Wednesday, May 24, 2017

British Telecom: Declan's complaint to the CEO of BT about the handling of the bad TV reception we have been accustomed to getting of late through our BT YouView box (WITH TREBLE UPDATE - Day 5 26/5/2017)

From my earlier blog post's Update 26 May (8.24pm):

"I have just updated my blog post of 16 January with the 450th block on public access to our Church and State website since 26 July 2016. The blog post also not only reveals a record-breaking 52 such blocks in one week at the end of last month (an unprecedented escalation that kicked off with our focus on Denmark's cartoon crisis; 81 blocks so far this month), but it reveals the daily targeting to fluctuating degrees of category pages throughout the site which continues to this day."

An unprecedented ten blocks in one day on 7 May with our publication of Atheist Ireland republishes 25 blasphemous quotes in solidarity with Stephen Fry. Sixteen blocks last week; fifteen blocks so far this week; two blocks today.

The War on Free Expression


UK Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ)

It's not just our Church and State website that's under attack (74 blocks on public access to the site this month; 16 blocks last week; 1 block so far today) despite the fact that a leading web hosting provider, SiteGround, is paid $1,000 per year to host our site and manage the server. This afternoon Declan wrote to British Telecom CEO Gavin Patterson to complain about the handling of the bad TV reception we have been accustomed to getting of late. BT is one of the world's leading communications services companies. Yesterday BT Customer Care informed Declan that he will be charged £129.99 on his next BT bill if their engineer reports today that our fault has nothing to do with their network but is the result of our home wiring, our equipment or their network has been damaged within the boundary of our property. This is Declan's email to Patterson:

Gavin Patterson
CEO
British Telecom

Address removed for email


24 May 2017

Dear Mr Patterson,

Yesterday British Telecom informed me that I will be charged £129.99 on my next BT bill if your engineer Alexander finds on his visit this afternoon that my fault has nothing to do with your network but is the result of my home wiring, fault with my equipment, or your network has been damaged within the boundary of my property.

I have informed your Customer Care Team that the fault is intermittent TV reception through your YouView box. This afternoon I am not experiencing reception problems through your YouView box or through the property aerial, so I do not believe a case can be made that the fault is the result of my home wiring or fault with my equipment, or indeed that your network has been damaged within the boundary of my property.

I trust that I will not be charged £129.99 on my next BT bill and that this frustrating intermittent TV reception problem through your YouView box can be resolved.

Yours sincerely,

Declan Heavey
Managing Director
Network for Church Monitoring

"Let me recommend an important web site - churchandstate.org.uk. Operating out of London this well-designed and exciting web site covers church-state, population, climate change and other issues. Check it out." - Edd Doerr, President, Americans for Religious Liberty

22 May: British Telecom: We pay BT £65.53 per month but Declan is told that there is nothing they can do about the bad TV reception we have been accustomed to getting of late (WITH UPDATE - Day 3 24/5/2017)

DAY 4 UPDATE 25 May (12.50pm): This is our fourth day in a row dealing with BT. Declan was told by BT Customer Care this morning that none of his repeated requests for the engineer's report from yesterday was registered on their system. The engineer assured us last night that we would not be charged for his visit, and that BT would have no problem providing us with a copy of his report this morning. In fact, the engineer was so helpful that it would be our intention to ask for him again if the fault persists, so long as his report contains no surprises. We are all hoping that the frustrating intermittent TV reception problem we have been experiencing of late has been resolved, although the engineer explained that only time can really tell. Now Declan's request for this report is being dealt with by BT Executive Level Complaints (Consumer), but it appears that we may not see the report until next Wednesday, if at all. Of course Declan will make a Subject Access Request (SAR) for the report if he thinks he has to; we just can't understand what is so special about a supposedly run-of-the-mill report, and what it is about Declan's straightforward request for same that BT Executive Level Complaints is finding so difficult to deal with. Declan has just received this email from Trevor Potts on behalf of BT CEO Gavin Patterson:

Hello Mr. Heavey,

Thanks for your email to Libby Barr. I'm sorry to learn you’re having problems with your BT service.

Our team are now dealing with your case and will own to resolution.

So we can understand your issue please give us a little time to investigate, a dedicated case handler will be in touch by Wednesday at the latest.

Before then, if you’re a bit worried or something's changed just drop us a note at elc@bt.com or contact us on 0791 888 4688

Best wishes,

Trevor Potts
Executive Level Service Team; BT Consumer

DAY 4 UPDATE 25 May (10.16pm): Following our first internet cut as BT customers this afternoon, Declan wrote back to Trevor Potts requesting assurance that we will not be charged for the engineer's visit yesterday. Declan attached a double-signed note that the engineer left us before leaving our flat. The engineer first wrote that there would be no charge for his visit, and then added that he could not say that we had damaged any BT equipment or that the fault is the result of our home wiring. Declan copied BT CEO Gavin Patterson into the email. Our contract with BT commenced on 28 May 2014. The internet cut this afternoon lasted 26 minutes (from 1.39pm - 2.05pm).



DAY 5 UPDATE 26 May (10.55am): Where is all this going? No assurance as yet from BT Executive Level Complaints that we will not be charged for the engineer's visit on 24 May, notwithstanding the engineer's written assurance that there would be no charge for the visit. Yesterday Declan also wrote to Tracy Reid of BT Executive Level Complaints requesting that she delete erroneous fault details for 25 May. He copied BT CEO Gavin Patterson into the complaint. He sent her this follow-up email this morning:

For the attention of Gavin Patterson, Chief Executive, British Telecom

Tracy Reid
Executive Level Complaints (Consumer)
British Telecom

Address removed for email


26 May 2017

Dear Ms Reid,

I refer to my email to you yesterday and again respectfully request that you please delete from my online account fault details for 25 May 2017 under the title Phone fault 02084703021 - Completed (please see attachment). The diagnostic run reads:

"We have run a line test and we cannot find a problem with your line. The problem may be with your own equipment so we need you to carry out some tests. To get help with that click on the 'Help Section' on top right. If you have already checked your equipment and still have a problem then please call 0800 800 151. If you have made an appointment already the details will be shown below. There is no need for you to do anything further."

Please note that I have never reported a fault with my phone, nor do I have a problem with my line.

I am even more worried now that BT intend charging me for the engineer's visit on 24 May to resolve my frustrating intermittent TV reception problem of late, notwithstanding the engineer's written assurance that there would be no charge for his visit because he could not say that I had damaged any BT equipment or that the fault is the result of my home wiring. In addition to deleting fault details for 25 May 2017, please could you also reassure me that I will not be receiving any extra charges on forthcoming bills for anything so far.

I am deeply concerned that I may need to seek legal advice as to how to proceed in this matter. I am however still hopeful that these two issues can be resolved amicably by BT Executive Level Complaints (Consumer) without any undue delay.

Yours sincerely,

Declan Heavey

M: 07880437681

DAY 5 UPDATE 26 May (12.45pm): Declan phoned BT Executive Level Complaints following his email to Tracy Reid above. He was unable to speak to her, and no one from BT Executive Level Complaints has returned his call. Most certainly we are worried at this point in time. The reluctance of BT Executive Level Complaints to provide us with a copy of the engineer's report aside, why is it so difficult for them to assure us that we will not be charged £130 for his visit on 24 May, particularly in light of his written assurance that there would be no charge for his visit because he could not say that BT equipment had been damaged or home wiring impaired? At the moment our TV signal strength through our BT YouView box is stable at 92%, and signal quality is 100%. The engineer told us that any signal strength above 50% is acceptable when it comes to home wiring! Do I now have to publish his note too? Are we going to be told that the engineer's double-signed handwritten note is of no value to us and has been overridden by a false and fabricated report that renders us liable to £130 on top of our next £65 monthly bill? Are we looking at the Small Claims Court here?



DAY 5 UPDATE 26 May (5.52pm): BT Executive Level Complaints have still not confirmed whether any charges have been raised on Declan's account by the engineer, nor have we been provided with the engineer's report, nor have we been provided with any explanation as to why a phone fault we never reported cannot be removed from Declan's online account. We guess they are closed for the long weekend, so damn it the engineer's name is Alexander Boyce and I am now going to publish his double-signed handwritten note which we will use to contest any charges that have been raised as a result of the report that he has submitted for BT's senior engineering team to investigate. It is quite clear from this note that Boyce provided us with written assurance that there would be no charge for his visit because he could not say that we had damaged any BT equipment or that at the time the fault (viz. intermittent TV reception through our BT YouView box) was the result of our home wiring:



Click to enlarge

From My Picks:

20 February: The Central London County Court: District Judge Avent dismisses Declan's claim against the Greater London Authority-commissioned St Mungo's that alleged the falsification and fabrication of data against us (WITH UPDATE 16/3/2017)

'Let me recommend an important web site churchandstate.org.uk. Operating out of London this well-designed and exciting web site covers church-state, population, climate change and other issues. Check it out.' - Edd Doerr, President, Americans for Religious Liberty

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

The Central London County Court: We still have not received help with our court hearing fee and this after receiving District Judge Avent's order two days after the expiration of our statutory 21 days to apply for permission to appeal (WITH UPDATE 26/5/2017)


County Court at Central London, Royal Courts of Justice

On 20 February District Judge Avent ruled in Declan's claim against the Greater London Authority-commissioned St Mungo's, a homeless charity, that data we alleged to be false, fabricated and nonsensical (and left us vulnerable to eviction for non-cooperation with the support provider) constituted no more than "a difference of opinion as to wording" and that no breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 had occurred. Although originally listed for a one-day hearing, the trial only lasted two hours, i.e. one hour short of the preliminary hearing last October. Declan says it was the most hostile atmosphere that he has ever experienced in a courtroom. It left him reeling, he says, after no more than five minutes. At the end of the judge's summation, Declan asked for leave to appeal. "What for?" the judge asked. "Because this is just 'a difference of opinion as to wording,'" Declan responded, quoting him verbatim. "No," the judge replied, and that was that.

We are in a supported tenancy because of Declan's physical health condition. We were forced to sleep rough on the streets of London for almost 4 years in total - from 4 November 2006 to 13 July 2009, and again from 14 April 2013 to 17 May 2014. Before we came off the street the second time, Declan was diagnosed with asthma and a chest infection; in fact, he became so weak that on 15 April 2014 the Royal London Hospital wrote: "If possible should try to find accommodation off the street." So when in May 2014 a supported housing tenancy came through (under a programme commissioned by the Greater London Authority for entrenched rough sleepers), we took it. Because the flat only came with a fridge and cooker, we had to sink the deposit we had for a flat into making it habitable. And that was only the beginning...

Our statutory 21 days to apply for permission to appeal DJ Avent's order below expired on 13 March. We only received his order in a late post two days later on 15 March; and this despite the fact that the Information Commissioner's Office found the Ministry of Justice in breach of the Data Protection Act in respect of an application to contest the court's jurisdiction that we did not receive in a timely manner in a previous case (see my blog post of 15 March, Complaint to the Secretary of State for Justice. We still do not have District Judge Avent's order and today is the 2nd day after the expiration of our statutory 21 days to apply for permission to appeal). Now, according to the Court's telephone service on 9 May, Declan's application for a full refund of the £80 hearing fee was approved on 26 April but the cheque has yet to be cleared by the Court's finance section. "That's up to their working time, sir," he was told. So, for the time being, I will keep updating this blog post until we have received the cheque.

Click to enlarge

A difference of opinion as to wording?

Paragraph 23 of Declan's Witness Statement dated 14 November 2016.

23. Still to this day, I do not know the service to which the staff action/intervention "Signposted to another service" referred. No mention was made of the action note in St Mungo's Defence, notwithstanding the extraordinary lengths I had gone before the defence was filed to highlight the seriousness of blatantly retaining data that was false, fabricated and without meaning (vague to the point of having almost any kind of interpretation).



UPDATE 26 May (8.52pm): We are still waiting for our £80 cheque from the Court in full refund of the money we paid for the court hearing that took place on 20 February. This is a refund that was approved on 26 April, according to the Court's telephone service on 9 May. On 23 May British Telecom informed Declan that he will be charged £129.99 on his next BT bill if their engineer Alexander Boyce reported the next day that our fault has nothing to do with their network but is the result of our home wiring, our equipment or their network has been damaged within the boundary of our property. Declan's complaint has been handled by BT Executive Level Complaints since yesterday. They still have not confirmed whether any charges have been raised on Declan's account by Boyce, nor have we been provided with his report, nor have we been provided with any explanation as to why a phone fault we never reported yesterday cannot be removed from Declan's online account. See my blog post of 24 May British Telecom: Declan's complaint to the CEO of BT about the handling of the bad TV reception we have been accustomed to getting of late through our BT YouView box (WITH TREBLE UPDATE - Day 5 26/5/2017).

Click to enlarge

From My Picks:

20 February: The Central London County Court: District Judge Avent dismisses Declan's claim against the Greater London Authority-commissioned St Mungo's that alleged the falsification and fabrication of data against us (WITH UPDATE 16/3/2017)

'Let me recommend an important web site churchandstate.org.uk. Operating out of London this well-designed and exciting web site covers church-state, population, climate change and other issues. Check it out.' - Edd Doerr, President, Americans for Religious Liberty