Just received my new Yellow Pages for 06/07. Virtually every page has a message 0845 = LOCAL CALL RATES !!! Surely Yell.com are bound by ASA guidelines and as a directory service should know better.

many thanks for this great site, keep it up

Hi abs

Make a complaint to: The publishers of the Yellow Pages, the ASA at www.asa.org.uk and Ofcom.

If you don’t complain, nothing will change.  

Head a short complaint with the word “Complaint” as this will trigger the various complaints procedures.

abs wrote on Aug 4^th, 2006 at 11:19am:

Just received my new Yellow Pages for 06/07. Virtually every page has a message 0845 = LOCAL CALL RATES

Where are these messages? I have just had a quick look through mine, delivered about 2 weeks ago and cannot find such a message, if it is on virtually every page I would have thought I would have found it in the first 40 pages.

In the Newcastle upon Tyne 06/07 ( Directory no 61) on pages 28,29,42,43,44,44,47,48,51,53,55,56,58,59,63,64,67,68 etc till 1614!!!!! some of them are a third of a page big!! This is a massive misinformation campaign

Mine also has all these messages, yours must be a rogue copy, derrick!!
Complaint will be heading their way shortly.

I got the new Newcastle Upon Tyne version a few weeks ago and can confirm that it has 0845 = Local call rates writen all over it. What a lie!

It's been a while since I've seen a yellow pages - I haven't got one.

For those that have got one then I do believe it helps our cause to complain to Yellow Pages (at first) and pointing out to them that 0845 isn't local rate and pointing out that ASA guidelines stipulate that call prices have to be displayed (include links to appropriate ASA guidelines).

I can only guess that yellow pages would probably inform their customers that their adverts that have an 084/087x in them have to mention the call costs.

This, I hope, will then maybe force companies that have 084x/087x numbers to maybe switch to their geographicals.  This is more likely the case for those companies that have 0845 and therefore are less likely to earn a revenue and were probably missold their 0845 on the basis that it is cheaper regardless of where their customers are calling from in the country.  This is especially true for companies that do not need advanced calling features offered by 0845 (eg smaller companies) but only got them because they were misinformed about 0845.  Of course those companies that operate more than one call centre across the country do unfortunately take advantage of advanced calling features.

Those using 0870 are likely to be earning a revenue so therefore are less likely to switch back to geographicals.

I'm hoping that these smaller companies that were misinformed about 0845 will realise that they are not helping their customers by operating an 0845 especially if the company concerned has to start mentioning the costs of calling 0845.  This is more true if the company concerned is informed that 0845 isn't local rate which they will only believe when the likes of the ASA inform them.

As we know, companies don't generally believe us when we say that 084x isn't local rate and 087x isn't national rate simply because for years they have been known as this and many companies (including to a certain degree BT) still maintain this scam.

The two relevant links about ASA guidelines concerning these numbers are here and here.

Thanks BBB-uk for your reply.
Just to add to your comments about complaining to Yellow pages. I assume they have no financial interest in promoting 0845/0870 as they use 0800 :), they probably think that they are providing a useful public service by explaining what these numbers mean so they may be more open to reason than other companies with a financial gain. Unless all these messages gave been paid for by a Telco to promote their service ;)

Does anyone have the email address of the best person to complain to?

By the way, is it only the Newcastle directory with this problem or are there any others?

I've just rec'd my Guildford Yellow Pages. On the cover it says in bold:

"0845 = Local call rates. Our Consumer Information section has more details on call rates"

On this page it says the following:

"What are 08 numbers?

"With more and more businesses using the various 08 numbers, it is good to be aware of the difference in pricing when dialing them. Calling 08 numbers costs less than you might think, with everyone from your local shop to local car dealers using them:
0800 and 0800 - FREE
0845 - charged at Local rate
0870 - charged at National Rate

I've just called Customer Services at Yellow Pages. The guy I spoke to went into this site to have a look. He is going to report it to their marketing department. They are obviously providing this information as a service so it is obviously a misunderstanding, but unfortuately is does perpetuate the misinformation on 0845 and 0870 numbers.

The really bad news is that when he first went in he clicked on one of the google ads, which of course told him the usual lie. Trying to explain that these ads are contary to what thew site is all about and outside of your control rather deflected from the point. I know this has been discussed many times before and you can't do anything about it.

I walked him thru' the site to the relevant Yellow pages discussion and the link to the ASA guidelines, so it ended up positive. Maybe they will post to the site! I hope so.

Having reacted to the message on the cover I didn't look thru the pages (other than the Consumer Information). I now notice that there are big ads on nearly every page with the message:

0845 = Local call rates.

What a nightmare. How could they get it so wrong. If these are going out everywhere this misinformation just gets worse. As Yellow Pages are local the cost for most people is just so much more by dialling 0845. But it is no wonder people think an 0845 number is cheaper.

Keith wrote on Aug 14^th, 2006 at 1:32pm:

What a nightmare. How could they get it so wrong. If these are going out everywhere this misinformation just gets worse. As Yellow Pages are local the cost for most people is just so much more by dialling 0845. But it is no wonder people think an 0845 number is cheaper.

Of course, if you live in Cornwall and dial Scotland, the cost of dialling 0845 for most people is the same during the day, and much more in the evening. Very few people make any savings by using 0845.

"0845 = national rate (daytime), premium rate (evening)" would be more accurate in Yellow Pages.

I'm mainly making this post to get it to the top of the list again ;D as to me this is a big problem as I'm assuming that if it has gone out in Newcastle and Guildford it is going out eveywhere and this is a huge misinformation campaign, albeit unintentional I assume.

If I were an advertiser using a Geographic number I would be livid. Being in the know I will always call a geographic number advertiser in preference to an 0870/0845 number, but most people still do not know that 0845s are more expensive and do assume they are cheaper.

This message has reinforced this situation big time.

I'm also disappointed that having reported this to Yellow Pages nobody has called me back.

When I return from a holiday I will follow up.

I took this up with the ASA, and after sending them a copy of the offending item, I got a reply saying that '...the area you draw attention to is outside our frame of reference, as it is an editorial piece and not an advertisement.'
They then suggest contacting local Trading Standards, or our beloved Ofcom!!
Ah well !!

omy wrote on Aug 19^th, 2006 at 7:04am:

I took this up with the ASA, and after sending them a copy of the offending item, I got a reply saying that '...the area you draw attention to is outside our frame of reference, as it is an editorial piece and not an advertisement.' They then suggest contacting local Trading Standards, or our beloved Ofcom!!

This sort of thing is getting to be a complete joke! :'( :'( :'( :'(

I can see what they mean because it is not an advertisement by a company, informing customers of the charges associated with its 0845 number. However, even if TS or Ofcom take the complaint seriously, what will they do? I'd be very suprised if they force them to recall the offending publications.

The cynic in me (surely not!!!) would assume that if enough 'regulatory bodies' are established by Governments then ultimately it will always be possible to 'pass you on' and the circle will eventually be completed - back where you originally started.

Just as I wrote this a hospital appointment letter arrived for me from my local Infirmary, and if I do not like the appointment I can change by ringing "0845......(Local Rate)" !!

Might as well give up.

Just been to the local library. As I waited for my son to select his books I picked up a stack of Yellow Pages. Lots of the 2006/07 editions have these 0845 ads all over them. It is not just Newcastle and Guildford!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Despair.

Off on holiday now.

It would seem that Yell / Yellow Pages are particularly keen to encourage the view that 0845 numbers are nice and cheap to call.

A google search of yellow pages 0845 shows one result which is Yellow Pages Terms & Conditions. Scroll down that page and you'll see the Call Counter Programme gives Yell customers an 0845 number, so they can monitor usage/stats.

Maybe not such an error or accident on the part of YP to have these (non)advertisments splashed all over the book. :-/

I have just scanned through the 2006/7 Brighton edfition of YP, and can see no reference to call costs for 0845 numbers. May be with over 1600 pages, there isn't room for them!
It was pleasing to see many 0800 numbers used.

Mike.....Burgess Hill   :)

My local Yellow Pages from 2006/07 did not show the "Local call rates" rubbish.

However, this year it does show something similar. On the front cover in the bottom right there is a box that says "0845 = Low call rates", and refers the reader to the "Consumer Information" section:


Quote:

What are 08 numbers? With more and more businesses using the various 08 numbers, it's good to be aware of the differences in pricing when dialling them. Calling 08 numbers costs less than you might think, with everyone from your local shop to local car dealer using them. 0800 and 0808 - FREE 0845 - Call charge from most landlines is 3p per minute* 0870 - Call charge from most landlines is 7.51p per minute* *Call charges may vary depending on network

Within the listings there is the rubbish that "0845=Low call rates", with small print "Call charge from most landlines is 3p per minute, call charges may vary depending on network". This is in boxes to pad out where gaps would otherwise be. And they used to use these spaces to promote other sections within the Yellow Pages.

Whilst those local small businesses that use 0845 numbers are in the minority, there are certainly more than I would of expected. There are also quite a few that persist in lying about it being "local rate" or "low-call rate" or something similar.

It is also noticeable that there are far less 0870s than 0845s. It appears that 0845 is the new 0870!

Having been asked to advertise in Yellow Pages, I can explain a percentage of the 0845s.
If YP rent your an 0845 from their selection, then you get a monthly report showing what numbers called you and at what time.
This allows you to see if the advertising has been effective in a particular area.
If you had one number with YP, and one with Thomsons, then you would know which was better for you. It would also save you having to remember to ask where they saw the advert as it would be obvious to you at the end of the month.
The amount of times I've forgotten, or the customer won't say, are too numerous.

The fact that YP gets an income off these numbers either doesn't occur to the advertiser, or the monthly breakdown makes it worthwhile. After all, they're not paying for it.

As you will see from post I made to this threasd sometime ago I complained to Yellow Pages about this - to no effect! I think this is important as a vast number of people use Yellow Pages and the message was plastered in bold on about every other page that 0845 = Local Rate.

Up until the last post I assumed this was a cock up. After all everyone believe 0845 is local rate and I couldn't see any benefit to YP in doing this. However the last post shows there is a financial benefit to Yellow Pages to mislead. This is disgraceful. is there anything we can do.

Sorry don't know where 'thingy up' came from!!!! Or is this a filter - it should have read 'cc*k up'

Surely this is a complaint that can be made to the ASA? or even Trading Standards,(good luck with TS), however it is not the case in our YPs,

Was just flicking thro' this thread and was a bit surprised at jrawle's comment. Surely there is no difference
in price in dialling any geographic UK number whether to John O'Groats to Lands End or to one's next door neighbour? I thhink this commonly held misperception  gives credence to these deceivers with their NGNs

a very nice man wrote on Mar 7^th, 2007 at 7:23am:

If YP rent your an 0845 from their selection, then you get a monthly report showing what numbers called you and at what time. This allows you to see if the advertising has been effective in a particular area.

That's funny because that thought did cross my mind when I was looking. Especially as quite a few quote "local rate" and that there must be some party that has perpetrated these lies (other than Ofcom and communications providers, that is).

Apart from all the misleading adverts, I think that the Yellow Pages is not misleading as such. They have replaced the word 'local' with the similar sounding 'low', which is, of course, subjective.

The size of the adverts shows that they were probably offered graphical ones in boxes rather than the plain listings.

I don't know about 0845 = Low call rates, but Yellow Pages = Rip off con merchants sounds better!

It specifically says '0845 = Local Rate' on just about every other page of my YP in bold yellow boxes.

Keith wrote on Mar 7^th, 2007 at 10:32pm:

It specifically says '0845 = Local Rate' on just about every other page of my YP in bold yellow boxes.

I am referring to the 2007/08 editions that state "0845 = Low call rate".

I understand that some of last year's (2006/07) showed "0845 = Local rate"

I didn't realise. This change is surely deliberate (which makes it worse) and still very misleading as the rate is not low at all for just about everyone. Can we still complain to the ASA and how do we do that? There is no point in me complaining about mine (until I get my new YP) as they will simply reply that they have changed the wording. The complaint needs to be about the new wording.

Mine says :- 0845=Local Call Rates
Note the plural, Rates.
Is this supposed to cloud the issue even further? :'(

Yellow pages for Newport & East Valleys-cover has a square banner proclaiming "0845=Low Call Rates. Our consumer Information section has more details on call rates." Inside under Consumer Advice: What are 08 numbers? With more and more businesses using the varios 08 numbers it's good to be aware of the differences in pricing when dialling them. Calling 08 numbers costs less than you might think, with everyone from your local shop to local car dealer using them. 0800-0808 free, 0845 call charge from most landlines is 3 PPM, 0870 call charge from most landlines is 7.51 PPM. Throughout the book are many banners showing 0845+low call rates and gives the 3 PPM pricing.

Interesting to note that they state calling 08 numbers is less than you might think. This shows that people are now waking up to this RIP OFF!!!!  

And interesting that they still quote that 7.51p/minute rate for 0870 numbers - BT reduced that to 7p six months ago.

A quote from Yell.com's website:

http://www.yell.com/consumer/call/home.html


Quote:

Dialling codes and call charges A dialling code can give you information about call charge rates. For example:    00 International codes    01 Area codes    02 Area codes    07 Calls charged at mobile rates    080 Calls are free    084 Calls charged at local rates    087 Calls charged at national rates    09 Calls charged at premium rates Please note, rates may change. Contact your telephone company for full details of call charges.

In my local Yellow Pages, there's a big full-page ad headed "A simple guide to 08 numbers". It reads, in part: "When you're looking for a business, it can be a little confusing knowing the difference between the various 08 numbers. However, by remembering a few simple rules, it's easy. 08 numbers aren't premium rate, those are 09".

I think it should be illegal to say things like this. In my book, if it costs more than a normal call, it's premium rate. I get so fed up with people on 0870 numbers telling me it's not a premium-rate line.

In other news, I recently had a (somewhat Pyrrhic) victory over BT. They cut off my email access by mistake, and I spent over three hours trying to sort out the problem, being passed around from one department to another and being kept in queues for up to 45 minutes, often on 0870 numbers. Three different people promised to call me back and didn't. There is something seriously wrong with that company right now.

When I finished, I called the BT group headquarters number given on this website and asked for the chairman's office. I don't think there is actually such a thing, but your complaint seems to be given priority. I demanded a refund of the cost of all the calls I'd made, which was about £10. They gave me £20.

Received the following from the ASA today re YELL & their "0845 = low call rates";-

ASA
Advertising Standards Authority
Mid City Place 71 High Holborn London WC1V6QT Telephone 020 7492 2222 Fax 020 7242 3696 Textphone 020 7242 8159 E-mail enquiries@asa.org.uk Online www.asa.org. uk


Mr

Please Quote: A07-309
2 January 2008

Dear Mr
YOUR COMPLAINT: Yell Advertising

I am writing further to our letter of 15 November 2007.

Since we last wrote to you, we received an assurance from Yell that they would remove the claim "low call rates" from their advertising and amend the wording of the call cost information in their future advertising to comply with our guidance.

We have, therefore, closed our file on an informal basis. The ASA publishes basic details of the complaints it investigates on its website, www.asa.org.uk. Yell's company name, the industry sector and the medium in which the ad appeared will be published on 16 January 2008 in a list with other advertisers that have co-operated in resolving complaints.

Thank you for taking the time to contact us about this complaint and for your patience during the investigation.
Yours sincerely

derrick wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 1:50pm:

Since we last wrote to you, we received an assurance from Yell that they would remove the claim "low call rates" from their advertising and amend the wording of the call cost information in their future advertising to comply with our guidance.

Just received my new Yellow Pages and within the listings it says "0845=Low call rates". Underneath this it states "Call charge from most landlines is 3p per minute, call charges may vary depending on network".

Yet at the foot of the pages on local information at the beginning it states "Calls from most landlines cost: 0845 up to 4p per min, 0870 up to 8p per min, 0871 up to 10p per min. A call set up fee of up to 6p applies to all calls. Network charges vary. Rates correct at time of publication."

On the front, it quotes the rates for Yell's 118247 directory enquiries number and at the end says "Rates as at publication of February 2008."

Seems like Yellow Pages continue to deliberately mislead. A few (relatively speaking) of the advertisers also lie about their 0845 numbers being "local rate".

The lies from Yellow Pages I referred to above about 084 being "local rate" are still on its website. See here.

Dave wrote on Feb 29^th, 2008 at 8:30pm:

Seems like Yellow Pages continue to deliberately mislead. A few (relatively speaking) of the advertisers also lie about their 0845 numbers being "local rate". The lies from Yellow Pages I referred to above about 084 being "local rate" are still on its website. See here.

But it is OfCoN that legalises of all this lieing about 0845 and 0870 call costs by numerous companies by doing nothing about it.

Post Office HomePhone still calls 0845 and 0870 Local and National Call Rates on all their phone bills.  If one marketing man sees his competitors getting away with this ripoff then he thinks he is also entitled to.  This is the excuse they even use in response to one's complaint.

If OfCoN carried out major publicity and threatened big fines against anyone continuing the abuses then they would cease overnight.

Dave wrote on Feb 29^th, 2008 at 8:30pm:

derrick wrote on Jan 3rd, 2008 at 1:50pm: Since we last wrote to you, we received an assurance from Yell that they would remove the claim "low call rates" from their advertising and amend the wording of the call cost information in their future advertising to comply with our guidance. Just received my new Yellow Pages and within the listings it says "0845=Low call rates". Underneath this it states "Call charge from most landlines is 3p per minute, call charges may vary depending on network". Yet at the foot of the pages on local information at the beginning it states "Calls from most landlines cost: 0845 up to 4p per min, 0870 up to 8p per min, 0871 up to 10p per min. A call set up fee of up to 6p applies to all calls. Network charges vary. Rates correct at time of publication." On the front, it quotes the rates for Yell's 118247 directory enquiries number and at the end says "Rates as at publication of February 2008." Seems like Yellow Pages continue to deliberately mislead. A few (relatively speaking) of the advertisers also lie about their 0845 numbers being "local rate". The lies from Yellow Pages I referred to above about 084 being "local rate" are still on its website. See here.

Dave, maybe you should contact ASA and inform them that Yell is still misleading with these claims, as they did say;- "we received an assurance from Yell that they would remove the claim "low call rates" from their advertising and amend the wording of the call cost information in their future advertising to comply with our guidance. " You could quote the reference from my complaint, if you want I can email you a copy of the letter.

Since posting my reply #34 above, I have received this years Yellow Pages and guess what? it has "0845 = low call rate" printed throughout .

I received it around the middle of March, and complained to ASA on 16th March, pointing out that they are ignoring their pledge, I received an acknowledgment from ASA on 18th March and a confirmation letter on 2nd April..

Today I have received the following; -

YOUR COMPLAINT

We have considered your complaint and we have taken it up with the advertisers Yell Ltd under our formal investigations procedure, which means that we have asked them to comment on the complaint and send evidence to support their claims.

When we have a response, we will prepare a draft recommendation and refer your complaint to the ASA Council for adjudication. You will have an opportunity to comment on the draft" before it is considered by the Council. Once the Council has made a decision, the adjudication will be published on our website.

If the advertisers respond to your complaint by offering to change their advertising in a way that resolves your concerns, we may close the case without referring it to Council or publishing an adjudication. This has the advantage of resolving your complaint more quickly. However we resolve your complaint, we will let you know the outcome.

I have enclosed a leaflet outlining our complaints procedure in more detail.

Yours sincerely


I will post again when I receive the draft.

I have received the following from the ASA, as you can see they asked me to keep it confidential until today, hence why I did not post it earlier; -

     Please Quote: A0

     By post


     22 May 2008

Dear Mr ******

YOUR COMPLAINT: YELL

Further to my letter of 2 May, we have received a response from Yell. As you know, they agreed not to use the term "LOW CALL RATES" in advertising for 0845 numbers and revised wording was agreed. Their pre-press publishers were instructed to use the revised wording. Yell have carried out an investigation with the pre-press publishers as to why the incorrect wording has continued to appear in some filler ads. We have seen a report from the publishers which explains that an error occurred in the pre-press production process. Certain instructions were not followed during the production process and a mixture of correctly and incorrectly worded ads has appeared. The publishers admitted the error and are reviewing their processes in consultation with Yell. Additional checks have been implemented.

We have also seen copy from other directories which post-dates the issue and we are confident that the correct wording is now appearing in all filler ads.

Because there was an error on the part of the publishers and steps have been taken to avoid this happening in future, we will close the case without referring it to the ASA Council. Basic information including the advertisers' name and where the ad appeared will be published on our website, www.asa.org.uk on 4 June. In the meantime, please treat the contents of this letter as confidential until the details referred to above are published.

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to raise the matter with us. If you would like more information about what we do and the ads we have found in breach of the Code, please have a look on our website.

derrick wrote on Jun 4^th, 2008 at 8:54am:

We have also seen copy from other directories which post-dates the issue and we are confident that the correct wording is now appearing in all filler ads. Because there was an error on the part of the publishers and steps have been taken to avoid this happening in future, we will close the case without referring it to the ASA Council. Basic information including the advertisers' name and where the ad appeared will be published on our website, www.asa.org.uk on 4 June. In the meantime, please treat the contents of this letter as confidential until the details referred to above are published.[/color]

So no fine or major sanction, even after a blatant failure to follow ASA rulings on this scale.  And what guarantee the same thing will not happen in the future.

Talk about the ASA being a cosy old boy's club :o >:( [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

NGMsGhost wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 10:17am:

derrick wrote on Jun 4th, 2008 at 8:54am: We have also seen copy from other directories which post-dates the issue and we are confident that the correct wording is now appearing in all filler ads. Because there was an error on the part of the publishers and steps have been taken to avoid this happening in future, we will close the case without referring it to the ASA Council. Basic information including the advertisers' name and where the ad appeared will be published on our website, www.asa.org.uk on 4 June. In the meantime, please treat the contents of this letter as confidential until the details referred to above are published.[/color] So no fine or major sanction, even after a blatant failure to follow ASA rulings on this scale.  And what guarantee the same thing will not happen in the future. Talk about the ASA being a cosy old boy's club :o >:( [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

At least the ASA attempted to do something, whereas OfCon would have done nothing, the ASA has accepted that it was a publishers fault and have seen paperwork to confirm this, if so then I cannot see how they can blame YELL, I do feel that if  the "error" is repeated then the ASA will do something.

I have had success with the ASA in the past with similar local complaints.

derrick wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 12:41pm:

At least the ASA attempted to do something, whereas OfCon would have done nothing, the ASA has accepted that it was a publishers fault and have seen paperwork to confirm this, if so then I cannot see how they can blame YELL, I do feel that if  the "error" is repeated then the ASA will do something. I have had success with the ASA in the past with similar local complaints.

Derrick,

I do agree that at least the ASA have managed to get something done (assuming there is not then a further error in the future).  However it is just very disappointing that when an error like this is made after previous enforcement efforts there is not a fine that would encourage these publishers to take more care in the future.

It seems the law is not so lenient when you or I stray just a few mph over the limit or forget to renew our road fund licence or get our car MOTed by the appropriate date.  A friendly letter reminding us about the matter and to take some action to remedy our error is not what we get in response is it. ;) ::)

NGMsGhost wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 1:16pm:

derrick wrote on Jun 8th, 2008 at 12:41pm: At least the ASA attempted to do something, whereas OfCon would have done nothing, the ASA has accepted that it was a publishers fault and have seen paperwork to confirm this, if so then I cannot see how they can blame YELL, I do feel that if  the "error" is repeated then the ASA will do something. I have had success with the ASA in the past with similar local complaints. Derrick, I do agree that at least the ASA have managed to get something done (assuming there is not then a further error in the future).  However it is just very disappointing that when an error like this is made after previous enforcement efforts there is not a fine that would encourage these publishers to take more care in the future. It seems the law is not so lenient when you or I stray just a few mph over the limit or forget to renew our road fund licence or get our car MOTed by the appropriate date.  A friendly letter reminding us about the matter and to take some action to remedy our error is not what we get in response is it. ;) ::)

I agree somewhat, but if the ASA has seen documentation that YELLs instructions have not been carried out, then I cannot see how they can uphold the complaint against YELL!

In my opinion it is the publishers who are at fault and the ASA has taken on board that "correct wording is now appearing in all filler ads", as they say; - " Because there was an error on the part of the publishers and steps have been taken to avoid this happening in future, we will close the case without referring it to the ASA Council."


p.s .
You will not get fined because your MOT is out of date unless you use the vehicle on a public road  ;)

derrick wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 1:28pm:

In my opinion it is the publishers who are at fault and the ASA has taken on board that "correct wording is now appearing in all filler ads", as they say; - " Because there was an error on the part of the publishers and steps have been taken to avoid this happening in future, we will close the case without referring it to the ASA Council."

But why does the publisher/printer not suffer any financial penalty for the error (for instance having to circulate a correction sheet to every home that has received the defective directory at their expense) and/or why is the publisher/printer not also subject to complying with the ASA's rules?  After all no paper based advert can appear without the intervention of a printer and/or surely yellow pages are also responsible for checking proof copies of the phone book before they go to press?  If Yellow Pages did not check a proof copy was compliant with the correct wording before the phone books were printed and/or did not check sample copies after they were printed then surely they are liable.  This is an argument you might perhaps like to try advancing with the ASA?


Quote:

p.s . You will not get fined because your MOT is out of date unless you use the vehicle on a public road  ;)

But you will now get fined for not having a tax disk unless you have completed a Statutory Off the Road Notification (SORN) when the tax disk is due to be renewed.  This will happen even if you never take the car on the public road but have not completed a SORN declaration.

Expect things to go the same way with the MOT once they have fully completed the implementation of their computerised MOT program.

NGMsGhost wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 3:02pm:

derrick wrote on Jun 8th, 2008 at 1:28pm: In my opinion it is the publishers who are at fault and the ASA has taken on board that "correct wording is now appearing in all filler ads", as they say; - " Because there was an error on the part of the publishers and steps have been taken to avoid this happening in future, we will close the case without referring it to the ASA Council." But why does the publisher/printer not suffer any financial penalty for the error (for instance having to circulate a correction sheet to every home that has received the defective directory at their expense) and/or why is the publisher/printer not also subject to complying with the ASA's rules?  After all no paper based advert can appear without the intervention of a printer and/or surely yellow pages are also responsible for checking proof copies of the phone book before they go to press?  If Yellow Pages did not check a proof copy was compliant with the correct wording before the phone books were printed and/or did not check sample copies after they were printed then surely they are liable.  This is an argument you might perhaps like to try advancing with the ASA? Quote: p.s . You will not get fined because your MOT is out of date unless you use the vehicle on a public road  ;) But you will now get fined for not having a tax disk unless you have completed a Statutory Off the Road Notification (SORN) when the tax disk is due to be renewed.  This will happen even if you never take the car on the public road but have not completed a SORN declaration. Expect things to go the same way with the MOT once they have fully completed the implementation of their computerised MOT program.

The ASA have closed this case, no point in trying further, will have to wait until next year when the 2009 Yellow pages are delivered.

Re MOT, I did not mention  tax disc, (of which you are correct re SORN etc), MOT is fully computerised and has been for 2-3 years, but it is not a requirement to have one unless vehicle on a public road, unlike the RFL, (tax disC ).

Have just received the latest edition of this esteemed publication, and it's absolutely bulging with ads quoting 0845 as 'local rate call' or 'lo-call'. There's also a smattering of 0870s and 0871s being quoted as National Rate. I thought YP had been told to stop this practice.
On every page there is a box stating that 0845 costs 6p setup plus up to 2p per minute, yet on the back cover Direct Line quote 0845 as 3p per minute. I thought 0845 was up to 5p per minute.

Are Yellow Pages up to no good here? If so who can order them to stop? Presumably ads in Yellow Pages are still ads?

Off topic, I spotted a national plumbing company's van filling up at Morrisons with the words 0871 xxx xxxx 'National Freephone Number' on the side.

What chance have we???

Terry

terryhickmott wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 10:34am:

Have just received the latest edition of this esteemed publication, and it's absolutely bulging with ads quoting 0845 as 'local rate call' or 'lo-call'. There's also a smattering of 0870s and 0871s being quoted as National Rate. I thought YP had been told to stop this practice. On every page there is a box stating that 0845 costs 6p setup plus up to 2p per minute, yet on the back cover Direct Line quote 0845 as 3p per minute. I thought 0845 was up to 5p per minute. Are Yellow Pages up to no good here? If so who can order them to stop? Presumably ads in Yellow Pages are still ads? Off topic, I spotted a national plumbing company's van filling up at Morrisons with the words 0871 xxx xxxx 'National Freephone Number' on the side. What chance have we??? Terry

Complain to the ASA:
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/how_to_complain/complaints_form/

terryhickmott wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 10:34am:

Off topic, I spotted a national plumbing company's van filling up at Morrisons with the words 0871 xxx xxxx 'National Freephone Number' on the side.

Report the plumbers to the ASA and also make a complaint with your local Trading Standards department about this.

Calling 0871 Freephone is a much more deliberate and obvious form of deception that Trading Standards are a lot likely to come down harder on than calling 0845 and 0870 local and national rate, which although clearly wrong has some historic basis to it.

Yellow Pages has already had previous ASA adjudications against them on 0845 and 0870 incorrect local and national rate descriptions and promised to change.  Another complaint now might lead to some very tough sanctions being taken against them for ignoring previous adjudications and commitments to put matters right.

Of course who knows what the ASA's position will now be on 0845 and 0870 following BT's decision to muddy the waters by including these numbers in inclusive call packages.

I agree with farci and NGMsGhost. I'm sure that not only did YP get rapped over the knuckles by the ASA but they then repeated the offence and got another warning - so report them please.

Re plumber - have you any idea what the name was, becasue if they were a UK wide one they are likely to have a web site and the offence is probably repeated there. If so we can have a good go at them.

See in particular my posts #34 38 & 39 on page 3 of this thread; - http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1154690370

Might I suggest that you complain to the ASA pointing out that they have been reported before on numerous occasions.

If you want to PM me I will give you my reference numbers re my complaints.

When our latest YP arrives, I will make another complaint if they are still making that claim.


NGMs Ghost, re your comment " Of course who knows what the ASA's position will now be on 0845 and 0870 following BT's decision to muddy the waters by including these numbers in inclusive call packages."

I can't see that making a difference, only BT are doing this and for a company to claim 0845 are "local rate" is misleading under the "Consumer Protection Act 1987 (part III), misleading price indications."

derrick wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 2:29pm:

I can't see that making a difference, only BT are doing this and for a company to claim 0845 are "local rate" is misleading under the "Consumer Protection Act 1987 (part III), misleading price indications."

Yes but it was only deemed to be misleading under Part III of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 because it was never true that 0845 was "local rate" any more.  However if for 60% of landline callers (since BT still has this much of the landline market) it is no longer true that 0845 costs any more than 01/02 for those making calls within call packages I can see that someone using them is going to try and make the case with the ASA that they are after all "local rate" numbers again.  Obviously standing against this argument is that 0845 and 0870 are now charged at an even greater surcharge by all non BT line providers and also by BT itself outside bundled minutes on BT landlines and at all times from BT Payphones (where they are charged at 19.5p per minute compared to only 1p per minute for calls to 01/02/03 numbers from a BT Public Payphone)

All I am saying is that because the majority of people only have a simplistic understanding of complex matters (phone number codes and charges now being a deliberately complex area as OfCoN has allowed it to become so) that simplistically most BT customers will no longer see 0845 and 0870 as a "bad thing" if they only call them when the numbers come out of bundled minutes.  Now even though they in fact underlyingly cost more and BT call packages could clearly have had a price reduction if they had not been included in them at this point in time the fact is that BT's move does not help the arguments of this campaigns because Mr and Mrs Simple will still see it as "but when I call these numbers on my BT landline they are free to call".  Obviously standing against this is the fact that they are not included free of charge in the packages of any mobile provider at the present time, although I would have thought BT's move might pressurise the more value oriented mobile operators like Three or Tmobile to consider including them in their contract mobile plans subject to some limit on the number of minutes of calls (probably a lot lower than BT's)

All I am saying is that if one writes to HMRC or Surrey Police now to ask why they are using 0845 and when they plan to get an 03 number one can just see the argument coming back that for BT customers who have call packages in operation when they call them the numbers now no longer cost any extra.  This whole move by BT is going to make it much harder for us to force 084/7 government sector operators to switch to 03 and it wasn't exactly easy to do so even up to now was it? ::)

Obviously 0844 and 0871 calls are still exclude though by BT and we need to focus our arguments there with those who are BT customers who will otherwise potentially no longer see 084/7 as a bad thing.

I maintain that it will still be misleading, and so will have to wait until I or someone else makes the next complaint to the ASA when finding one of these numbers described as "local or national rate".

Numbers included in a bundle are NOT free, they are inclusive! You pay for them via the, (extortionate), line rental or the extra for a bundle, and as this quote from SCV says; - "We must also remember that only 1.4 million of the 14 million customers said to be benefiting are currently on the Anytime plan." (10%),the argument can still stand.  reply #44  http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1231409039/30

As you say, they will not/are not included in mobile packages,(even with BT), so the "misleading" bit will still stand.

Agree about HMRC and police, but it is up to us to point out and emphasise that it is only BT doing this and that there is a need to be on a paid for package,(to call them during the day), for them to be INCLUSIVE.

Still classing them as “local NTS and National NTS  here; -

http://www.serviceview.bt.com/list/public/current/Call_Charges_boo/1632_d0e5.htm#1632-d0e5



Here, on page 4, they have removed 0845, and are calling 0870 “Special Services higher rate”.  Note they have 0843 described as; - “Special Services basic rate: charged at up to and including 5p per minute”
http://www.btwholesale.com/pages/downloads/Products/Interconnect/NUMBER%20SUB-ALLOCATION%20HANDBOOK%20-%20IP%20EXCHANGE%20-%20v1.0.doc

NGMsGhost is right to alert us to the dangers of misunderstanding caused by the inclusion of 0845 and 0870 in unlimited packages.

This does not however greatly worsen the complication that already exists, and remains, arising from the fact that BT charges less for calls to 0845 numbers, than for 01/02/03.

We can no longer point to the exclusion from BT packages as an example of where the need to support the revenue share is naturally and properly reflected in retail charges, as BT has now extended its cross-subsidy. Many other examples do however remain, i.e. anywhere but with BT, the exception to the rule.

BT has decided to carry the pain suffered by some of its customers in calling revenue sharing numbers; or rather to fund it through cross subsidy. We cannot expect others to follow this example - indeed Virginmedia last week retained the existing charges for calling 0845 and 0870 for its unlimited package subscribers, whilst increasing that for calling 0844.

Whatever may happen with 0870 in the coming months, the fact that BT effectively undercharges for calls to 0845 numbers by its normal residential customers must not be allowed to undermine the cause.

Remember that the ASA has ruled that "local rate" is misleading because it implies that there are different local and national rates.

I have just received my new Yellow Pages, and inside the rear cover it says:


Quote:

A simple guide to 08 numbers When you’re looking for a business, it can get a little confusing knowing the difference between the various 08 numbers. However, by remembering a few simple rules, it’s easy. 08 numbers aren’t premium rate, those are 09. It’s not only call centres that have 08 numbers – more and more small local businesses are using them too. And because it’s in your local directory, you can be certain they’ll cover your area. Here’s a quick guide to how the most commonly used 08 numbers are priced: 0800 and 0808 Known as Freephone numbers, when you dial 0800 or 0808 from a landline, calls cost nothing.* 0845 Is free to call for BT residential customers on certain call packages only. *   Mobile providers and payphone operators may charge but your mobile provider should give you an announcement stating that you will be charged for the call before you are connected.

In response to this, I make two points:


1. Numbers beginning 0871, 0872 and 0873 are “Premium Rate Services” (PRS), along with 09 numbers, but Yellow Pages doesn’t seem to have caught up with this development. This exact same paragraph appeared in the rear inner cover of last year’s publication. Not amending it following the change in August 2009, which saw 0871/2/3 officially classified as PRS, is at best just plain sloppy for a directory that lists phone numbers.

Interestingly, references to the cost of calling 0870 and 0871 numbers, which appeared last year, have disappeared. Yellow Pages’ guide to 08 numbers now only covers 080x and 0845 at certain times on certain tariffs. It does say that it’s a “simple” guide and not a comprehensive one!


2. Here we see yet another example of an organisation promoting BT and its abnormally low 0845 call charges. In fact, it only mentions the call cost as being nothing (“free”) on “certain call packages” and conveniently neglects to mention that on all but one, this qualification only applies at certain times of day.

Dave wrote on Feb 12^th, 2010 at 10:11pm:

1. Numbers beginning 0871, 0872 and 0873 are “Premium Rate Services” (PRS), along with 09 numbers, but Yellow Pages doesn’t seem to have caught up with this development. This exact same paragraph appeared in the rear inner cover of last year’s publication. Not amending it following the change in August 2009, which saw 0871/2/3 officially classified as PRS, is at best just plain sloppy for a directory that lists phone numbers. Here we see yet another example of an organisation promoting BT and its abnormally low 0845 call charges. In fact, it only mentions the call cost as being nothing (“free”) on “certain call packages” and conveniently neglects to mention that on all but one, this qualification only applies at certain times of day.

Dave,

I trust your complaint has already been logged on the www.asa.org.uk website? ;)

Dave wrote on Feb 29^th, 2008 at 8:30pm:

The lies from Yellow Pages I referred to above about 084 being "local rate" are still on its website. See here.

Nearly two years on and this page I linked to still says:


Quote:

Dialling codes and call charges A dialling code can give you information about call charge rates. For example:    00 International codes    01 Area codes    02 Area codes    07 Calls charged at mobile rates    080 Calls are free    084 Calls charged at local rates    087 Calls charged at national rates    09 Calls charged at premium rates

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 12^th, 2010 at 10:22pm:

I trust your complaint has already been logged on the www.asa.org.uk website? ;)

I submitted a complaint to ASA, but they say it's note in their remit as it is "editorial". I submitted a complaint to Consumer Direct which has been passed on to Trading Standards, but CD can give no guarantee that TS will do anything.

Dave wrote on Mar 4^th, 2010 at 11:46am:

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 12th, 2010 at 10:22pm: I trust your complaint has already been logged on the www.asa.org.uk website? ;) I submitted a complaint to ASA, but they say it's note in their remit as it is "editorial". I submitted a complaint to Consumer Direct which has been passed on to Trading Standards, but CD can give no guarantee that TS will do anything.

:o No surprise there then

Dave wrote on Mar 4^th, 2010 at 11:46am:

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 12th, 2010 at 10:22pm: I trust your complaint has already been logged on the www.asa.org.uk website? ;) I submitted a complaint to ASA, but they say it's note in their remit as it is "editorial". I submitted a complaint to Consumer Direct which has been passed on to Trading Standards, but CD can give no guarantee that TS will do anything.

I would never condone misleading information or improper promotion of any commercial enterprise. Nothing is totally "free" of everything, however there is an element of truth in the statement that 0845 calls are free" with BT. BT’s standard call plans are designed so that certain calls are free of call charges during the time when the subscriber normally makes calls. Penalty charges apply to such calls at other times (except where regulation prevents the imposition of penalty charges).

In a roundabout way, promulgating the idea that 0845 calls are free with BT does actually help our argument.

When addressing the cost of calling 0845 numbers in the battle against misuse of revenue sharing, it is the unique position of BT, however it is described, that needs to be pointed out to be particular, unusual and at odds with all others.

When 0845 calls are charged for by BT this is at a cheaper rate than calls to geo or 03 numbers. When "free", then geo and 03 calls are charged at the same rate as 0845.

It does not therefore help the battle against misuse of revenue sharing to shout about the cost of calling 0845 numbers from BT. Unless we believe that BT’s charging policy could be overlooked, it is better to leave the impression that it is unique in not imposing a surcharge on calls to 0845 numbers, as others do, rather than pointing out that it offers these calls more cheaply than other calls.

---

In reviewing the thread, I have not been able to see any reference to the position taken by Yell on the question of how it advises call charges and what it permits its customers to do. If the enquiries I have made yield anything useful, I will pass this on. If anybody else has this information, it would help our discussion to be advised of this.

---

I will resist the temptation to get drawn into a debate about the possible need for regulatory agencies to be given further powers outside the scope of those which they presently hold.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Mar 4^th, 2010 at 4:46pm:

I would never condone misleading information or improper promotion of any commercial enterprise. Nothing is totally "free" of everything, however there is an element of truth in the statement that 0845 calls are free" with BT. BT’s standard call plans are designed so that certain calls are free of call charges during the time when the subscriber normally makes calls. Penalty charges apply to such calls at other times (except where regulation prevents the imposition of penalty charges). In a roundabout way, promulgating the idea that 0845 calls are free with BT does actually help our argument.

The "design" of BT's call plans (and how they are indended to be used) has no bearing on whether this advertisement giving pricing information is misleading or not. The fact that people who pick up the Yellow Pages are likely ring the 0845 numbers during the weekday daytime means that any pricing information should be applicable at that time (unless, perhaps, it states otherwise).

The fact that there are more BT customers paying for their 0845 calls during that period than don't makes this statement incorrect. This is because it is specifically stating that 0845 calls are generally free of per minute call charges during the weekday daytime period.

Dave wrote on Mar 7^th, 2010 at 12:24am:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Mar 4th, 2010 at 4:46pm: I would never condone misleading information or improper promotion of any commercial enterprise. Nothing is totally "free" of everything, however there is an element of truth in the statement that 0845 calls are free" with BT. BT’s standard call plans are designed so that certain calls are free of call charges during the time when the subscriber normally makes calls. Penalty charges apply to such calls at other times (except where regulation prevents the imposition of penalty charges). In a roundabout way, promulgating the idea that 0845 calls are free with BT does actually help our argument. The "design" of BT's call plans (and how they are indended to be used) has no bearing on whether this advertisement giving pricing information is misleading or not. The fact that people who pick up the Yellow Pages are likely ring the 0845 numbers during the weekday daytime means that any pricing information should be applicable at that time (unless, perhaps, it states otherwise). The fact that there are more BT customers paying for their 0845 calls during that period than don't makes this statement incorrect. This is because it is specifically stating that 0845 calls are generally free of per minute call charges during the weekday daytime period.

Yes - the statement is misleading and it helps our argument.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Mar 7^th, 2010 at 1:46am:

Yes - the statement is misleading and it helps our argument.

I remind you and readers of this thread that it is about the text which appears in the year's Yellow Pages, which I posted previously.



SilentCallsVictim wrote on Mar 4^th, 2010 at 4:46pm:

When 0845 calls are charged for by BT this is at a cheaper rate than calls to geo or 03 numbers. When "free", then geo and 03 calls are charged at the same rate as 0845. It does not therefore help the battle against misuse of revenue sharing to shout about the cost of calling 0845 numbers from BT. Unless we believe that BT’s charging policy could be overlooked, it is better to leave the impression that it is unique in not imposing a surcharge on calls to 0845 numbers, as others do, rather than pointing out that it offers these calls more cheaply than other calls.

From what I gather, you are saying that you agree with me that the YP advertisement is misleading, but you would leave it be.

I do, however, empathise with others who may perhaps read into your posts on this thread that you are happy with the YP wording.

I have yet to understand how it can be that something which is misleading or just plain incorrect (or perhaps even a lie) should ever be regarded as "helping" one's cause because anyone challenging that cause can come along and point out the innaccuracy(ies). In essence, it surely weakens our campaign if we say that the misleading YP advertisement supports us!

In respect to the SAYNOTO0870 campaign in general, the whole reason why we are where we are is because of the obsession with relating quoted call prices to BT - i.e. "local rate" etc. Thus, suggesting that 0845 numbers are "free" or "included in packages" takes this one step further by implying that calls are free when they in fact carry a premium.

The only thing in the YP's favour is that it does say that the charges which it describes are those from BT. It does not imply that calls are free across the market in general.

Dave wrote on Mar 7^th, 2010 at 2:57pm:

From what I gather, you are saying that you agree with me that the YP advertisement is misleading, but you would leave it be.

I only say what I say. This includes my clear statement that

Quote:

I would never condone misleading information or improper promotion of any commercial enterprise.

If Yell can be pursuaded that the statement in question is misleading or improper then it will be changed. We are right to be engaged in efforts to secure such a change. I will advise on anything that I may achieve.

Part of our campaigning efforts are about public perception. This is influenced by the terms of specific statements, but rarely held in such precise language - the exception being when a catchy slogan is picked up. "saynoti0870" has done a great job in causing all "odd" telephone numbers, not just 0870, to be viewed with suspicion. I simply comment that "free from BT" could help in the same way by promoting the idea that BT is unusual in its call charges.

Stressing the further truth that, for most BT customers, weekday daytime 0845 and 0844 calls are cheaper than 01/02/03 cannot help our efforts. One could aruge that because it is true it must be shouted in the same way as any other truth. I disagree.

I've just received my new "handy size" Yellow Pages and it has filler ads which state "0845 is free to call for BT residential customers on certain call packages only."

This is the same as was last year, although there is no "simple guide to 08 numbers" anymore (which covered a full page). The reason for this could be down to the small size of the latest edition.

Dave wrote on Feb 9^th, 2011 at 2:41pm:

I've just received my new "handy size" Yellow Pages and it has filler ads which state "0845 is free to call for BT residential customers on certain call packages only." This is the same as was last year, although there is no "simple guide to 08 numbers" anymore (which covered a full page). The reason for this could be down to the small size of the latest edition.

Yep, and has been done to death before, they are NOT "free" they are inclusive, don't pay a line rental and you get NO calls!


.