The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
From OFCOM website…..
On 1 July 2021, Openreach notified new pricing arrangements for its Fibre to the Premise (FTTP) services (the ‘Equinox Offer’). The Equinox Offer will last until 30 September 2031 and be available across Openreach’s FTTP footprint.
In this consultation, we have assessed the Equinox Offer and our provisional view is that we should not take any action at this time.
The thing with this action is as a follow up to past consumer loyalty in other businesses. Insurance policies going up every year if people did not shop around, likewise, energy, banking charges, satellite TV services etc. If consumers did not question the new price when there contracts ended and just renewed the price tended to rise, it was not an obligation for the provider to say, you may get the same elsewhere cheaper. Older people can sometimes have a tendency to stick with what they know rather than change, or simply do not know that they can change easily. That is why we now find our insurance providers and energy providers have been forced to advise that the new contract may not be the cheapest for the same service. I see this as another exercise in forcing business to advise at renewal that there may be other options open to them. BT being an easy target as it has worked in other areas. As a side line, I am not sure that if you only had a land line it was a fixed term contract or an open ended one that continued until the customer ended it. Either way if the customer simply renewed without question, then that is there choice not the supplier.
Grrrrrrr
Governments and their appointees now seem to be seeking to legislate for the general public's stupidity/lethargy/inertia, see energy price caps, bank switching rules, BT customer inaction.......It won't end well, there is a degree of personal responsibility in all transactions.
Apparently BT Basic was available for people on low incomes going way back, I would think BT will be auditing all its customers bills for the periods covered.
"If the consumer wanted only the very minimum of fixed line voice access, they could buy BT Basic at £5.10 per month"
"2.1.6 Some standalone line rental charges have risen over recent years but
cheaper alternatives are available"
"There is an active market in the UK for standalone (i.e. not bundled) fixed line rental services. Retail competition is enabled by regulated access to wholesale line rental, the price of which has fallen and will continue to fall. This has enabled the provision of competitive services by other providers. For example, the Post Office currently offers a standalone landline service for £12 per month.
Social tariffs are also available as a low cost option for low income users. The price of BT Basic, the principal social tariff, is lower now in real terms than it was six years ago. This is a good choice for eligible consumers with low outbound call usage (for example for consumers who rely more on receiving than making calls to keep in touch). Eligibility is defined as being in receipt of certain benefits available to low income households"
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0023/53735/cost_value_final.pdf
Looks as though BT was offering good discounts for low income users.
"For people on certain benefits there is a basic service which BT is legally obliged to offer. This is currently £15.30 for three months including £4.50 worth of calls plus another £4.85 for 10GB of basic broadband a month.
Ofcom has published a guide for anyone switching to ensure they are aware of what a deal includes."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34220574
I wonder how the court case will work around social tariffs like BT Basic, since vulnerable and low income customers had options. Is it BT's responsibility to canvas all households to ensure they're engaged? What about Charities like Age Concern, and organisations like Ofcom, Councils, etc, etc.
If BT were legally obliged to offer discounted services to low income people, where's the problem? Or is this court case aimed at millionaire pensioners, who couldn't have cared less anyway?
Simple bt turns off internet, then the courts can take the knee and apologize
Daily Mail report
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/bills/article-10036799/Tribunal-approves-bid-launch-600m-claim-against-BT-landline-charges.html
World's gone mad Velo lol
BT should make a counter offer before the court ruling decision is reached and ask:
- If BT pulls down a couple of statues and the entire BOD takes the knee, will that suffice as an apology in order to reach a mutually beneficial agreement?
"There were plenty of options out there if customers were not happy."
Indeed, it appears the CAT were keen to push this to trial, ensuring that all the PCR's requests were met; For example, the case wouldn't have gone forward had the Opt-In method being pushed instead of allowing Opt-out. It could be drawn out over years now, dependant on court cases and appeals.
It doesn't appear to have worried the market too much, as the share price is up nearly 0.4% currently.
One could be forgiven thinking certain parties want BT to fail fleccy.
I also read the judgement and believe there is no case to answer. No doubt law firm Mishcon de Reya and ex Ofcom employee Justin Le Patourel will be getting well paid for their services. BT should fight this all the way. There were plenty of options out there if customers were not happy.
I just read through the Full Judgement and they're even putting this through on an Opt-Out basis, which shocks me. I don't understand the case against BT, or the Judgement, since there were other far cheaper options available to customers. It makes a mockery of OFCOM and regulation in general imo, I hope BT fights it all the way.
https://www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/default/files/2021-09/20210927_Case_1381_JLP_BT_Judgment.pdf
My Sky package was recently about to go up to more than £70 a month, at the end of my 18 month contract; I phoned Sky and changed to a new contract, offering more or less the same for £42 a month. I don't understand the case against BT when all companies do the same thing, and also considering that there were substantially cheaper sim only deals available at the time. The Judgement makes no sense to me.
Might be a drop tomorrow https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ia4a14d911f8811ecbea4f0dc9fb69570/View/FullText.html?contextData=%28sc.Default%29&transitionType=Default