Telephone directory entry for BT line

hgm

I'm hoping that the BT rep can help with this.
Our church vicarage has been unoccupied for a year and the BT line disconnected (it was supposed to be just suspended but that's a different story). So that a new line would be working when our new Vicar takes up residence, I applied for a new line for the Vicarage under my name and I am therefore the account holder. The person taking the order said I would be able to have the name of the new Vicar as the directory entry.
Yesterday, as the Vicar is now living in the property, I phoned BT Customer Services to ask for a directory entry under his name as the occupier and hence user of the phone number. I was informed that this was not possible under the "DATA Protection Act". We could only have my name in the directory even though I don't live there.
I was told that the only way it could happen was to close the account and pay an 18 month penalty fee.
Surely there must be a way to have the actual occupier's name as the directory entry.

hgm

JustPassingBy

hgm wrote: »

Surely there must be a way to have the actual occupier's name as the directory entry.

Lateral thinking to the rescue! Change your name to his by deed poll. Let's see the BT Rep top that.

BT_company_representative

Hi hgm,

I have just sent you a PM in relation to the Directory Entry for your new vicar.

While I can't promise to top JustPassingBy's great suggestion, I will do my best to get this sorted out for you

Regards

Keith
BT Support

hgm

Thanks. I have sent an email reply with details.

hgm

hgm

Well I'd like to thank the BT reps for a quick repsonse including a phone call.
But their suggestion of paying £8.50 per quarter for a special phone book entry sounds very expensive. £34 each time for a book that only comes out once a year.
I don't understand why if it's against the Data Protection Act to have the entry in the name of the occupier that its OK if you pay to have it done.

hgm

DS-2

hgm wrote: »

... I applied for a new line for the Vicarage under my name and I am therefore the account holder. The person taking the order said I would be able to have the name of the new Vicar as the directory entry.
Yesterday, as the Vicar is now living in the property, I phoned BT Customer Services to ask for a directory entry under his name as the occupier and hence user of the phone number. I was informed that this was not possible under the "DATA Protection Act". ...
hgm

Hi hgm,
You are being too nice

You have been misled. You have stated what you required in terms of the after sales service and you were told that those requirements could be met.

Please look at the "Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008".

Section 3.1 sets out that "Unfair commercial practices are prohibited."

Section 5 contains the following:
"5.—(1) A commercial practice is a misleading action if it satisfies the conditions in either paragraph (2) or paragraph (3).
(2) A commercial practice satisfies the conditions of this paragraph—
(a) if it contains false information and is therefore untruthful in relation to any of the matters in paragraph (4) or if it or its overall presentation in any way deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer in relation to any of the matters in that paragraph, even if the information is factually correct; and
(b) it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise."

From what you've written, the sales person advised you of an after sales service that does not exist, though even if it was argued that the service was available "at a price" the sales person failed under section 5(4)(k) to advise on "the consumer’s rights or the risks he may face". That satisfies 5(2)(a).

In misleading you, you placed the order. If the sales person had advised you that once you'd placed the order it could only be in your name I am sure you would not have ordered the phoneline and any reasonable person would deduce the same, in my view.

In providing the erroneous advice, you placed an order that you would not have otherwise done. That satisfies the second limb of section 5(2) (namely 5(2)(b)).

BT cannot hold you to a contract that was obtained in breach of these regulations. Write a letter of complaint to BT and follow their complaints procedure and let them try to demonstrate that the contract was obtained "fair and square".

If at the end of 6 weeks you still have no joy, you need to escalate your complaint to the highest level in BT's complaint procedure, so that if after 8 weeks it is still unresolved you can take it to Otelo.

Though, in the interim, I would recommend that you get BT to make that number ex-directory to ensure that you are removed from the online directories and also avoid the possibility of ending up in the printed version.

Good luck.

hgm

DS-2 wrote: »

Section 5 contains the following:
"5.—(1) A commercial practice is a misleading action if it satisfies the conditions in either paragraph (2) or paragraph (3).
(2) A commercial practice satisfies the conditions of this paragraph—
(a) if it contains false information and is therefore untruthful in relation to any of the matters in paragraph (4) or if it or its overall presentation in any way deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer in relation to any of the matters in that paragraph, even if the information is factually correct; and
(b) it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise."

Thanks for your contribution DS-2.

I would not have ordered the phone line with my name. I was told that the Vicar's name could be in directory when they asked about directory arrangements. He said that would be OK but BT would need to phone him to obtain permission. As there was no phone line to contact him on he said I could do it later. I therefore said to be ex-directory at present.

BT Reps again:
Having read from the last post that it is illegal to give misleading information, I must ask you again to do something about it.
You have stated that is is possible to have the correct entry by paying. Therefore it can't be against the Data Protection Act.
It must be possible to remedy the false information I was given without cancelling the line. I don't think I should be put to all the trouble of complaing to Otelo for what should be a simple matter.

hgm

hgm

BT Reps

This still hasn't been resolved. Please see my last post which you haven't answered.

hgm

BT_company_representative

Hi hgm,

With regards to the directory entry basically as the account holder you are entitled to a free directory entry. Only the account holder will be listed free of charge as per BT’s terms and conditions of service. As advised customers can purchase additional or enhanced listings to appear in the A-Z section of the Phone Book.

Shane.

hgm

When I asked Customer Services to use the Vicar's name, she insisted it was because of the Data Protection Act. I suggested that people always used that as an excuse. She got upset at that suggestion and really insisted it was the Act. You are now telling me that it's some item about one free entry buried somewhere in your Terms and Conditions. If that is so, I should have been told at the time of the order when I said I wanted the entry in the name of the Vicar.
So it is still mis-selling.

hgm