Dispute with BT

jmenzies

Some background

- Switched to BT, they missed the agreed switch date, I was without a phone for a week and internet for 3 weeks (we live in a blackspot so we had no mobile reception either).

- Once the internet started, we were getting significantly below the minimum speed and connection kept dropping (average speed was just 1Mbps).

- They lost my order and in the process lost my original phone number, so my phone number had to change.

Hard to show loss for any of the above, although I did have to take a half day off work to spend over 4 hours on the phone to try to sort the mess out (I kept a diary of calls, call length ect).

Anyway, I complained about the speed on more than one occasion, they said they had re-set the line and it should improve over the next few weeks. So I waited, I then went away for 3 weeks, on my return the internet was still a problem. I called up again, and they said they would re-set the line again and that my previous issue was on their system as resolved (which means I cannot get credit for loss of service for any period after the first call to the latest call).

I had enough of these long calls, them breaching virtually every aspect of our contract so I called Sky (who i had previously with no problems) and initiated a switch.

BT's cancellation team (the rudest most aggressive people you can imagine) - insisted I could not get out of my 18 month contract and the fees would be in excess of £350. They hadn't had a reasonable opportunity to rectify the line problem so I couldn't cancel. They wouldn't listen to me on the phone and kept talking over me (I'm pretty sharp on calls like that so for me to keep being talked over just goes to show how aggressive they were).

I'm obviously not going to pay the £350. My view is (and let me know if you disagree) that their continued failing over the three months of my contract, and the significant amount of call time I had to rectify issues which remain unsolved is beyond sufficient to terminate the contract and they don't have any right to continue to try to resolve the issues - a line has to be drawn somewhere and I need to have reliable broadband services.

My questions to you are:

1) Any reason why you think I don't have the right to cancel in these circumstances?

2) What is the best way to head off the £350? I have taken small claims court action against airlines before, and have no problem taking BT - but what do I claim for - the £350 + other costs - technically I haven't actually lost the £350 because I havent paid it - and can I claim for money I haven't yet paid out? I don't think I can go to the small claims court to ask for a debt to be invalidated? Any suggestions for other pro-active actions I could take?

3) Lastly, the only thing that concerns me is credit rating. I'm buying a house in a year's time - I need to make sure they don't do anything to screw up my credit rating.

Thanks all.

Browntoa

You have a contract with BT so they CAN insist on the money , if you don't pay the bill it WILL affect your credit rating

What speeds do you get before the switch ? Most suppliers use the same
BT open reach pair so it shouldn't make a difference. There is no minimum guaranteed speed for Internet so they are not in breach of their side of the deal , they are providing a service even though you are not happy with the speed

JJ_Egan

(3) Lastly, the only thing that concerns me is credit rating. I'm buying a house in a year's time - I need to make sure they don't do anything to screw up my credit rating.)

If you refuse to pay the legitimate bill then they will trash your credit record . You would need to pay and then try to claim back .

Browntoa

They Obviously didn't like the reply then

jmenzies

Browntoa wrote: »

You have a contract with BT so they CAN insist on the money , if you don't pay the bill it WILL affect your credit rating

What speeds do you get before the switch ? Most suppliers use the same
BT open reach pair so it shouldn't make a difference. There is no minimum guaranteed speed for Internet so they are not in breach of their side of the deal , they are providing a service even though you are not happy with the speed

BT won't use the fiber line at my property (speeds are too slow for them to give it the infinity brand) whereas Sky will.

The point is they are not providing the service that they are contracted to provide. I can't do basic things as a result. If I stopped paying, they would stop providing services (and rightly so) if they don't provide services as stated in the contract then surely I have a right to cancel.

JJ_Egan

Repeat if you break a lawful contract you will more than likely suffer .

jmenzies

JJ_Egan wrote: »

Repeat if you break a lawful contract you will more than likely suffer .

Have they not broken it already? At what point does a service become so bad you can break the contract?

JJ_Egan

Same answer and in my view you could have taken the matter further at the bare minimum by writing in ink a complaint letter .
.
(They hadn't had a reasonable opportunity to rectify the line problem .)

Really you need to decide if the risk of your credit file getting trashed is worthwhile .
No pay and the debt will be passed on and your credit rating trashed .

Buzby

Break what? They never guaranteed any minimum service level, so your 6th para is just bluster. Sky would use the same local loop, so unlikely to be any better. What you expected and what you got is one thing - expecting BT are contracturally bound and somehow in breech of an imagined term is one thing, but there is little point in thinking that they conspired to give you a carp service - they didn't. it's all that your local loop provides.

jmenzies

Buzby wrote: »

Break what? They never guaranteed any minimum service level, so your 6th para is just bluster. Sky would use the same local loop, so unlikely to be any better. What you expected and what you got is one thing - expecting BT are contracturally bound and somehow in breech of an imagined term is one thing, but there is little point in thinking that they conspired to give you a carp service - they didn't. it's all that your local loop provides.

I paid for a transcript of the first call, where he confirmed I would get a minimum of 19mb. The estimated speed in the documents they sent me said between 19mb and 28mb and I am getting just 1mb on average and the line keeps dropping, meaning I am not getting broadband at all for significant periods of time.

Sky would use the fibre line, BT won't use the fibre line as I stated above as the speeds are too slow for them to use the "infinity" brand so they will only offer me faster broadband at my property. Their system won't allow them to use the fiber line (i've been down that route). Openreach previously confirmed this when an engineer came out.

In any case, they have to supply a reasonable level of service. Aside from not supplying a reasonable broadband service (i.e. one I can actually use), they lost my phone number in the transfer (which certainly was a term of the contract) and have failed to return calls, respond to e-mails ect.

In response to the poster above, I wrote to them 8 weeks ago.

forgotmyname

Define reasonable level of service. I would think the BT handbook would state very very poor is a reasonable level of service.

As mentioned there is no minimum speed, If it connects then you have the service.
You think 1mb is bad. Try a 28k modem on a poor line

Bit confused on them using/not using the fibre line. Checked your router stats?