Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[bbnovice]

Hi:

I was reading the "problem pages" in the Daily Telegraph Money section today about issues with telco providers and there is a letter from a BT customer about seemingly being held reponsible for damage to BT wiring outside of his property BEFORE the NTE5 termination box in his house. He was charged £125 because "rodents nibbled the cable" outside of his property. His appeals to the internal BT complaints process and external OTEL complaints system did not provide satisfaction to the consumer and he still had to pay up. The "answers" provided by the DT implied that, according to BT's T&C's, the consumer can still be held liable for all sorts of issues outside of the property even if it is a fault on the line before the NTE5 box.

I may be reading the article incorrectly but if I am interpreting it correctly this seems outrageous. How the hell can I be reponsible for "damp" problems (one of the exclusions in the T&C's apparantly) in BT's external wiring?



   

       

[burakkucat]

As you say, bb, quite outrageous. 

How the hell can I be reponsible for "damp" problems (one of the exclusions in the T&C's apparantly) in BT's external wiring?

I do not think that anyone here will be able to give you a legally "correct" answer. You will need to, perhaps, consult trading standards (if you consider it to be an unfair T&C), a qualified legal practitioner (to translate the "mumbo-jumbo") or a High Court Judge (for an appropriate ruling). 

[BritBrat]

As see it, it is not your property so how can you be liable to a charge?

If you damaged it yourself then maybe but I would say the rodants were BT's fault for not controlling them or not providing suitable protection of the cables.

[asbokid]

The water companies resort to similar scare tactics.  We get junk mail that tries to frighten us into buying expensive water leak insurance.

Apparently, the law on repair liability is currently being revised but in the past, a householder could find himself footing the bill for repairing a leak in pipework on the company side of the water meter or service tap ("stopcock"), if the leak occurred on the customer's premises (and similarly for leaks or blockages in sewer pipes).

[waltergmw]

Gentlefolk,

The famous Ezzer has relayed the then Ts & Cs which stated you are responsible for everything within your curtilage.
However if BT have a wayleave across your land, whether acknowledged or not, I very much doubt that they could hit you for ageing faults but possibly still for inadvertent or wilful damage such as allowing your rotovator to run amok.

Another useful question to ask might be if you are responsible for BT's plant within your curtilage, then you should have the opportunity to employ your own, usually vastly cheaper, contractor.

If we had a truly independent Openreach they might just possibly have a more reasonable culture.

Kind regards,
Walter

[BritBrat]

Apparently, the law on repair liability is currently being revised but in the past, a householder could find himself footing the bill for repairing a leak in pipework on the company side of the water meter or service tap ("stopcock"), if the leak occurred on the customer's premises (and similarly for leaks or blockages in sewer pipes).

As  for sewers, they changed it last year the only part the customer is responcible for is from the sewer to the house even if the sewer is withing the boundary.

transfer of private sewers

[bbnovice]

Another useful question to ask might be if you are responsible for BT's plant within your curtilage, then you should have the opportunity to employ your own, usually vastly cheaper, contractor.

Precisely where I was coming from. Its contradictory if Openreach say that on one hand the network up to the NTE5 belongs to them, and that you will get a visit from the Spanish Inquistion if you touch it, and then on the other hand to say that if its within your cutilage "its your problem". I'm not sure how that would stand up to a challenge in court.

The point made about the recent change in responsibility for sewers is interesting. My mother lives in a house where the main foul sewer crosses a part of her property. The water company has an implied wayleave over thie sewer and the rules (of 50 years standing) are quite clear - its the property of the water company, do not touch, and we (the water company) are 100% responsible for it unless you (the houseowner) have damaged it. However they also have the right to turn up at any time of the day or night in order to carry out maintenance - which they have frequently done in the past as the sewer is falling to pieces because its not being maintained/repaired properly by them. I'm pretty sure that people in the UK do not realise that as a result of the change that now the water company effectively has the right to enter your property at any time. Mind you I suppose most would accept that in order to escape the repair liability.
         

[jeffbb]

Hi
If I remember correctly ,the responsibility for faults on far side if NTE5 has been discussee before on this forum as a result of a TV program where again BT was trying to charge the customer for some problem actually outside their property .It seems BT has been doing this for some time .
Regards Jeff