. You may find the innards of the old master socket were replaced in a secondary circuit board, any markings that referred to it as not to be tampered with are irrelevant, as it is your property to do with as you please.

 

(5) Fully agree. BT have a duty to advise if the NTP has been relocated to enable you to take the approperiate action in the case of a fault ocurring. If they did not, the responsibility remains theirs (so you should recieve a full refund of the callout charge).

[bordercollie]

Should have made the points I raised in my last post clearer.

 

After I first queried the £125 repair charge, I asked BT Faults Dept. to send me written reasons for their upholding the charge. I received their letter just after I made a formal complaint to "Otelo" and what I posted was almost exactly word for word what BT wrote, excluding a paragraph where BT confirmed that ...

 

from March 19th, 2002, the status of your hall based master socket was changed to that of an extension socket, due to the installation of the line amplifier in your roof-space. As this was caused by an operational change, the hall based master socket reverted to being the property of the account holder, and despite the age of this socket, was guaranteed by BT for a 12 month period until March 18th, 2003.

 

...... We can acknowledge that our engineer has reported that the faulty hall socket, which is the subject of your dispute with us, and which he replaced on 12th September, 2009, matched original stock which BT used at our estimated date of first installation, which was c.1997. The engineer also confirmed that the removed faulty socket, for reasons unknown to him, had not been replaced in March 2002, to that of a simple extension socket assembly, but retained the components of a master socket although it status was that of an extension."

 

So what I posted is what BT Fault's Dept response back to me- I would have loved to have pasted the entire letter into this posting, plus the details of who sent it to me, but I got into 'trouble' for breaching confidentiality before, and BT was careful to insert the Privacy clauses, etc, at the end of the letter, so I can't.

 

I'm getting more puzzled every day....at least "Otelo" is dealing with it now.

 

Border Collie of Scotland.

[buzby]

Ta for the update - but I'm afraid BT are talking nonsese regarding 'confidentiality'. There IS none, unless you have specifically agreed to it - the impoirtant word is 'agreed'. It cannot be imposed upon you.

 

The usual scenario is that something does wrong, you seek redress, they agree there is a problem, look into it and say that the problem is of your own making and they do not accept liability. However, under the circumstances they will agree to waiving the charges as a one-off for good customer relations. In return, they seek confidentiality in the arrangement. It is then up to you to accept their offer of the free resolution, in return for the confidentiality. Or not.

 

It is also worth pointing out that seeking confidentiality without giving you something in return as recompense is simply ludicrous. Further, how long is this confidentiality to stay in place? A week, month , year, perpetuity? You are not obliged to accept this imposition, and in your shoes I'd tell them where to stick it. Of course if they waive the charge you may be minded to accept it - but not otherwise.

[swindoed]

I also have had problems with BT fault repair charges and my complaint has been accepted by OTELO for investigation. The situation detailing the problem as sent to OTEL is summarised below:-

 

To Whom it May Concern.

.

 

ABOUT ME.

 

I am a qualified electrician, having served an indentured apprenticeship, working on MOD technical sites and equipment, covering fault location and repairs on power systems (including overhead pole lines), generator controls and RAF communication systems. In my 75th year. Living since 1967 in remote rural rented accommodation with wife who suffers from heart disease. Self employed since circa. 1960.

Fellow of the Institution of Diagnostic Engineers. Still working part time as hands-on consultant and troubleshooter possessing full kit of 17th Edition test equipment and instrumentation.

 

BT CALAMITY. WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

 

Early in 2008.

 

At about this time, I noticed intermittent ‘crackling’ noises on our BT telephone handset. This did not interfere with our use of the ‘phone to any great extent. But to make sure I looked in the Telephone Directory and found their instructions for DIY fault diagnosis on domestic equipment before contacting them; to this end I bought from my electrical wholesalers a new handset. The tests and inspections specified were applied and no fault was indicated on our domestic internal service.

As time went on, we became aware that the ‘crackling’ and intermittent service occurred during (and for a day or so after) periods of high rainfall combined with strong winds.

6th August 2008

Finally the line stopped working altogether and so I took our telephone instruments and equipment to a neighbour with a separate overhead cable line and tested them there, where they worked perfectly. This indicated that the fault was on the external BT overhead line leading to our dwelling.

9th August 2008.

I inspected the BT overhead pole line and discovered that an overhanging branch growing on a tree on the opposite side of the access road had been chafing the thin cable suspended between two poles about 100 metres from the terminal pole.

My diagnosis therefore was that the compounded effects of stormy weather and the unchecked growth of tree branches in contact with the line had caused the normal catenary characteristics to be altered so that the line was weakened by wave oscillation imposing strains beyond the designed strength of the cable. Because of this a communication circuit had become faulty.

10th August 2008.

Accordingly, by mobile ‘phone, I then reported the fault to BT on the faults number given in the BT ‘phone book with the specific request that a LINESMAN BE SENT to repair the fault. The BT receptionist said that BT had applied a remote line check and that this indicated that the problem was internal and not on the BT external system and that a ‘telephone engineer’ would attend on the following day. No mention was made of callout charges at this time. Thinking that the ‘telephone engineer’ would be professionally qualified and in charge of linesmen, I agreed to the visit.

 

 

.

11th August 2008

By this time the weather was calm and dry so with no movement on the suspended cable the telephone became more usable.

A young man in a BT van arrived and applied exactly the same internal tests that I had previously applied to my telephone instrument and the incoming service box. When I informed him of my findings and asked that he check the external line, he insisted that the problem was with my equipment and that he was not allowed to climb a pole or ascend a ladder because of BT’s Health and Safety policy. This was the point at which he said that a callout charge would be made. I said that in the circumstances I do not intend to pay for these because the overhead line had not been inspected and tested by an appropriate authorised technician between the terminal pole joint and a ladder accessible joint mounted on the 4th pole away from the terminal pole.

7th October 2008.

After a windy night the telephone service broke down completely. Once again, I ‘phoned BT,who again applied what they called a ‘line check’ and again said the line was OK. Again I requested that a LINESMAN should attend. The conversation followed exactly the same pattern as before with the receptionist saying that a ‘telephone engineer’ would call on the following day.

8th October 2008.

Young man duly arrived, on his own, started to apply the same tests as before. Ignored requests to stop doing this and to test the overhead line, and doggedly continued despite being asked to leave and get on with inspecting the overhead line and the pole box connections. Once again I was told that he was not authorised to climb poles and that there would be a callout charge applied to my account. After I protested he eventually pulled out a mobile ‘phone and after a while managed to contact a colleague working some 18 miles away to come to the site with a van mounted mobile access platform.

An older man who behaved more like an experienced and qualified technician arrived with this vehicle. Advising and instructing the younger man, the line was inspected, tested and repaired between the second and third poles by means of a straight joint fixed to the cable in the middle of the catenary span, with self tightening wire binders relieving strain in the damaged section. After shortening the tree branches and testing the service was returned to normal.

 

Callout Charges.

I have since received BT bills for £174.28 over and above the legitimate charges for calls and line rental and an exorbitant ‘handling charge’ for having the nerve to pay bills by cheque. I do not like doing business through Direct Debit. I have always paid for calls made by cheque.

In November 2008 I wrote to BT asking for a breakdown of costs for the £174.28 demanded and a description of work carried out. BT have never replied to my letter.

 

I have repeatedly ‘phoned BT to enquire about the situation only to be told that ‘investigations are being made’ and ‘full service will be maintained’ and that we ‘will not be disconnected without prior notification’. At no time did I speak to the same person more than once, with one exception as follows: A man who, when asked for his name replied indistinctly ‘Sandie’? (Sandys, Sandy, Saundry, Sandeep, if forename or surname I do not know). This person was adamant, politely, but slightly aggressively insisting that I have to pay the charge and subsequently ‘phoned to say that I have not been billed for the second visit, only for the first visit.

 

Disconnection.

Our facility for dialling out has been disconnected without prior notification for about three weeks now. Our ‘phone line is now configured to receive calls but not enabled to make outgoing calls. I am informed that this function has been disconnected at the exchange.

 

OPINION.

 

At the beginning of 2008, during a season of high rainfall, high winds, thunderstorms and wide variations in ambient temperatures, the combined catenary and conductor cable was subjected to stresses and conditions beyond it’s designed mechanical, insulation and expansion-contraction limits.

By the beginning of 2008, deterioration of the integrity of the cable at one point had already caused interference to audible reception in telephone ear pieces.

In October 2008, annual changes from the prevailing westerly wind direction and the beginning of equinoctial south-easterly gales finally imposed further stresses that caused the cable to fail due to increasing deterioration.

In August 2008 therefore, at the time of the first visit by an inappropriately qualified BT repair man, the damaged and deteriorating cable was causing the problems reported to BT at that time.

In that case, the callout charges ostensibly and unfairly levied by BT to the customer for the first visit in August 2008 should be cancelled and full service reinstated at no extra charge to the BT customer.

 

 

 

Signed

 

 

 

 

24th March 2009

 

 

COMMENT.

Repairs and maintenance costs of external public service systems are the responsibility of the providers and these costs should not be born by individual subscribers. DWG.

 

cc.

[bordercollie]

My journey ends....

 

Regarding my Complaint to "Otelo" at the beginning of this Topic Thread, "Otelo" contacted me today to say that 'a BT high level complaints investigator would be phoning me later to try and resolve things".

 

BT did phone me, to say 'that a terrible mistake had been made on their part'

 

What they said that following my Complaint, their engineers had now examined the alleged extension socket which was faulty, and which they had removed from my hallway, and it WAS the property's master socket, complete with capacitor and a lightning arrestor.

 

Their engineers also now admit that their job records shows that socket for the line volume amplifier, which they installed 7 years ago in my roof space, ( which until last month they insisted was a 'master socket') was NOT a new master socket, but merely an in-line amplifier connection to the 2 wire cable coming from outside my house, with the 2 line cable continuing onto the disputed 'extension socket' located in my hallway.

 

The 'phone socket' built into this 'loft connection', was not in fact for me to plug my router and phone handset into, but instead a 'jack socket' ?? for an engineer to plug a test meter into.

 

BT admitted that I was completely right in everything I said, and have immediately scrapped the £125 repair charge, plus given me an additional 3 months line rental free, plus I have £100 compensation award coming soon.

 

Bt also asked me to confirm to "Otelo" that I accepted their apology and offer, so that the Formal Complaint can be dropped.

 

So I hope that the matter is now finished....

 

"It's good to talk, (in order to complain)"........

 

Border Collie of Scotland

[locutus]

Thanks for the update, and Well Done

[buzby]

Good to hear, but the real disappointment was that they put you through all this in the first place. It was a no brainer - you could not have been held liable for this. I'm told that BT's dependence on agency staff (rather than using the expertise of thiose who have a history with the company, it wouldn't have got that far.

 

At least that's a wight from your mind!