BT and Ombudsman Serevice-Communications(OSC)

[ostell]

Re: BT and Ombudsman Serevice-Communications(OSC)

All I can say is that windows usually does not delete programs without a little help. OE was not distributed with 7 but I can't see why it would not work.. It had never been for sale, it was distributed with the operating system.

If your guy searched then he would have found the OE files and folders. As I said look for a file inbox.dbx That should be a file containing your emails. In the same folder you will find outbox.dbx

Deleted from where? The webmail? I've already explained the process for that.

[ostell]

Re: BT and Ombudsman Serevice-Communications(OSC)

Are you sure it was Outlook Express that was installed? Windows mail, which ships with Win7 and 10 looks very similar. Indeed it is the same program with a different name, a common Microsoft action.

Since you have lost the emails you could download and install an email program, such as Thunderbird, which has an option to import emails from other email programs. Download it from here , selecting English British. Don't set up the email accounts for the time being but go to the Tools menu and select Import. You might just get your missing emails back.

[holdon]

Re: BT and Ombudsman Serevice-Communications(OSC)

Thanks for your continued interest. All I can say is the my comp' told me it was OE, BT never denied it was OE when I complained about what had happened.
I cannot replicate the work done and as a result have had to abandon what I was intending, I therefore do not need as badly any emails that I now have, I do however have a 'storage' facility which my IT man installed for me.
My comp' crashed in late 2014 and I now have a new hard drive but emails are as was, i.e. sent from 2004 rec'd from 2013.
I really am grateful for your input, which I value. I have searched the 'net' and found confirmation that OE is definitely not compatible with Windows 7.
I must not lose the main thread here which was my complaint to the OSC who have ignored my complaint and supported BT, regardless!, hardly the actions of an independent ADR scheme and certainly not as expected, I also gather that I am not alone in this regard, there are many that have the same opinion of the OSC.

Again, many thanks for your interest.

holdon

[Berniethebolt]

Re: BT and Ombudsman Serevice-Communications(OSC)

the problem with regulatory bodies is that they rarely seem to side with the consumer in the way us, the consumers would like. If that makes them impartial is a different question.
Again , the fact that 'many' have the same opinion is not really relevant. Firstly how many is many, secondly i can fine 'many' that say FMOTL is a legal and valid defence against the interference of the state or a way of getting out of your debts. Equally I can find many who say the holocaust did not happen and that it is all a global zionist conspiracy although that is not necessarily mutually exclusive .

Going back to the original point, what is the evidence that BT acted negligently , did they cause the deletion by an failing to take care or was the deletion caused by unexpected technical failure or something else outside of their control

[holdon]

Re: BT and Ombudsman Serevice-Communications(OSC)

The first act of negligence was BT deleted my emails which was, I am told, caused by the change from Yahoo to BT. This is confirmed in both of the 'call logs' referred to above, prepared by BT, the entry is without any interference from myself on both occasions.
The second act of negligence is when BT opened a program on my computer, without my specific agreement, which resulted in my emails being put into further jeopardy and lost for the second time, this time for good. The second act also caused my missing email to become corrupted and incomplete. The fact that BT put the 'Outlook Express'(OE) program on my computer is acknowledged by BT, it now seems however that OE is not and has never been compatible with my operating system which is Windows 7. All of which was explained to both BT and the OSC.

The OSC in their original 'adjudication' stated that the emails were lost as a result of 'system failure', this would refer to either electrical or mechanical breakdown and not an act of negligence by a BT 'administrator'. On challenge the OSC removed this from subsequent 'adjudication',

The OSC also stated there was evidence in the file that suggested that I gave BT permission to put OE on my computer, this seems to have been withdrawn as they are unable to the evidence, because it does not exist, I would never give any third party permission to use my computer and certainly not to install a program that is not compatible. My complaint to the OSC included the fact that BT were guilty of a breach of trust at a time when they accessed my computer without my permission, screen share is. in my opinion, different to computer share, I only agreed to share my screen in order to demonstrate to BT what had happened and what emails were deleted and those that still remained.

The final point is that all of this was explained to BT and the OSC in emails, a total declaration was submitted to the OSC with my original complaint of negligence and maladministration, the final point must also include the 'maladministration' that I have been subjected to by both the OSC and BT, the Independent Assessor for in my favour on investigation. There was a substantial 'lack of care' shown by both BT and the OSC, in my opinion the OSC are also guilty of 'passing off', the OSC are not capable of investigating any complaint of negligence or maladministration when their own has been proven to be so bad.

[Berniethebolt]

Re: BT and Ombudsman Serevice-Communications(OSC)

I think that the problem here is that your definition of negligence is different from mine and probably the legal definition.
If there was a system failure either before or during the migration from yahoo to BT the question would have to be who or what caused it and could a reasonable person have avoided it .
In another scenario , if an apprentice electrician did some work in your house and it wasn't checked by a qualified electrician and it then caused a short circuit, was he negligent? I would say no however the person who was supervising him could have been in that he failed to check.

The same goes on with Outlook express although I must say I am surprised it installed on an incompatible system. Was it reasonable to think that this would cause harm to your emails, you may well say that but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

I personally take the view with anything I.T related is that it is my personal responsibility to ensure back ups are made, for particularly sensitive data I always have at least two back ups, normally one in the cloud and one on external media.

The other question to be asked is , have the loss actually caused you a loss and if so is it quantifiable

I understand your frustration I really do, I have lost data in the past, twice because hard disks failed through no fault of my own and at least once for some reason I am not sure about but I suspect that I did something.

[ostell]

Re: BT and Ombudsman Serevice-Communications(OSC)

This is getting ridiculous !!! You must have given permission for BT to take over your computer. The support team would have no idea of the IP address of your computer (the address on the internet) unless you took some action to make them aware. Your original post says that you did allow them. You would be able to see what they were doing on your screen.

There are versions of Outlook Express available that are compatible with Win 7. Not distributed with does not mean not compatible.

The whole reason for the move from Yahoo was an attack on the BT/Yahoo system that opened up access to users details and emails and corruption of same. This was the start of the problems and was not of BT's making. (Sky/Yahoo users be very aware !!).

If you had a working version of Outlook Express (and you did because emails were downloaded) then why did it disappear?

It is your responsibility to back up critical data. How do you propose to back up your webmail emails?

[holdon]

Re: BT and Ombudsman Serevice-Communications(OSC)

The first point here is that I knew that OE was not compatible that is why it was not on my computer. The second is that BT gave a warranty that no emails would be lost as a result of the migration, clearly this was a false assurance.
During my many and various telephone conversations with BT I was aware that BT had the opportunity to replace the deleted emails back into my webmail, I told BT they had been deleted on the day it happened. I checked with other ISP's to enquire what they would have done and was told that the emails could be reinstated if the 'problem' was reported within 7-10 days, I therefore take it that is it safe to state that BT deviated from the 'industry practise'. The fact that BT could have done this, evidenced by the fact that the deleted emails were still in the control of BT when they were able to put them onto OE, had replacement happened I would simply have withdrawn.
The loss is by way of 'damages' for lost 'opportunity' and is open for reasonable assessment, certainly more than the £100.00 offered by BT, the time spent (please see above) was substantial, had the loss not been substantial it is reasonable to state that no right minded person would have spent the time and effort that I have in attempting to 'safeguard' their position and the deleted emails.
The emails contained evidence that I was reluctant to store move or otherwise interfere with, they had been safely stored/used for the previous period and BT give assurances that 'unlimited storage' is available.
Had BT followed their own complaints procedures then I would at least have stood a chance of saving my emails, BT are the experts not me, as I understand the law. The has been a total lack of understanding by BT and a total lack of ability to comply with their own procedures and assurances.
There is a simple definition of maladministration as being 'not fit for purpose' and anybody that suffers from it will well know the consequences as will those who practice maladministration in an effort to 'avoid their responsibility'.

[holdon]

Re: BT and Ombudsman Serevice-Communications(OSC)

Having now reviewed my original 'post' I can find no reference to my giving BT permission to put any program on my computer (please refer to line 3). I recall speaking to the administrator at the time and objecting, you need to know more before being 'judgemental' on this point. I have arthritis in both hands and could not move quickly enough to stop or prevent that from happening other than to verbally object.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: BT and Ombudsman Serevice-Communications(OSC)

Just my two cents here with regards to emails, if you use an email client such as OE as opposed to just webmail in a browser, emails are usually mirrored on your computer and your remote mail server. Once they are downloaded they stay on your computer, stored in a data file. The data file should be there even if the email client is uninstalled from your computer. Years ago when I had problems with Windows XP not starting, I'd reinstall a fresh copy on a different partition so as to keep all the data intact, this included the email data files which I was then able to import back into Outlook or OE (can't remember when I used which one but both create local data files). What I'm trying to say is that there may still be data files lurking somewhere on your computer unless they were purposefully deleted. It may be worth trying to locate them.

I only know of one case where somehow Outlook disappeared from a friend's computer shortly after it was installed (as part of Office 2010), along with all emails, and even a specialist was not able to retrieve them, however, this was rather unusual. :nerd:

[ostell]

Re: BT and Ombudsman Serevice-Communications(OSC)

Having now reviewed my original 'post' I can find no reference to my giving BT permission to put any program on my computer (please refer to line 3). I recall speaking to the administrator at the time and objecting, you need to know more before being 'judgemental' on this point. I have arthritis in both hands and could not move quickly enough to stop or prevent that from happening other than to verbally object.

You gave them permission to access your computer to fix the problem you were having. BT problems with the mail servers were caused by external events which they had no control over.

FP --- I have suggested this to the OP and gave him the web page of a suitable program that I know that the import usually works, but it falls on deaf ears.

[holdon]

Re: BT and Ombudsman Serevice-Communications(OSC)

I did not put Outlook Express(OE) on my computer, this was done by BT during a 'screen sharing' session. I do not believe that BT should do this without very specific agreement from the 'customer'. The version installed, I now know was a temporary version, as OE is not compatible with 'Windows 7' it was always doomed to failure, this should have been known by BT. I lost 600 emails and at the time BT chose to put OE on my computer they could and should have reinstated the email to my webmail. During my many and various conversations with BT at the time they knew full well that I had no back up on my computer, they also knew the importance of the emails.
The screen sharing with BT, as far as I was concerned at that time I was not sharing my computer with BT merely allowing them access to my screen, this was done for the specific purpose of showing BT what has happened in that my sent items were and still are in tact whilst my 'in box' was not. The emails that appeared in the version of OE installed by BT was not serviceable in that the emails were 'corrupted' and some attachments were missing. At the time BT clearly still had control of my 'complete' set of emails and yet did not reinstall them to my webmail, BT are the only people who know why this action was taken, I had asked, repeatedly, for my webmail to be reinstated. OE was also incomplete in its function as there was no 'contact list', this was complained of at the time to BT.
After the emails in OE were opened and read they 'melted' never to be seen again and eventually after 10 days the OE disappeared altogether. There was no trace of the OE or it's content on my computer, I spent a sum of money with experts trying to discover what had happened, I hope this now clarified matters.

[Berniethebolt]

Re: BT and Ombudsman Serevice-Communications(OSC)

I feel I can not add any more to this than say, it seems that if Outlook express was not compatible with Win 7 and this is the first time I have heard it was Win 7 I doubt it would have installed. As has already been said there may be versions specially altered to be temporarily compatible with Win 7. If I try to download outlook on this laptop I will be told that it is not compatible and that I need Office 2011 (although I believe there is now office 2016 that will work but I have a permanent licence for this so will not change) .
I am still however intrigued by the claim of negligence which has now changed to being not fit for purpose, two different things in most cases

[holdon]

Re: BT and Ombudsman Serevice-Communications(OSC)

Negligence is negligence, I have not changed anything regarding my complaint of negligence against BT. Something that BT did went terribly wrong here, twice losing my emails and I agree that OE should not have been put on my computer, I can only tell you what my computer told me.
Nobody has heard of email 'melting' after being read but I can assure you that is what happened. I did not expect that BT would abuse my trust either but they did, how else could I show BT what has happened other than allowing them to share my screen, I would not give any third party any authority 'share' my computer.

[wales01man]

Re: BT and Ombudsman Serevice-Communications(OSC)

How much compo does the OP expect from BT given that they offered a £100 if this is taken to court what would the sum claimed be?