BT say no
 

I just like other peoples views on this.
About 15 years ago i remember paying BT £250 to have a line installed. Since then I`m now with Virgin media and the phone line is now disconnected but the line to the house is still there or rather it was until last wednesday when a drink driver drove into the telegraph pole in the street and knocked it clean down. BT are in the process of putting a new one back up and when I spoke to them about my line, they said as I no longer have an account with them, then they do not have to put the line back.
At the moment I have no intention of going back to BT but its a case of you never know and I if I ever did I dont see why I should have to pay again.

Re: BT say no
 

If you're not paying for their service, why should they provide you with a line?

Re: BT say no
 

Have to agree...there is no automatic right to a phoneline

Re: BT say no
 

I would have to agree with op. Paying to have a line installed in the future is not on imo since that has already been done.

Re: BT say no
 

How about charging the drunk driver as part of the costs when he gets prosecuted .Is there any way of finding out if BT are pursuing a claim for damages from the driver because if so then they should reinstate the line because they will be getting paid for it if any claim for damages is successful

Re: BT say no
 

Hmm..i can see BT having a claim, but not sure you can claim (or Bt re-doing your line).

If BT were your provider, then they would replace the line. But nothing says they have to if you aren't

Re: BT say no
 

If BT make a claim for damages then they will claim for all damages including inactive lines that where attached to the pole at the time and since the op paid to have the line installed in the first place then i think he has a very good case to insist it be re-instated .If the line is not re-instated then BT should provide proof to the op that they have not been paid to replace the line and simply not done the work to save money.The fact that the line is inactive is immaterial imo.

Re: BT say no
 

It would cost BT money to fit an inactive line to your property so unless you sign up with them the is little incentive or reason to do so, if in the future you require a BT line then you just look around for the provider that will fit a new line free of charge.

It is also probably in their Terms and Conditions so unless you want to fund a court case that you are unlikely to win I would just forget about it.

Re: BT say no
 

Assuming that BT file a claim for damages then they will not be footing any bill ,the driver will pay for returning the pole to the same condition as it was before it was hit .The line remains BT's property even though the op paid £250 to have it installed so the op need not go to court that is BT's responsibility .

Re: BT say no
 

As the is no valid reason to refit the line and as above it is probably in the Terms and Conditions so again, so realistically this thread will go around in circles arguing about a non event that will not happen unless the OP foots the bill and signs up for a new contract.

Also the OP is not paying any line rental so the line belongs to BT not him.

Re: BT say no
 

There is if BT claim for the damages and get a successful outcome .Why should the op have to pay to have the line reinstated because of damage to the pole should he wish to return to BT ,he's done that and through no fault of his own the line was damaged .


I didn't say that the line did belong to the op :confused: it is BT's property so they are responsible for claiming any damages not the op

Re: BT say no
 

The OP has no BT services so the is no valid reason to refit the line regardless of whether BT claim from the driver so very unlikely to get a replacement line that is not required.

Re: BT say no
 

yup, as peter says. Even if Bt get reimbursed, and the reimbursement includes costs of restating the line, that doesn't mean they have to. Same as if you get damages, because your car was a write off, doesn't mean you have to buy the same car, or another car.

That also means, if you want to get a BT line (for BT service, or sky etc) they are within their rights to charge you full costs to install the line

But not saying they will, mainly as I'm not BT :D

Re: BT say no
 

There was a time when BT would go out and physically take down the lines from the poles to properties that were no longer with BT. the only reason I can see why that was and probably still is, is so that they can charge the next person that wants the line put back up that they took down.

Re: BT say no
 

Good point. That was before the days of competition. (Although historians would point out that pre-competition there was always a shortage of lines.)

I left BT for Telewest (now Virgin Media) six years ago. I still have a dial tone on my BT line because they know that in order to win me back, I would not entertain an installation charge.

Re: BT say no
 

They replaced a pole in my road and took my old line down.when a asked engineer he said after 2 years they take them down

Re: BT say no
 

He was clearly speaking with forked tongue.

Re: BT say no
 

I removed my BT line myself when my soffit and fascia boards were replaced and wrapped it around the telephone pole, BT removed some time later no idea exactly when but who cares.

Re: BT say no
 

If there is no BT line then should there be no line rental?

Re: BT say no
 

You do not pay BT if you have no connection or phone line to the property.

Re: BT say no
 

I presume BT have now changed their policy. They replaced the telegraph pole outside my house 2 or 3 years ago. I said to the engineers at the time that there was no point re-connecting the line to my property, as I was with VM. But they said that they had to re-connect all lines, even if they were not active.

Re: BT say no
 

I would not have allowed them on my property.

Re: BT say no
 

They were doing their job, and they asked nicely. Also the house was for sale, so it gave the buyer an option.

Re: BT say no
 

If for sale no issue, but I would not have a BT line on my property.

Re: BT say no
 

Well I can see your point. I wouldn't buy a bed from Dreams...same sort of thing I suppose.

Re: BT say no
 

I just dislike BT nothing more.

Re: BT say no
 

Why have the line reinstated if it's not going to be used. Every chance that if someone did want it at some time in the future a fault would have developed sopmewhere that would need it replaceing at that futuer use date. Just seems rather wasteful of effort to me.

A lot of companies describe stuff as "installation" fees. BT used to have a fairly "reconnection" fee too. Virgin Media have often also charged installation fees for services like the hubs and TiVo. None of these meant you owned the kit of had a permanent right to them. Perhaps though the companies involved need to use better English to desribe why the charge arises and what it covers to avoid these frequent misconceptions from their customers.

Re: BT say no
 

Update.
Contractors put up a new pole yesterday and after having a chat with the guys, he put my line back up. The reason I wanted it put back was because if I ever did want to go back I didnt fancy paying out again for a new line.

Re: BT say no
 

Happy ending... :D

Re: BT say no
 

A few simple facts (some already mentioned)

1# BT won't redo a line to a non-active property
2# The monies they claim back from insurance will be for work done so BT won't get paid for not putting your line back..
3# There's been lots of instances where even though the physical line is still there it might not be connected at the exchange and for that BT will charge full price which is currently only £40 (free if they take BB)

Remember that the line isn't yours and the £250 you paid was purely for that contract.

Re: BT say no
 

As far as I knew, if the line had been inactive for more than two years then you would need to pay a "new line" fee when rejoining.