CUSTOMER SERVICE? - OneTel

Brian Barnes thought it would be the end of the matter when he cancelled a broadband package that failed to work. Instead, OneTel unleashed debt collectors on him with a five-month campaign of harassing letters and phone calls. Brian's nightmare began soon after his faulty broadband service arrived. Engineers from OneTel admitted they could not make it work. Brian, a 71-year-old retired civil servant from West Kirby on the Wirral, and his wife Gill, 68, decided to cancel the service and sent the modem back. But OneTel sent repeated demands for payment for the broadband service, even though it had never worked.

Brian paid the £32.64 charge for calls he had made, but refused to pay the broadband service fee of £29.02. At the outset, Onetel demanded £61.66 even though the Barneses had paid more than half. Then it wrongly demanded £35.02, even though it could not explain how it had arrived at this sum. Brian wrote nine times to OneTel without receiving a reply. Then he took his complaint to the regulator, Ofcom, and on to the industry Ombudsman scheme, Otelo. Both ruled in his favour, but One-Tel ignored the rulings and continued pestering the Barneses with letters and calls through debt collectors Buchanan, Clark & Wells.

Brian said,"We had complained right the way up to the Ombudsman and it seemed toothless. The Ombudsman just said we had the option of going to court and it all seemed so inadequate." At one point, OneTel even placed a 'marker' on the couple's phone line, which prevented them from finding an alternative broadband service provider. After the intervention of This is Money, OneTel apologised and agreed that the couple had been 'appallingly treated'.

The company offered them £30 as a 'goodwill gesture' for the aggravation they had endured. But the Barneses continued to receive letters and phone calls from the debt collectors. Finally, OneTel put a stop to the threatening letters and apologised unreservedly. "We're really very sorry," said a spokesman. "We recognise that Mr and Mrs Barnes have not had the level of service from us that they were entitled to." The Ombudsman also admitted it could have done better. "We've made errors here and haven't dealt with the letter as it should have been. We'll be writing to Mr Barnes to apprise him of his rights," said a spokesman. (Source: This is Money)

A Chaddesden man is battling with a telecom company after it billed him for a landline number he claims not to have used for almost two years. The former engineer believes he is receiving payment demands from Onetel for calls made by a couple of pensioners who now have his old number. After months of trying to convince the firm of the mix-up, he has now reported it to the telecommunications ombudsman, Otelo.

His predicament started in September 2005 when he received a bill for £46.33. Mr Smith said, "I was totally shocked when I opened the letter as I'd never heard of the company. It was an itemised bill and there were calls on there for places like Tunbridge Wells, Leicester and even some for Greece. I don't know anybody in these places." When he rang his old number he spoke to a couple, both in their 80s, who had been given the number when they become Onetel customers in June.

They still had not been sent a bill by the firm. He said that he then sent a letter to the company explaining about the mix-up. But, one month later, he received a letter from the firm's solicitors threatening to send bailiffs to his home if he did not pay. Since then, he claims to have written to the company three times and called its customer services department on more than 10 occasions to report that the bill was not his.

In December, he even received a letter from the company apologising for the blunder, but, just seven days later, he received a new bill with the original demand increased to £59.50. Mr Smith, of Chaddesden, said he had kept in touch with the elderly couple and they had told him they had received phone calls from Onetel demanding payment. He said, "I'm a big, strong lad and I can look after myself, but what really cuts me up is the way this couple have been treated. Major companies should not be treating pensioners in this way and it makes my blood boil. I'm not rich but I've been so upset by their treatment I've considered just paying their bill. The whole situation is very unjust and I just want it sorted out for everyone's sake."

Mr Smith switched his landline contract to British Gas Telecommunications in 2003, a firm which has since joined forces with Onetel. However, in May 2005, he had already returned to British Telecom and changed his telephone number after growing tired of businesses cold calling. A Onetel spokeswoman said, "We always seek to uphold the very highest standards in terms of billing and customer service. This complaint is being investigated as a matter of priority." (Source: Derby Evening Telegraph, Jan/06)