Re: BT charging for line fault callouts by default - BEWARE

Graham J wrote:
"John Livingston" <null@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:WZqdnT84n5WN3U_VnZ2dnUVZ8qDinZ2d@xxxxxxxxx
It appears that a reported line fault will be charged to the customer, despite the problem being external to the house (that is - not in customer's wiring or equipment). This will happen in the circumstance that a lineman does not find the specific cause of a fault, and enters a "No fault found" as the clear. In other words, if it's an intermittent fault, and it isn't happening when the engineer arrives, you will be charged.

This has happened to me, and I have raised a dispute over the bill. In my particular circumstance, a voice engineer was sent to fix an HR ("High Resistance") fault which caused the DSL to fail when the phone was in use. In the process of checking DP and cabinet wiring, the fault was cleared, but the engineer, not having found a definite problem area, apparently recorded it as "No fault found". (He had obviously reterminated a bad connection, without realising it).

From my experience, and from what I hear in other forum threads, It appears that BT are raising charges by default for all call outs, unless the engineer finds and reports a clear and obvious fault source. I do not know if this is now BT policy, or the actions of individual managers, seeking to meet revenue targets at the customer's expense.

It is perfectly reasonable that BT should raise charges where the fault is clearly proved into the customer's premises. To charge the customer for a an inconclusive call to an agreed LINE fault is outrageous.

In this instance did the technician come to your premises FIRST to establish whether the fault existed?

No - I did the preparatory work necessary to eliminate the house wiring/apparatus. Whether or not the fault manifests itself depends on the current state of the intermittent - not just the technician's judgement.

You should have been able to demonstrate the fault with your equipment, and then allow him to demonstrate that the fault continued to be present when he tested with his equipment. If you already knew the fault to be intermittent, did you make this 110% clear when reporting it, and establish how you would agree with BT that they had made a permanent repair?

I have router diagnostic SNR/time graphs which clearly show the effect , and the intermittent nature. The technician was clearly unfamiliar with this - but he was sent by BT as THEY had taken the decision that this was a phone line fault, rather than broadband. (I reported the fault initially as broadband - the BT service organisation transferred the action to the voice staff). This is quite irrelevant, however. It's up to BT, not the customer, to provide the appropriately trained staff.

If the technician did not come to your premises first, did you ask him when he arrived what he had already done? If the fault was by then clearly not present you should have pressed the point and if necessary asked to speak to his line manager to confirm that either (a) the technician had repaired the fault, or (b) the fault was now clearly intermittent.

Yes - he had tested from the exchange and found nothing. Are you familiar with the characteristics of an HR fault ? It is common for this to NOT show up on standard tests - HRs are difficult to track due to their very intermittency. In the event, his actions were reasonable - to reterminate the cabinet and DP connections, as they would be the most likely culprits. (And they were, it turned out).

This is a salutory lesson for us all. It's essential that you as the person with the technical skill and knowledge of the fault are on the premises to welcome the BT technician and supervise his/her work. It is worth asking when booking the call for the name of the technician who will attend, explaining that you require it for health and safety reasons, or security reasons.

Are you suggesting that a customer should take supervisory responsibility for a BT technician ?
Bear in mind that this is a situation which will apply to many other customers, most of whom have no previous experience in telecomms or BT processes. The fact that I could demonstrate and explain the fault symptoms was good fortune - but not an option for other customers with no less valid problems.
Unless things have changed enormously since I was in BT, there is no way the fault booking duty can influence the actual staffing of the fault.
If you were to request the technicians name in advance, you would be told (politely) to sod off, I would have thought.

I think you have rather missed the point - which is that BT are charging customers for attending intermittent faults IN BT-OWNED LINE PLANT. There is no mention of this scenario in the BT customer literature (as opposed to chargeable customer apparatus faults).

John
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: spitting feathers!
    ... so did each VM customer at work. ... There were information on the support newsgroups as well as on ... No, assures the call centre, if the fault is at our end ... charge of £10. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: I wont be paying an invoice.
    ... but their inability to fix it may well do; ... good technician should be able to diagnose. ... fault that was eventually discovered. ... but IME the customer is usually made aware of the ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: BT charging for line fault callouts by default - BEWARE
    ... "No fault found" as the clear. ... In this instance did the technician come to your premises FIRST to ... current state of the intermittent - not just the technician's judgement. ... customer, to provide the appropriately trained staff. ...
    (uk.telecom.broadband)
  • Re: Vodafone fault in Argyll
    ... customer knows what they are talking about. ... I find BT's domestic fault reporting an absolute PITA to work through, ... VM are a total waste of time, I had a few problems with lost broadband ... It's rare to be able to get the BT engineer because someone miles away could be allocated the job and everything is centrally controlled. ...
    (uk.telecom.mobile)
  • Re: fsmail.net
    ... When my customer finally agreed to my suggestion to move elsewhere, they threatened to sue him for breach of contract. ... They sent him a router and activated his line, but the router did not detect a broadband carrier, or else did so very very occasionally with horrendous attenuation. ... So I suggested he try another ISP. ... No doubt that ISP would encounter the same problem if there was a line fault, but maybe they'd be more proactive with getting it sorted. ...
    (uk.comp.misc)