BT customer? Check if up to £9/mth calls package has been added to your bill - MSE News

mjm3346

Colin_Maybe wrote: »

Nonsense, they can only base it on the previous 12 months not some fanciful Nostradamus based future guess. How do even you know what you'll need over the next 12 months?

The charge could go to £9 a month but it's a rolling monthly add-on that can be removed anytime by a simple phone call (that won't cost anything).

They don't have to base it on the last 12 months they could use the figures over the last 8 years (or the last 13 months or even the last 9 months) which would consistently show usage well under their £2.50 monthly charge and only 3 pence over it for the last 12 months because of one £9 call and the circumstances are such that I know they will not be repeated.

So instead of their "Nostradamus" guesstimate I have a much more likely forecast based on long term usage which shows their package will consistently cost me more money than calls would do - if I want to opt-in to a package to lose money that should be up to me and there should be no need for anyone to opt-out if they don't want it.

This is fairly typical of their parasitic business model like when they started to charge for previous free services they opted people in who then had to contact then to opt out - and they tried to make it appear that they were doing something for the consumer when they stopped charging for caller display when all they were doing at the time was complying with new regulations.

[Deleted User]

mjm3346 wrote: »

They don't have to base it on the last 12 months they could use the figures over the last 8 years (or the last 13 months or even the last 9 months) which would consistently show usage well under their £2.50 monthly charge and only 3 pence over it for the last 12 months because of one £9 call and the circumstances are such that I know they will not be repeated.

So instead of their "Nostradamus" guesstimate I have a much more likely forecast based on long term usage which shows their package will consistently cost me more money than calls would do - if I want to opt-in to a package to lose money that should be up to me and there should be no need for anyone to opt-out if they don't want it.

This is fairly typical of their parasitic business model like when they started to charge for previous free services they opted people in who then had to contact then to opt out - and they tried to make it appear that they were doing something for the consumer when they stopped charging for caller display when all they were doing at the time was complying with new regulations.

So do you think instead of picking 12 months (a natural and logical choice) they should tailor how long back they go for each individual customer (circa 10 million contracts)? Or every account should be based on your timescales purely because it suits you?

If they made it an opt in service how many people do you think would lose out through not using it, therefore making your "parasitic business model" even more money?

...and the circumstances are such that I know they will not be repeated.

That's the problem with life, you really don't know that.

mjm3346

Colin_Maybe wrote: »

So do you think instead of picking 12 months (a natural and logical choice) they should tailor how long back they go for each individual customer (circa 10 million contracts)? Or every account should be based on your timescales purely because it suits you?

If they made it an opt in service how many people do you think would lose out through not using it, therefore making your "parasitic business model" even more money?

What makes 12 months "a natural and logical choice", why not use 6 months so the most recent and relevant calling data is used or simply trend it across 12 months so most recent months will make the biggest difference (an easy thing to do with electronic data as would be using any timescale they wanted and the number of contracts makes no difference).

The parasitic approach will possibly have a very small short term loss to them but would lead to long term gains as, apart from the potential of people becoming accustomed to making more landline calls, BT move the price up to the standard one and through inertia people don't bother to opt out which is something they would never need to do without the parasitical approach in the first place - if they had gone with opt-in the people who took the service are likely to be the ones who would also opt-out when it started to cost them money which is clearly what BT don't want to happen.

If their concern was with the customer then instead of charging a monthly fee all they would need to do is cap the cost of calls at £2.50 a month, so that everyone pays for calls made up to that amount and never anymore.

and the circumstances are such that I know they will not be repeated.

"That's the problem with life, you really don't know that"

Unless the resurrection of the dead becomes a reality I do know the circumstances are such that they will not be repeated - and I am both better placed than BT to estimate my call volume going forwards and just as importantly to control it.

Clearly their claims as to who they are trying to impose this on are a nonsense

We've only added it on to accounts where they have high call levels.

£2.53 is not a high call level* and they have had to drop their monthly price to £2.50 a month to be able to claim any saving to me - if this is altruistically for the benefit of customers why isn't everybody being offered/opted-in to the service for £2.50 a month including those who currently pay £9 a month instead of £2.50 and therefore appear to be being ripped off to the tune of nearly £80 a year.

*Really to be called a "high call level" the cost of calls should be at least equal to the standard £9 monthly charge for the "anytime" call package.

worldtraveller

Am I missing something here! People are actually happy to have a company just change their contract and make it the customer's requirement to then opt-out! :rotfl:

I'm not so sure about BT Home, but, BT Business are, by far, the worst company I've ever come across in my 40+ years in business, for their lousy, incompetent, customer service & billing & sales, period. When there is a problem there is often absolutely no connect, whatsoever, between their departments, and the customer has to speak with numerous people, in numerous departments, to get anything near a resolution. They are incapable of sorting things out between themselves! Therefore, I doubt that their Home service is any better!

Their total arrogance, largely due to their size, is mind blowing! When there is an issue with your account it can never be resolved, unless any resolution fits 100% into their systems, not what's sensible and/or what the customer wants.

They are simply terrible in the extreme!

[Deleted User]

worldtraveller wrote: »

Am I missing something here! People are actually happy to have a company just change their contract and make it the customer's requirement to then opt-out! :rotfl:

You mean are people happy to save money? Yes, I'd suspect so :rotfl: indeed.

worldtraveller

Colin_Maybe wrote: »

You mean are people happy to save money? Yes, I'd suspect so :rotfl: indeed.

Well, IMHO, not when I'm dictated to do what big business want me to do, without any reference to me.

However, good luck if you do! I personally don't care, one iota. I'd rather be free to do what I want to do, rather than be subservient to the likes of BT and their incompetent business going forward long term.

Gooner999

I agree totally with World Traveller, I don't want ANY business opting me into anything, I don't care if THEY say they will save me money because 100% of the time this is unlikely.
They don't do these offers for the benefit of customers and I am not just having a go at BT - Sky and Talk Talk for example are no better from that perspective.
If a business I use want to OFFER me a saving - fine - I will investigate and opt in if I want to.
I NEVER want to be put in the position where I have to OPT out.

At this moment in time I have NO IDEA whether BT are going to charge me an extra £9 next month without me wasting my time calling them.
At the absolute worst we should just have an online checkbox in our billing system that we can use to opt out.

I will be "opting out" of BT when my contract ends in June now for sure. :mad:

CalvinHobs

I only found out about this thanks to MSE. I trawled back through my emails and sure enough - BT had notified me of this about a month ago. I had assumed the email was promotional junk and not opened it.


We do not want or need the Anytime call plan as we rarely make landline calls. In summer 2018, we were involved in making arrangements for a family wedding. So, for a couple of months, we used the landline quite a bit during weekday daytimes. This means the monthly average for the 12 months was higher than it would otherwise have been.


Based on the monthly average, BT kindly opted me into an Anytime call plan for £3.50 per month. So, £42 per year for calls we will not make. Nice little earner for them when you think how many customers are being opted-in automatically.


Long story short: I opted out and am moving to another provider. I did inform BT of my reason for leaving - I wonder how many customers they need to lose before they begin to notice?

QuietlyCautious

just a reminder for anyone who might have forgot about this. I contacted BT at the start of April to say that I did not want this - which was hard work.
Then checked my bill today for April - and surprise surprise it had been added on!
Just come off chat to get that rectified and was 'reminded' during the chat that my current contract expires next month. I 'reminded' back that may not be an issue as I will be looking and seeing what is out there.


Never had issues with BT before but this really peeved me with the way it was done.


So be sure to check and see if it has been added if you don't want it - even if you have contacted them before to cancel !