Can I claim anything from BT?

timesup

A few years back BT rang me to ask whether i had made phone calls to Tuvalu (apparently some island in the Pacific?) I said not at all.
They said they were ringing to check as it would seem some-one had used our dial up connection through our computer.
Although they picked up this discrepancy, and it wasn't our calling, I was still made to pay it back (approx £300 ).
I was told to get in touch with ICSTIS which I did + they said it was my fault for not being protected.
I have since had my BT line barred from premium rate calls and I have protected my PC, but this still bugs me to this day, and I've still kept all the paperwork just in case I could claim anything back......
Can anybody out there help at all?

normanmark

Claim back what? ICSTIS have said the fault lies with yourself for not being protected. So i'm unsure when a regulatory group has said the fault is with you, (judging from the time thats been elapsed that you've accepted responsibility) why you're seeing if you can claim anything from BT?

Not being funny, just confused why you're looking for compensation for something which isnt BT's fault.

Steve_xx

normanmark wrote: »

Claim back what? ICSTIS have said the fault lies with yourself for not being protected. So i'm unsure when a regulatory group has said the fault is with you, (judging from the time thats been elapsed that you've accepted responsibility) why you're seeing if you can claim anything from BT?

Not being funny, just confused why you're looking for compensation for something which isnt BT's fault.

The fault is not with the original poster. I'm sure the poster did not openly invite a rogue dialler onto his/her pc that was going to sting to the tune of £300. Had somebody entered the posters home and stolen £300 then the police would have been involved. This is exactly the same sort of thing, though it is done electronically. If someone hacks into your online bank account and takes your cash from it, you'll rightly expect your bank to cough up.

Telecoms companies pay each other for delivery and forwarding of calls. It seems to me that it is not unreasonable that whoever carried and delivered the call could be denied their payment when it is proved that a call made was illegitimate.

BritBrat

Take my advice, disable the modem in device manager if you are on broadband and only activate when you want to use the modem for FAX or keep a dialup account active or just make sure no phone is connected to the modem.

When I was on dialup I used to dial it manually and soon got to know the number and looked every time before it dialed.

Steve_xx

It wasn't BT's fault for sure. But, BT were well aware of these scams and they could have put in place a bar to Tuvalu as it was a well known scam at the time. In the USA I believe their telco's automatically bar calls to certain latin american countries. So it can be done, though I admit it's fiddly.

BT could also be more sympathietic to their customers who have been duped in this way,

normanmark

Steve_xx wrote: »

The fault is not with the original poster. I'm sure the poster did not openly invite a rogue dialler onto his/her pc that was going to sting to the tune of £300. Had somebody entered the posters home and stolen £300 then the police would have been involved. This is exactly the same sort of thing, though it is done electronically. If someone hacks into your online bank account and takes your cash from it, you'll rightly expect your bank to cough up.

Is there any documentary evidence that the OP's PC was hacked? Rogue diallers can easily be installed from visiting !!!!!!/warez sites. Like i said theres no evidence provided from the OP that his PC was the victim of an attack, until he can prove that then i dont see how BT can be held responsible.

Steve_xx wrote: »

Telecoms companies pay each other for delivery and forwarding of calls. It seems to me that it is not unreasonable that whoever carried and delivered the call could be denied their payment when it is proved that a call made was illegitimate.

Well thats what the OP should of done originally, proven that they did not make the calls.

Whilst i'm all for consumer support i dont see how companies can take responsibility for users ignorance to protecting their own PC's from stuff like this. Consumers need to take more responsibility these days.

wantmemoney

BT's flimsy excuse only washes with the first few revenue sharing bills.

If BT had stopped billing the Tuvalu numbers once they realised the numbers were being used to commit fraud the revenue sharing fraud would not have succeeded.

Eireland banned biiling the Tuvalu numbers why didn't the UK? Why did our government turn a blind eye to what was going on.
http://newsweaver.co.uk/noc/e_article000479090.cfm?x=b11,0,w

Parliamentary Dinner – 18 October 2005
[FONT=verdana,arial] [/FONT][FONT=verdana,arial]A dinner hosted by Alun Michael MP, minister of State for Industry & the Regions, and Sir Peter North of ICSTIS. The invitees were a select band and included NOC, City of London Police, Vodafone, BT and others and was declared to operate under ‘Chatham Rules’ hence nothing said at the meeting could be quoted but an open exchange of views was ensured.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial]It was an encouraging session with widespread support for a healthy, valuable and responsible PRS Industry but managed in a collaborative fashion with a light regulatory hand.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial]“From an NOC perspective I was greatly encouraged to see us moving in this direction at long last and I am confident that we will see continuing change in the way PRS is regulated to the benefit of us all and including ICSTIS,” said Roy Ellyatt.[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,arial][/FONT]

Steve_xx

normanmark wrote: »

Is there any documentary evidence that the OP's PC was hacked? Rogue diallers can easily be installed from visiting !!!!!!/warez sites. Like i said theres no evidence provided from the OP that his PC was the victim of an attack, until he can prove that then i dont see how BT can be held responsible.



Well thats what the OP should of done originally, proven that they did not make the calls.

Whilst i'm all for consumer support i dont see how companies can take responsibility for users ignorance to protecting their own PC's from stuff like this. Consumers need to take more responsibility these days.

BT cannot be held responsible for calls we choose to make via its network. But if a hacker takes control of your exchange line then BT must play some part in arresting that if it can.

If I go into the street and I open one of BT's cabinets and using a Krone tool I affix a pair of wires at random to somebodys exchange line and I make a call to Tuvalu, should the renter of that exchange line have to foot the bill for it? If not, how can the renter of that exchange line prove that they did not initiate the call?

normanmark

Steve_xx wrote: »

But if a hacker takes control of your exchange line then BT must play some part in arresting that if it can.

You're missing my point steve, i totally agree with the above. But the OP has NOT provided BT with any evidence to suggest that they've been hacked. The worst possible thing they did was let the case lie, as this indicates that the party is accepting responsiblity for it. The fact that ICSTIS and declared responsibility to the OP pretty much sums up that nothing can be claimed back.

Steve_xx

normanmark wrote: »

You're missing my point steve, i totally agree with the above. But the OP has NOT provided BT with any evidence to suggest that they've been hacked. The worst possible thing they did was let the case lie, as this indicates that the party is accepting responsiblity for it. The fact that ICSTIS and declared responsibility to the OP pretty much sums up that nothing can be claimed back.

Yes, but my point is that if I opened a street cabinet and did what I said, then the renter of that exchange line would have no proof that they didn't initiate the call and they would, unfairly, have to foot they bill. Would they not?

How could the poster possibly proffer evidence that his pc had been infiltrated by rogues? OFCOM & ICSTIS are a joke and they need to sharpen their act up.

In reality, what has taken place is actually theft, which is a criminal offence.

normanmark

Steve_xx wrote: »

In reality, what has taken place is actually theft, which is a criminal offence.

Unless you have the whole bunch of facts there in front of you Steve then i wouldnt be so quick to call.

For all you know the OP could have agreed to a dialler system being placed on there for goods & services over the internet (not saying this is definite but its still an open possibility).