BT Essentials

NineParsecs

Hi, I previously signed up with a Vodafone social broadband package that has now been hiked. I originally was going to go with BT essentials, but pip was not inclunded, and the front page stated "Income based Employment And support allowence,I am on new style ESA. Returning to the page today, I noticed it stated just "Employment And support allowence" the "Income based being dropped. So i applied, and was declined.

Firstly, will this affect my credit rationg,

Secondly ESA needs removing as it is clearly not available, and is misleading.

Thanks.

flaneurs_lobster

To be clear, was the reason for declination not being in receipt of the required benefit or was it for some other reason?

if it was the former then there would have been no need for any credit check.

NineParsecs

Hello,

Wrong benefit

Neil_Jones

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6655795/bt-essentials

It is available:

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/benefits/sick-or-disabled-people-and-carers/employment-and-support-allowance/help-with-your-esa-claim/check-if-you-can-claim-esa/

ESA's one of those legacy benefits not entirely replaced by Universal Credit, so it depends where you are as to what you get. If it was income based its "Old" ESA, but most people who get it will be on "new" ESA.

Just because you were declined doesn't make it misleading.

NineParsecs

Respectfully, I disagree. New style is the only ESA left, and by that measure will always be declined. Why include a benefit that will never be approved on the front page? Strangely, less than half a minute later, he offered me a two year, more expensive package, which of course I can't afford, but, they had drawn me in already. Some would feel pressured to accept. I believe the wording has been changed and left there to draw you in, and it's wrong. Why else would it be there? The webmaster could remove it in thirty seconds. The absorption of Income based ESA into UC was completed in September 2025.

southsidergs

Misleading? Why are you having the pop at BT? They check what info the DWP have so if they're saying you're on a benefit but it's not accepted it's a DWP issue

NineParsecs

What im saying is all ESA is now new style,and is universally not accepted. They need to remove it from their front page, that's all. when they removed the "income based" part, I incorrectly thought their policies had changed ans tried to apply. This is the misleading part.

bristolleedsfan

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81888866#Comment_81888866

Employment and Support Allowance is now a non means tested benefit only and should be removed from BT list of qualifying benefits being as unlike Vodafone who accepted non means tested benefits, BT never have.

bristolleedsfan

O/P, possible to get higher speed than Vodaphone essentials with lower equated monthly price over 2 years after factoring in cashback and/or Vouchers.

Go with Sky, when they announce price increase in 2027 free to leave without charge which makes equated monthly price over 1 year after vouchers and .or cashback exceedingly good.

BT/EE/Vodafone and maybe others if wait until March 1st onwards likely to avoid 2026 price rise.

https://www.topcashback.co.uk/compare/broadband/

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/compare-broadband-deals/

NineParsecs

Thanks for that info bistolleedsfan. My original point is that BT needs to remove esa from their essentials list as anyone applying on that criteria will automatically be rejected, as anyone left on ESA now will be new style. I thought they had a policy change, thats why i applied. I think it's just to get folks to call so they can offer a deal as they did me. It's sneaky at best. Mis-selling the product at worst. It's to draw people in. All ISP's need to remove ESA from their social contracts now and get up-to-date otherwise more of my experience will happen. I have PIP, so have other options, but wanted BT for their reliability. Not so much trust any more though.

southsidergs

It's not mis-selling though. If you signed up to a product & it wasn't as agreed then yes that's mis-selling, a check saying no is not