Member Info for fleccy

"BT Launch Alexa-enabled Home Phone for UK Broadband Users"

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2021/02/bt-launch-alexa-enabled-home-phone-for-uk-broadband-users.html

"BT Group Added £24 Billion in GVA to the UK Economy Last Year"

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2021/02/bt-group-added-24-billion-in-gva-to-the-uk-economy-last-year.html

"There is a huge project to recover old expensive
power hungry kit. That's a major driver pushing onto VoIP."

Don't forget about Openreach replacing their fleet with EV's. Passive Optical Network does away with central office battery requirements, and there's no power requirements for the street cabinets, plus it reduces the number of exchanges dramatically. There will probably be more power requirements on the mobile side of things, but overall BT's power requirement should drop significantly over time.

"Plenty of reasons for blackrock to hedge - italian trial, speculative lawsuit"

As mentioned previously, should BT receive a fine under the Italian Lawsuit it will be a maximum 2 million Euro's.
The reason I posted the links to the Pfizer overcharging lawsuit, was to demonstrate how difficult it is to prove overcharging.
If there was a case of blatant overcharging, Ofcom should, and would have pursued it. Common sense suggests that BT had competition for the service. I'm not sure the argument about disengaged customers not switching, for whatever reason, is cause to find against BT. In the end it will come down to the opinion of the Tribunal, but it strikes me that this may be a complex case with many different variables, so wont be quick.

Thanks, I found it here too

https://www.shortdata.co.uk/

They can't have notified the FCA yet. Anything over 0.1% is notifiable I believe.

"It is showing 0.5% as of Feb the 5th. I wonder what is that they know that we don’t??"

Hi Lee's, can you supply a link to your information. The FCA short-positions-daily-update doesn't show a Blackrock short for BT. It does show a Blackrock short position for British Land of 1.01% dated 25/01/2021.

https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/data/short-positions-daily-update.xlsx

"BT is a SICK company"

Maybe Openreach will be worth a lot more in years to come, what if now's not the right time? The Telecom sector is currently in Bear market territory, this wont last forever. Why are companies like Goldman Sachs owned CityFibre investing Billions in Fibre rollouts? It's most likely due to the potential locked into Telecom assets. Would Goldman invest in something that doesn't have potential?

https://www.cityfibre.com/news/cityfibre-announces-2-5bn-investment-plan-expand-full-fibre-network-unlock-uks-next-generation-broadband/

It appears that the Oxford/AZN vaccine is being picked on yet again, anything to do with the fact that it's the cheapest of all the vaccines? It appears that criticism toward the Oxford vaccine is a free for all, with none of the other vaccines receiving any criticism. Even the Russia vaccine is being hyped up now, also more expensive than the AZN vaccine. Like most of the previous criticism, it will probably fall away. In summary the AZN vaccine has received a ton of criticism from the phasing trials, right through to now, unfairly in my opinion. I wonder if the AZN vaccine would have received so much criticism, if it'd been priced similarly to the other vaccines.

A bit more:

Rule 9(1) doesn't appear to apply here, as the case has been raised under section 47B of the Competition Act 1998.

"The Consumer Rights Act 2015 amends the Competition Act 1998, substituting a new section 47B which introduces an opt-out collective action regime for both: (i) follow-on competition law claims (i.e. claims based on the defendants’ liability as established by an infringement decision by a competition authority); and (ii) stand-alone competition law claims (i.e. claims where there is no infringement decision meaning that the claimants are required to prove that the defendants have breached competition law)."

https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/c9deb4d1/uk-opt-out-collective-actions---us-class-action-lite-but-still-set-to-make-an-impact

Looks like it's a 6 year time limit in this case, which might explain the cut off in 2015
"Limitation periods for High Court claims The Limitation Act 1980 sets limitation periods for High Court claims. Periods vary depending on the nature of the action, but most are six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued"

I found the article below, that explains it really well. It may also explain why they opted for the CAT rather than the High Court.

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/6-618-0351?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true

"Bit of a marathon article there"

Indeed, but the weather's rubbish and I find this interesting. I know nothing about the law, but I'd be interested to read the views of more knowledgeable posters on here.

I've had a look through the Competition Appeal Tribunal Rules and Rule 9 states:

"Proceedings under the 1998 Act and the 2003 Act
4.8 The filing of an appeal under the 1998 Act or the 2003 Act is governed by Rule 9 of
the Rules. Under Rule 9(1) an appeal must be made by filing a notice of appeal
within two months of the date on which the appellant was notified of the disputed
decision or the date of publication of the decision, whichever is the earlier.13
4.9 The Tribunal may not extend this time limit unless it is satisfied that the
circumstances are exceptional: Rule 9(2)."
https://www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/default/files/2017-12/guide_to_proceedings_2015.pdf

"Time and manner of commencing appeals
9.—(1) An appeal to the Tribunal shall be made by filing a notice of appeal within two months
of the date upon which the appellant was notified of the disputed decision or the date of
publication of the decision, whichever is the earlier.
(2) The Tribunal may not extend the time limit provided under paragraph (1) unless it is
satisfied that the circumstances are exceptional. "

https://www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/default/files/2017-11/The_Competition_Appeal_Tribunal_Rules_2015.pdf

The OFCOM review was back in 2018 and Rule 9(1) states; "Under Rule 9(1) an appeal must be made by filing a notice of appeal within two months of the date on which the appellant was notified of the disputed decision or the date of publication of the decision, whichever is the earlier".
I'm probably looking at this too simply, if the review was in 2018 and the appeal has just been applied for now, doesn't that contravene Rule 9(1)?
What are the exceptional circumstances for this appeal under Rule 9(2) nearly three years later?
Very confusing, anyone else have a view on this?

Which article dated 28 Jul 2015.

"BT customers who have been affected by the raft of planned price hikes can leave their contract without having to pay a penalty charge."

https://www.which.co.uk/news/2015/07/price-hike-may-lead-to-bt-contract-cancellations-410208/

No suggestion from "Which" in 2015 that BT was doing anything wrong.
Am I right in thinking that the class action against BT is simply based on the voluntary agreement between BT and OFCOM in 2018? Just goes to show that no good deed goes unpunished. I say good deed as this case appears to be predicated on a voluntary agreement.
Haha relieved a bit of boredom today, since it hasn't stopped raining. I'll leave it at that.

Just to backup my example of CMA vs Pfizer & F lynn, here are a couple of articles about the case.

1st article from 2016.
"Pfizer fined a record amount for abuse of dominant position involving excessive pricing
The CMA has imposed a record £82.4m fine on Pfizer and a £5.2m fine on ***** Pharma after finding that both abused a dominant position."

https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/ck0a7appan2wb0b33vq7jwtsg/08-pfizer-fined-abuse-dominant-position

2nd article from 2018 after the Appeal.
"The Tribunal held that the correct approach, which the CMA should have but failed to adopt, was to identify a benchmark price or price range which would have applied in conditions of “normal and sufficiently effective competition”. In determining that benchmark price, the CMA should have given proper consideration to whether phenytoin sodium tablets – the prices of which were higher than the allegedly excessive prices for capsules – served as a meaningful price comparator. The CMA also erred in law in failing to have any regard to the benefit to patients of phenytoin capsules in determining their economic value."

https://www.monckton.com/*****-pfizer-v-cma-the-cma-misapplied-the-test-for-excessive-pricing/

Back to the case against BT
I'm guessing the argument, against BT, might be the voluntary agreement with OFCOM to reduce the price by £7 in 2018. They will probably argue the price reduction sets the benchmark, and proves that BT were overcharging, but I suspect this oversimplifies things. BT have maintenance costs, Equipment costs and a myriad of other expenses, and will probably have many counter arguments. I found examples of cheaper options available in the period that this case refers to, so there was competition.
BT's charges were well publicised and adequate notice was given for customers to move, so I don't understand where the reasoning is for this case anyway, how can it be BT's fault if customers don't look for better deals?

BT gave notice of price hikes
"BT announces 7% price rise for landline and broadband services
Letters this weekend will advise 9.5 million customers of across the board price hikes"

"BT said customers who were part way through a contract could leave for a rival provider without penalty provided they did so within 30 days of receiving the price hike letter."

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/jul/24/bt-announces-7-price-rise-landline-broadband-services

In my honest opinion the case against BT seems really flimsy, but as previously mentioned i'm not trained in law so come to your own conclusions.

It appear that link doesn't paste correctly, due to some bizarre filter anomaly.
For some reason the name F lynn is blocked, so i've put a space in after the F, if copying and pasting link, remove the space after the F.

https://www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/default/files/2020-04/1275-76_F lynn_CoA_Judgment_100320.pdf

continued:

"The Judgment"
Key points, in my opinion.
"39. To the extent necessary I refer to relevant passages of the Judgment as they arise in
the analysis below. In the introduction to the Judgment the Tribunal explained the
importance of the issues:
“3. Cases of pure unfair pricing are rare in competition law.
Authorities find them difficult to bring and are, rightly, wary of
casting themselves in the role of price regulators. Generally,
price control is better left to sectoral regulators, where they
exist, and operated prospectively; ex post price regulation
through the medium of competition law presents many
problems. However, the law prohibits unfair pricing in certain
circumstances and in such cases there is no reason in principle
why competition law cannot be applied, provided this is done
on the correct legal basis and the analysis of evidence is sound.
4. We understand the CMA’s concern to deter and punish
instances of unfair pricing that infringe the law. However, we
have found this particular decision to be wrongly based in
certain respects. Whilst we find the CMA was correct that the
two companies each held a dominant position, we find the
CMA’s conclusions on abuse of dominance were in error. The
CMA did not correctly apply the legal test for finding that
prices were unfair; it did not appropriately consider what was
the right economic value for the product at issue; and it did not
take sufficient account of the situation of other, comparable,
products, in particular of the phenytoin sodium tablet. This
means that the CMA’s findings on abuse of dominance in this
case cannot be upheld."

I've pasted that last bit again, below. If I'm reading it correctly, they're saying that the CMA didn't take alternative competitive alternatives into consideration, so alternative product offerings are important in this type of case.
"CMA did not correctly apply the legal test for finding that
prices were unfair; it did not appropriately consider what was
the right economic value for the product at issue; and it did not
take sufficient account of the situation of other, comparable,
products, in particular of the phenytoin sodium tablet. This
means that the CMA’s findings on abuse of dominance in this
case cannot be upheld."

I would think that the case against BT would be highly complex and require evidence on cost of provision, competing products and many other variables. Probably explains why OFCOM didn't fine BT, or demand they compensate customers.

If there are any lawyers on hear, I'd be interested to read their opinion. I'm not a lawyer, so my opinion that the case against BT isn't warranted isn't based on any legal competence, it's just a man in the street opinion

https://www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/default/files/2020-04/1275-76_*****_CoA_Judgment_100320.pdf

I've had a look through the CAT judgements, to see if their are any recent cases similar to the one being brought against BT. I looked at this one and it seemed very similar, but relates to the Pharmaceutical industry and relates to the alleged overpricing of tablets. The Competition Markets Authority took Pfizer and ***** to court and won.

"9. The prohibition in section 18 is known as “the Chapter II prohibition”. Article 102
is, mutatis mutandis, identical save only that for it to apply there must be a proven
effect upon trade between Member States. Article 102(a) is identical in terminology
to section 18(2)(a) CA 1998. The seminal case on the test for abusive pricing is the
judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-27/76 United Brands v Commission
EU:C:1978:22 (“United Brands”).
10. The Decision found that Pfizer and ***** had abused their dominant positions in the
UK market for phenytoin sodium capsules under both the Chapter II prohibition and
Article 102. It imposed a penalty of £84,196,998 upon Pfizer and £5,164,425 upon
*****. The abuse comprised of Pfizer and ***** intentionally or negligently charging
excessive and unfair prices for the capsules. The Decision included directions (“the
Directions”) requiring Pfizer and ***** to reduce their prices."

Pfizer and ***** applied to "Tribunal for interim relief to suspend the Directions pending appeal."

"12. On 7th February 2017 Pfizer and ***** lodged appeals in the Tribunal against the
Decision. The hearing occurred over 13 days between 30th October 2017 and 24th
November 2017.
13. The Tribunal handed down the Judgment on 7th July 2018: [2018] CAT 11. It found
that: (i) the CMA had correctly identified the relevant geographical and product
markets; (ii) Pfizer and ***** were dominant in those markets; but (iii), the finding of
abuse in the Decision was vitiated by errors of law and fact. The Tribunal quashed
the Decision and made an order under paragraph 3(2)(a) of Schedule 8 CA 1998 for
remittal in the following terms:
“The issue of abuse and any consequential matters, including
penalties and directions, are remitted to the CMA for
reconsideration in accordance with the Judgment.”"

All parties then applied for an appeal.

"All parties applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal. Leave was given
to both the CMA and ***** (on certain of its arguments) by order on 12th December
2018."

It appears the price of the drug was increased by genericising and changing its name.

"35. On 24th September 2012 ***** de-branded Epanutin and commenced its distribution
as Phenytoin Sodium ***** Hard Capsules. The Drug Tariff price increased to £15.74
per 28 x 25mg pack, £15.98 per 28 x 50mg pack, £67.50 per 84 x 100mg pack and
£67.50 per 28 x 300mg pack. The Drug Tariff price remained at this level until April
2014, when Pfizer reduced its prices in response to the entry into the market of
NRIM."
https://www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/default/files/20

More options available.

"I just use my mobile': Millions never use home phones but must pay line rental for broadband - here's how to beat the cost"

"For some customers, it may make sense to ditch landline, broadband and line rental altogether, using just a mobile connection or ‘mifi’ for all communication needs."

"For Suzie Parkus, a dating coach from London, having a landline is not worthwhile. She says: ‘I don’t need the extra expense. I also get enough nuisance calls via my mobile so why have another line to get more of the same?’
Instead, she has two mobile phones on a shared plan which gives her unlimited texts and 10GB of data.
She adds: ‘You can now call most numbers free of charge via your mobile so who needs a landline?’"

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-3783051/I-just-using-mobile-Millions-never-use-home-phone-pay-line-rental-broadband-s-ring-changes-beat-cost.html

This isn't a black and white issue for proving BT did something wrong. BT weren't the only voice only provider, and had competition from other landline offers as well as mobile offerings.

"As you know fleccy, any case which BT 'may' have to answer will also need to be answered by all the player you noted below too ..... can not single out one provider over another when they are all playing the same game."

Not just Telecom, this would affect Gas, Electricity, Insurance, you name it.
There were other options to BT in the period covered by this case. As a dominant player, BT wouldn't have been allowed to undercut the competition under competition rules. Clearly there were many alternatives to BT landline only service, where's the justification for this case?

Here's another article suggesting there was competition.

https://www.choose.co.uk/guide/line-rental-broadband-separate-providers.html

Here's an article from 2015.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2015/05/bt-hikes-upfront-line-rental-price-for-third-time-in-a-year/

It appears there was competition for landlines.
"Line rental costs compared
PROVIDER~~UPFRONT RENTAL COST~~~~MONTHLY COST~~INCL CALLS?~~ANN VS MONTHLY
BT~~~~~~~~£183.48 (equiv £15.29/mth)~~£16.99~~~~~~~~~Yes, weekend~~£20.40
TalkTalk~~~~£180.36 (equiv £15.03/mth)~~£16.70~~~~~~~~~None~~~~~~~~£19.20
Plusnet~~~~£155.88 (equiv £12.99/mth)~~£15.95~~~~~~~~~None~~~~~~~~£35.52
Virgin Med~~£164 (equiv £13.67/mth)~~~~£16.99~~~~~~~~~Yes, weekend~~£39.88
EE~~~~~~~~~£132 (equiv £11/mth)~~~~~~£15.75~~~~~~~~~Yes, weekend~~£57
Post Office~~£144 (equiv £12/mth) ~~~~~~£15~~~~~~~~~~~Yes, weekend~~~£36

The lawsuit is being raised under "Competition Act - Chapter II prohibition"

"The proposed collective proceedings would combine “standalone claims” under section 47A of the Act for
damages caused by alleged breaches of statutory duty by the Respondent/Proposed Defendant in charging
unfair prices to certain of its customers in breach of s.18 of the Act (the “Chapter II Prohibition”)."

Excessive charging is one of the offences listed under Chapter 11 Prohibition. The reason Le Patourel has raised this with the Competition Appeal Tribunal is because OFCOM have already looked at this, and didn't order BT to compensate customers.

"Although the claims are not “follow on” claims, they arise out of a review, conducted by Ofcom in 2017, of
“the market for standalone landline telephone services” (“the 2017 Review”). Ofcom conducted the 2017
Review pursuant to its powers under the Communications Act 2003 to review communications markets for
the purposes of deciding whether to impose ex ante regulation."

No court case has been raised against BT on this previously, only an OFCOM review, so where are the grounds for an appeal?

Chapter II prohibition
"The Chapter II prohibition bans conduct that amounts to abuse of a dominant position in the relevant market and affects trade within the UK.
Generally, a company is unlikely to be considered dominant if it has a market share of less than 40%. However, other factors will also be relevant when assessing dominance. The Act gives specific examples of types of conduct that are likely to be considered an abuse. These include:
Charging excessive prices
Forcing buyers of one product to buy another product from you by 'tying' the products
Charging prices that are artificially low to prevent competitors from being able to enter or continue in the market
Refusing to supply products to another business, preventing that business from competing in another market.
A business found breaching the Chapter II prohibition can be fined up to 10% of worldwide turnover. They can be investigated by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and ordered to stop their illegal behaviour. There are no exemptions from a breach of the Chapter II prohibition. However, there is limited immunity for conduct of minor significance. The CMA won't fine an undertaking with a turnover of less than £50 million per year."

Some questions:
Why didn't OFCOM fine BT if BT had done something wrong?
Why has it taken so long for this case to appear, nearly 3 years later?
Why are certain parties financing this in the background?
Etc, etc, etc?

"The media appear keen to keep the shackles on BT though with this stuff about overcharging the elderly and the Italian accounting scandal still being talked about."

Indeed, it's all about projecting a negative narrative. The maximum that BT could be fined in Italy is 2 million Euro's, and the threatened class action lawsuit has no chance imo.

The Case has now been registered with the Competition Appeal Tribunal, but I just can't see it having any legs, otherwise OFCOM would have fined BT themselves.
The landline service in question wasn't regulated by OFCOM.
There were alternative s to BT's service, like sim only deals from various mobile suppliers.
The agreement between OFCOM and BT was voluntary, as it was likely BT did nothing wrong.

https://www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/default/files/2021-01/1381_Patourel_summary_260121.pdf