Who's responsibility is the Master Socket?

In June I had problems with my broadband. It intermittently was going on and off. After all the usual checks and multiple calls etc. it was agreed to send a BT engineer with the usual warning that "if it was my wiring inside the house there would be a charge £50". BT came on 20th June. In fact when he visited he said that it was the BT Socket that was at fault and replaced it. My wife asked if there would be a charge and he said "no it was free". Now I understood that all upto the Wiring/Master socket is BT/TalkTalk responsibility. I have just seen my last bill for September and I have been charged the £50.
I have just spoken to a man at TalkTalk about this and he was adamant that "as the BT engineer replaced the socket it was MY responsibility as it was in the house". Then to compound it I had agreed that the fault was fixed! On 21st of June the Broadband went off again. It was on/off until 30th June.
Now I ask how am I responsible for the main socket? Yes its in the house, should it be outside and then I won't be responsible? Please can someone answer me this question?
Secondly, I did say it was intermittent going on and off for hours at a time - no ADSL light. Yes it worked after the engineer left for about 24hrs. I think this is the typical BT cop out - they muck about at the exchange and knock out people's service then suddenly Mr Nobody fixes it. THe TalkTalk man kept saying "I had agreeed to the terms and conditions" but the Master Socket is surely NOT my responsibility? I have read numerous forums and they all say it belongs to BT. Yes it worked for 24hrs but that does not mean it was fixed. Why do I have to pay the £50 to talk talk.
I am very angry at my treatment. I have been with Tiscali/TalkTalk for over 10 years.

The demarcation between 'network side' (not your responsibility) and your wiring is the test socket. If there was a fault in the back of the NTE5 master socket, that's not your responsibility and you should not be charged. If the fault was with extension wiring connected to the NTE5 faceplate, that is your responsibility and you were correctly charged.

In reply to a post by David_W:

The demarcation between 'network side' (not your responsibility) and your wiring is the test socket. If there was a fault in the back of the NTE5 master socket, that's not your responsibility and you should not be charged. If the fault was with extension wiring connected to the NTE5 faceplate, that is your responsibility and you were correctly charged.

I am in dispute with TalkTalk with a similar issue.

Earlier this year, I lost my telephone connection at regular intervals. The fault was intermittent and from time to time, I could not make or receive voice calls. My phone did not ring and anyone who dialled my number received the engaged tone. Broadband speeds also fluctuated significantly.

I received many visits from BT Openreach engineers. However, up to two days can elapse between the initial fault report and arrival of an engineer. By then, normal service seemed to have resumed (of its own accord) - and diagnostic tests did not identify any fault. However, I noticed that the problem appeared to be weather related, because every time I lost my telephone service, it was raining heavily with driving wind.

BT engineers persisted with their diagnostic tests (to no avail). Eventually, I lost my patience with TalkTalk. After two months, I insisted that an engineer should climb a ladder to inspect the wire that led from the telegraph pole to my house. He quickly discovered cracked insulation on a wire, which was stapled onto an exterior wall of my home. That wire ran from a junction box to the master socket inside the house.

My telephone service used to be "star-wired", with an old-style master socket (not an NTE-5 master socket). Consequently, the engineer decided to fit a new NTE-5 master socket in a different location. He also ran a new wire from the telegraph pole and left me to re-connect all of my extensions to the new master socket.

I thought that was the end of the matter. However, three months later, TalkTalk billed me £50. When I queried the charge, they told me that the engineer's notes stated that the fault was caused by a problem with my internal wiring.

The cracked insulation was definitely outside my house. Furthermore, it was on the wire that led to the master socket. However, TalkTalk have washed their hands of the affair and say they can do nothing. They don't seem to realise that after months of appalling customer care, they are encouraging me to switch to a different telephone company. I shall do so, as soon as my 12-month prepaid line rental expires towards the end of this year.

Exactly David _W having connected my router to the "test socket" eliminating all internal wiring I still had no ADSL on my line hence the BT Man's visit. He found no fault it was intermittent and went off again the next day. My dispute is TakTalk billed me for a BT visit when the engineer found no fault in my house and didn't fix anything.

In reply to a post by Montypines:

My dispute is TakTalk billed me for a BT visit when the engineer found no fault in my house and didn't fix anything.

I would draw TalkTalk's attention to BT SIN 349, the definition of the Metallic Path Facility used by TalkTalk, especially the first sentence of paragraph 4.1 ("The connection to the MPF at the NTP end can be either a BT Master socket or in the form of an Insulation Displacement Connection (IDC) cable termination.") read alongside the first sentence of paragraph 4.1.1 ("When the MPF is terminated on a BT Master socket, connection to the MPF is provided by the socket or the Insulation Displacement Connector (IDC) on the Customer Connection Unit (i.e. front plate) of the network terminating equipment.").

I believe this makes it fairly clear that the end of the BT Openreach network product they are using starts with the back part of the NTE5 master socket. Any fault from that point towards the exchange is not your responsibility.


If TalkTalk still refuse to cancel the charge, I would check their terms and conditions to discover their formal complaints policy. Write to the given address, disputing the charge, pointing out that anything from the back plate of the NTE5 onwards is not your responsibility and that no fault was found on your premises. I would invite TalkTalk to disclose any engineer notes refuting this if they believe they can demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities (the civil standard of proof) that there was a fault on your premises justifying imposition of an engineer visit charge.

If they still refuse to cancel the charge, wait for the deadlock letter (or for the length of time specified in the terms and conditions - likely to be somewhere around 8 weeks) and take the matter to their designated alternate dispute resolution provider.

To me this is a definite failing in BTs procedures. If BT do work in the house the engineer should write a job report and mark if it is chargeable - then the person at the property should sign it. You should not have an engineer say it isn't chargeable and then it appear on the bill - but because nothing is in writing then it is your word against theirs.

This seems to stem to the fact it isn't down to the engineer as to whether it is chargeable. They fill out their form and then I dare say there is some complex algorithm in the system that decides whether to charge. Made even worse by the fact that the raising of the charge by Openreach is to the ISP and then the ISP decides whether to do the on charge to the customer - probably using additional complex algorithms for that stage as well.

It is so opaque that you would think it couldn't stand up in a court of law as the customer has no way of knowing if they will be charged or if they are for what reason.

And of course there is then next to no potential to challenge it because you can't challenge openreach and the ISPs won't.

Edited by ian72 (Mon 14-Oct-13 11:40:09)

It's possible that TalkTalk mistakenly routinely charge customers £50 for an engineer visit even though the work done by Openreach may not be chargeable to the customer in certain cases. Perhaps the mere fact that an engineer visit is requested causes a £50 charge to be added to the next bill?

Certainly I believe that if TalkTalk's technicians (QubeGB?) are requested to optimise home wiring then there is perhaps generally a charge of £50?

My cousin is in dispute with TalkTalk regarding the fitting of a NTE5 on the drop wire by an engineer in order to have a proper demarcation point which he didn�t have before. He was lead to believe that this work would be done for free but in fact a charge of £50 did appear on his next bill...

Afternoon David

"I believe this makes it fairly clear that the end of the BT Openreach network product they are using starts with the back part of the NTE5 master socket."

A minor point; but I have always understood that all of the NTE5 Termination Box, Surface Box, Test Socket and Faceplate, is BT/BTO's Property and Responsibility, unless clearly damaged by someone not in the employ of BT and/or its sub-contractors.

The customer is normally allowed to plug in to the front sockets; and to remove the Splitter Faceplate to access the Test Socket, if so requested by BT/BTO or another authorised person.

For example, if the removable Splitter Faceplate proves faulty, such as by the failure of the BB Filter, it would be BT/BTO's responsibility to replace it.

===============================

I wonder if the charges arise from possibly being reported to TalkTalk as a "Broadband Fault", rather than a basic "Voice Phone Fault"?

In reply to a post by eckiedoo:

For example, if the removable Splitter Faceplate proves faulty, such as by the failure of the BB Filter, it would be BT/BTO's responsibility to replace it.

Are you just talking about a FTTC installation and other work done on a NTE5 when a filtered faceplate is supplied and fitted by an Openreach or Openreach authorised engineer?

If a filtered faceplate is fitted by the end user then BT Openreach have no responsibility for that under any circumstances. If it was bought from BT Retail and fitted by the end user then it can certainly be replaced by BT Retail if it is found to be faulty but BT Openreach would have no involvement with that transaction.

I am assuming that the complete NTE5 installation was done by BT/BTO etc.

I accept that if done by a non-authorised person, then strictly it would not be BT/BTO's responsibility.

However, if the unauthorised person used authentic BT/BTO NTE5s, properly done etc, who would know the difference?

Does BT/BTO record installations to that level of detail?

Are there any official installations that have finished at any intermediate point, such as has anyone encountered an installation where only the Surface Box has been provided, no Test Socket; alternatively both the Surface Box and Test Socket have been installed; but not the Faceplate?

========================

More importantly, I hope we will see quick responses from Montypines, bob_lucas and/or TalkTalk about how the faults were classified when reported, ie were they reported as PHONE Faults or as Broadband Faults?