Can I claim anything from BT?

Woby_Tide

Steve_xx wrote: »

It is different. We all know it is different. Leaving your door open is gross negligence. Switching your pc on and not understanding that somebody out in the ether can hijack it is not always understood by everyone in the first instance.

But as old people like to remind us, you used to be able to leave your door open without fear of being 'burgled'

Steve_xx wrote: »

I understand absolutely what you say when you state that someone maybe ignorant regarding the security of their pc. Just because they are ignorant of the security issues should not automatically make them liable. We are all ignorant about everything until we are taught. If we don't realise that there's a problem in the first place then why should we be penalised for not knowing?

So are we to assume that when it was 'safe' to leave doors unlocked, insurers would pay out regardless for any losses during a burglary, because they are nice friendly companies, non profit making, out to help the vulnerable no doubt. Or when people suddenly realised that insurers wouldn't pay out they decided to stop being so 'grossly negligent' and started locking their doors instead after a few people got caught by the sharp end of the stick and had to then 'educate' others?

Steve_xx

Woby_Tide wrote: »

But as old people like to remind us, you used to be able to leave your door open without fear of being 'burgled'




So are we to assume that when it was 'safe' to leave doors unlocked, insurers would pay out regardless for any losses during a burglary, because they are nice friendly companies, non profit making, out to help the vulnerable no doubt. Or when people suddenly realised that insurers wouldn't pay out they decided to stop being so 'grossly negligent' and started locking their doors instead after a few people got caught by the sharp end of the stick and had to then 'educate' others?

Yes, that's what usually happens, ie a few get caught out then pay the price and subsequently educate the rest of us. Doesn't make theft right though!

normanmark

Think you're missing the point Steve. We're not justifying that the theft is right.

wantmemoney

timesup wrote:

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?

I'm not sure if there is a time limit for claims made using the small claims court but the courts have found in favour of the "customers" in the past.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20050319/ai_n13253109

BT faces huge refund claim over dialling scams
March 19, 2005

BT IS FACING a county court judgment in favour of a customer who is disputing the phone giant's refusal to pay refunds to thousands of people who have lost out in "rogue dialler" scams.
The Cambridgeshire-based customer is now trying to enforce the judgment against BT, which has been told to refund more than pounds 300 in phone charges and to pay costs.
The case follows a fraud last year in which computers were hijacked by rogue software. Every time customers then dialled into the internet, their calls were routed through a premium-rate number.
The frauds only came to light when customers received their phone bills, but BT has insisted the charges must be paid. Some people are now facing charges of several thousand pounds.

If the judgment is upheld, could force the company to change its policy and pay refunds to customers who have already settled their bills.
BT is investigating 80,000 complaints from customers who think they have been caught out by the scams, although it expects only 30 per cent of cases to turn out to be genuine frauds.

But BT spokesman Mike Jarvis insisted that the Cambridgeshire judgment would not set a precedent. "We didn't contest this case because we didn't receive the papers from the court. We will now need to go back to the courts in order to have the judgment set aside."
He added: "Our general policy is that people have to pay these bills - we sympathise with their situation and are as angry that it has happened as they are, but we don't retain most of this money and have a legal contract requiring us to pass it on."

The company typically takes around 3p of the pounds 1.50-a- minute charge on premium-rate numbers, though it has agreed to pay this cash to charity in cases of fraud, with a further 23p paid in VAT. BT then has to pass the remaining money on to the premium-rate number operators.
Kathryn Bell, of premium-rate telephone line regulator Icstis, said the watchdog was powerless to intervene in disputes over bills. "We can only suggest people try to negotiate with their phone companies."
Since last year, all premium-rate telephone operators have been required to register with Icstis before offering internet connection services. The watchdog has closed down several unregulated firms in an attempt to put a stop to the rogue dialler scams.

gt94sss2

wantmemoney wrote: »

lets not get personal idiot and make sure that's all you pinch.

You edited your post to call me an idiot ? Thats very impersonal.. not!

No! you are the one with the BT agenda. an agenda to protect BT from criticism.

my agenda is against a self regulating telecom market place where all consumer/criminal laws that should be protecting the public have been kicked into the long grass.

For what its worth, I don't work for BT.. and the telecoms market is regulated, much more than some other industries.

Sorry you seem to have had a bad experience with a Premium rate provider - I don't like those numbers either but you shouldn't misinform people about them - even if unintentionally.

Regards
Sunil

wantmemoney

where all consumer/criminal laws that should be protecting the public have been kicked into the long grass.

and the telecoms market is regulated, much more than some other industries.

for some reason your confusing two different issues.

The Telecoms Industry is regulated by the UK and EU regulators using the Communications Act 2003 and the equivalent EU communication Acts. These Acts govern the way the various companies do business with each other.
These Acts really do not concern the general public.

The market place where Premium Rate and International Audiotext services and retailed and billed are governed by existing consumer/criminal laws.

I am referring to BT issuing and insisting bills should be payed despite BT having reason to believe the bills are the result of fraud.

timesup

Looks like I started quite a storm - sorry. But on the plus side I've certainly learned a lot so Thank-you to everyone for their help. I will download the free BT software and perhaps go to the small claims court at some point.

smilingflyer

The man who comitted these crimes is called Morten Sondergaard

He is also called names such as
Morten Bernhardt Sondergaard as he married Anett Bernhardt Jensen

And was also once called Morten Bernhardt Sondergaard


This is one of his sites
http://www.meetup.com/members/4017404/



Here are some yahoo groups on him and his wife

http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/MortenSondergaard/

and

http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/gmeap/

He still engages in phone related activity and this parasite is peroud of ruining people's lives. The evil demon, is still around.
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/AnettBernhardtJensen/


The low life has also founded a website http://www.mortensondergaard.com/
So its bizarre our useless Iciss have done nothing about him.

smilingflyer

He is a parasite and a low life, he looks like Alf, in that alien 1980s US programme, or a frizzled turnip, his wife must look like the creaturefrom teh black lagoon