In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

If that is an accurate transcript as you assert, then the course is clear, a formal complaint and/or Small Claims court

Also, you have BT_Care here on your forum. Ask them to look into it. I give BT permission to privately provide you with each detail of my story as they know it. I know from the guy at BT cancellations that every call I make and who I spoke to is logged. They record all the calls too.

I can assure you I have told the truth.

Everything I have posted about my dealing with BT did happen. I might not have said it exactly right word for word but I am sure it is close enough for BT to agree with what I have said.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

We look forward to you reporting back that you have won in small claims court.

Have you sought proper independent legal advice on the issue? Or is your own knowledge of contract law sufficient?

It was the principle. I didn't believe that BT were legally allowed to take excess money. I didn't believe the law would allow such a thing.

I don't think you are being fair with that small claims court comment.

In which case you will have no problems claiming back the money and thus I expect to here back shortly that you have been successful.

No need for me to spend what would be a days work to chase and analyse your call records, after signing the pre-requisite paperwork to promise to not disclose etc.

Why not? If a firm takes money they are not entitled to in your opinion, then small claims is the way that the courts have deemed that consumers can chase the money back.

I'm not saying £50 is a small amount of money but come on it's not that big a deal.

Like I said, it was the principle, it works both ways, the law is the law and all that.

I posted here to find out if it was worth pursuing BT for the excess money and now I know there is legal basis for doing so.

You don't have to be so rude about it.

Thank you for your polite and well reasoned post. It's appreciated.

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/guide/resolving-a-broa...

The law is the law, but contract law is made up of many court cases, which set precents, hence why in 2010 Ofcom changed some of the guidance it gives, because of court case.

Law is far from black and white.

What people have been trying to do is raise what is their intrepretation of the law, which is that providers can charge for a reasonable notice period even if it extends beyond the date of migration.

Put two lawyers in a room, and they will find different cases to back their view of the law, and it is down to the judge to rule in that situation, which is where case law comes from.

Ask on a public forum and you will get many more views.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

in 2010 Ofcom changed some of the guidance it gives

As you appreciate, OFCOM issues guidance, but this does NOT mean that this guidance should be interpreted as being "The Law"!

Equally, because it is "guidance", there is always room for interpretation &, as you rightly say, it is far from black and white.