This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/sep/30/bt-give-away-phone-number-landline-cut-off
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| ‘I got back from holiday to find BT giving away my phone number’ | ‘I got back from holiday to find BT giving away my phone number’ |
| (1 day later) | |
| Rupert Jones | |
| Sat 30 Sep 2017 06.00 BST | |
| Last modified on Mon 27 Nov 2017 16.10 GMT | |
| Share on Facebook | |
| Share on Twitter | |
| Share via Email | |
| View more sharing options | |
| Share on LinkedIn | |
| Share on Pinterest | |
| Share on Google+ | |
| Share on WhatsApp | |
| Share on Messenger | |
| Close | |
| Can BT cut off your home phone and give your number to someone else without your consent? You might have assumed a telecoms firm could only do this if you had consistently refused to pay your bill or committed some other transgression. However, it has emerged that if you are unlucky enough to be on the receiving end of an address mix-up, this is exactly what can happen to you. | Can BT cut off your home phone and give your number to someone else without your consent? You might have assumed a telecoms firm could only do this if you had consistently refused to pay your bill or committed some other transgression. However, it has emerged that if you are unlucky enough to be on the receiving end of an address mix-up, this is exactly what can happen to you. |
| Derek Webster, a former lord mayor of Newcastle, got back from holiday two weeks ago to find that BT was on the brink of giving his home phone line to someone else, even though he isn’t moving, hasn’t switched telecoms provider and pays the company £55 every month for his service. Webster had a lucky escape: he nearly decided to extend his holiday by a few days, in which case he would have got home to find he had been left without a landline. | Derek Webster, a former lord mayor of Newcastle, got back from holiday two weeks ago to find that BT was on the brink of giving his home phone line to someone else, even though he isn’t moving, hasn’t switched telecoms provider and pays the company £55 every month for his service. Webster had a lucky escape: he nearly decided to extend his holiday by a few days, in which case he would have got home to find he had been left without a landline. |
| This isn’t an isolated incident – there are similar cases on web forums, including one involving a BT customer who ended up having their line cut off, leaving them with “no phone, no internet”. Following multiple calls and visits from BT, that customer eventually got their number back after seven weeks. | This isn’t an isolated incident – there are similar cases on web forums, including one involving a BT customer who ended up having their line cut off, leaving them with “no phone, no internet”. Following multiple calls and visits from BT, that customer eventually got their number back after seven weeks. |
| Ofcom has indicated that the most likely explanation for what happened to Webster is that an address was inputted incorrectly. What could have happened is that another customer who was moving home requested that a phone line be provided at the property they were moving to, but the wrong address was entered into the system. | Ofcom has indicated that the most likely explanation for what happened to Webster is that an address was inputted incorrectly. What could have happened is that another customer who was moving home requested that a phone line be provided at the property they were moving to, but the wrong address was entered into the system. |
| BT wrote to 71-year-old Webster to say another customer wanted to take over the phone line at his address on 21 September. The letter, dated 6 September, said that “if we haven’t heard from you by 2pm on 20 Sep 2017, we’ll assume you no longer want the phone service at this address on this number. We’ll then end your contract, allow the transfer of the line to the other customer and forward you your final bill within seven days.” | BT wrote to 71-year-old Webster to say another customer wanted to take over the phone line at his address on 21 September. The letter, dated 6 September, said that “if we haven’t heard from you by 2pm on 20 Sep 2017, we’ll assume you no longer want the phone service at this address on this number. We’ll then end your contract, allow the transfer of the line to the other customer and forward you your final bill within seven days.” |
| The letter added that if Webster had broadband or any other services on the line, BT would stop them when the line was taken over. | The letter added that if Webster had broadband or any other services on the line, BT would stop them when the line was taken over. |
| It also said that “you need to tell us if this isn’t right”, and that if he wasn’t expecting someone else to take over his phone line BT could cancel the requested transfer and ensure his service was not affected, but only if he called before the deadline. This letter was followed by one from telecoms firm EE, addressed to “the occupier”, stating that it had recently received a request to replace the line at his address with an EE phone service. Webster had not made such a request. | It also said that “you need to tell us if this isn’t right”, and that if he wasn’t expecting someone else to take over his phone line BT could cancel the requested transfer and ensure his service was not affected, but only if he called before the deadline. This letter was followed by one from telecoms firm EE, addressed to “the occupier”, stating that it had recently received a request to replace the line at his address with an EE phone service. Webster had not made such a request. |
| Webster lives in Newcastle and was lord mayor during the late 1980s and a councillor for more than two decades. He returned from his holiday on 17 September and found the BT letter on his doormat. With just three days until the deadline, he rang up and spoke to someone who said they would cancel the transfer of his line. But the episode has left Webster angry. | Webster lives in Newcastle and was lord mayor during the late 1980s and a councillor for more than two decades. He returned from his holiday on 17 September and found the BT letter on his doormat. With just three days until the deadline, he rang up and spoke to someone who said they would cancel the transfer of his line. But the episode has left Webster angry. |
| “It’s outrageous – BT can’t treat people like this,” he says. “I was only away for two weeks and nearly extended my stay. If this is the policy – that it just takes your line away if it doesn’t hear from you, even though you are carrying on paying – it’s appalling. I’m paying BT £55 by direct debit every month.” Webster says what happened to him “could have happened to anyone”, adding: “People do go on holiday.” | “It’s outrageous – BT can’t treat people like this,” he says. “I was only away for two weeks and nearly extended my stay. If this is the policy – that it just takes your line away if it doesn’t hear from you, even though you are carrying on paying – it’s appalling. I’m paying BT £55 by direct debit every month.” Webster says what happened to him “could have happened to anyone”, adding: “People do go on holiday.” |
| And it could have been a lot worse. The customer on the BT community forum told how they had received a letter dated 8 August 2016 that was almost identical to the one sent to Webster. It gave a deadline of 16 August 2016. “I phoned BT and said we certainly did not want another customer to take over our phone line,” they said. “The person I spoke to said that was fine.” | And it could have been a lot worse. The customer on the BT community forum told how they had received a letter dated 8 August 2016 that was almost identical to the one sent to Webster. It gave a deadline of 16 August 2016. “I phoned BT and said we certainly did not want another customer to take over our phone line,” they said. “The person I spoke to said that was fine.” |
| But on 16 August the customer received a call on their mobile from a friend who said he had tried to call them on their landline but the number was unobtainable. “I called BT and the person I spoke to told me that my account had been closed, the direct debit cancelled and my number for the last two decades was to be allocated to someone else.” | But on 16 August the customer received a call on their mobile from a friend who said he had tried to call them on their landline but the number was unobtainable. “I called BT and the person I spoke to told me that my account had been closed, the direct debit cancelled and my number for the last two decades was to be allocated to someone else.” |
| In an update on the forum, the customer said they finally got their number back on 3 October. “Despite pleas to the CEO and our MP, it still took BT 50 days to get our original number back ... We have asked everyone ‘what happened?’ but nobody has been able to give us an answer.” | In an update on the forum, the customer said they finally got their number back on 3 October. “Despite pleas to the CEO and our MP, it still took BT 50 days to get our original number back ... We have asked everyone ‘what happened?’ but nobody has been able to give us an answer.” |
| BT says: “We sent a letter to Mr Webster on 6 September and advised him we had received the request to take over the service on 21 September. We asked that he let us know by 20 September if he wasn’t moving so we could cancel the takeover. Mr Webster contacted us on 18 September to let us know he wasn’t moving and the takeover was cancelled.” | BT says: “We sent a letter to Mr Webster on 6 September and advised him we had received the request to take over the service on 21 September. We asked that he let us know by 20 September if he wasn’t moving so we could cancel the takeover. Mr Webster contacted us on 18 September to let us know he wasn’t moving and the takeover was cancelled.” |
| The telecoms industry says safeguards have been built into the process to protect consumers from these types of errors. For example, there is a minimum 10-working-day period between when the transfer/takeover order is placed and when it can complete. Once the order has been placed, both the “gaining” and the “losing” provider are required to send a letter to the customer informing them of the pending switch. Once this letter is received, if the transfer request is unsolicited, the consumer can contact their provider to inform them that they have never asked to switch their phone service. Once the customer has done this, their provider should stop the switch. Ofcom has indicated that even if a customer missed the letter and the line was switched, their provider could restore the service. | The telecoms industry says safeguards have been built into the process to protect consumers from these types of errors. For example, there is a minimum 10-working-day period between when the transfer/takeover order is placed and when it can complete. Once the order has been placed, both the “gaining” and the “losing” provider are required to send a letter to the customer informing them of the pending switch. Once this letter is received, if the transfer request is unsolicited, the consumer can contact their provider to inform them that they have never asked to switch their phone service. Once the customer has done this, their provider should stop the switch. Ofcom has indicated that even if a customer missed the letter and the line was switched, their provider could restore the service. |
| This sort of thing used to be more of a problem a few years ago when so-called “slamming” was rife. Slamming is where a householder is switched from one telecoms company to another without their knowledge or consent. In 2010, telecoms regulator Ofcom introduced rules banning all forms of mis-selling, including slamming, and these were strengthened in 2014. Despite the ban, slamming has continued to occur, though the number of cases falls each year. | This sort of thing used to be more of a problem a few years ago when so-called “slamming” was rife. Slamming is where a householder is switched from one telecoms company to another without their knowledge or consent. In 2010, telecoms regulator Ofcom introduced rules banning all forms of mis-selling, including slamming, and these were strengthened in 2014. Despite the ban, slamming has continued to occur, though the number of cases falls each year. |
| Internet, phones & broadband | |
| Consumer affairs | |
| Consumer rights | |
| BT | |
| Telecommunications industry | |
| Broadband | |
| features | |
| Share on Facebook | |
| Share on Twitter | |
| Share via Email | |
| Share on LinkedIn | |
| Share on Pinterest | |
| Share on Google+ | |
| Share on WhatsApp | |
| Share on Messenger | |
| Reuse this content |