Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Is it just me?


I have a telephone supplied by B.T. it has been from them since 1976, I am still charged for the telephone they sent, with just numbers on it. The local number was just 137.

I pay the bill each quarter by phone, I am charged a process fee of ?6.00, I am now informed that I will have to pay a further ?1.50. for a quarterly bill that will be sent to me for something I do not want.

These will add up to ?36.00. This I think is not acceptable as my phone calls never cost more than ?12. 00 a quarter.

Is this the only Company that charges to process a bill?

I have thoughts of cancelling from B.T.

But I have a large Website for my old Regimental Old Comrades, although getting less participants since the sixty four years I joined the Regiment, these would no longer be in contact as I would have to inform them of my change.

I am offered that I could pay by Direct Debit, but my only income is the state pension and there would not be sufficient funds to pay so I would be in the red, I do not want to do that.

I did have a little savings but that went on my wife?s & my own prearranged Funerals.

Has anyone any thoughts?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/31015-is-it-just-me/
Share on other sites

For a start 'phone them and tell them to stop charging you the equipment rental, that should have stopped years ago. You won't have to return the equipment if it's that old.


Whilst you're at it ask about BT Basic which from memory is around ?8.50 a month, you're probably eligible: http://www.bt.com/includingyou/other-products-services-bt-basic.html?s_cid=con_FURL_calls_basic

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Girls In Your City - No Selfie - Anonymous Casual Dating https://SecreLocal.com [url=https://SecreLocal.com] Girls In Your City [/url] - Anonymous Casual Dating - No Selfie New Girls [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/vanessa-100.html]Vanessa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/vanessa-100.html]Vanessa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/molly-15.html]Molly[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/cheryl-blossom-48.html]Cheryl Blossom[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/carola-conymegan-116.html]Carola Conymegan[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/pupa-41.html]Pupa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/mia-candy-43.html]Mia Candy[/url]
    • This is a remarkable interpretation of history. Wikipedia (with more footnotes and citations than you could shake a shitty stick at sez: The austerity programme was initiated in 2010 by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. In his June 2010 budget speech, Osborne identified two goals. The first was that the structural current budget deficit would be eliminated to "achieve [a] cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of the rolling, five-year forecast period". The second was that national debt as a percentage of GDP would fall. The government intended to achieve both of its goals through substantial reductions in public expenditure.[21] This was to be achieved by a combination of public spending cuts and tax increases amounting to £110 billion.[26] Between 2010 and 2013, the Coalition government said that it had reduced public spending by £14.3 billion compared with 2009–10.[27] Growth remained low, while unemployment rose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme From memory, last time around they were against the LTNs and competing with the Tories to pick up backlash votes - both failed. They had no counterproposals or ideas about how to manage congestion or pollution. This time around they're simply silent on the matter: https://www.southwark-libdems.org.uk/your-local-lib-dem-team/goosegreen Also, as we have seen from Mr Barber's comments on the new development on the old Jewsons yard, "leading campaigns to protect the character of East Dulwich and Goose Green" is code for "blocking new housing".
    • @Insuflo NO, please no, please don't encourage him to post more often! 😒
    • Revealing of what, exactly? I resurrected this thread, after a year, to highlight the foolishness of the OP’s op. And how posturing would be sagacity is quickly undermined by events, dear boy, events. The thread is about Mandelson. I knew he was a wrong ‘un all along, we all did; the Epstein shit just proves it. In reality, Kinnock, Blair, Brown, Starmer et all knew as well but accepted it, because they found him useful. As did a large proportion of the 2024 intake of Labour MPs who were personally vetted and approved by Mandelson.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...