Dodgy B.t.

letsbehonest

I think this is worth a real vent.
BT seem to have a new scam. BT are not my call provider they only supply my phone line for which I pay line rental only. Because of this I am used to the bill being very low £9.35 + vat therefor when the bill drops through the letter box I usually have a quick look then shred it, this time I examined it in more detail and found I had been charged £1.48 for Caller display, I do not have this facility and have never asked for it.
I then called BT customer services a nice lady with an Indian Acccent answered from..... India. She informed me that the facility was free provided I make two calls a month on the bt network otherwise I am charged £1.48 per month. with some pushing I discovered that this charge has been made since January this year with some more pushing I got the £7.50 refunded. Be aware read your bill don't let them rob you after all this is theft as it was taken from my bank account via D/Debit without my consent.

Butlers1982

them rob you after all this is theft as it was taken from my bank account via D/Debit without my consent.

No it is not theft. You said that you only have a quick look at your bills.
From what you say, they have been putting it on your previous bills so its not theft- Its your choice not to read your bills fully.
Once you questioned it they refunded you.
Which im sure if you had done in the first place they would have done anyway.

There is no theft involved

dangeroussports

The original poster is right.

Its ROBBERY / BURGLARY.

letsbehonest

Butlers 1982
It makes no difference if I do or do not choose to read my bills, BT charged me for a product I did not choose to have, they did not ask me or inform me of their intention, I didn't get a chance to tick any opt out or not wanted box it was just foisted upon me and money was taken out of my account on the Direct debit scheme.. "and that is theft"... END OF!

dangeroussports

THEFT :
Dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with intention of permanently depriving them of it.



Thats what I read in the google thingy.

They must of commited all the main points as above. I dont think you have the dishonesty bit.

If you do then you can have them arrested. You could have BT charged with Theft, theft act 1968. You would have to appear before a magistrates court BUT the crown prosecution would probably tell you to 'jog on'. Since the police would have no option but to 'provide an efficient service to their customers'....

grannybroon

I do not agree with add ons not asked for but my DH scrutines our BT bill every time it arrives - and picks me up for big calls outwith the after 6.00 pm window! Suitable chastised but there was always a reason!! You really do have to check every bill you receive from whoever to make sure it tallies with what you think it should be.

[You do really have to look carefully at any bill you get as mistakes etc happen. We feel we are paying slighlty over the odds for house and contents insurance but we are finished with mortgage next year so decided this year just to pay it but next year will definitely shop around as know will get better deal. Having been with same company for 35 years don't want to rock the boat now.] A slight diversion.

As we don't have caller display phone we can't ever be charged for that one! We did get our fingers burnt now and again with the 147 dial back - we don't do because know there is a charge but family members here for a visit did it! Also discovered ex cleaning lady doing long phone calls from our line when we trusted her to be here cleaning. Suffice to say ex -more reasons than the phone bill. Only doing an hour's cleaning but being paid for 3 hours. Another story or thread methinks! Won't go down that one!

GB

barvid

dangeroussports wrote: »

The original poster is right.

Its ROBBERY / BURGLARY.

It is neither robbery nor burglary, and nor is it theft. NB - they do all mean different things, so suggest that you don't use legal terms like this unless you actually understand them.

barvid

Okay, last post maybe a little harsh, but I'm a lawyer and it does wind me up when people band terms like "theft" about unnecessarily.

dangeroussports was right - there are five constituent elements of theft which are provided for in the 1968 Theft Act. To be guilty of theft, a person (or company) must dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving that other person of it.

In this instance, BT has clearly appropriated (i.e. taken) property (which can be money) which belongs to another person (the OP) with the intention of permanently depriving the other person of it. Have they done it dishonestly? That would be what you'd need to prove. The fact that it's on the bill which they send you would tend to imply otherwise.

The exact definition of each of these constituent parts is incredibly complicated and results from nearly forty years of interpretation by the courts, and other legislation, but this should be enough to give you a general picture of what theft actually is.

To put my other comments in context, robbery is essentially theft coupled with force or the threat of force - e.g. mugging someone on the street. Burglary is an offence coupled with trespass - e.g. breaking into a building to steal something. Note that burglary doesn't have to include theft - if you trespass and commit GBH or rape or criminal damage etc. then you can be guilty of burglary even though you've stolen nothing.

Hope this helps...

dangeroussports

It could be assault too and if medicine was required then ABH.

If the OP suffered a heart attack then it would of been ABH. You dont need somone to give you a punch or kick to inflict assault or ABH, or even GBH.

Take a domestic fight for instance mental cruelty. If the 'victim' of the mental cruelty, bullying or hurt suffers depression, panic attacks then there is a charge of assault / abh. Especially if medical treatment was required including councilling.


ALso, IF the OP kept paying the bill, calling BT and got very stressed which lead to a heart attack then BT could be charged with MANSLAUGHTER.

If BT intended on sending dodgey bills out & they knew the 'victim' had a dodgey heart which may give up at any moment through these bills then and he died of his heart attack then BT can be charged with MURDER!


SO,

BT could be thieves, murderers. BT could be charged with Assault, theft, manslaughter.

Chances are though.........if the OP tried to get BT charged with theft then the chances are the prosecution service would stick two fingers up at the OP.

wantmemoney

barvid wrote:

The fact that it's on the bill which they send you would tend to imply otherwise.

A burglar could send me a letter and tell me they have taken my property from my house.
That doesn't "imply" they haven't committed burglary/theft.

Also not reading a bill is not the same as giving BT expressed permission to take money from your bank account.

dangeroussports

What if you had budgeted to the penny with your bank account and then BT took the additional £1.48, causing a direct debit to bounce. Or causing a very important cheque to bounce, i.e a wedding cake cheque payment. Causing a alot of embarrasment at the wedding and possibly having the wedding called off?

Thats BT for you. Robbers