Warning! BT increase charges for non direct debit payers

littleboo

wantmemoney wrote: »

here's the piece
I believe it clearly shows if you enter into a direct debit agreement with BT you effectively loose your ability to despute a reasonably questionable bill.

Need to keep this in perspective. In this article from 2004, the person concerned had calls on their line made by equipment that they had connected to that line. The calls were made without their knowledge yes, but the bill was correct.

wantmemoney

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4397308.stm
When Ms Taylor, and the other 80,000 complained to BT, they were told to go to the industry regulators.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/article488764.ece
VICTIMS of internet phone scams facing large bills are now finding that their telephone companies are recouping the money by increasing their direct debits without their approval.

littleboo wrote:

Need to keep this in perspective. In this article from 2004, the person concerned had calls on their line made by equipment that they had connected to that line. The calls were made without their knowledge yes, but the bill was correct.

yes quite
@littleboo
Who decided the bills were correct?
When was it decided the bills were correct?
In the particular case I am quoting the regulators claimed they could not reach a decision because of "lack of evidence".

so as I was saying
I believe it clearly shows if you enter into a direct debit agreement with BT you effectively loose your ability to despute a reasonably questionable bill.

littleboo

Get real. These are people who had rogue diallers on their PC's, probably visited dodgy web sites without sufficient protection. I dont think there is any real suggestion that the calls weren't made, the issues is that they dont want to pay the bill.

bristolleedsfan

littleboo wrote: »

Get real. These are people who had rogue diallers on their PC's, probably visited dodgy web sites without sufficient protection. I dont think there is any real suggestion that the calls weren't made, the issues is that they dont want to pay the bill.

i know some time back my daughter ( then 11) ran up a big phone bill at her mothers house by calling and buying credits for haboo hotel which her mother wasnt aware of, often the bill payer is unaware of y a bill is so large so they complain to BT etc.

totally agree with u regarding rogue diallers/insufficient protection/visiting dodgy sites :T

bristolleedsfan

wantmemoney wrote: »

no but they do bill for fraudulent non-requested/non-existant services.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4397308.stm

any company that is willing to bill for convicted criminals is not a fit company to operate a direct debit agreement.

yes the guy in the BBC program was convicted for a multimillion euro telecom fraud in Germany.

was it BTs fault that people had installed rogue diallers on their pcs

BritBrat

I have never had a rogue dialler in 10 years on the net, when I used dialup I always dialed in manualy and looked at the number, after some time you remember what it is.

Now I am on broadband I disable my modem in windows/system or you could just make sure no phone line is connected to it, I keep mine pluged in because I use the computer to send a FAX every now and then.

wantmemoney

littleboo wrote:

These are people who had rogue diallers on their PC's, probably visited dodgy web sites without sufficient protection.

bristolleedsfan wrote:

totally agree with u regarding rogue diallers/insufficient protection/visiting dodgy sites

The case I intentionally quoted didn't appear to have any connection to any website dodgy or other wise.
In fact in 2005 Icstis reported the UK company involved to Ofcom because they would not give them details relating to the "dodgy site".

Why do you two believe the "dodgy web site" theory? Where did you hear it?
Have either of you heard of "driveby diallers" ?
.............................................
@littleboo
Who decided the bills were correct?
When was it decided the bills were correct?
In the particular case I am quoting the regulators claimed they could not reach a decision because of "lack of evidence".
...............................

bristolleedsfan wrote:

was it BTs fault that people had installed rogue diallers on their pcs

If you are saying if a crook installs illegal software on a persons computer that represents a legal reason for BT to force that person to hand over money I would say
don't let BT anywhere near your bank account.

littleboo

wantmemoney wrote: »

The case I intentionally quoted didn't appear to have any connection to any website dodgy or other wise.
In fact in 2005 Icstis reported the UK company involved to Ofcom because they would not give them details relating to the "dodgy site".

Why do you two believe the "dodgy web site" theory? Where did you hear it?
Have either of you heard of "driveby diallers" ?
.............................................
@littleboo
Who decided the bills were correct?
When was it decided the bills were correct?
In the particular case I am quoting the regulators claimed they could not reach a decision because of "lack of evidence".
...............................

If you are saying if a crook installs illegal software on a persons computer that represents a legal reason for BT to force that person to hand over money I would say
don't let BT anywhere near your bank account.

What's it got to do with BT ? Absolutely nothing. They carried the calls, they have to pay the premium rate provider. They are entitled to bill.

If a dodgy plumber causes a leak in my property which racks up my metered water supply, have I got a case to not pay my water bill ? No.

These people were the victims of fraud, either by neglect or ignorance, either way, they cant blame their telecomms provider who is even reported as advising the customer that there was unusual account activity. It's like blaming the electricty board because you went out and left the light on.

Ths thread is about the BT DD charge and by referring to old rogue dialler news stories the inference is that if you pay by DD this sort of thing will happen to you. It's complete nonsense.

wantmemoney

littleboo you remind me of a number of BT staff I tried to dispute a bill with several years ago. I found them ill informed. They read from a prepared BT script that they stuck to rigurously.

Do you work for BT by any chance? Why don't you want to explain where you got the "dodgy website" theory from?

littleboo wrote:

Ths thread is about the BT DD charge and by referring to old rogue dialler news stories the inference is that if you pay by DD this sort of thing will happen to you. It's complete nonsense.

I am referring to that case because it puts forward a reasoned argument for not entering into a direct debit agreement with BT. I can hardly use a future case that hasn't happened.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4397308.stm
thousands of people attempted to dispute a bill
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/article488764.ece
BT decided to fifle their bank accounts dispite them attempting to dispute the bills.
I believe that shows a valid reason for not letting BT anywhere near your bank account.

ittleboo wrote:

What's it got to do with BT ? Absolutely nothing. They carried the calls, they have to pay the premium rate provider. They are entitled to bill.

Yes lets look at the "premium rate provider" BT had a billing arrangement with.
They were under Icstis investigation from 1st Jan 2004 onwards. That indicates BT had been recieving complaints concerning them in 2003. Infact if you look at previous Icstis "investigations" you will see that BT were billing for them in 2002.
The "premium rate provider" was using 3,500 known 09 premium rate numbers. BT recieved tens of thousands of identical complaints about the numbers mysteriously appearing on bills. Dispite this BT were still billing for the numbers in late 2004.

ittleboo wrote:

These people were the victims of fraud, either by neglect or ignorance, either way, they cant blame their telecomms provider who is even reported as advising the customer that there was unusual account activity.

yes and what part did BT play in it's multimillion pound sucess?

gt94sss2

wantmemoney wrote: »

Yes lets look at the "premium rate provider" BT had a billing arrangement with.
They were under Icstis investigation from 1st Jan 2004 onwards. That indicates BT had been recieving complaints concerning them in 2003. Infact if you look at previous Icstis "investigations" you will see that BT were billing for them in 2002.
The "premium rate provider" was using 3,500 known 09 premium rate numbers. BT recieved tens of thousands of identical complaints about the numbers mysteriously appearing on bills. Dispite this BT were still billing for the numbers in late 2004.

Erm.. you do realise that BT are legally obliged to put these calls through, if a customer calls them? They are not allowed to 'limit' what calls you dial unless the regulators (Ofcom/Icstis etc.) state this should be the case - regardless of the number of complaints they receive.

If someone (a customer) didn't want to dial 09 numbers at all, they are always free to choose to have these numbers barred on their own individual line (its a free option from BT and some other providers)

Regards
Sunil