BT Master Socket

Hello.
I'm looking for some advice on BT master socket and where their responsibility ends and mine begins in regard to charges.
Last year (october) I had quite a few connection dropouts so promtly checked the phone and discovered a crackling on the landline and after a few checks with test socket, I booked a engineer visit for line fault. The engineer arrived and did several tests which seemed to fail and indicate a fault as none of them would complete to his satisfaction. After about an hour he ended up changing the master socket which is the only one in the house and the tests were good and he then left.
At no point was it ever indicated that this was a fault that was chargable or was my fault in any way. He simply indicated that the old socket was not up to the job any more and did not elaborate further.
Today I download my bill and see BT have charged me for this visit and would like some advice on if that is correct.
After looking at this link, none of these seem to apply to the situation but I know it's not always that simple with BT.

http://bt.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/12439...

Thank you for any help.

Edited by jackburt0n (Wed 14-Feb-18 16:24:32)

For example if the issue with the master socket was due to damp corroding connectors then that would make it chargeable to replace, but if the damp was due to water entering property due to a badly run Openreach cable on the outside then they'd have to pay for it.

If the fault has been totally fixed by the change of socket, then suggests something was wrong. The demarcation point is the test socket, but one assumes the tests failed using that, and one would assume they took a peek and decided a new socket was better rather than redo connections.

In terms of charging, since nothing seems to have been agreed on the day then its your word versus their word.

So the socket was changed, and this often can raise a charge, to get the charge refunded its appeal and explain why the socket change was not due to anything in your control.

Thanks.
Yes, the lack of information in what was done and why does not help much. It would be nice as a paying customer if itemised billing for work done was provided so I could see cause and affect.
It seems I'll have to appeal the charge then. Do you know how I go about this, is there a specific dept to contact?

Assuming that you have not damaged the socket in some way I suggest that you phone your supplier and ask for an explanation as to why you have been charged. They may have to contact Openreach to get an answer.

If you do not get a satisfactory response and they presist with the charge you need to ask them for a "Letter of deadlock" and then report them to the appropriate ombudsman.

The separation of engineers from the people generating your bill is not helping.

How you appeal is raise this with the retailer, BT in your case.

You need to ring BT and ask them why you have been charged. BT will have access to the engineer's report, and will be able to tell you if the engineer has blamed any enviromental factors or damage within your property. Make sure you insist that the fault existed on the test socket, as the removable part is your responsibility.

It may just be a 'mistake'.

When you raised the fault initially, were you warned of charges if no fault found ?

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

When you raised the fault initially, were you warned of charges if no fault found ?

Is that relevant as a fault was found? The question doesn't seem to be whether there was a fault but whose responsibility the fault was.

If you take a car to a garage and it carries out work where you have not authorised the work you end up disputing it, and similarly with the potential for fault charges.

So if there was no warning about potential charges you can say I was not warned about the possibility, therefore do not accept the charge.

Hence why we get some people panicking about the charge when an ISP warns about it, i.e. how you warn people is a difficult one, as am sure it has lead to some people just living with a fault rather than risk a charge.

If the NTE was located in an area that was damp, (not due to capillary action down the cable) then charges would have been raised.

You�d would need ALL the facts before making an informed guess TBF.

My reply covered that. You asked if they had been informed that a charge could be raised if a fault was found. That question is irrelevant - a fault was found. The question is whether that fault was the responsibility of the end user or BT. What BT should say is "if a fault is not found or if a fault is found that is deemed to be the responsibility of the customer then they may be charged" - but BT in my experience don't add the second caveat.

I was informed there could be a charge if no fault or if caused by internal wiring and so on. The lack of transparency in what the problem was is really the issue. The tests the engineer did failed so there was a fault which then comes back to why was there a fault. It required a change of socket but that's all I know. If the engineer thought situational damp was a cause then I was not told, or anything else.
The only info I've had from BT is the charge appearing on my bill. I posted a query on BT care forum but it seems dead, so going to call on Monday to see where I stand as all I can do is guess.
If I have to pay then so be it but this seems a poor way to communicate charges to customers. Ironic given the industry they are in.
Thanks for the help.

I think it may depend on the individual engineer who visits you.

I requested a visit because my speed, though good, was not up to the guaranteed minimum. Yes I had to agree charges if a fault was found on my side.
After testing which lasted some time he concluded that there was no problem with anything on the property or actually with their side, other than there was aluminum somewhere that was causing the slower speed.

I already had a Mk3 face plate fitted to the master socket, which despite it not being faulty or damp he changed to the latest Mk4 plate. He explained that the components in the Mk4 were sealed and therefor not prone to damp problems should this occur.

This was all done without any charge.

If damp was anything to do with your problem I would hope the same would apply.

In reply to a post by ian72:

My reply covered that. You asked if they had been informed that a charge could be raised if a fault was found. That question is irrelevant - a fault was found. The question is whether that fault was the responsibility of the end user or BT. What BT should say is "if a fault is not found or if a fault is found that is deemed to be the responsibility of the customer then they may be charged"

I agree here, when I reported to BT the broken wire that went from the BT80 to the NTE5A Master Socket via under our carpet instead of going round the door frame.

I was told we may be charged if the fault was caused by us i.e. due us damaging the cable, in this case it was, but this was down to my parents at that time were both ill in wheel chairs and not knowing at the time the cable boing located under the carpet in the doorway, what moron would place the cable there.

The location of the cable was done by a sub contractor of BTOR (no need to say who) and I just told BT if we are not allowed to touch anything up to the Master Socket how are we to be responsible for it.

BT insisted it being our fault a lot of words were said both sides and if I recall they hung up on me when transfering the call to their legal team.

So I replaced the cable myself and did the job properly.

Then about 3 days later I received a phone call back from BT might of been exec complaints asking questions, so I told them the issue was dealt with by myself, was moaned at and an engineer was sent out checked the work I did and went, we were never charged.

What I am getting at BT will say you may be charged if there is a fault and it was our fault, BT now tells me if a fault is detected by their remote checks and the engineer cannot find the cause and or the fault was not caused by us we will not get charged.

This is why engineers won't get sent out if there is no detected fault unless the user asks for one.

Paul

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

For example if the issue with the master socket was due to damp corroding connectors then that would make it chargeable to replace, but if the damp was due to water entering property due to a badly run Openreach cable on the outside then they'd have to pay for it.

Interesting so Openreach/BT can place an NTE5 in a location prone to damp, and then charge you when it fails. Surely it was Openreach/BT's responsibility to locate the NTE5 in position that it was not prone to damp in the first place. Further if that's the issue simply replacing the NTE5 with a new one is an inadequate fix as you are going to have the same problem as some future point in time.

Reading all of this thread brought back some memories of a similar 'charging dispute' I myself had with BT a few years ago. My phone and ADSL broadband connection had been working fine and optimumly, and installation-wise, on my side of master socket the line was about as good as it gets. But suddenly one day the phone kept ringing randomly, with nobody on the other end. Then the line went dead for a while, but some minutes later revived of its own accord. The random ringing persisted for the rest of that day, however. I investigated my side of the line but could find nothing wrong. I enquired with neighbours but, apart from hearing about one very short similar spate of ringings, concluded it was confined to my line, or at least to my exchange. I rang BT and reported the matter. They ran the usual quick remote test with my kit disconnected, said they thought there was a fault, and advised a visit by an 'engineer'. Knowing about BT's callout charges, etc, I reluctantly agreed and it was booked.

The BT engineer didn't arrive until two days later and, in the interim, it had been reported in the local media that some BT copper phoneline cables in our part of the borough had been sawn through and stolen by thieves, causing chaos to the phonelines of many households and businesses. I didn't find that out until the day after the engineer visit, however, and he of course knew nothing about the theft. Actually, by the time he arrived the stolen line-section had been repaired.

The engineer tested the line indoors and obviously found nothing wrong. I insisted there'd been a problem but he didn't believe me. He said he wouldn't touch any of my side of the socket, especially as he knew nothing about broadband anyway. So, he left, saying that as far as he was concerned there was nothing wrong with my line. He unfortunately wasn't a very co-operative individual and he inferred that I'd either invented the fault or that it had been, and possibly still was, being randomly caused by something on my side of the master socket.

I subsequently got a bill from BT for around £320 for that. I contested it; I appealed, but BT being judge, jury and executioner, it was turned down. I even supplied them with URLs and other references to the news reports of the stolen line-section, but they just ignored it all and said the bill would stand. I didn't have the time to refer the matter to the Ombudsman.

The whole experience left a sour taste in my mouth, and I vowed to never again call BT in unless the line were absolutely and permanently dead. At the time, I got the feeling that BT jumped at every possible opportunity to levy charges of this kind, especially that particular engineer. But in retrospect this was an unfortunate case of there actually having been a real fault but, due to the delay involved, repairs having been done to the exchange line in the interim; the engineer's test kit therefore had given a clean report, but I was all but accused of being a time-waster. Who knows, I was possibly not the only subscriber in that part of the borough that in due course received a similar bill from BT.

What if there is no damp visible when they fit it? Are BT expected to do a full survey for potential damp before they install?

If the area was obviously damp e.g. mould on walls and soaking wet plaster than suspect the install would be done elsewhere in premises

Edited by MrSaffron (Fri 16-Feb-18 13:05:48)

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

If the area was obviously damp e.g. mould on walls and soaking wet plaster than suspect the install would be done elsewhere in premise

Bob's not going to like that

Tipped the keyboard up and the errant s's fell out onto my desk so have used one up

Well with Ian's post and your reply, I'm stuck for wordsess.