Considering taking BT to court

Charlie

You dont have a hope in hell. Take it from someone who had to study contract law till it hurt last year. Simple answer to your question is that you would have no recourse as you had no contract with bt, whatever form they got you to fill out was not a contract. A contarct with a company like bt is only likely to come into operation when you actually got switched on. Most broadband/t.v/satelite providers operate on this basis.

Charlie

skyhighflyer wrote:

Khannie, don't waste any more of your time trying to pursue an unmeritorious action.

If you have no contract, you have no case. Even if you do have a contract (which on the facts seems doubtful) I'm sure BT's lawyers had the foresight to include exemption clauses which they will be able to use to escape liability if an action is taken against them.

Your only other possible action would be in negligence, i.e in claiming that in neglecting to provide you with broadband service in a reasonably timely and efficient manner (as they promised to you) you suffered the economic loss detailed above. Unfortunately for you, you would have in my opinion insurmountable burdens in proving that BT owed you a duty to do so in this case. Further, as in most common law jurisdictions, even if a duty was established, the type of damage you suffered (i.e economic loss unaccompanied by damage to either person or property) is damage of a type which is generally not compensated in the Irish courts.

Although I would point out that class actions of sorts are permitted within the Irish legal system (see for example Bloomer and others v The Law Society of Ireland), that's of no relevance in my opinion to this case.

I'd pursue other avenues of getting what I wanted from BT.. for example Liveline or the director of consumer affairs but I don't think the courts can help you out here.

Theres not a hope in hell that he'd have a negligence case. There's no way he would be able to prove that BT owed him a duty of care, which is essential to prove negligence.

AARRRGH

You're never going to take BT to court.

What a totally pointless thread.

Laguna

You don't have a leg to stand on khannie, it's quite simply your word against theirs when it comes down to it. What will your response in court be if they use their trump card and say "We never said we'd give it to you in two weeks, we only offer estimates".. where's your evidence, your signed documentation?.

I hardly think you have the grounds to be compensated for buying lunch each day.. that just sounds odd tbh, while you're on that vein of thought you could demand to be compensated for scratching your arse every day you haven't had broadband.

dermot_sheehan

skyhighflyer wrote:

Khannie, don't waste any more of your time trying to pursue an unmeritorious action.

If you have no contract, you have no case. Even if you do have a contract (which on the facts seems doubtful) I'm sure BT's lawyers had the foresight to include exemption clauses which they will be able to use to escape liability if an action is taken against them.

Your only other possible action would be in negligence, i.e in claiming that in neglecting to provide you with broadband service in a reasonably timely and efficient manner (as they promised to you) you suffered the economic loss detailed above. Unfortunately for you, you would have in my opinion insurmountable burdens in proving that BT owed you a duty to do so in this case. Further, as in most common law jurisdictions, even if a duty was established, the type of damage you suffered (i.e economic loss unaccompanied by damage to either person or property) is damage of a type which is generally not compensated in the Irish courts.

Although I would point out that class actions of sorts are permitted within the Irish legal system (see for example Bloomer and others v The Law Society of Ireland), that's of no relevance in my opinion to this case.

I'd pursue other avenues of getting what I wanted from BT.. for example Liveline or the director of consumer affairs but I don't think the courts can help you out here.

Simple legal answer
Since he's suffered pure economic loss so can't sure for negligence. Can't sue for breach of contract as a)There's been no consideration and b) the contract terms specifically excludes liability for late installation.

killbillvol2

[/QUOTE]
Be very very careful here mate!! I would advise cancelling the direct debit immediately - as they have probably already started taking money.[/QUOTE]

I'd go along with that. Their billing dept. has a well earned reputation for billing for services not being provided and then doing SFA about refunding your dosh.

nag

like ive said before, i dont believe that Khannie is looking to be refunded whatever costs he may have incurred as a result of being left connectionless. i believe the point of this thread is just to highlight the imcompetant fools that front themselves as tele-communications providers. it seems pretty clear to me that almost everybody in this country has a tale to tell about broadband woes or at the very least, knows somebody else who has be it that they:

1. cant get bb in the first place
2. had to wait an outrageous length of time to get bb when their told the process should only take two weeks (and it should only take two weeks)
3. were over billed for their service or billed for a service they never received

i find it very disheartening to read all the unsupportive comments here (be they as factually just as they are). the point im trying to get at i suppose is that i find it "typically irish" (as yer man from 'stew' would say) that we just sit around and accept the norm. whatever it is we are told, we just accept it, without question. just because bt (or even eircom for that matter) might be a "large corporation" (as someone has mentioned here), it does not give them the right to come in here and offer the irish public a crap service. the only reason that they do and the only reason they get away with it is, as ive mentioned already, we just accept whatever we're given and never expect/demand to be given anything better

Kristok

Nag you say its disheartening to read all the unsupportive comments well maby people get a bit annoyed when they see people talking about sueing for something stupid like this. For every person on boards who complains theres probably 10 more who never had a problem.

Your accusing the telcos for being imcompetant fools. Have you ever tried to order ntl or sky ? my sister was told she could get ntl and appointments where made to come out and install it and 3 times they never turned up and eventually she was told it wasnt available in her estate. Sky missed 2 appointmens to turn up then didnt have the right bracket to install it when they did. My friend tried to order sky and took two days off work to wait for the installer and he never came. Ntl eventually came out to install cable instead but not after telling him it wasnt available on his road dispite the people before him having it and a ntl box on the wall in his sitting room which he had to point out to them. The point is for every case like them theres loads of people who get it no problem.

Just because there are problems with some people dosnt make a whole industry imcompetant. When you order something over the phone things can sometimes happen its called human error and no person or company can avoid that.

WillieFlynn

I had a problem with BT loosing my order (untill I emailed their CEO). Then Eircom messed up my line for a while........... So in the end I went with netsource who processed my order within an hour of faxing it in to them.....

I'd suggest that you forget about BT and just go elsewhere.

nag

Kristok wrote:

Nag you say its disheartening to read all the unsupportive comments well maby people get a bit annoyed when they see people talking about sueing for something stupid like this

ill say this one more time. i dont believe Khannie is after the money. i believe that he just wants to make a show of bt and strike a blow for consumers. the issue about the money was just to state his case

anyway, i repect your point but that still doesnt excuse them for treating their customers like crap. it appears that everyday there seems to be someone else who is having problems. i can tell you that ive heard plenty of them now and now ive got my very own. plus, i believe that there are many others out there who think they are getting a reliable service but are not just because they dont know any better.

my reference to them being incompetant i suppose is more based around my experiences with eircom who could also be the root of many peoples problems so forgive the loose accusation. but, in this case and in my own, they were certainly incompetant

on a much broader note, why are we not given the same type of service as other european countries? why do we constantly model ourselves against other systems? why cant we be the model for success? its becuase we're irish and nobody give a f*** about anybody else and any ol' thing will do. just through anything out the door to shut 'em up

Kristok

If thats true then thats fine but untill he says so himself we can only assume he is after the money. If hes just after his day in court i dont think this is going to get him anywhere cause im sure a judge will make him pay esats fees for bringing a pointless case (assuming they do that in ireland) Its pointless cases like this that has the courts in this country as bad as america.

Anyhow dont think other countries are any better than ireland ive a cousin in holland and they had the same issues many years ago, telcos are generally considered to be evil because they are big and usually run badly its not just an irish thing.

nag

Kristok wrote:

Anyhow dont think other countries are any better than ireland ive a cousin in holland and they had the same issues many years ago

that only leads me to believe that the situation improved and just as a side note, i know that one thing they do in the netherlands is, if you wish to switch your bb service to another company, theres no downtime _at_all_.

Khannie

Well, thanks for the advice everyone. Seems like I have no case.

Kristok wrote:

I hope you bring this to court and the judge makes you pay esats legal fees for wasting the courts time. I wouldnt be wasting your time with esat im sure theres a wet floor in a shop somewhere you could be slipping on.

Wow, you're really clever. I hope some day the (admitted) incompetence of a company causes you to have to drive 2100Km at rush "hour" through 48 toll booths, taking over a working weeks worth of your time, all at a cost to yourself. We'll see how much on the side of the company you are at that point.

dublindude wrote:

You're never going to take BT to court.

What a totally pointless thread.

I was totally serious about taking them to court if I felt I had a case. I think you'll find that the only pointless thing in this thread is your ridiculous comment. :rolleyes:

kin9pin wrote:

Sorry about this, but are you saying you only ate lunch because you didn't have Broadband??

Haha. No.
Lunch at home is cheaper though. That wasn't really a major issue. It's more the time, stress, inconvenience and other (more measureable) costs like petrol and toll bridge that I wouldn't have otherwise had to pay. Mostly it's the stress of the extra commute. I live a long way from my company's offices. That's why I was working 2 days a week at home in the first place.

As nag correctly pointed out, I don't really give a crap about the money. What I really wanted was some broadband and I was willing to take BT to court to force the issue if I felt it would help me and others not to be lied to ("Just 7-10 more working days"). I feel like if I had just gone with eircom I would have had broadband a long time ago and none of this would have happened.

edit: I just got an apology from BT. The lady said that a "formal investigation" was under way. I wonder how much longer I'll be left.

rsynnott

I don't see what you're getting so worked up about. They seem to have acted within the terms of their contract. If you could sue a telecoms company for taking their time over something, we'd all be constantly in the courts. There's no need to be rude to other people for pointing out the silliness of your proposed lawsuit.

Khannie

rsynnott wrote:

I don't see what you're getting so worked up about.

I'm getting worked up about being told that I'd have bb within two weeks, then being left 12 weeks (so far). The result of that is (like I said) substantial extra stress, substantial lost time and lost money.

rsynnott wrote:

There's no need to be rude to other people for pointing out the silliness of your proposed lawsuit.

I think you'll find that they were rude first, and that I merely replied in kind.

All I did was ask if I had a case. You may feel that asking questions is silly, but I'm glad that I don't.

LegacyUser

Khannie wrote:

I'm getting worked up about being told that I'd have bb within two weeks, then being left 12 weeks (so far). The result of that is (like I said) substantial extra stress, substantial lost time and lost money.



I think you'll find that they were rude first, and that I merely replied in kind.

All I did was ask if I had a case. You may feel that asking questions is silly, but I'm glad that I don't.

Khannie, I know what your saying - but accept it and move on. They are a complete shower.

rsynnott

Khannie wrote:

I'm getting worked up about being told that I'd have bb within two weeks, then being left 12 weeks (so far). The result of that is (like I said) substantial extra stress, substantial lost time and lost money.

You shouldn't have made plans based on something that wasn't even vaguely guaranteed.

Khannie wrote:

I think you'll find that they were rude first, and that I merely replied in kind.

All I did was ask if I had a case. You may feel that asking questions is silly, but I'm glad that I don't.

When they're answered, no need to be rude about it. I don't see that the other posters were particularly rude, to be honest.

Khannie

rsynnott wrote:

I don't see that the other posters were particularly rude, to be honest.

Haha. I KNEW you were going to say that. I think that calling someone a liar and saying that their thread is pointless when they have asked a question is rude. People ask what you would classify as "silly" questions on the computers forum all the time and I answer them, because if you don't know, I think it's fair to ask.

I also consider the following rude on a variety of levels:

I wouldnt be wasting your time with esat im sure theres a wet floor in a shop somewhere you could be slipping on.

.

You may not feel that, but I do. We're obviously different. You clearly would have no problem waiting 12 weeks for broadband when you were repeatedly told that it would be ....sorry about that.....just 2 more....sorry about that.....just 2 more.

Let me point out that bt have formally apologised to me, so they're admitting that they have made a mistake. You obviously feel that they have acted properly since they were "within the terms of their contract". I would like to live in a world where it isn't considered acceptable to wait 12 weeks to get broadband, whether or not it's "within the terms of their contract".

Edit: And I didn't make any plans. I just had to suffer the consequences.

eth0_

Mistake? What mistake? Have they told you WHY you've been waiting? It's just as likely that it's Eircom's f*ck up that's caused this massive delay.

Are you sure she wasn't just apologising because of your long wait, not because BT are admitting liability? :-)

At the end of the day, if broadband was so important to you, you'd have cancelled with BT and gone with another ISP if BT couldn't provide you with DSL within, say, a month. That would have been the rational thing to do...

Khannie

eth0_ wrote:

Mistake? What mistake? Have they told you WHY you've been waiting? It's just as likely that it's Eircom's f*ck up that's caused this massive delay.

It's defo not eircom's fault. The order didn't actually make it to eircom (properly) until around 2 weeks ago. Like I said....the first 2 weeks of waiting was caused by them receiving, but not actually doing anything with my order.

eth0_ wrote:

At the end of the day, if broadband was so important to you, you'd have cancelled with BT and gone with another ISP if BT couldn't provide you with DSL within, say, a month. That would have been the rational thing to do...

Yeah, you're dead right. Hindsight and all that. I didn't want to jeapordise my chances of getting it as quickly as possible though. The main reason I held on was that I made a complaint after 6 weeks and got a really nice phone call from a customer service rep. He apologised and said he would look after it personally. I felt certain at that point that I would have the broadband within two weeks. That was 5 weeks and 5 days ago.

eth0_

I'd suggest you email the CEO. If he's as sound a guy as Bill Murphy was, it'll be sorted for you ASAP.

nag

id say the printed press might be a good option too
other than that, instead of an email, a handwritten letter would have more of an impact imo

"incoming email from..." ---> *inbox*
"incoming email from khannie" ---> *junk mail*
"incoming email from..." ---> *inbox*

Kristok

Khannie wrote:

I also consider the following rude on a variety of levels:

I wouldnt be wasting your time with esat im sure theres a wet floor in a shop somewhere you could be slipping on.

Im very sorry if I offended you but perhaps if you where not talking about bringing a pointless court case based on your own misjudgement then you wouldnt get comments like that.

You do realise most people dont get to work from home right ? should I sue my boss for time spent driving to and from work, surly years of petrol should not be paid for by me. In fact when im working he should pay for my lunch too, I mean if I dont eat how will I be able work properly.

At the end of the day you didnt loose anything you where not already paying for, bb may well save you money but not till you get it so you havnt lost anything you just havnt saved anything yet.

Khannie

Kristok wrote:

Im very sorry if I offended you but perhaps if you where not talking about bringing a pointless court case based on your own misjudgement then you wouldnt get comments like that.

Fair enough, but you were very harsh about getting your point accross.

Kristok wrote:

You do realise most people dont get to work from home right ? should I sue my boss for time spent driving to and from work, surly years of petrol should not be paid for by me. In fact when im working he should pay for my lunch too, I mean if I dont eat how will I be able work properly.

Ok, I'm not most people. I do work from home 2 days a week. Broadband allows me to do this. I wouldn't stay in my current job if I had to indefinitely commute 5 days a week. It's just too far (having had to drive an extra 2100Km is not an exadgeration). I realise that most people need to commute, but I, fortunately, am not one of them. BT have been incompetent and that incompetence has cost me in a variety of ways. It's not the money that I care about tbh, it's more the time and stress of spending excess time in the car, stuck in traffic.

All I was doing was asking if I had a case to bring against them. All I really wanted from that case was broadband. You incorrectly inferred that I was a money grabber and attacked me.

Kristok wrote:

At the end of the day you didnt loose anything you where not already paying for

That is true. However, I would not have entered into an agreement with BT to allow them to provide broadband for me if they told me that it was going to take 12 weeks, as I would have known in advance how negatively this would have affected me. They repeatedly told me that I would have broadband within two weeks, and each time since then, their incompetence has cost me time, stress and money. If they had stuck to their part of the bargain, I would have more money, that's fact. More importantly, I would be much, much, much more relaxed.

Madong

Khannie wrote:

Fair enough, but you were very harsh about getting your point accross.



Ok, I'm not most people. I do work from home 2 days a week. Broadband allows me to do this. I wouldn't stay in my current job if I had to indefinitely commute 5 days a week. It's just too far (having had to drive an extra 2100Km is not an exadgeration). I realise that most people need to commute, but I, fortunately, am not one of them. BT have been incompetent and that incompetence has cost me in a variety of ways. It's not the money that I care about tbh, it's more the time and stress of spending excess time in the car, stuck in traffic.

All I was doing was asking if I had a case to bring against them. All I really wanted from that case was broadband. You incorrectly inferred that I was a money grabber and attacked me.



That is true. However, I would not have entered into an agreement with BT to allow them to provide broadband for me if they told me that it was going to take 12 weeks, as I would have known in advance how negatively this would have affected me. They repeatedly told me that I would have broadband within two weeks, and each time since then, their incompetence has cost me time, stress and money. If they had stuck to their part of the bargain, I would have more money, that's fact. More importantly, I would be much, much, much more relaxed.

deep breath man! slow deep breaths...... I'm on the sme boat, I commute to the midlands from Dublin everyday.......... Broadband makes my life easier but talk about a battle to get it !!

Khannie

Madong wrote:

deep breath man! slow deep breaths......

Haha. See what they've done??? SEE??

kirving

You worked out your estimates losses at €1260, is the reason you cam to the figure because the small claims court can only deal with claims up to €1270?

Khannie

Haha. No, pure coincidence. I was really taking the piss a bit with charging for my time spent in the car.

nag

how the hell did they decide that anything less than €1270 was a small claim and that anything above was an average or big claim?!

it would make more sense to me if the limit was €1024 or less for small claims. pretty obvious imo

Khannie

Nag, you're too young to remember this , but €1270 is £1000.