I was doing my daily competition entries, which involve clicking on links to other sites, when one of the sites was www.postcodelottery.co.uk

Had a quick glimpse, and just before I closed the window, I noticed this on the site

Customer Care Centre
Players:
08712 000 002
(local call rates apply)

Enquiries & new customers:
0800 358 0992 (freephone)

I just looked up their 0871 number, and it is one of the many that are 10p per minute.  In fact most 0871 are 10p per minute except those for international dialing.

Now not only is it not local rate, but it is more than 0870.  If they can mislead their customers on the price of the phone call, then maybe they can mislead their customers on the chances of winning, and how much is donated to charity.

I have sent an e-mail to them about their 0871 number, and will post the reply in due course.

I sent an e-mail to them on Tuesday evening.  It is now Saturday afternoon, and as of yet, I haven't had a response, nor has their website been changed to reflect my concerns.

Below is a copy of my e-mail I sent them:



Hello

I have just been to your website, and would like to report some false advertising.

You list your customer care number as 08712 000 002, and underneath you say "local rates apply"

I am an expert in the telecoms field, and that statement is against the law.  0871 numbers cost between 6-10p per minute, and yours cost 10p per minute from BT landlines.

There is also no such thing as local or nation rate anymore, as telecom providers charge the same as a call from London to London, as they do from Penzance to Glasgow.

Your number costs 10p per minute, which is more than the old "local rate" and "national rate"

The ASA have guidelines on companies misleading customers on the cost of the call, and I regard your quote of "local rate" to be misleading.  It is more expensive than 0870 numbers, which still get called "National Rate" therefore you are suggesting that 0871 is cheaper than 0870.

I would also like to point out that when people pay monthly fees for free calls, or BT Together option 1 customers getting 1 hour calls for 5p, and during the day only paying 3p per minute, I find your rate of 10p per minute at all times a very unreasonable burden on your customers, especially when you encourage new customers to call your freephone number.

I hope someone will look into my observation, and I'll look forward to your reply in due course.

Regards

(My real name)




I read a post about Norfolk trading standards who recommend being silent on the call costs is the best route, however this is not remaining silent, it's blatant misleading.  Saying "local rate" on 0845 is brushing with the law, but surely saying "local rate" on 0871 is far more serious.  What do you suggest I do now, as my e-mail appears to have made no impact.

Open up a report with Trading Standards. They have to act on it, irrelevant of their attitude. The advert is blatently misleading and untruthful.

As they are licenced  by The Gaming Board, and they are clearly in breach of part 3 of the CPA 1987 ,describing 0871 as a local call.It might be worth you reporting them to the Gaming Board as well.

E-Mail Address is enquiries@gbgb.org.uk

I think I might make a complaint as well later today.

http://www.west-norfolk.co.uk/images/postcode0871.gif

A look at their contact us page here where it also states the 0871 is local has an head office address of:-

Postcode Lottery Headquarters:
37 Sheen Road
Richmond
Surrey TW9 1AJ

Therefore those wishing to make a complaint via trading standards will find that London Borough of Richmond upon Thames trading standards department are the ones to contact on:-

Email:
tradingstds@richmond.gov.uk

URL:
http://www.richmond.gov.uk/consumer_advice_and_protection

Tel/Fax:
Telephone: 020 8487 5487
Fax: 020 8891 7726
Textphone: 020 8831 6006

Address:
Consumer Protection
London Borough of Richmond upon Thames
7B Parkshot
Richmond TW9 2RT
Callers please note the office is situated to the rear of the Magistrates Court

Since I have not received a response from postcodelottery, and their website still contains the misleading information, I have sent an e-mail to Richmond Trading Standards


(My name and postal address)


Hello

I would like to bring a complaint against a company that is trading within your area.

The company concerned is Postcode lottery

Postcode Lottery Headquarters:
37 Sheen Road
Richmond
Surrey TW9 1AJ

Company Nr: 4862732
VAT Reg Nr: 848 3165 07
Email: info@postcodelottery.co.uk

On their website http://www.postcodelottery.co.uk they have contact details, which state that 0871 is local call rates.

0871 is not local call rates.  There are in fact no such thing as local call rates, as BT and most other mobile, and landline operators charge the same for all calls beginning with 01, and 02.

0871 is in fact a non geographic number, which is charged at 10p per minute from a BT landline.  This is more expensive than 0870 numbers, which have wrongly been called "National Rate" and 0845 numbers, which have wrongly been called "Local Rate"

Last week I e-mailed postcodelottery, and as of yet, received no response, and their website still contains misleading information.  I therefore feel that as the company has it's headquarters in your area, I should bring the matter to your attention for you to investigate, and whether you agree with my view that stating "Local Rate" for an 0871 telephone call is misleading.

Thankyou in advance for your help on this matter


(My real name)




Has anyone else here done the same?

Dont bother calling the Trading Standards Dept. theyll tell you to call consumerdirect on 0845 4040506 (0208 7999200).

I have received the following reply back, half an hour after sending it!!  This is definitely a human and not automated response, since they make reference to not being able to access the site.



Good afternoon

Your complaint has been passed to an officer for attention and we will advise as soon as we are able to do so.  I must warn you that this may take a little longer than usual.  As we are a local government organisation, access to websites such as the one you name is blocked and we have to arrange special access before we can check the site!

Duty Officer
Richmond Trading Standards

I think what he is saying is that he as a mere duty officer is barred access to any such accounts. He hasn't got a computer at home, and even if he had he would not know how to access it.

We as the general public are of course allowed.

Well done Shiggaddi.

Make them look stupid, and persevere.

juby

I fancy an FOI to them.

"Dear sirs,
Exactly what websites ARE you allowed access to?"

The regulations that relate to what websites officers are allowed to access certainly act as a barrier to carrying out the job properly.

If I had complained about a supermarket that was selling out of date food, and they look on the map and realise that it's not on their bus route, and not near a tube, there would be a huge delay, whilst they get written permission for authorising the cost of a taxi, and fill in the appropriate forms to justify this cost, which could take over a week to complete.

What happened to common sense?  Surely someone in the office could say "I have the internet at home, I'll check it out tonight"

I too have made a complaint to Richmond T/S over this and also got the we don't currently have access so this may take a little longer.

Hi, I checked the site just now 22.50 on 3rd Oct and it now says 10p a minute.

wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2005 at 10:53pm:

Hi, I checked the site just now 22.50 on 3rd Oct and it now says 10p a minute.

Bingo! Well done all.    :)

Well, all who pushed anyway. Says one who did not pursue them.

wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2005 at 10:53pm:

Hi, I checked the site just now 22.50 on 3rd Oct and it now says 10p a minute.

But their Contact Us page here still states local call rate.

And in the meantime, Trading Standards have not got their permission for using the computer to look up the site.  Once they do, they will of course see that it's 10p per minute, and e-mail us back and say they can't find anything wrong.

Unless of course they do think beyond the main page, and go to the "contact us" page and still find something wrong.

This is an example of why trading standards need to act quickly.  I'm sure this might go in their files as "wasting our time, nothing wrong"

wrote on Oct 4^th, 2005 at 5:07pm:

And in the meantime, Trading Standards have not got their permission for using the computer to look up the site.  Once they do, they will of course see that it's 10p per minute, and e-mail us back and say they can't find anything wrong.

That shouldn't be the case because I sent them a quick email informing them that the homepage has been changed but their Contact Us page (I even included a link for them) hasn't.

I've just received an email as follows:-


Quote:

Further to your complaint about the above, thank you for the email you sent to my colleague yesterday re the amendment they have made. The situation here is still the same as it was last week, whereby I am still being prevented from accessing the website - a formal request has been made to rectify this. Unfortunately, this is taking much longer than I had hoped - however once I have access I will advise the company, and let you know the outcome!

It's stupid council rules like this that slows down complaints, etc.

I realise that blocking websites goes on and I even understand that most depts would not need access to all websites but how many times do T/S need, in the course of their job, to look at a website but are prevented from doing so by filters in place and further to this have to make official requests probably through official channels that take ages to be processed just to look at one website?  All this takes time which I'm sure could be spent on more important things.

wrote on Oct 5^th, 2005 at 1:03pm:

I've just received an email as follows:- "prevented from doing so by filters in place and further to this have to make official requests"

They don't want to see the porn they are watching in there own offices?

juby

Received this on Thursday



Dear Mr (my name)
I am writing to update you about your complaint against the above Trader.

The situation here is still the same as it was last week, whereby I am still
being prevented from accessing the website - a formal request has been made
to rectify this. Unfortunately, this is taking much longer than I had hoped.


I apologise for this delay,  however once I have access I will advise the
company, and let you know the outcome!

Regards

(name omitted)
Trading Standards Team Leader

Just received an email from Richmond T/S as follows:-

Quote:

Further to your email many months ago about the above, I am writing to advise you that Postcode Lottery have now been advised about the potential for their call charges stated on the website to constitute a misleading price indication.  They have confirmed that they will be asking their web Company to rectify this, which will hopefully have been done by the middle of next week and will send me proof that this has been carried out. I apologise again that this has taken so long to be dealt with - as I explained in my previous email I unfortunately had problems gaining access to the website, and eventually had to resort to other means in order to do so! Hopefully this will now be resolved, and I will check that they have made the necessary website amendments when I next have access to a computer that doesn't "block" this site.

At the time of writing this their Contact Us page does still state that 0871 is local rate.  Let's wait and see.........

I had exactly the same e-mail, word for word!!

Does the officer not have access to the internet by any other means, apart from his office.  Not everyone has the internet at home, but surely he could have found someone in his office that does.

And after not being able to access it from his work, 3 months later he comes up with the bright idea of accessing the internet by "other means"

Not sure if it's worth pointing out to him, if it's not changed within a week, as it might take another 3 months before he manages to get on the internet to sort it out again!!

Anyway, at least it's a victory, and after reading the thread about Norwich Union, and trading standards refusing to take any action whatsoever, at least Richmond trading standards have taken the most appropriate action, and that is to just contact the company concerned, tell them that the price is misleading, and asking them nicely to change it.