BT phone line reactivation

syko29793

Im not here to try to do anything other than advise on whats the best way to save you money.
You agreed at point of sale that the charge would be raised and you agreed to pay it
This is an open forum and we can all say what we like so what are you going to report me for?
I telling you how it is im sorry if you dont like what im telling you but its fact
you will not get BT to remove the charge as you agreed to it.

Ive posted many times and given good information to save money with BT and other companies.

ACDeag

BT charge for reactivating or installing a new line. The only time there is no charge is when the line already has a dial tone.

From bt.com:

• Most of our new customers find they don't need to pay a connection charge.
• If your home has had telephone service from BT in the recent past, and the wiring and socket is undamaged and the line still has a dial tone, it's likely you won't need to pay a connection charge. You'll just have to pay your line rental, any calling plan costs, cost of calls, and for any additional services you want.
• But where there's no suitable BT line available in your property, there's no dial tone on the line, or if you have been disconnected for non-payment, there will be a standard connection charge to pay of £122.50 (incl. VAT, subject to survey).

Heinz

syko29793 wrote: »

Im not here to try to do anything other than advise on whats the best way to save you money.

Ive posted many times and given good information to save money with BT and other companies.

Many times far more usefully than BT company representative (who seem transfixed by an apparent desire to take discussions off forum, on many occasions unnecessarily).

DrScotsman

syko29793, I understand you're giving the OP advice in good faith and if Heinz is to be trusted, probably have given good advice in other threads. I also know that the OP may end up paying this money anyway as fighting it could be a very difficult battle (I'd take it as far as I could personally). However I still have to disagree with you on the basis that BT have made a clear breach of contract between them and the OP.

syko29793 wrote: »

You agreed at point of sale that the charge would be raised and you agreed to pay it

For a start, I note that you simply repeated what you said instead of giving reasons that my interpretation of the point of law was incorrect.

The contract between BT and the OP has been generated entirely and solely by the phone call between them - forget any small print which the OP could not have read, or any terms BT will claim are implied when the reasonable man would not agree. Assuming the OP's memory of the phone call is correct, they offered to install a new line for him for £122.50, and he accepted. Have BT provided this to him? No, so they are in breach of contract. As such, your argument that the OP agreed to the charge does not hold.

The only way I can see your argument make sense is if you're saying that BT did NOT agree to install a new line for the OP, but agreed to put the OP in the position of having a working BT line. If this were true then you would have a good point, but it depends on the wording of the phone conversation, and judging by what the OP said it sounds like this is not the case. If you were told that a phone line was not connected and so an engineer would have to come out and connect a new one for you, and they charged a connection fee, what do you think the connection fee is for? Certainly not "activation".

Even if they did tell the OP it was an activation fee, the argument wouldn't necessarily stand. Say you bought five new DVDs for 1p each (market value £15 each), and the "postage" was £80 per order regardless of number of DVDs bought, but max 5 DVDs per order. If one of the DVDs arrives broken, and they can't replace it as they're out of stock, do you really think you would only be due 1p (because you would have paid the £80 postage anyway)? Of course not, the £80 clearly was for the price of the DVDs. Same principle here.

macman

This debate seems to me to have become pointless for 2 reasons:
1) the OP does not know if there was a dial tone on the existing line. If there was, then a free connection should have applied. If there wasn't, then BT's T&C's make it quite clear that a charge will be applied, regardless of whether physical work is required on the line at the property or not. If you don't think that's reasonable, then use another provider.
2) The OP will not accept that BT make the same charge whether they have to just reconnect at the exchange or recable from the street box and install a new NTE5 in his property. Agreed that the charge does not necessarily bear any relation to the time spent, but that is hardly exclusive to BT.
If we assume that there was no dialtone, as we have to, then BT would have charged the same fee whether the work involved five minutes work or five hours. The fact that they told him 'a new line was required' may be factually incorrect, but it would not have reduced his bill by one penny.
He has suffered no financial loss, so a complaint to BT would be pointless, as there is no remedy they can offer.

DrScotsman

macman wrote: »

1) the OP does not know if there was a dial tone on the existing line. If there was, then a free connection should have applied.

Oh, well that's good. He did know there was a dial tone. See post #6.

If there wasn't, then BT's T&C's make it quite clear that a charge will be applied, regardless of whether physical work is required on the line at the property or not. If you don't think that's reasonable, then use another provider.

T&Cs? When did he agree to them? He cannot agree to a contract term he hasn't been able to and told to read (Unfair Contract regulations), and I assume he wasn't told them on the phone. Therefore they are meaningless unless they were obviously implied terms (e.g. don't pour water on your BT outlet).

Rest of your post assumes no dial tone and is irrelevant.

macman

He did not know there was a dial tone. The OR engineer informed him there was one, so it obviously never occurred to him to plug in a phone beforehand and check this for himself. Which is surprising, because since he was told there was no BT line in the house at all, he would have seen a BT master socket on the wall when he moved in and wondered why?
We simply don't know if there was a dial tone or not, and if there was, whether it was a soft tone or a normal one.
He agreed the terms when he made a verbal contract with BT. I regularly install software with reading the entire EULA, does that mean I am not bound by those terms?

DrScotsman

macman wrote: »

He did not know there was a dial tone. The OR engineer informed him there was one, so it obviously never occurred to him to plug in a phone beforehand and check this for himself. Which is surprising, because since he was told there was no BT line in the house at all, he would have seen a BT master socket on the wall when he moved in and wondered why?

"Prior to the move, rang up to make sure the phone line would be connected..."

I agree one should try to check for a BT socket when inspecting a house before sale/tenancy, but it's not a very high priority thing and as such not very memorable.

We simply don't know if there was a dial tone or not, and if there was, whether it was a soft tone or a normal one.

He didn't know before hand, but we now know there was a dial tone, you just said

He agreed the terms when he made a verbal contract with BT

Excuse me for my childish bold, but you can't agree to something you don't know, unless it's an obviously implied term. This is not.

I regularly install software with reading the entire EULA, does that mean I am not bound by those terms?

There was a recent thread on that specific topic. I think nowadays most EULA terms, never go anywhere near being tested in a court (because they can usually be ignored with no repercussions), so it's a moot point. Some have in the US however, terms restricting the resale of software are often void. Example here, although it did get settled.

The term(s) you're claiming the OP unknowingly agreed to are far more serious if it allows BT to get £120 for breaching contract. Also "everyone else does it, so it must be legal" isn't really a sensible argument.

macman

I didn't suggest he should have looked for a socket before buying. But I think he might have done so between moving in and OR turning up.
All we know is that the OR engineer told him there was a dial tone. But then the OR engineer also told him there would be no charge, so he doesn't come across as a very reliable witness, does he?
Breach of contract (if it did occur) on it's own is irrelevant, unless material loss occurs. And I cannot see any way in which the OP has suffered any material loss unless it can be proven that there was already a full dial tone on that line that would have entitled him to a free connection.

DrScotsman

macman wrote: »

I didn't suggest he should have looked for a socket before buying. But I think he might have done so between moving in and OR turning up.

Depends how long the house was empty for really.

All we know is that the OR engineer told him there was a dial tone. But then the OR engineer also told him there would be no charge, so he doesn't come across as a very reliable witness, does he?

I don't think the engineer not being knowledgeable on BT's practice with regards to fees makes him an unreliable witness with respect to saying there's a dial tone.

Breach of contract (if it did occur) on it's own is irrelevant, unless material loss occurs. And I cannot see any way in which the OP has suffered any material loss unless it can be proven that there was already a full dial tone on that line that would have entitled him to a free connection.

You're assuming the OP would have still agreed to the contract (with the £120 fee) if he and BT had known beforehand there was a line with a dial tone. Can you (or BT) prove that?

EDIT: Also, if BT couldn't disprove that they would give him free connection, the fact their website says the OP would "likely" receive free connection would work against them.