Source: Money Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/jul/14/bt-directory-inquiries

BT is putting you through – the call will cost £91

Pensioner pays price of being connected via telecom giant's directory inquiries

Miles Brignall
The Guardian, Saturday 4 July 2009

Next time you ring directory inquiries, don't under any circumstances let the service put you through to the person or company you were trying to contact. That's the warning from a Kent pensioner who was charged £91 by BT for a single phone call connected by the firm's service.

The experience of 81-year-old Alf Vanning echoes a report in this month's Which? magazine, that warned "calling 118 directory inquiries is more expensive than you think".

Vanning's problems started when he found the anti-virus system on the computer at his Tunbridge Wells home was preventing him from connecting to the internet.

Needing to contact Norton, the firm that provided the software, and unable to find the number elsewhere, he rang BT's directory inquiries service on 118 500. He was told the number and the operator offered to put him through to Norton's main line – an 020 London number.

He agreed and was put through. In doing so, he became the latest victim of the decision to charge by the minute for all calls put through by all the directory inquiries services. At £91, his is the most expensive we have come across so far.

"It was a rather long call because the Norton chap had to uninstall and then reinstall the programme. Growing concerned at the length of the call, I asked what it was costing, but was assured by the man that it was not an expensive 0845 number and that there would be no charge by Norton."

The call lasted one hour and 57 minutes. Vanning, an insurance underwriter before he retired, thought no more about it until he received his phone bill, which showed the call had cost £91.57.

He claims that "at no time when I made the call to directory inquiries did they warn me of the 77p a minute cost" – though BT says its call handlers always warn customers of the charge to be put through.

"If I had written down the number and dialled it myself, it would have cost me nothing," says Vanning, who says he has been a BT customer for many years. He contacted his local trading standards office, and discussed the possibility of taking his case to the small claims court.

"I'm not sure I want to be doing that at my age. However, I feel for BT to charge £91 is nothing short of outrageous. I'd like other pensioners who, like me, can't afford these charges to be made aware of the cost."

BT says its prices are in line with the "industry average". It told Guardian Money it will be reimbursing the cost of the call as a gesture of goodwill. "BT 118 500 offers customers the convenience of call connection as part of its comprehensive directory inquires service. Our operators advise customers of the cost of the call when connecting them, and the majority of calls to BT 118 500 are actually under a minute long rather than almost two hours, but as a goodwill gesture we will refund the cost of this call to Mr Vanning and a cheque for £91.57 is on its way to him," a spokesman says. He adds that BT also offers 118 707, a cheaper "no-frills" one inquiry service, while the BT directory service is available free online at bt.com and 118500.com.

An investigation into the leading directory inquiries services in this month's Which? magazine found that agreeing to be put through to the number you are asking about can be an expensive business. Some people think this would cost the same as dialling the number yourself, but the magazine says: "This is where costs escalate … Landline calls can reach up to 77p a minute."

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jul 15^th, 2009 at 3:15pm:
For comparison purposes, Directory Assistance (DA) here is generally $1 to $2 per call, and Directory Assistance Call Completion (DACC) typically adds between $0 and $1 per call. Taxes and fees are extra. DA from ATT Wireless (a large cellular/mobile provider) is $1.99 per call* and DACC adds no further charge.

* plus airtime plus taxes

I am, as ever, delighted to find myself in complete agreement with NGMsG, on this occasion about the way in which DQ services should work in an ideal world.

As the complete call is actually billed by the caller's telco, which may be quite separate from the selected DQ provider, because this ridiculous obsession with "choice" and competition has prevented in-house DQ services or a single national provider, I am not sure if there could be a mechanism for changing the applicable rate at some point in what is seen by the originator as a continuous call.

Some more complex call placement service, requiring a direct commercial arrangement between the enquirer and the DQ provider, would probably be required to provide the service in the proper way.

The only sensible regulatory measure to deal with present situation would be to demand that some clear indication was given that connecting the intended call was at an absurdly high rate. An alternative would be if the whole call was offered on a fixed fee basis (regardless of duration), which appears to be what 118800 offers. With no assurance that the call would even be answered, this would be a high-risk option for any user, however some are prepared to call premium rate numbers in the hope of winning prizes on TV quizzes.

NGMsGhost wrote on Jul 18^th, 2009 at 7:01pm:

This proposal certainly addresses the issue very effectively, if consumers are able to deal with a two-part tariff, i.e. x + y ppm, as a means of assessing competing companies.

Whilst pre-call announcements can be a useful way of verifying charging information, they are more a way of offsetting complaints (a by-product of the Health and Safety warning culture) than providing useful consumer information. The emphasis must always be on the proper advance publication of rates that enables people to make decisions about whether or not to make a particular call in a particular way. With the phone at the ear and the number dialled, one is already past that stage, having made a decision that one may be reluctant to change.

I am a little alarmed that new telephone exchanges will include the ability for the rate being charged to be dynamically changed at the instigation of the person called. How will this be used? Will I be able to up the rate being paid by someone who is going on too long, or take over responsibility for paying for the call if my niece is running out of credit on her mobile?

NGMsGhost wrote on Jul 18^th, 2009 at 9:40pm:

If the charge for the BT DQ service is loaded into the connection fee, how much is that? If the follow-on bit is 77 pence per minute then it must be considerable!

Without looking into the issue in detail, I had assumed that 77 pence per minute, i.e. perhaps £1 - £2 per number, was the extent of the charge. I must appear horribly naive.

Quote:

I am totally in favour of the consumer having clear pricing information available where they are making a decision to buy a service, e.g. on a supermarket shelf, rather than when they are at the point of consuming it, e.g. taking it from the fridge to cook. Advance information (i.e. to help guide them as to which supermarket has the best prices, in general or on specific items) may be helpful as well, and I have no total objection to later reminders if they serve a useful purpose, e.g. the price written on the packing to remind you of what a bargain you got. Let us not fall out, because we are not arguing about one or the other, it is a matter of where the emphasis should be.

The analogy I would offer is of a restaurant where the pricing is confused. As the waiter puts your selected dish in front of you however, you are told the exact price and given the option to send it back at no charge. I acknowledge that this prevents any subsequent complaint about the cost and eliminates any uncertainty, but I would suggest that more care should be put into presenting a clearly priced menu, so that the cost conscious can select carefully or even choose to eat elsewhere.

(No analogy is perfect, but I hope this helps to communicate the point I am trying to make. If one would choose to eat in a restaurant such as that described, then we will have to agree to differ.)

Quote:

The situation described relates to a situation where the caller is paying the recipient for the call (“call centres charging callers”). Such a charge should obviously be suspended whilst no value is being delivered. This should make no difference at all to the rate charged by the carriers (telcos), who are entitled to charge whilst the line is open. This is all about transferring money between the respective telephone bills.

At present we have a very simple situation where the caller pays at a predetermined rate and some of this may be transferred to the called party (except for the half-baked, but equally fixed rate, 0800 situation). The idea of opening this up introduces all manner of possibilities, such as; genuine market research companies paying people for their time completing a survey, low value mail order companies and charities being able to collect variable amounts of money through the telephone bill or from the mobile credit. The phone bill could even become a way of collecting and paying small debts. Your solicitor would be able to turn the meter on whilst conducting a telephone conversation to save the trouble of sending a bill. A complaints department would be able to grant a goodwill credit there and then.

The commercial potential is enormous, even given that only relatively low value transactions would be able to be handled (so perhaps forget about the solicitor). The revenue sharing and premium rate scams will be looked on as a very petty operation once all this is up and going. Did someone ask about consumer protection? – easy! It will all be controlled by computers and every transfer of money will be authorised by a secret PIN. As for regulation, the telcos will in effect become banks, but then Ofcom is just as likely to make a good job of regulating them as the FSA.

What a disgrace that BT has been holding all of this back!

If Ofcom were to take me up on my offers of serious assistance, it would find that I do not come quite as cheap as is suggested.

I have not been drinking, but I am confused.

Quote:

If it can be used to suspend charging, it is implicit that the very technology enables the call centre to charge the customer whilst they are talking?

Does not the functionality of being able to adjust the charge between the two end parties to the call (which is not seen as being bad) open up all the possibilities indicated?


Phone line charges are deemed “insecure” whereas credit card internet transactions are “secure”. I admit that someone could break into my home whilst I was out in order to use my telephone to avoid having to pay £7.50 for five minutes worth of legal advice. If however they had the skills necessary to also disable the alarm so that they could be heard, they might find that these skills could be deployed more profitably. I am generally more concerned about the possibility of being defrauded by someone who steals or clones my credit card. It may be that some people operate a truly open house, and would never lose control of their credit card. I am not however sure that the general assertions made, which place me in an insignificant minority, are warranted.


I have to confess that I have failed to recognise that calls to premium rate numbers “involve” the fraudulent use of other people’s telephones, and that this is a major reason to say no to 0870.

For the record, I certainly object to fraud. I am however currently most concerned about that practised by the banks, which are happy to steal someone’s identity by ascribing it to anyone able to recite certain pieces of information, such as a PIN. I also object strongly to telephone call charges not being properly advised and available at the time when someone decides to make a telephone call. An opportunity to opt out at the last moment is not necessarily unwelcome, but it is not in any way a proper or complete solution.


It is good to hear such confidence being expressed about the eventual demise of revenue sharing and premium rate telephone numbers. This would of course make the flexible billing features of the celebrated new technology referred to redundant. The reasons given do not however explain how the conspiracy that is alleged to be the only reason for the existence of these numbers will break down. I am myself not quite so confident about the arrival of a new age of simplicity and security that seems to be required, as current trends, such as the continuing enthusiasm for “modern technology” available to all, suggest inevitable movement in the opposite direction.

The obvious solution to provide free onward connection would be for DQ services to only offer it on a different access number with a higher connection fee but much lower per minute charge such as 1p per minute billed by them.  But even then many callers with inclusive calls packages are not going to be happy as their per minute call rate is 0p per minute.

I don't think morality comes in to it.  The current position is simply anti competitive because people are stung with these huge per minute charges having no idea they are going to pay them before they start doing so.  If they knew it was costing that much per minute they would never agree to have the onward call connected or start paying the charges in the first place.

Therefore all that is actually needed is for a compulsory announcement to the caller of the continuing per minute rate if the call is onward connected by the human operator or a recorded announcement before they are onward connected.  If this were mandated by Ofcom then undoubtedly per minute rates to DQ services would fall to low levels and most of the charge for a DQ service would be placed where it should be on the initial connection fee.  This is because if it takes longer to find your number than expected due to operator incompetence it does not provide you the caller with any more added value and you have only obtained one phone number.