Ombudsman's decision - should I accept or fight?

Tiglet

I had some trouble with BT in 2006 concerning an account that's now closed.

I have always paid my phone bill by DD until I changed to another company. They sent me a final bill, then a reminder, only this was for a different amount. When I asked why, it turned out that they were for two different accounts. They had disconnected my phone a couple of months earlier by mistake, and it turned out that they had actually closed my account and started another one - hence the two bills.

By this time they had already sent a Solicitor's letter so I asked why they hadn't cleared the account using the DD and they told me it had been cancelled, so I arranged to pay the two accounts in instalments equivalent to what the DD would have been. They apologised for their mistake (as they did every time - they made rather a lot of them:rolleyes:). I paid the first instalment and I suppose I expected I'd get a reminder before needing to make the next payment.

Instead, I got a letter from a DCA. This was in December '06. By chance, I happened to go to my bank and asked what had happened to the DD. They said it was still in place and there was no legal reason why they could not have taken any money owed to them. I told the DCA and sent them a copy of the DD, and they told me that they had stopped dealing with it.

BT then passed it on to another DCA who pestered me for a while, until some kind soul on another forum posted a "get lost" letter. They duly got lost.:D

I complained to OTELO about this last June and I've just received their Final Decision. They say that, because I agreed to pay by instalments, they within their rights to use a DCA to collect the balance. My argument is that, since there has always been a DD in place, I have made the money available to them and they have failed to take it. They misled me into believing that there was no DD, so it is immaterial that I made alternative arrangements.

Their decision is that I should pay the balance within 28 days. BT will then record on my credit file that the "debt" arose because of a dispute that has been resolved. They say that this will not have a "disproportionate" effect on me or my reputation. Although I acknowledge that the amount was due, I resent any mention of a "debt", disputed or otherwise. The decision repeatedly refers to BT having cancelled the DD, even though they have done no such thing. (Perhaps I should suggest that they collect the money using the DD).

They say BT should make a goodwill payment (almost equal to the original amount due) to cover shortfalls in customer service.

I'd like to reject this decision and fight them all the way, as I still contend that the money has always been available to them. I don't care if it's more trouble or more expensive, although I don't want to do this if my argument doesn't stand up. I don't want to accept a decision I believe is factually wrong but would it be better than fighting it? Also, what effect will the mention of the debt (even if it is disputed) have on my hitherto squeaky clean credit record?

grace

BT are getting a pounding on "Watchdog" at the moment it may be worth your while having a look at the website...it maybe you can resolve this through them.....sorry if its not acceptable to mention the above program.

Tiglet

Bump...

To put it simply, either:

1) I am right if the existence of the DD means that I've made the money available to them, and I don't need to do any more

or

2) they are right because I agreed an alternative means of payment, and they no longer need to use the DD, even if it is still possible.