Thanks for the comments.
I understand the reasoning behind BT sending a secondary e-mail and I tend to always read the small print just in case I've missed anything and use this as the main guide. I've learnt through bitter experience to do this first.
I'm sure readers would take my point however, the ambiguous way the original Price Increase e-mail is worded in the main text by Libby Barr (bearing in mind this is BT's Managing Director of Customer Care), who is quite clear in the small print at the bottom of the e-mail (as follows):
Terms and conditions
Early Termination Charges: These usually apply if you cancel during the minimum term of your contract and are payable for each month of the minimum term remaining after you cancel. *These charges won't apply if you cancel because of the changes detailed in this email*
Well *I'd like to leave as a result of the price increase* and I'm giving the required notice of 14 days to switch to another provider (EE-owned by BT). I might have been tempted to stay with BT themselves when contacting 'retentions' if a like-for-like deal existed, but this second e-mail written by BT really does 'stick in the craw'.
The way it's worded in the BT price increase e-mail to "Act Now" is to encourage the customer to sign up for another lengthy contract, the presumption being you'll lose out if you don't, despite being clearly worded in the small print the customer *can* leave without penalty as a result of BT's own Price increase terms & conditions.
I realise BT is in the marketplace to make profit, but I do find it a bit much when I've acted as a direct result of receipt of a Price increase BT e-mail which, at least to me, reads one thing in the small print then the receipt of a secondary BT e-mail immediately contradicts the first.
*How* this is done and in what order the customer makes contact should be an irrelevance as long as the customer eventually follows the terms & conditions set out in this agreement (i.e. giving the required 14 days notice to leave).
The customer shouldn't have to automatically retrospectively challenge an imposed charge when they're quite entitled to leave without penalty according to BT's own Terms & Conditions.
It's the presumption of 'guilt before innocence' and the vigorous use of email for BT to automatically impose charges I take issue with, and I'm sure I won't be alone in feeling this way.
Situations such as these are *highly* successful in fostering ill feeling between BT and it's customers and are damaging to it's reputation, especially if the customer is in a position where they may not be able to call BT immediately.
Whether this aspect and the customer is taken into account when this notification system was designed is purely a matter for BT.
One suggestion I'd have is a grace period (say of 3-5 days) be put on file for customers who've received e-mails detailing the price increase who switch in an interim period but haven't yet contacted BT, in order to save customer angst & likely highly charged phone calls to the BT helpline as a result of contradictory information from BT?
I like to think I'm reasonably intelligent, but this matter seems in need of attention as the wording in both BT e-mails seem contradictory and confusing for it's customers.
Edit: Thanks for making contact DavidM, I've just sent my details over to you for attention.
