BT taken to court over non direct debit charges

Drunkstar

edit:

delete, its not worth it.

hammy_the_hammer

mr mcgoo you appear somewhat short-sighted.
my phone bill 20 years ago would be £100+ a quarter with limited use of the phone in the evening and at weekends. international calls were made using the minimum time possible ...on numerous occasions i would not be able to ring city to city due to congestion.
it was common to wait 10 days plus to have the line fixed only for it to go faulty again weeks later.
a new line was installed as and when they could get around to it (sometimes months)
a working payphone in the street was a novelty.
none of which was acceptable by the way
my bill for the phone with considerable use and broadband comes to about £75 a quarter.
an actual reduction compared to 20 years ago ignoring the fact that inflation goes on in the background ergo increased costs and the extra services i now have via my copper pair.
care to compare that with any of the other utilities ?????
gas ????
electric ???
water ???

you appear to have wanted BT Retail to contract Openreach to provide service for your neighbours son in the flat for no or minimal cost and then let them move to another service provider for nothing (or again minimal cost) ....whichever service provider your neighbours son is with could of course have arranged for Openreach to connect the line .....but most don't ....see multitude of other posts about why they don't

gt94sss2

Mr_McGoo wrote: »

!. Please tell me who, other than BT, will provide a telephone line to my house? And before you talk about cable, please note that I, along with huge swathes of the populaton have no cable access and never will have.

Any of the other licenced telecommunications operator could have arranged for a line to be installed to your house. There are at least 200 of them - though not offer this option to their customers even though its available.

BT Shareholders paid a tiny fraction, repeat tiny, of what the network was worth. It was a steal.

That is your opinion - not the true value of the network which was in a pretty bad state. Also, BT was sold off in 3 stages over several years - so if the initial value was on the low side, the two subsequent sell offs would have been much closer to the proper price..

If you actually bothered to look at the share price you would see that it hasn't exactly been a great investment for many of its shareholders either.

The argument that because BT pay tax it's all OK is so flawed it's pointless. Whose money do you think they pay taxes with? Our taxed income paid to them as charges, of course.

And all the money they earn overseas and from their non-telephony businesses - which last time I looked now that made up over 40% of all BT's revenue - among other things.

4 The same applies to the replacement. If you steal a car you don't absolve yourself by replacing it 10 years later!

I think they actually had to replace much of it almost immediately - as I said it was already on its last legs when it was privatised.

6 BT offered to install the fibre-optic network if the taxpayer (aka the Government) paid for it! I made them the same offer, but that was rejected too, so I didn't, just like BT..

No, BT offered to install a 100% fibre-optic network and pay for it all themselves - the only thing they wanted was the right to be able to sell downloaded tv shows and films if their customers wanted it.

However, the government rejected this and its only in the last 2 years that this restriction/ban has been lifted.

Can we avoid posts from BT employees pushing BT's spin?

Let me repeat:

- I don't work for BT
- I have never worked for BT

Perhaps the rest of us could avoid posts with lots of unfounded and untrue accusation's from you (which also come with your own spin attached)?

Regards
Sunil

diamonds

I think BT like all others charging for a ontime CASH payment is not on.....

my £10.50 line rental is £11 even though I only get online bills ? no replies from BT on my emails

and for £10.50 what stops BT giving even 128kbps internet to all landline accounts as part of the landline package ? i mean im sure granny dont need 1MB connection to email family in AU or USA....

lord_simon

Yes and why have a bank account in the first place let your employer keep your money and pay all you bills for you and while there at it they can monitor your spending and decide what you can and can not do welcome big brother

blahdog wrote: »

This woman needs to get up to speed with modern life. As a direct debit payer, I'm bored of constantly subsidising thosen who can't be trusted to run an automated bank account properly.

I hope BT kick her 4ss and then suspend her service as the cherry on the cake.

bubbles65

blahdog wrote: »

This woman needs to get up to speed with modern life. As a direct debit payer, I'm bored of constantly subsidising thosen who can't be trusted to run an automated bank account properly.

I hope BT kick her 4ss and then suspend her service as the cherry on the cake.

CLOWN!!

sargentusuk

well if you think someone taking on BT matters alot, i'm taking the mobile network, 3, to court over the same issue on the direct debit charge.

My case is similar to the BT one - i'm using the unfair terms act 1999 as these charges don't reflect the true cost

I'm also going to see whether the bill of rights act 1689 is relevant to this case as if it is it could be classed illegal

They have until the 27th of February to write a defence


I'll keep everyone informed, but i'll be hoping BT loses on March 28th

BritBrat

Please do, only needs one to start an avalanche.

sargentusuk

got a little over 49 hours -

Also when you win apply for damages for stress etc (if required).


Under the Distress Act 1267 you have to go to court (don't know if small claims count)

sargentusuk

i've won my case. 3 never did a defence in time so i'm getting my money back

I say to anyone out there to write to your company who is charging you these charges.

Put that you think these charges are more than it costs you to process it

under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 it is illegal to charge more than it cost the company to process a payment.

Also you can put that you think this charge is a penalty or fine. This breaches Section 12 of the Bill of Rights Act 1689 which states you cannot fine outside of court

But rely on the unfair terms act and only use the bill of rights as a small part as it's unlikely your win just using that

Also if you have been given a parking fine by a firm not police or traffic wardens they have to go by the unfair terms act too. So they can't charge you £70 for going over by 1 hour in a £2 a hour car park.