Ok I am posting this out of curiosity.
Personally i received no notification about being forced onto this plan because i refuse to pay by direct debit (last time i did £400 in errors over 3 months that actually cause me financial worries due to bts gross errors))
Now no notification , when i finally saw it this month and phoned up i was told that "oh you are not paying more and you cannot change from it" ...... So change my priceplan and hide the non-dd fee that you were being chased over in the new plan force customers onto un notified and then when challenged over the legality of not being notified and the staff basically saying "tough" when called on it and the having staff hang up on you as soon as you mention it.
So what direction is bt trying to go here , esp with giving false information
Under regulator Ofcom's rules, customers who take out a line rental, TV, broadband or mobile contract from 23 January 2014 onwards can cancel their contract penalty free if a provider ups prices mid-term and it hadn't warned you about the rise when you bought the contract.
Yet the fact the shifted the "optional" direct debit fee into a mandatory charge and didnt notify customer what does this mean for those of us who were not notified.
Every BT customer should have received notification about the price rises around October last year. That would have been by email for paper-free customers, or in writing.
I don't suppose anyone will ever know why you didn't see one - perhaps a letter lost in the post, an email deleted as spam, or maybe you just didn't notice it in amongst a load of junk that came with a paper bill.
My father is 87 and does not have, nor proposes to have a bank account, so pays for his BT services by card - £10 a week. When i got in touch with them about the Line Rental Plus, a service he does not need, I was told that as he did not pay by DD he would have to pay the extra. I think this is discrimination
My personal view is that changes like this should not be applied to existing customers but then I'm not running a business.
How do you conclude that it's discrimination when there's no legal or ethical rule requiring people who do not have bank accounts to be treated the same as those who do? I hope you're not suggesting it's a question of age - there are plenty of us in the same stage of life who run bank accounts very successfully, and plenty much younger who don't.