Re: restriction
 

I think the OP's made it quite clear that they suffer from bouts when using a normal telephone is impossible, hence the need for lifeline's emergency button. Just becasue someone is disabled or ill doesn;t mean to say it effects them 100% of the time and just a 0.1% could be problematic for some

Re: restriction
 

I have serious problems getting my mum ( A VM Customer as it happens) to keep her mobile switched on and charged. Despite encouragement from the family she doggedly seems to think she will wear it out somehow by leaving it on, we are slowly making progress;:) buying a second charger helped so that she could have one in the bedroom and one in the kitchen. If you are going to have a mobile as a backup you must ensure that it is available when needed.

When considering things like emergency lines we must not loose sight of the fact that many users, especially older users who are more likely to have issues with eyesight, use of small keyboards and limited contrast small LCD screens, my mum included, are intimidated by technology and don't engage with mobiles with the quite the same vigour as younger generations. We don't know the circumstances when the emergency function is needed, for this user a mobile might simply be too difficult to use due to the small size and fine motor skills needed.

I don't know the circumstances of the OP and don't want to comment on why the account is in arrears but is it so difficult to keep a line open for emergency calls, even if it is to a designated contact number rather than 999.

Re: restriction
 

When it comes to non-payment yes.

Virgin have to treat all customers that don't pay the same - so the phone restrictions for all customers are the same. This means they can phone Virgin and 999. That's it.

Otherwise you would have ever single customer going 'oh can you just leave this number on cos I really really need it'

If it is a fault then Virgin do prioritise phone fault fixing for those that need it - and will usually get phone issues fixed within 4 hours of it being reported.

But restrictions due to non-payment ARE avoidable for everyone

Re: restriction
 

Ok lets take that as the default position, and I agree VM are business and need to take a firm line with customers regarding non-payment.

By way of comparison does anyone know how other utility suppliers operate under similar circumstances when it comes to special needs customers? I think these could be defined by specific medical criteria to avoid the freeloaders simply trying it on?

Re: restriction
 

Sorry but I dont agree here - why should VM treat this person any different, isn't that why the OP got so horrible or nasty towards Ben / VM?

Re: restriction
 

You can't compare the two. There is a whole different regulatory framework for 'essential' utilities than for Telco/BBI/TV providers

Although as far as I know it is only Water than currently can never be disconnected. For Gas and Electric the courts would first force pre-payment meters to be installed - including ordering right of entry (which both have an emergency buffer IIRC), and then if those were not paid the customer would be cut off with no override

Re: restriction
 

I suppose it's like classifying a service as essential, hence they can't turn off the water (though they can restrict it to a trickle (enough to refill a toilet or fill a kettle). Telehone lines are not counted this way but perhaps for some they should be. It's not VM's fault that 99.9% of the country see a telephne in this way and perhaps the 0.1% (perhaps even lower) should put thier point across to ofcom regarding the need for a telephne to be an essential service for not only 999 cals but also lifeline or some other emergency method.

Re: restriction
 

Granted, I understand why the OP needs the line, hell what would VM do if hyperthetically, something did happen to these people, with no line?

I don't think, they should get special treatment, however, that said, if somebody is "taking care" of the OP - or somebody is getting care allowance, they should be helping the OP look after her bills and deal with this sorta stuff..

Re: restriction
 

There's a reason BT offer BT Basic. They are supposed to provide a landline telephone service to every available property and every person who wants one. Whether the occupant takes that up and uses it is their choice. If the owner can't pay Virgin Media for their phone bill, she should strongly consider BT Basic for this, as it's unlikely BT would disconnect for non-payment if it was to be used in emergency situations. BT are after all the national tekecoms provider. :)

Re: restriction
 

Yeah but that is a company decision and not a goverment guideline in accordance to essential public services and they can simply cut off the phone if they so wish..

Re: restriction
 

Yes BT may have to provide the phone for anyone that asks - but they are still allowed to restrict it if people don't pay for it

Re: restriction
 

BT offer BT Basic as a loss-making service. They make no profit from it whatsoever. Somebody not paying their bill and realising that their phone is an entirely necessary bit of kit should I agree take measures to ensure it's paid for. Why not get family to front the bill?

Re: restriction
 

Seems the OP is not coming back lol

Re: restriction
 

Not everyone has family ;)

Re: restriction
 

To quote south park - I really learnt something today :)

I did not know that BT HAVE to provide a phone line.