BT and Ombudsman Service - Communications(OSC)

holdon

In September 2013 BT decided that they would delete my 'in box' resulting in the loss of 9 years work, research and evidence. At the time all of my emails were stored in the 'webmail' supplied by BT as part of my contract, also, at the same time the emails were deleted BT, changed from Yahoo to BT, an assurance appeared on the BT website that no email would be lost as a result of the changes, they were! this further demonstrated the 'breach of contract' and suggested that BT had also breached the Data Protection Act. I supplied the OSC with a copy of the 'drop down' menu from the BT website to confirm my allegation and statements.
I followed the BT complaints procedures to the letter, at the time it took some 40 minutes to get through to the 'help desk', the call log that BT were to subsequently supply to the OSC contained some 135 entries (including 27 failed call backs) and confirmed the loss with an in an entry in the call log dated 29/10/2013, the entry was in 'bold' script. I did not get a copy of the BT 'call log' until after the final decision from the OSC and was deprived of the opportunity to comment, when I did eventually get a copy there were a number of entries that were 'less than truthful', I complained about this to BT and decided to spend £10.00 with BT and get my own copy, when this arrived the 'questionable' entries had been deleted by BT and this was brought to the attention of the OSC who expressed disinterest, notwithstanding the clear attempt at 'misleading' the complaint investigation.
After trying to deal with the BT procedures which proved to be impossible due to poor customer service that accompanied maladministration, I complained to the OSC about the maladministration and poor customer service that I had experienced, all of which was evidenced by emails between BT and myself, email confirmation being sent after each telephone conversation, I understood this to be the correct procedure to follow, according to the Ofcom website.
Prior to submitting the complaint to the OSC I had various conversations with them to confirm that my complaint fell within their remit, I was assured that it was, events were later to prove that the maladministration and poor customer service at the OSC was far worse than that suffered at the hands of BT which later required that I enter a further complaint to the Independent Assessor who up-held my complaint about the maladministration and customer service but could not comment on the decision of the OSC which supported BT, in order to do this the OSC needed to ignore the evidence which they did by dishonouring agreements made during telephone conversations, again confirmed by email.
It is now most clear that, in my opinion, the OSC are 'passing off' and do no more than protect BT, the OSC are not equipped to deal with complaints of poor customer service and maladministration as their own is far worse than that shown by BT, all of which has taken 18 months.
The OSC are a private company and are there to 'regulate' the activities of BT and to otherwise confirm that BT are complying with their own rules on 'complaint procedures', sadly neither BT nor the OSC are compliant in any way. BT are the most complained about ISP in the land, I now know why and they will continue to be as long as the OSC are in office. Anybody with similar experiences ?.

JJ_Egan

This inbox was it a business service .

holdon

No domestic.

Jsm38

I have a case with the OSC at the moment - they just sent me a response that is so shocking! I replied listing how many times they sided with Vodafone and how many with myself and it was 19/2 in Vodafones favour. Vodafone are in breach of their own Terms and Conditions and the Ombudsman condones them! I agree with everything u say about OSC - they are worse than the call centres. Totally biased! Not fit for purpose. I won't let it go though and intend to take things further. Telecoms companies have got worse at dealing with problems because they know the Ombudsman will back them to the hilt regardless - they believe everything they are told by The telecoms companies who clearly delete anything they don't want to put in their evidence. All onus is on the customer and then OSC make excuses for them! It is clear whose pocket they rest in. Shocking is putting it mildly.

holdon

I wish you lots of luck with OSC, they are a power all on their own and have a total disregard to complainants. When you complain to the Independent Assessor he can only review the OSC in maladministration terms he cannot review the outcome or methodology, maybe because there is none!.
The problems with the OSC will only get worse if we allow it, they must be stopped, telecom and ISP organisations must be taken to task by 'regulators' who regulate not condone bad service and pure maladministration/lies and misdirection or the reviewing process as it stands today.

littleboo

Not defending the loss of your mail, but an inbox is never the place for the long term storage of important data, and 9 years is a very long time.

holdon

Thanks but it becomes a 'custom and use' issue and BT do assure users that email storage is 'unlimited'.

Jsm38

I agree - I have been looking up Ofcoms recommendations to companies and for sure Vodafone does not follow recommendations. The companies don't need to when they have the OSC backing their maladministration and abusing their customers. I am awaiting a final OSC resolution as they completely got the wrong end of the stick but from what I saw on their first communication I know not to hope for much. It was appalling. No 'reasonableness' and certainly no 'fairness' and the condoning of the bad behaviour. I will await the final outcome and get back but I do think there has to be a pressure group to get OSC to be 'fit for purpose' - they are paid for by the companies we have to complain about. They are not going to bite the 'hands' that feed them!

holdon

OSC might be paid for by the companies but we pay the companies. It is most clear that for any review of a companies 'maladministration' the company must at all times be honest, truthful and transparent, I can only speak of BT but from what I hear many companies follow the same 'route'. If membership of any independent resolution scheme is to be effective it must be on the basis of the foregoing, in the event that the company is found to 'untruthful or in any way dishonest' then their right to be a member of the scheme needs to withdrawn and substantial penalties imposed, then the company/contributor to the scheme will be deemed as compliant, the resolution scheme administrators are the only people we as consumers rely on to regulate the maladministration and penalise those responsible, in the case of the OSC honesty and truth do not exist and the Independent Assessor found their administration 'wanting', in other words the maladministration of the OSC was worse than that of BT, there was/is no chance of a fair hearing of this complaint.
I hope that my complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman(PHSO) will at least give me a limited platform to express my concerns, I will have to wait and see, but I urge every complainant to pass on their views to their MP for onward transmission to the PHSO, this is the only way we, as consumers, can hope to have a voice. The system works in other industries why does it fail in the one under discussion, the weak link is clearly the OSC.. from what I understand the Ombudsman Service is spreading their wings into other consumer markets, heaven help us all because it seems that we as individuals are unable to be heard.

iproposterous

I have spent a whole heap of time complaining to BT and then the OSC without any refund of my Line Rental Saver. The The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 clearly state that contracts such as Line Rental Saver have to be issued in durable form (i.e. on paper) not via links to a website.

I provided evidence to the OSC that BT did not prove that they issued me a contract that complied with the above Regulations and yet the OSC said that it was not within their remit to look at that issue. It clearly states in the OSC's Terms of Reference about what they should consider and because of what they said to me, I consider that to be Passing Off.

I have now had to take my complaint to Ofcom so we will see what they have to say about the OSC.

Rubidium

holdon wrote: »

In September 2013 BT decided that they would delete my 'in box' resulting in the loss of 9 years work, research and evidence. At the time all of my emails were stored in the 'webmail' supplied by BT as part of my contract, also, at the same time the emails were deleted BT, changed from Yahoo to BT,.................................................................................

I do not believe that you have a valid claim. If this information was important to you then the onus was on you to store it yourself in more than one place e.g. on backup devices of your own and to upload it to cloud storage.