A neighbour got a fair old payout due to being out for three weeks when storm Eunice hit. They actually phoned him and offered it. I've been chasing the same only to be told it was an act of God (which I get) and he shouldn't have had it.
Has anyone else any experience of this?
Best............MD
|
The people who were without electricity for weeks after storm Arwen? were compensated not because their electricity went off but because it took so long to fix it.
Maybe that's why he got it.
Or tell them you're an atheist.
|
|
We were both off for three weeks. He is a farmer and its only thanks to him that the tree that severed the line was found. BT were ruddy useless. Farcical in fact.
|
Using Wikipedia as a start point:
An act of God is an unforeseeable natural phenomenon. Explained by Lord Hobhouse in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council as describing an event:
(1) which involves no human agency
(2)which is not realistically possible to guard against
(3)which is due directly and exclusively to natural causes and
(4)which could not have been prevented by any amount of foresight, plans, and care.
(2) and (4) create a high bar for an outfit like BT that will likely have taken a risk based approach to whether a falling tree or whatever might bring down phone lines.
|
>> (2) and (4) create a high bar for an outfit like BT that will likely
>> have taken a risk based approach to whether a falling tree or whatever might bring
>> down phone lines.
I think they are fine on the phone line coming down when a tree that they are not responsible for falls on it. It's inevitable that somewhere a tree will fall in a storm and take a phone line with it.
This can only be about there response, if there is to be any liability. Their response to that might be the sheer volume of repairs needed because of the "act of god".
|
>>Act of god.
The insurance company's best friend!
Is a tree falling on a telephone line in a storm an act of God?
No. It's bad planning on the part of the telephone company by placing the line above ground and too near to trees.
|
>> >>Act of god.
>>
>> The insurance company's best friend!
Give me an example of a policy that excludes “Acts of God”.
Don’t bother they don’t exist ( except in American movies).
|
That's not the case according to the ABI. But that could just be weaselly insurance wording I suppose;)
www.abi.org.uk/data-and-resources/tools-and-resources/glossary/act-of-god/
|
As far as any policy that you are going to encounter that is the position. They do not exclude Acts of God.
|
Sue the Pope
That’s a huge leap forward for the Catholic Church.
|
>> Sue the Pope
>>
>> That’s a huge leap forward for the Catholic Church.
"Betty Penrose
In 1970, Arizonan lawyer Russel T. Tansie filed a suit against God on behalf of his secretary, Betty Penrose, seeking $100,000 in damages. Penrose blamed God for his "negligence", allowing a lightning bolt to strike her house. When God "failed to turn up in court", Penrose won the case by default."
Not sure if the damages were ever paid.
|
>> >> Sue the Pope
or the Devil
"United States ex rel. Gerald Mayo v. Satan and His Staff was a 1971 case filed before the United States district court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in which Gerald Mayo alleged that "Satan has on numerous occasions caused plaintiff misery and unwarranted threats, against the will of plaintiff, that Satan has placed deliberate obstacles in his path and has caused plaintiff's downfall" and had therefore "deprived him of his constitutional rights". This is prohibited under several sections of the United States Code. Mayo filed in forma pauperis—that is, he asserted that he would not be able to afford the costs associated with his lawsuit and that they therefore should be waived. The Court refused the request to proceed in forma pauperis because the plaintiff had not included instructions for how the U.S. Marshal could serve process on Satan."
|
>> Sue the Pope
>>
>> That’s a huge leap forward for the Catholic Church.
>>
...the original boy named Sue...?
|
>> Is a tree falling on a telephone line in a storm an act of God?
>> No. It's bad planning on the part of the telephone company by placing the line
>> above ground and too near to trees.
The tree may have grown up after the line was put up. The farmer tends to plow up lines buried under the ground......
|
|
Plough. Just saying............
|
I just had a brief look around the bt.com site and residential customers should automatically get £8.40 for every day of repair delay. I couldn’t see anything about Acts of God but I didn’t fancy reading the full T&Cs this late at night.
If you are due 21 x £8.40 you might want to have a gander at the T&Cs.
|
It used to be in the front pages of the telephone directory (when did you last see one of them!) about compensation. I once claimed it when my line was down, many years ago.
There used to be a seperate tariff for 'business' lines, at a higher charge, for a (supposedly) better service. Perhaps your neighbour is on that?
|
I received a measly 11 knicker when the 4 storms of the apocalypse knocked out my line for 2 weeks.
But, I only pay *£18:95 for line rental + FTTC with a cheapo ISP, so not complaining too mucho.
*Gorn up now due to RPI.
|
|
I'll ask another neighbour shortly if he drew funds from the swines.
|
About 2 years ago I had broadband problems - supplier is Sky.
The issue lasted 2 weeks - to get round the problem I logged on to a near neighbour.
Sky sent me something like £1.50 compensation for not having a working BB Service - their logic goes as follows = Phone line £22+ £3 for Broadband.
I agreed that the actual phone worked but in 5 years I had not made a landline call. No point as we have 2 mobiles with unlimited calls - the bill was £25 a month so 2 weeks without BB was worth £10+.
Eventually they paid up and credited the account with £12.50!!!
|
>> But, I only pay *£18:95 for line rental + FTTC with a cheapo ISP, so
>> not complaining too mucho.
Exactly. Why do people believe that they should receive compensation at a rate greater than they pay for the service? The sooner we ditch this compensation mentality the better.
|
|
We had major problems with BT this time last year, in the end I found an e-mail address for their Chief Exec. After e-mailing this address I ended up dealing with a named individual who sorted our connection out and gave us a £500.00 package as compensation. BT is a pensions companig with a sideline in telecommunications. They are crap.
|
>> BT is a pensions companig with a sideline in telecommunications. They are crap.
You think so? Have you seen their pension deficit to retired employees?
|
Automatic compensation: What you need to know:
tinyurl.com/yjjx8fcr
|
>> Automatic compensation: What you need to know:
>>
>> tinyurl.com/yjjx8fcr
>>
Cheers Doggo. Very useful...........
|
>> Why do people believe that they should receive compensation at a rate greater than
>> they pay for the service? The sooner we ditch this compensation mentality the better.
>>
>>
Hassle, missed calls, lost business, extra costs to name a few reasons.
Years ago (mid 90's) A BT engineer was in the hole opposite my then home connecting someone up.
My 64kb leased line went down at exactly the same time.
He denied he had done anything.
He lied. The next engineer found the cable disconnected.
I couldn't work for the time it took to fix it.
They deserve to pay out for the lost income.
|
|
These are consequential losses. You are paying for a working phone line. No more no less. If they don’t supply a working phone lie you should get a refund, I don’t see how they can be held liable for all the losses that might or might not be made as a result of its failure. Its one of those things that a business should have a plan to mitigate should it occur. That applies to all utilities.
|
>> These are consequential losses.
Consequential losses can be either remote, significant or somewhere in between.
|
|
Certainly and you can’t expect a phone company to be responsible for them .Their potential liabilities would be so huge that they could not remain in business. It’s the idea that if something goes wrong you must always somehow be able to recompense your losses from somebody else that needs changing.
|
>> Certainly and you can’t expect a phone company to be responsible for them .Their potential
>> liabilities would be so huge that they could not remain in business. It’s the idea
>> that if something goes wrong you must always somehow be able to recompense your losses
>> from somebody else that needs changing.
>>
If you buy a product from the retailer and it goes faulty within 6 years due to a manufacturing fault and burns down your house, you can claim the cost of rebuilding your house, possessions damaged, cost of hotels and rented accommodation from the retailer.
In reality you would probably claim from your insurer but they would go after the retailer. The retailer should then go after the manufacturer.
Quite right to. Why should the telecoms or other utility company be exempt from shoddy service - it harks back to the bad old days of monopolies.
|
>Why should the telecoms or other utility company be exempt from shoddy service..
Because a standard contract for telecoms provision will have a clause stating that any compensation for loss of service is limited to the cost of the service and they will not be liable for any consequential losses.
If you want compensation for consequential losses you will need to negotiate your own insurance cover and the cost will reflect the risk and cover amount. Someone running a multi-billion dollar financial trading empire from home might want more cover than an ebay mogul.
Is this Openreach's shoddy service?
www.basingstokegazette.co.uk/news/20209997.repair-work-continues-almost-week-thousands-left-without-internet-phonelines/
|
>> Because a standard contract for telecoms provision will have a clause stating that any compensation
>> for loss of service is limited to the cost of the service and they will
>> not be liable for any consequential losses.
>>
>> If you want compensation for consequential losses you will need to negotiate your own insurance
>> cover and the cost will reflect the risk and cover amount. Someone running a multi-billion
>> dollar financial trading empire from home might want more cover than an ebay mogul.
>>
>> Is this Openreach's shoddy service?
>>
>> www.basingstokegazette.co.uk/news/20209997.repair-work-continues-almost-week-thousands-left-without-internet-phonelines/
But is there a point where that that becomes an unreasonable term?
Fifty years ago loss of the phone line meant we could not phone Granny in the morning to chat/check she was OK.
If mine was down this morning then I'd not be able to work. Part of the sales pitch in the latter situation is the speed etc of the connection and its resilience to support WFH.
Maybe, just maybe, a court looking at recompense for system failure might looks at those two scenarios in different lights.
If Openreach were in the frame for the loss you mention then they, or their insurer, can can add the errant contractor for Hants CC into the claim.
|
> Part of the sales pitch in the latter situation is the speed etc of the connection and its resilience to support WFH.
Do domestic phone/broadband sales pitches mention availability? I can't recall ever seeing it.
I must admit that it's not something on my check list when I've been looking at providers. All the ISPs serving my area rely on Openreach infrastructure anyway so there's unlikely to be much difference if any. I fully expect them to have failures now and again and have workarounds if necessary.
|
>>
>> But is there a point where that that becomes an unreasonable term?
>>
>> Fifty years ago loss of the phone line meant we could not phone Granny in
>> the morning to chat/check she was OK.
>>
>> If mine was down this morning then I'd not be able to work.
I suspect these things are getting blurred now with WFH for example.
Commercial contracts can be whatever the parties agree. Standard contracts will exclude liquidated damages and if not all consequential loss then all but the most direct, within an upper limit of liability, and subject to the customer making reasonable efforts to mitigate. Consumer law will not apply to commercial contracts.
For low value customers, it will be take it or leave it. Big ones can negotiate.
I agree that sometimes things go wrong and it's an accident. Things break and if someone has been negligent then there's blame, but if they have made reasonable efforts to provide a service then there isn't, and it comes down to the contract or, in the case of consumers, applicable regulations and laws.
Anyone whose phone, power or data service is critical should consider adding resilience themselves or paying for a service with guarantees.
|
...there seems to be a conflation of two different issues here. CGN posted initially about compensation, thus:
"Exactly. Why do people believe that they should receive compensation at a rate greater than they pay for the service? The sooner we ditch this compensation mentality the better."
This seems to have rolled over into a debate about penalties for consequential lossses.
The two are entirely different, should be treated entirely differently, and shouldn't be confused.
Frankly, as far as "compensation" is concerned, it is both common and desirable (in many circumstances) for this to exist in both B2B and B2C environments (though the detail may differ). Essentially, in both circumstances you are signing up for an SLA (Service Level Agreement). If you're contracting for a service, you most definitely want some hold over your supplier that is rather more punitive than them just deciding that they don't want to/won't/can't provide the service they've contracted for, and that they'll simply pro-rata reduce any charge. (It's a contractual service, and the receiver usually has no immediately invokable alternative).
In, for instance, IT contracts, very few if any will have a 100% level of service, but are likely to be in the high 90%s (at the very top for critical services). Likewise, home telecomms services will be contracted with a "reasonable" outage length (for remediation) before compensation kicks in.
Compensation is the only hold you have over the duration and effort to fix - if a service supplier won't commit to that in some manner then I'd look elsewhere (remember, their main duty is to their shareholders, not you).
Such compensation may well be linear in utility contracts (£x per day); in IT contracts I've insisted on financial penalties which ramp up over extended outages, providing a major incentive to fix things quickly.
Such compensation is natural, desirable and should be sought after.
As far as consequential costs are concerned, it isn't unknown for these to be written in contracts, though rather less common. It would be very unusual to see them unquantified or unlimited, and of course, the price for any service contract that included them would be likely to reflect that fact.
Product liability, as has been touched on above, is a whole new kettle of fish (and generally covered by manufacturers by insurance).
|
Your argument is specious. In the first case the company has supplies a physical product that is faulty and physically damaged your property. In the second they have not supplied a faulty service. They have supplied a service that worked up until a certain time. Certainly they are not due payment after the time the service stopped but you have not suffered any direct physical loss due the cessation of the service.
As I said to impose liability for all consequential losses from a cessation of service would place an untenable burden on the service provider
|
Essentially you are paying a domestic rate for a domestic level of service. You want better than that, ie a commercial contract, you pay the appropriate rate according to your commercial needs.
You aint, so all you get is a refund. If your business suffers, you should have had a resilient back up plan. Its part of your business risk.
|
>>Essentially you are paying a domestic rate for a domestic level of service
Actually, I wasn't. The 64k bit line was a business line at business rates. I forget what it was called now (it was in the mid 90's) but it was called something like ISDN.
|
Hi>> >>Essentially you are paying a domestic rate for a domestic level of service
>>
>> Actually, I wasn't. The 64k bit line was a business line at business rate
I know you were not ISDN then was not available to domestic users, which is why I didn't reply to your post.
Anyway the break in your service was because the secret service wire tap went wrong.
|
We live in a cul-de-sac. 6 houses in total. Many years ago before mobiles were common place and Mrs FC was on the immediate call out list for her specialisms. As such phone rental was paid by our employers based on a submission of phone bill and the money refunded. This had changed from the phone bills being sent to work and us refunding call costs.
One day a man was down a the nearby access chamber for telecoms doing something or other. After had left we discovered that our line and a neighbours had somehow been swapped. Clearly human error.
I phoned the telephone company (Kcom as it is now) and explained what had happened. No way would they be convinced or budged to prioritise their cock up. When I suggested that they must have 24hr engineer cover I was informed they didn't work after dark. Because the phone was not now in the name of our organisation they didnt believe the importance of having a landline. It was around 5 days before the issue was rectified.
The point being that without some form of penalty there is no incentive to actual remedy something which is down to their incompetence and a laid back attitude manifests itself.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Tue 14 Jun 22 at 22:30
|
BT Compensation - Manatee
