Although this discussion is taking place in the Cheap Call Providers section of the forum I thought that some of you who mainly only participate in this section might also be interested in joining the discussion, including my letter to Ofcom complaining at their unwillingness to take any action against 18866 or Finarea who do not belong to the Otelo telecommunications ombudsman scheme.

This thread and discussion can be found here:-

http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?board=cheapcalls;action=display;num=1125944907;start=60

Let's face it, if Ofcom do nothing about 084/087 problems, then they really are completely useless. We therefore need to lobby MPs, MEPs and so on. We need to list the catalogue of failings of this Office.

Of course the allowance of 18866 to increase its charges with no communication to its customers other than the website (especially when it has emailed them before) should be on that list.

It does beg the question; what else is there that it should be doing [for the citizen consumer] that it is not?

wrote on Sep 20^th, 2005 at 1:27pm:

It does beg the question; what else is there that it should be doing [for the citizen consumer] that it is not?

Surely the much bigger question is what has Ofcom ever done that was in the interest of the citizen consumer rather than in the interests of the telecommunications companies? ::)

Need I remind you for instance of Ofcom's quite disgraceful agreement to BT's request to abolish BT Standard Line Rental or of the fact that they still have not made any regulations to stop BT misselling 0845 and 0870 under the delibately misleading brand names Lo-Call and National Call! :o

wrote on Sep 20^th, 2005 at 1:35pm:

Surely the much bigger question is what has Ofcom ever done that was in the interest of the citizen consumer rather than in the interests of the telecommunications companies? ::)

True.

Pricing information has never been high on its agenda, let alone clear pricing information. We must include lack of the policing of premium rate numbers, what with rogue diallers and 'prize winning' scams on this list. And the lack of powers that ICSTIS has in making companies pay its 'fines'.

On the subject of premium rate 'services', remember the unsuspecting mobile phone user who is fleeced by reverse-charged premium rate text messages and the poor networks who can do nothing to stop it.

wrote on Sep 20^th, 2005 at 1:51pm:

On the subject of premium rate 'services', remember the unsuspecting mobile phone user who is fleeced by reverse-charged premium rate text messages and the poor networks who can do nothing to stop it.

This was another classic example of the "Out of Touch" regulation which Ofcom prefers to call "Light Touch".

Why is there no central database like the TPS you can register with to say that you refuse to accept any of these reverse charge text messages.  Or better still people should be compulsorily opted out of receiving any of them unless they decide to actually give their written consent to receiving such reverse charge services.  And that should only be on a service by service basis.

But no doubt Ofcom would see this as getting in the way of an improved marketplace in "added value" telecoms services.  The same mysterious "added value" that there refer to with 0845 and 0870 calls to companies you could call until yesterday on an 01 or 02 number.

How is it that an organisation supposed to work for the citizen/consumer always seems to actually act only in the favour of the telecoms companies.

wrote on Sep 20^th, 2005 at 2:01pm:

Why is there no central database like the TPS you can register with to say that you refuse to accept any of these reverse charge text messages.  Or better still people should be compulsorily opted out of receiving any of them unless they decide to actually give their written consent to receiving such reverse charge services.  And that should only be on a service by service basis.

Good point. This must be technically possible, I can't think why something like this hasn't been devised. ::)

A bit like Direct Debits from a bank account. If I go to my internet banking, I can see a list of DDs that have come out of my account recently. I can cancel or reinstate them from there.

A similar system could be adopted by mobile phone networks, where you quote the short code and they can electronically stop you receiving any more messages.

Or, as you say, it's done on an opt-in basis for each individual 'service', maybe where the user enters a PIN that has been setup with their provider.

wrote on Sep 20^th, 2005 at 2:10pm:

This must be technically possible, I can't think why something like this hasn't been devised. ::)

Perhaps because Mr Kip Meek and his policy making colleagues at Ofcom do not in fact actually have an agenda that is citizen and consumer led?  Instead it is led by an agenda determined by the former commercial sector employees who dominate most senior Ofcom positions.


wrote on Sep 20^th, 2005 at 2:10pm:

A bit like Direct Debits from a bank account. If I go to my internet banking, I can see a list of DDs that have come out of my account recently. I can cancel or reinstate them from there.

You can't actually reinstate a direct debit online but you can cancel one.  If you accidentally cancel one you then have to go back to the originating company and ask them to set it up again.  If the originator is a luddite like Royal Bank of Scotland/NatWest credit cards then they will insist on sending you a bit of paper you have to sign and post back to them.  More modern organisations can set direct debits up over the phone with the account number and sort code.  Or perhaps NatWest just delight in the opportunity this gives them to scam you for a £20 late payment fee and some interest?

I have now received this more encouraging email from David Stewart, Director of Investigations at Ofcom, in response to  my complaint that the various Finarea telecoms brands (and in particular 18866) do not operate an Alternate Dispute Resolution Scheme.

If Finarea can only offer their service by unacceptably cutting corners then they must face the inevitable consequences.  Also if they don't want people to complain about their lack of an ADR scheme to Ofcom then they shouldn't increase prices without telling us and they shouldn't ignore our emails.


-----Original Message-----
From: David Stewart [mailto:David.Stewart@ofcom.org.uk]
Sent: 22 September 2005 14:51
Cc: Matt Peacock; Ed Richards
Subject: RE: Failure to Take Action Against Finarea Over Non Membership of Otelo or other Alternate Disputes Resolution Procedures


Thank you for your note to Ed Richards about Finarea’s lack of membership of an ADR scheme.

I can report that Ofcom already has an active enforcement program in relation to membership of ADR schemes. On 16 August 2005 Ofcom opened an industry wide investigation into compliance with General Condition 14.4, which requires Communications Providers to implement and comply with an Ofcom-approved independent Dispute Resolution scheme for their domestic and small business customers. Our objective is to reduce the number of companies who are not members of ADR schemes, thereby ensuring that the schemes are available to consumers as widely as possible.

We know that more than 300 communications providers, including many of the largest operators, have already implemented an ADR through being a member of either Otelo or CISAS, meaning ADR is available to consumers in the majority of cases. Our current investigation is monitoring compliance with General Condition 14.4 across the industry and will target those communications providers who are not members of a Scheme.

Companies that don’t comply with the requirement for ADR membership could face serious consequences. Under section 94 of the Communications Act 2003 ("the Act"), Ofcom may issue a notification where it has reasonable grounds for believing there has been a contravention of a General Condition.  If companies do not comply with the requirements of the notification, under Section 96 of the Act, Ofcom may impose a penalty of up to 10 per cent of turnover for failure to comply with such a notification within the time period specified.

In the light of your email, we will include Finarea in the companies being considered. The investigation is on-going so it wouldn’t be appropriate to comment further, although further information can be obtained by looking at the Ofcom website, under the Competition Bulletin: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/bulletins/comp_bull_index/comp_bull_ocases/open_all/cw_851/?a=87101.

I hope this addresses your concern.

Regards,

David Stewart

:: David Stewart
  Director of Investigations
  020 7783 4173

wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2005 at 6:18pm:

If Finarea can only offer their service by unacceptably cutting corners then they must face the inevitable consequences.

That is an odd comment considering you hurled abuse on another forum at somebody who disagreed with your incorrect assumption that calls were limited to two hours.

Just what is it that will bring down the service - other people's alleged overuse, or your vengeful zeal to punish the company for costing you a few pence?

What is the outcome you wish - it looks like you are bent on damage to the companies and their customers.

Actually I was a major supporter of Finarea and their telecoms brands but I have found their latest behaviour to be very disappointing and quite unacceptable.  Thus my attitude towards them has changed.

I suspect that people who make repeated calls for 2 hours with Finarea brands just because they can are far more likely to bring down the present Finarea model of charging than my own criticism of the company's hidden price rises.

If these people keep up with their several hour long calls then I expect the connection fee will soon have to be 5p, just so that I and all the other people who normally make short calls can subsidise these abusers.  I would recommend Finarea giving us an initial 20 minutes for 2p connection and then charging a penny a minute thereafter.  This would bring those who suffer from verbal diarrohea to heal.

Us? - I thought you said you cancelled your account?

wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2005 at 8:17pm:

Us? - I thought you said you cancelled your account?

I cancelled my 18866 account because they were the ones who imposed the unnotified price rise and also ignored my customer service emails.

I still have an account with 1899 who have not yet made any of the errors that I found offensive in 18866.  Although they may well be part of the same telecoms group I suspect that different human beings may still be involved in business decisions on each different Finarea sub-brand.

Anyone still needing to make a complaint about misbilling by 18866, 1899 or 18185 may be interested in the following information that has just come to light.

1. The three indirect access codes of 1899, 18185 and 18866 are all listed by Ofcom in their current list of indirect access codes as belonging to Connect Telecom UK.

2. In a recent list of network operators PhonePayPlus (formerly ICSTIS) showed the following contact details for Connect Telecom UK including phone number and email address.

See www.phonepayplus.org.uk/business/NetworkOperators.asp :-


Quote:

Connect Telecom UK Ltd Ms Louise Philips: 0870 799 1501 enquiry@connecttelecom.uk.com

So anyone who feels that Finarea may still owe them a refund on any product in the 1899, 18185 or 18866 stables may therefore care to get in touch with this lady.  Some of you may also want to complain to Ofcom about the failure of Connect Telecom UK to belong to an Alternate Dispute Resolution Service (either www.otelo.org.uk or www.cisas.org.uk) as they are required to do under the terms of the Communciations Act 2003.

Just a quick message to congratulate you on introducing the concept of the "Ofcom Duck".
Quite cheered me up, before plunging me back into depression that such a concept should even exist. Still, I can digress into maiden overs, own goals and so on - off topic and off screen, I hasten to add.

Tanllan wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2009 at 1:38pm:

Just a quick message to congratulate you on introducing the concept of the "Ofcom Duck".

Well if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck......... ;D

I think laughing at it all is the only way to go as I am quite convinced there is no hope at all of the present abuses being curtailed or brought to an end until this government leaves office and Ofcom and most of its senior apparatchiks are hopefully summarily decapitated (I speak metaphorically and not literally in terms of actually hoping that Ofcom is abolished and the relevant staff are fired in case anyone humourless from Ofcom is reading). ;)

Tanllan wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2009 at 1:38pm:

Just a quick message to congratulate you on introducing the concept of the "Ofcom Duck".

This is a resurrected thread - that was in 2005, under his original guise.

There may be some of us who anticipate a future government that will reverse the current longstanding trend towards using markets under light-touch regulation to deliver benefits to the disgracefully conflated concept of the citizen-consumer.

I have to say that of those likely to form such a government, it is that currently in power that walks and talks with the most authoritarian waddle and quack. It has however failed to take all the High Street banks into full public ownership and so must been seen as being unlikley to re-nationalise the telcomms industry. The idea of a party that is in favour of stronger regulation of commerce, adding to "the burden of regulation", having any part in forming a government in the foreseeable future seems to be something that we can only laugh about.

(I profess no party loyalty.)

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2009 at 2:35pm:

There may be some of us who anticipate a future government that will reverse the current longstanding trend towards using markets under light-touch regulation to deliver benefits to the disgracefully conflated concept of the citizen-consumer. I have to say that of those likely to form such a government, it is that currently in power that walks and talks with the most authoritarian waddle and quack. It has however failed to take all the High Street banks into full public ownership and so must been seen as being unlikley to re-nationalise the telcomms industry. The idea of a party that is in favour of stronger regulation of commerce, adding to "the burden of regulation", having any part in forming a government in the foreseeable future seems to be something that we can only laugh about. (I profess no party loyalty.)

The economic disappointments of the last few months seem to have caused some people to forget when it was we saw actual competition introduced into retail markets for telecoms and other utilities. Merely privatising the monopolies was not the whole job, especially not when user tariffs had to be shoved up 20 to 40% to help attract investors to the flotations.

Less than a decade ago, all UK national calls cost 8 pence a minute, and home consumers had no choice other than BT, which had been so stuck in the mud its engineers had a difficult time convincing the accountants that there was a business case for broadband. Of course prices have dropped with increases in capacity, but it might not have happened so fast without a big kick

What this might have to do with 18866 connection charges or other disputes, I can't guess