"Say No to Consultation Proposal to Abolish Ofcom Checks on Phone Bill Accuracy"

The above is what the footnote on NGM's messages currently reads (I think it's changed several times today?).

In response to one of his earlier footnotes, I did indeed download, read & respond to the Consultation in question.

I have to say that my reading of the consultation document is not that they are proposing to "Abolish ... Checks", altho' I don't dispute that they want to make some changes which may reduce consumer protection - and I've made corresponding comments in my response.

My point really is that suggesting Ofcom are proposing to "Abolish ... Checks" would seem to be a misrepresentation of the proposal, and - much as I am hesitant to defend Ofcom - I don't think it does us much good if we misrepresent what they are proposing.
:-/

Fair point Tevor.  I was constrained really by what you could get into a banner at the bottom of the page.  And as The Sun has long since discovered you have to have something eye catching in the headline to make people bother reading the story.

Perhaps I need to change my banner yet again but at least it refers to a consultation that is open rather than one that closed weeks ago like the consultation reference on the home page of this site.

Coming back to the metering and billing thing I feel rather strongly incensed that Ofcom could even float a consultation that suggests the possibility that the systems of smaller billing providers might be self policing when inevitably these are the very companies most likely to be doing something dodgy.  Although unfortunately the idea that the telecoms industry are all jolly decent chaps who can be trusted to do the right thing by their customers does seem to be a fatal flaw that pervades much of Ofcom's current approach to regulation.  It is also why they continually fail in their main duty to protect the uk citizen consumer.

Thanks for responding NGM.

I agree wholeheartedly with your final paragraph, and - for what it's worth - my response objected to the self-policing proposals and also to the current £40m threshold.


Quote:

Question 8 Do you agree that the existing threshold should be retained? No – it should be reduced. The need for consumer protection is not dependent on the turnover of the supplier.  This restriction surely works to the detriment of the consumer.  If anything, smaller suppliers are possibly less likely to have accurate and reliable systems in place, so are more in need of regulation. Question 9 Ofcom invites views on the feasibility of a self-declaration route to compliance with the Ofcom Direction. Again, this would be to the benefit of the industry but to the detriment of consumers.  I fail to see how this could “ensure that customers continue to have a justified confidence in the accuracy of their bills”

As has been said / implied before on this site, Ofcom seem to think that their duty is towards helping the industry and B****R the consumers.

How much notice they will take of consumer responses remains to be seen, but I think we still have to try.
:-/