BT Call out charge???

bluesbro28

Hi guys I think im getting screwed but Im not sure so want to pick your brains. Here Goes

Iv`e recently been having internet problems and a crackly line, I live in a new build via the housing assosiation and the property is just under two years old. I rang my internet provider and they ran some tests and said that there was no problems with there service so to get BT to check the master socket. I rang BT and asked what they thought. Also to see if I would be able to get a engineer out free of charge and was told that I would only pay the call out if I had damaged the socket, so I got one to come and check it out.

The BT engineer turned up and informed us that he was a newbie (only his 3rd job) but he would see what he could do. Firstly he checked the face plate on the master socket for damage, which there wasn`t, he then changed it and ran some check............ still having problems so he then told us he was going to check the rest of the wiring in the flat. He said that he found a LOOP in our internall wiring and that he had fixed it, but we still had problems, so he said he was out of ideas and told us that we should contact BT again to request a broadbad engineer. He then left

We rang BT and eventually got put thru to a engineering manager, we explained our problem and he then informed us that he was shocked that the engineer had touched our internal wiring, because BT were only responsible upto and including the master socket. The internal wiring is the responsibility of the home owner so he had been working on things he wasn`t supposed to have been and that he could get into trouble if he had made mistakes. He told us he was going to inform the engineers boses and make sure that he knew this in the future. He also told us that due to the crackle on the line it is deffinatly a internal wiring problem and that we would have to get our landlord to call them out to fix it as it incurs a charge.

Well we have now recieved a bill from them demanding 130 call out charge. BT are saying that because he worked on our wiring that we are responsible for the charge. I don`t think we are as we did not call him out to do that work, he chose to do that and didn`t inform us that it would incur a charge. Even his boss has said he shouldn`t have touched it so how can we now be charged?? We were also told on the phone that we wouldn`t be charged if we hadn`t damaged anything, which we hadn`t. We don`t own the property, the housing assosiation do and we told the engineer this. He still went on with the work, without their permission.

All we wanted was our socket checked and yet BT carried out other works which they are now billing us for. Can they do this? Especially as the damn line is no better than the first time we called them so they havn`t fixed a damn thing!!! If I took my car for a free brake test at a garage and they then changed the clutch without telling me, or being asked to, then that would be wrong so I don`t see the difference here?

Any thoughts??

Joe

Mark_In_Hampshire

BT Openreach are responsible as far as, and including, the master socket. Testing should have involved disonnecting everything from it, to confirm whether the fault is external. If on doing that the fault went away, then, yes, it's an internal wiring issue.

In such a circumstance, the charges stand, and this isn't unreasonable - after all, the service is working perfectly, the fault is with the customer's wiring, and so the call out was unnecessary and could have been diagnosed by the user.

However the fault is not fixed. Something is very odd. Because if, after testing the master and replacing it, with any extensions diconnected, as you say, the crackling carried on, then clearly anyone could see that the fault is not with the disconnected internal wiring and is therefore likely to be external. And yet you're being told it's definitely "your fault" - I can't see, from the information you've given, how anyone could reach that conclusion with any certainty and it doesn't sound like the correct procedures were followed.

I'd dispute the bill, and throw the ball back to them, making clear that the fault is not fixed.

bluesbro28

That is what I am doing.

My issue is that EVEN if it was a internal wiring problem they should have stated about that when we asked about charges. We were only told that a charge would be added if there was damage done by us to the socket (which there was not), AND, the engineer changed the socket face so there may have been a problem. The fact that he moved onto the internal wiring was by his choice and we should not be chared for that since we were not told about the further charges and did not ask for that to be done. I don`t even think we would be able to authorize that anyway, since it is a housing assosiation property.

After all how do we now not know that the work he did on our internal wiring is not what is now causing the crackle?

macman

BT should have told you upon booking that the call out charge will apply if any work is done on the internal wiring, they usually repeat this mantra ad infinitum at the time of booking a call out.
How can he have caused the crackling on the line if it was already there before he arrived?
It seems bizzare that BT are sending out engineers who don't now seem to know the clear rules about what work is chargeable and what is not?
Have you done the simple self-test of plugging in a corded handset to the BT test socket behind the master socket split faceplate and dialing 17070, then option 2 (Quiet Line test)? If this still shows noise on the line, then it's not a fault on your internal wiring.

iniltous

BT wont ever send anyone out 'free of charge' to check anything, what they do is say if you have a problem and you are happy that the problem isnt on something you are responsible for, they will send someone out, on the understanding that if the problem is not present (right when tested) or the problem is with your own wiring/equipment, then a call out charge will be raised.
The £130 charge is for the inappropriate call out, not for working on your (or landlords) internal wiring, BT/OR can work on end users wiring and fix faults/bring it up to 'standard' if requested to by the end user, but you would actually get charged extra for that, £130 for the callout when the fault wasnt on BT network, and then an extra time related charge for fixing the problem on your wiring, so it looks as if although you didnt ask the OR guy to investigate/fix your wiring, you have not been charged for it anyway, your charge is because you reported a fault to BT/openreach and they didnt find a fault on what they are responsible for (the cable between the master socket and the exchange), if you are still getting a problem, you should plug an ordinary corded phone in the master socket test point, if the problem goes its not ( and never was ) BT/OR's problem but yours (or your landlords), if the problem remains it could be BT/OR or your ISP, but if you report your phone to BT as faulty, they only check it as a phone (telephony) and if the telephony is OK they charge you.

Mark_In_Hampshire

iniltous wrote: »

your charge is because you reported a fault to BT/openreach and they didnt find a fault on what they are responsible for

But that's not how it's meant to work, nor is that what the customer is told.

The charge stands if the fault is caused by the customer's own equipment.

The charge isn't "If we check and we don't find anything on our network, we'll charge". The two are not the same. Just because the fault wasn't conveniently found within two hours (or whatever) does not mean there isn't a fault.

This could then lead to a farcical situation in which the customer has a fault, an engineer attends, the customer is charged, and as in this situation then refuses to pay, quite understandably. The fault hasn't been fixed and everybody's time has been wasted.

Meanwhile the supplier - who is arguably in breach of contract to begin with thanks to the faulty line - then remains not only in breach of contract but also then falls into dispute with the customer.

iniltous

Mark_In_Hampshire wrote: »

But that's not how it's meant to work, nor is that what the customer is told.

The charge stands if the fault is caused by the customer's own equipment.

The charge isn't "If we check and we don't find anything on our network, we'll charge". The two are not the same. Just because the fault wasn't conveniently found within two hours (or whatever) does not mean there isn't a fault.

This could then lead to a farcical situation in which the customer has a fault, an engineer attends, the customer is charged, and as in this situation then refuses to pay, quite understandably. The fault hasn't been fixed and everybody's time has been wasted.

Meanwhile the supplier - who is arguably in breach of contract to begin with thanks to the faulty line - then remains not only in breach of contract but also then falls into dispute with the customer.

This right when tested, fault not found is a contentious issue, say a fault is reported, noise on the line when its raining, when the OR guy attends its dry and the line has no noise, charge or not charge, I dont think it should be charged, but it probably would be, or say end user reports no dialtone, gets told to check equipment, but insists the problem is with BT , gets an appointment and before OR turns up, decides to check his equipment as requested, unplugs his TV set top box, and dialtone returns, but doesnt call BT to cancel the visit..OR's 'clear' would be right when tested, but should a charge be raised ?? I think in that case I think should,
You would imagine, (I'm probably being naive) that if a RWT clear was used and the end user reports the same problem again, then the charge would be either cancelled, or cancelled when challenged.
Some people though do raise faults that are unlikely to be on BT/OR yet report it anyway and get charged for a visit, I know of one where an end user reported unable to call a relative in France, yet all other calls were fine, its almost impossible for that to be an OR problem, and as it turned out it was not a fault at all, they didnt forward their number (CLI), and the relative in france had the french equivilent of ACR, so an AVR (in french) was given...yet BT/OR did have the expense of a visit etc.
The biggest problem I see is that the OR person can leave without telling the end user charges will be raised and the first thing the end user knows about it is when a charge comes on the phone bill, but again OR would argue they dont charge the end user, they charge the CP, and its upto the CP if they advise the end user of the possibility of charges when the fault is reported, and not all CPs charge the same for a abortive visit, so the OR guy if asked 'how much is this going to cost' cannot say, for 2 reasons, its not the end user getting (directly) charged and he wont know what individual CP's charge...if this system is poor,(and it is) whats the alternative ?

Olokia

The charge is correct. They ask you on the phone to unplug everything including the extensions and plug the phone (and a different phone) into the test socket. It is not BT or Openreach's fault if you failed to do that.

The charge is not because he or she worked on your line.

OP, I think you should do the following first before taking it further with BT.

1) Unplug everything, including the filter
2) Unscrew the two screws on the main socket where it first comes into your house
3) Plug your phone without the filter into the test socket.
4) Listen for crackling

If there is crackling, then it is outside and you shouldn't have been charged. If there is no crackling then it is definitely your wiring.

As the engineer was working on your internal wiring (even if he shouldn't have been) then he probably did the above, worked out it was your internal wiring. To be sure though you should do it as well.

bluesbro28

Olokia wrote: »

The charge is correct. They ask you on the phone to unplug everything including the extensions and plug the phone (and a different phone) into the test socket. It is not BT or Openreach's fault if you failed to do that.

Firstly we did all the checks they asked of us before the engineer was booked as it is their proceedure. they are not allowed to book an engineer without saying these have been carried out.

Secondly, the engineer replaced the master socket, which was faulty, and this was ALL he was asked to do to fix the fault, as we had already been informed by a private engineer that this was probably the problem.

Thirdly, the engineer then went round our flat of his own accord, checking all the other sockets, and then appeared and told us he had fixed a problem, without asking us if we were wanting him to do so. He knew we were tenants as we had had a chat with him before. as such we are not allowed to authorise work on internal wiring, as this needs to be arranged by our landlord (which our landlord is now trying to arrange as our problem is still there).

My wife has spoken to managers at BT today and yesterday, they are now trying to tell us that WE own that master socket and that is what they are charging for. Apparently as soon as the phone line is installed, the socket becomes our property, and the manager questioned, where, by law i am not allowed to touch it. Also i informed him of this link:

https://www2.bt.com/static/i/microsite/help_and_tips/faults/faq/faults_faq2.html#faq5

which clearly states that no charge would be made unless there is something i can fix myself...apparently the manager can't follow a link and could not view this website. the manager also claims my call is not available to listen to prove that i was not informed of the charges. My wife specifically asked if there were to be a charge, as we do not have 130 quid laying about, and was informed that a charge would only be made if WE had damaged BTs socket or there was no reason for the call out. A faulty socket, is not damage by is and the fact he changed it means there was a reason for the call. faulty bt equipment is covered under their own wear and tear policy. So now they are trying to deny the equipment is even theirs.

Funny how watchdog have done a program about them having TRC spotters randomly putting charges onto peoples accounts, and engineers being given 'targets' as to how many charges they put on peoples bills in a month.

BT won't even send us a deadlock letter so we can go to the communications ombudsman or OFFCOM to get this investigated as to who is liable.

iniltous

What is the 'fault' you have/had ?...noisy line, no dialtone, calls cutting off ??, if you only ever had a problem with your broadband then what did you say was the problem to your telephony provider ?.
Whoever you talked to in BT is talking nonsense to suggest you own the master socket, but is is where BT/OR responsibility ends and yours starts, the only time you should be charged for changing a faulty master socket is if it was damaged by you, ( dog chewing it, spilling liquid into it, knocking off the wall with a hoover, that sort of thing)
If the master was faulty and changed but the 'fault' remains then either the master wasnt faulty at all, or you had two faults.
If the engineer found a 'loop' fault on the internal wiring and this was conected to the master then that would have caused a fault on the line, but that wiring would be disconnected when you plug a phone into the master socket test point and you said you did these checks.
If the line is still faulty, and the fault is present when you plug a phone into the test socket, you need to report the line faulty again and tell your provider that the line was never repaired,
As I said in another post, you have not been charged because the engineer looked at or touched the internal wiring, its because in OR's opinion you reported a fault when the fault wasnt with OR network and you caused an unneccesary vist ( their opinion), if they are wrong, you need to challenge them, try emailing the CEO I.livingstone @bt.com

bluesbro28

the fault we originally reported was losing half our internet speed and having a crackly line through the main socket. once the engineer had changed the socket there was no longer a fault on the socket... he should have stopped here and i would not have been charged for the callout if he had.