Make and explore Freedom of Information requests
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid for FOI purposes (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this requestAct on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Failure of BT to fulfil assurances it gave Ofcom regarding connection charges
To Office of Communications by Michael McCarthy 5 August 2010
Ofcom's investigation of excessive connection charges levied by BT
To Office of Communications by Michael McCarthy 19 December 2009
Refunds by BT of inappropriate connection charges
To Office of Communications by Michael McCarthy 26 October 2010
BT openreach
To Office of Communications by Florence S 5 February 2009
Extortionate charges by BT
To Office of Communications by Michael McCarthy 19 December 2008
FOI 2005
To Office of Communications by Andrew Sutton 11 April 2012
BT Restrictive Practices Re Broadband Migrations
To Office of Communications by J.A.F. Mitchell 12 September 2010
Ofcom Guidelines re Cessation of Voice Services
To Office of Communications by J.A.F. Mitchell 28 October 2010
BT "business manager/customer services" refusal to communicate
To Office of Communications by Paul Chapman 23 September 2010
Price Abuse
To Office of Communications by Keith Mallen (Account suspended) 23 August 2009
BT's connection charges
Michael McCarthy made this Freedom of Information request to Office of Communications
Office of Communications did not have the information requested.
From: Michael McCarthy
21 November 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
Given Ofcom's awareness at least as early as March 2008 of consumer
concern in relation to BT's connection charge of £124.99, and
Ofcom's assurances that it was "looking into this" at that time
(which is now 20 months ago), I would like to know whether Ofcom
has decided that this charge is
(a) fair and reasonable, or
(b) excessive
and if the latter is the case, what action it proposes to take.
Yours faithfully,
Michael McCarthy
Office of Communications
21 November 2009
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at delivery-2.star.net.uk.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
<[Ofcom request email]>:
Sorry. Although I'm listed as a best-preference MX or A for that host,
it isn't in my control/locals file, so I don't treat it as local. (#5.4.6)
--- Below this line is a copy of the message.
Return-Path: <[FOI #23503 email]>
Received: (qmail 20563 invoked from network); 21 Nov 2009 17:05:27 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp-in-8.star.net.uk) (10.200.12.8)
by welly-2.star.net.uk with SMTP; 21 Nov 2009 17:05:27 -0000
Received: (qmail 28954 invoked from network); 21 Nov 2009 17:05:27 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail177.messagelabs.com) (85.158.138.99)
by smtp-in-8.star.net.uk with SMTP; 21 Nov 2009 17:05:27 -0000
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: [FOI #23503 email]
X-Msg-Ref: server-6.tower-177.messagelabs.com!1258823126!15247826!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [82.111.230.212]
X-SpamReason: No, hits=1.6 required=7.0 tests=DEAR_SOMETHING
Received: (qmail 24737 invoked from network); 21 Nov 2009 17:05:26 -0000
Received: from sandwich.ukcod.org.uk (HELO sandwich.ukcod.org.uk) (82.111.230.212)
by server-6.tower-177.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 21 Nov 2009 17:05:26 -0000
Received: from foi by sandwich.ukcod.org.uk with local (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <[FOI #23503 email]>)
id 1NBtOo-0006Kd-2n
for [Ofcom request email]; Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:05:26 +0000
From: Michael McCarthy <[FOI #23503 email]>
To: FOI requests at Ofcom <[Ofcom request email]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - BT's connection charges
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Message-Id: <[email address]>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:05:26 +0000
Dear Sir or Madam,
Given Ofcom's awareness at least as early as March 2008 of consumer
concern in relation to BT's connection charge of £124.99, and
Ofcom's assurances that it was "looking into this" at that time
(which is now 20 months ago), I would like to know whether Ofcom
has decided that this charge is
(a) fair and reasonable, or
(b) excessive
and if the latter is the case, what action it proposes to take.
Yours faithfully,
Michael McCarthy
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be
published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/about...
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #23503 email]
Is [Ofcom request email] the wrong address for Freedom
of Information requests to Office of Communications? If so please
contact us using this form:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/contact
If you find WhatDoTheyKnow useful as an FOI officer, please ask
your web manager to suggest us on your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
22 November 2009
Sent request to Office of Communications again.
From: Julia Fraser
Office of Communications
27 November 2009
Dear Mr McCarthy,
Freedom of Information: Right to know request 1-132377616
Thank you for your request for information regarding BT's connections
charges.
Your request was received on 23 November and I am dealing with it under
the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (`the Act').
Generally any information provided will consist of copies of original
documents in paper or electronic format.
Where we hold the information you have requested we will endeavour to
answer your request in full and within 20 working days. If we are unable
to provide the information requested, we will explain why under the Act
the information has not been provided.
If you have any queries then please contact
[1][Ofcom request email]. Please remember to quote the
reference number above in any future communications.
Yours sincerely
:: Julia Fraser
Head of Knowledge Centre
020 7981 3751 T
020 7981 3406 F
[2][email address]
:: Ofcom
Riverside House
2a Southwark Bridge Road
London SE1 9HA
020 7981 3000
[3]www.ofcom.org.uk
show quoted sections
From: Julia Fraser
Office of Communications
4 December 2009
Dear Mr McCarthy,
Freedom of Information: Right to know request 1-132377616
Thank you for your request for information about BT's connection charge.
Your request was received on 23 November, and I am dealing with it under
the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the `Act').
Unfortunately I cannot identify the information you have requested from
the details you have provided; and therefore will be unable to proceed
with your request without clarification of the information you have
requested. To help us do this, it would greatly assist us if you could
advise us in what context you were provided with information relating to
Ofcom's assurances on this matter. This will help us to identify
whether we hold any information in this area.
Once I have more details, and am able to find the information you have
requested, your request will be considered.
Generally any information provided will consist of copies of original
documents in paper or electronic format.
Where we hold the information you have requested we will endeavour to
answer your request in full and within 20 working days. If we are unable
to provide the information requested, we will explain why under the Act
the information has not been provided.
Please note that if I do not receive appropriate clarification of your
information requirements by 21 January 2010, then I will consider the
request closed.
If you have any queries then please contact me. Please remember to quote
the reference number above in any future communications.
Yours sincerely
:: Julia Fraser
Head of Knowledge Centre
020 7981 3751 T
020 7981 3406 F
[1][email address]
:: Ofcom
Riverside House
2a Southwark Bridge Road
London SE1 9HA
020 7981 3000
[2]www.ofcom.org.uk
If you are unhappy with the response or level of service you have received
in relation to your request from Ofcom, you may ask for an internal
review. If you ask us for an internal review of our decision, it will be
treated as a formal complaint and will be subject to an independent review
within Ofcom. We will acknowledge the complaint and inform you of the
date by which you might expect to be told the outcome.
The following outcomes are possible:
o the original decision is upheld; or
o the original decision is reversed or modified.
Timing
If you wish to exercise your right to an internal review you should
contact us within two months of the date of this letter. There is no
statutory deadline for undertaking internal reviews and it will depend
upon the complexity of the case, but we aim to conclude all internal
reviews within 2 months. If you wish to request an internal review, you
should contact:
Graham Howell
The Secretary to the Corporation
Ofcom
Riverside House
2a Southwark Bridge Road
London SE1 9HA
If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
show quoted sections
From: Michael McCarthy
4 December 2009
Dear Julia Fraser,
My requests for information related to the current state of
investigations by Ofcom into BT’s connection charges. Ofcom’s
ability to supply me with such information cannot possibly be
logically contingent on knowing “in what context [I was previously]
provided with information relating to Ofcom's assurances on this
matter”. In any case, under the Freedom of Information Act it is my
prerogative to ask the questions and your duty to respond to them;
not the other way around.
Should you nevertheless wish, as an entirely separate matter, to
know more about previous assurances supplied by Ofcom, be advised
that my charges for locating and supplying this information are
remarkably similar to the connection charge levied by BT, since the
amount of time and trouble involved would also be very similar
although, like BT, I decline to supply a breakdown of the actual
costs.
I should be grateful if you would now, without further delay,
supply the information I requested on 21 November. To reiterate, I
would like to know whether Ofcom’s present position is that BT’s
connection charge of £124.99 is
(a) fair and reasonable, or
(b) excessive
And if the latter is the case, I would like to know what action, if
any, Ofcom proposes to take.
Should Ofcom still be deliberating on this matter, no doubt you
will be good enough to let me know when some conclusion is expected
to be reached.
Yours sincerely,
Michael McCarthy
From: Michael McCarthy
11 December 2009
Dear Julia Fraser,
Let's try just once more.
Imagine someone who has never had any correspondence with Ofcom
before. This person puts in a FoI request to Ofcom regarding BT’s
£124.99 connection charge, i.e the charge which BT levies for
transferring a phone line from, for example, TalkTalk back to BT -
a procedure which appears to entail little more than moving the
appropriate wires from a TalkTalk rack to a BT rack at the
telephone exchange, and which, amazingly, is apparently done at nil
cost when the move is made in the opposite direction.
This imagined person wishes, not unnaturally under the
circumstances, to know if Ofcom deems this charge to be:
(a) fair and reasonable, or
(b) excessive.
If the latter is the case, this imagined person would also like to
know what action, if any, Ofcom proposes to take. Conceivable
actions could include congratulating BT on exploiting its monopoly
position to royally rip off the public, delivering a verbal slap on
the wrist, or requiring BT to refund all or most of the connection
charge.
Clearly, Ofcom has either by now investigated whether BT's
connection charges are reasonable or it hasn't. If it hasn't,
possibly it intends to do so in future, by some date it could
presumably specify, if only in broad terms. If it has completed
investigating BT's connection charges, presumably Ofcom has
reached, or is expecting to reach, some kind of conclusion about
them. If it has reached a conclusion, it probably falls either into
the category "fair and reasonable" or the category "excessive", as
there are few other alternatives besides “excessively cheap” (which
we can probably rule out).
Whatever the facts of the matter are, they constitute information
which must be in the possession of Ofcom. If such information does
not fall foul of some exemption Ofcom can claim under the Freedom
of Information Act, the information can presumably be disclosed to
ANYONE who requests it, and not just to the imaginary person I
conjured up in my second paragraph for the sake of clarifying my
argument.
Consequently, unless there is some fault in my reasoning or some
provision of the Act of which I am unaware (and I invite you to
point either out to me), this information can also presumably be
disclosed - to me.
So far as I can see, the fact that I might previously have been in
correspondence with Ofcom on this very matter of BT’s connection
charges can have no bearing whatever on Ofcom's ability to supply
the information I have requested. I therefore remain at a loss to
understand (also since you have failed to offer any plausible
justification for posing the question) what possible relevance the
issue of "in what context [I was] provided with information
relating to Ofcom's assurances on this matter" has to this present
request for information.
I therefore reiterate my original FoI request, and look forward to
receiving without further delay the information I requested on 21
November 2009, or else (which might actually be even more
interesting) a clear explanation of why, although it could have
been supplied to some other enquirer, it cannot be supplied to me.
Should you however decide to persist in making the provision of
information on a point of general public interest and concern
subject to my first answering your question, be advised that my
next move would be to seek an internal review prior to making a
complaint to the Information Commissioner.
Yours etc.
Michael McCarthy
From: Julia Fraser
Office of Communications
21 December 2009
Dear Mr McCarthy,
Freedom of Information: Right to know request 1-132377616
Thank you for your request for information:
Given Ofcom's awareness at least as early as March 2008 of consumer
concern in relation to BT's connection charge of £124.99, and Ofcom's
assurances that it was "looking into this" at that time (which is now 20
months ago), I would like to know whether Ofcom has decided that this
charge is
(a) fair and reasonable, or
(b) excessive
and if the latter is the case, what action it proposes to take.
This was received on 23 November 2009.
I am writing to advise you that the information you requested is not held
by Ofcom. Ofcom has not looked into the question of whether the BT
connection charge is fair or reasonable. The only work Ofcom has
undertaken on the BT connection charge is to consider the minimum contract
period associated with the charge as part of its work on Additional
Charges (Ofcom Review of Additional Charges: Statement 19 December 2008
[1]http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/...);
see paragraphs 6.22-6.24 which discuss minimum contract periods and
upfront costs:
"6.22 Regarding fixed voice services, we expect that the upfront costs are
likely to be lower
than for either broadband and mobile, where end-user equipment (for
example,
modem or handset) is often provided 'free'. Nonetheless, there is some
upfront cost
for fixed voice services in the form of an Openreach connection charge for
suppliers
using BT's network.
6.23 Where there are such costs to suppliers, and/or benefits to
consumers, it does not
seem to us to be illegitimate for suppliers to require consumers to agree
to MCP
terms. And, given our expectation that MCPs are a fundamental part of the
contract
and likely to be core terms, the Regulations are unlikely to provide a
basis for
assessing such terms' fairness or taking the view that suppliers may not
use such
terms.
6.24 We also note that the MCP is an aspect of the service that suppliers
are likely to be
able to compete on and some suppliers may choose to offer no MCPs or
reduced
MCPs."
If you have any further queries, please let me know. Please quote the
reference number above in any future correspondence.
Yours sincerely
:: Julia Fraser
Head of Knowledge Centre
020 7981 3751 T
020 7981 3406 F
[2][email address]
:: Ofcom
Riverside House
2a Southwark Bridge Road
London SE1 9HA
020 7981 3000
[3]www.ofcom.org.uk
If you are unhappy with the response or level of service you have received
in relation to your request from Ofcom, you may ask for an internal
review. If you ask us for an internal review of our decision, it will be
treated as a formal complaint and will be subject to an independent review
within Ofcom. We will acknowledge the complaint and inform you of the
date by which you might expect to be told the outcome.
The following outcomes are possible:
o the original decision is upheld; or
o the original decision is reversed or modified.
Timing
If you wish to exercise your right to an internal review you should
contact us within two months of the date of this letter. There is no
statutory deadline for undertaking internal reviews and it will depend
upon the complexity of the case, but we aim to conclude all internal
reviews within 2 months. If you wish to request an internal review, you
should contact:
Graham Howell
The Secretary to the Corporation
Ofcom
Riverside House
2a Southwark Bridge Road
London SE1 9HA
If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
show quoted sections
From: Michael McCarthy
29 December 2009
Dear Julia Fraser,
Thank you for your 21 December 2009 response to my right to know
request 1-132377616.
I am however at a loss to understand your statement that "Ofcom has
not looked into the question of whether the BT connection charge is
fair or reasonable". I am in possession of an email dated 19 March
2008 from Steven Parker, a member of Ofcom's Central Operations
Telecoms Team, Ofcom reference 1-47691043. In it he stated quite
clearly that:
"Ofcom is aware of consumer concern in relation to BT's connection
charge of £124.99 and the circumstances under which this is being
applied. We are currently looking into this".
Please explain to me how your colleague Steven Parker's statement
that Ofcom was "looking into" the issue of consumer concern over
BT's £124.99 connection charge can be reconciled with your denial
that Ofcom has looked into the question of whether the BT
connection charge is fair or reasonable. How is it possible for
Ofcom to look into complaints that BT's connection charge is
outrageously high without either concluding that this charge is
reasonable, or concluding that it is excessive?
Yours etc.,
Michael McCarthy
From: Julia Fraser
Office of Communications
5 January 2010
Dear Mr McCarthy,
Thank you for your email of 29 December, in which you refer to an email
dated 19 March 2008 from Steven Parker at Ofcom, and ask for
clarification as to whether Ofcom has looked into the question of whether
the BT connection charge is fair or reasonable.
The email in question, containing the words: "consumer concern in
relation to BT's connection charge of £124.99 and the circumstances under
which this is being applied" related to customer concerns about the charge
being applied incorrectly, and not to the amount itself. Therefore, Ofcom
did not look into the question of whether the BT connection charge is fair
or reasonable as part of this work.
Regards,
:: Julia Fraser
Head of Knowledge Centre
020 7981 3751 T
020 7981 3406 F
[1][email address]
:: Ofcom
Riverside House
2a Southwark Bridge Road
London SE1 9HA
020 7981 3000
[2]www.ofcom.org.uk
"This response from Ofcom has not been treated as a response to a request
for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. If you think it
should, please let us know".
show quoted sections
From: Michael McCarthy
5 January 2010
Dear Julia Fraser,
Thank you for your email dated 5 January 2010, which I found
completely implausible.
The 19 March 2008 email from Steven Parker was sent as a response
to my explicit complaint that BT had charged a wholly excessive
amount, viz. £124.99, for the simple task of reverting a line to
BT. Hence when he wrote:
"Thank you for your letters [in which] you complained about BT
charging £124.99 for reverting a line to BT after it had been taken
over by another provider. Ofcom is aware of consumer concern in
relation to BT's connection charge of £124.99 and the circumstances
under which it is being applied"
- it is quite clearly a response to my complaints about the
excessive AMOUNT of the charge, and his phrase "the circumstances
under which this is being applied" equally clearly refers to the
complaint in my letters that unfortunate phone users who move into
premises where the phone line has previously been switched to a
company other than their preferred one have no option but to pay
whatever BT demands to have it reassigned.
Consequently, where he proceeds to write that "We [i.e. Ofcom] are
currently looking into this," it is abundantly clear what "this"
signifies.
Nowhere did he use the weasel expression "customer concerns about
the charge being applied incorrectly”. If might conceivably have
been more convenient for Ofcom if he had used such ambiguous
phraseology, but the fact remains that he didn’t.
It seems therefore inescapable that Ofcom is attempting
retrospectively to disavow a clear statement by Steven Parker that
an investigation into BT's high connection charges (which many more
people than myself have considered to be flagrant profiteering) was
in progress in March 2008.
I therefore formally request an internal review of Ofcom's handling
of my information request, on the ground that, unless Mr Parker was
misrepresenting matters in his 19 March 2008 email, Ofcom must
indeed have looked into whether BT's connection charges are (a)
excessive or (b) reasonable, but is now prevaricating in a manner
which amounts to a refusal, in breach of its obligations under
Freedom of Information legislation, to divulge to me what this
investigation produced.
Yours etc.
Michael McCarthy
From: Information Requests
Office of Communications
14 January 2010
Dear Mr McCarthy
Please see attached correspondence relating to your request for
information.
regards
Katy Emadi
show quoted sections
From: Information Requests
Office of Communications
9 April 2010
Dear Mr McCarthy
Please see attached correspondence relating to your request for
information.
Yours sincerely
Jonathan Ayres
show quoted sections
Michael McCarthy left an annotation ( 7 February 2011)
The lessons to be drawn from this and parallel enquiries appear to be as follows:
BT currently requires phone users to pay £124.99 for performing what seems to be an inherently simple task, whether carried out manually at its exchanges or electronically, i.e. diverting an existing phone line to a different supplier of phone services. The fact that BT refuses to disclose the actual cost of this work can only strengthen suspicions that this charge is disproportionate.
BT is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, and Ofcom is either unwilling or unable under existing legislation to investigate BT’s pricing policies, to compel BT to divulge the actual cost of diverting a line, or even to disclose how many complaints BT has received regarding this charge.
This is clearly a highly unsatisfactory situation, which needs to be addressed by bringing BT, as successor organisation to a state monopoly, i.e. Post Office Telephones, within the scope of Freedom of Information legislation. It could also be tackled by extending the powers and changing the culture of Ofcom, which appears at present to offer rather less useful service to BT’s customers than Wikileaks might conceivably provide by exposing the gap between BT's costs and its charges.
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Michael McCarthy left an annotation (12 December 2009)
I have had to point out that the "clarification" on which Ofcom is apparently insisting actually relates to a wholly extraneous issue, and has no bearing either on my information request (which was set out in perfectly clear terms from the start), or on Ofcom's ability to meet it.
Link to this