House struck by lightning? BT says "£220 for cancellation"

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/furi...

Amazing stuff.

(N.B. - BT waived the fee once the Record stepped in...says the DR)

'BT yesterday agreed to waive the fee as a �gesture of goodwill�.'

That's a bit condescending! Surely they could have responded with a bit more empathy.

TBH I think the BT manager has a point in that it is what he is paying insurance for.

Yet again we see the iniquitous nature of 12 or 18 month contracts for little or nothing in return from the big 3 It's not good enough to say that the customer is aware of the terms before signing up because unless you are aware of the alternatives from a few remaining independents most people have little option.

This really is something that the regulator needs to look at since under English contract law I believe that the supplier of goods or services can only recover actual costs and losses if a contract term is breached. Since in this case BT are no longer supplying the service how do they justify the bill for the remainder of the term?

Satisfied Newnet customer for 6 years on a 30 day notice contract

In reply to a post by gomezz:

TBH I think the BT manager has a point in that it is what he is paying insurance for.

BT in their t&c have copouts for the acts of nature, with BT's response if a lightning knocks out my DSLAM and there is a service outage I could just say to BT "thats what you have insurance for" and see how they like it.

Of course tho I can also see BT's side, people may use a lightning bolt as an excuse to get free cancellation, if it became common knowledge BT just took everyone's word for it. So a engineer visit to confirm the situation then free cancellation should be policy.

Since in this case BT are no longer supplying the service how do they justify the bill for the remainder of the term?

But they are supplying the service, well until the punter chose to cancel. If any of the line plant were damaged, it would have been repaired, just connect the router and phone and away you go, that the punter now no longer has a property is in no way BT's fault.

I'd agree that the 18 month contracts are harsh, but the CP's are just trying to keep a punter long enough to get return on their investment.

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

that the punter now no longer has a property is in no way BT's fault.

If there was a service to be used, fine, but there is not. Fault is not the issue. The issue is whether or not a supplier wants to shaft someone on a lock-in contract, when the customer can't get the service from that contract.

A professional outfit would have made some effort to have the claim confirmed via their insurer (to prevent fraud), then went from there. All they have done is highlight that money is more important that customer relations.

As well as referring to this particular case my comment was also a broader one relating to the terms imposed by the big 3. I I have no particular problems with long term contracts provided that the supplier also offers a short term contract at whatever price is reasonable. The prospective customer therefore is able to make a choice based upon what suits.

My concern is that the Big 3 offer no such choice probably because if they offered one many customers would choose a short term contract and leave if they suffered the generally poor customer service available.

It really is about time that the big ISPs demonstrated confidence in their products and respect for their customers

Edited by deleted (Sun 11-Aug-13 20:54:01)

Person buys a car on HP and only insures it 3rd party. Car is stolen. Customer still has to pay the HP even though the car can't be used by the customer.

A contract, no matter how sad the circumstances, is still a contract.

In reply to a post by camieabz:

If there was a service to be used, fine, but there is not. Fault is not the issue. The issue is whether or not a supplier wants to shaft someone on a lock-in contract, when the customer can't get the service from that contract.

The problem is that the service is still fine, just the customer no longer has a use for it. If I break my leg so I can't drive, that doesn't get me out of car payments - why should it? BT still had the DSLAM port and MPF in place to provide the service, as contracted.

Also, it does seem the cost should have been covered by the insurance, just like it would cover if his mobile had been ruined.