Just been speaking to an ICO rep re one of my complaints, during the course of that chat she mentioned a new number for contacting them

 ICO Helpline:
08456 30 60 60 (Lo-Call Rate)
01625 54 57 45 (National Rate)

Now I did try to explain that number was not described correctly and was misleading, but she said the website was nothing to do with her and I would have to complaint to another dept, (which I will), but if the ICO is getting it wrong, what chance is there for the rest of the public to become aware of these calls?

This is the page I got the inf from:-  https://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/contact_us.aspx  

Now admitted, they do put the geo number up there, but my point is the calling of 0845 as Lo-Call

I have emailed them about this as well. Will feedback any response.

Keith wrote on Jan 11^th, 2007 at 5:24pm:

I have emailed them about this as well. Will feedback any response.

Which e-mail address did you use, as I could not find a relevant one?

To: mail@ico.gsi.gov.uk


Quote:

Dear Sirs I have just perused your website https://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/contact_us.aspx and was astonished to see that you describe your Helpline number thus: ICO Helpline: 08456 30 60 60 (Lo-Call Rate) 01625 54 57 45 (National Rate) Using the 0845 number would cost me (using BT), 3p connection and 3p per minute during the day whereas calling your 01625 number would cost me (using call1899.co.uk) 4p connection and 0p per minute. So the 0845 number is hardly "Lo-Call Rate" is it? No, it's many times more expensive. Worse still, to call your 0845 number from a telephone box would cost 10.91p/minute (minimum call charge 40p of which 20p is a connection charge) at any time whereas, to call your 01625 number from the same telephone box would cost 1p/minute (minimum call charge 40p of which 20p is a connection charge).   Calling the 0845 number is NEARLY ELEVEN TIMES MORE EXPENSIVE! I think you will have grasped by now that describing your 0845 number as 'Lo-Call Rate' is, at best, misinformation and, in truth, a lie. Even you attempt to fool the public! Incredible!

I used the form at the bottom of their web page for web page comments/complaints.

Remember that for most of the time companies and gov departments aren't aware of the difference or that it's misleading, etc.  Why should they when most teleco's selling these numbers are still allowed to say that they're either local or national rate?  This is due to Ofcom and their lack of wanting to do anything.

OK thanks, have now sent a complaint.

bbb_uk wrote on Jan 11^th, 2007 at 10:48pm:

Remember that for most of the time companies and gov departments aren't aware of the difference or that it's misleading, etc.  Why should they when most teleco's selling these numbers are still allowed to say that they're either local or national rate?  This is due to Ofcom and their lack of wanting to do anything.

Sorry bbb but there is absolutely no excuse for the Information Commissioner's Office of all places to get this kind of thing wrong.  The Information Commissioner's Office is all about companies disclosing correct information so what hope if it can't do it for itself! :o >:( >:( >:(

The strange thing is that I have been to the ICO's website quite a lot over the last 18 months and up to now they have always only ever quoted a geographic 01 number and no other number.  And I had always thought this was because they realised the public perception harm of using anything other than a geographic number for their office.

So it is extremely hard to believe that at this point in time they should be conned into signing up for a new 0845 number. But has some numpty new website manager there come across the old number that was long ago deleted and had it relisted?

Sorry bbb but the ICO getting this wrong is only one away from Ofcom getting it wrong as one of the ICO's main jobs is to control illegal selling activities by making phone calls to people who are TPS registered etc.

Oh and the main people to write to are:-

richard.thomas@ico.gsi.gov.uk  -  Information Commissioner
susan.fox@ico.gsi.gov.uk          -  Comms & External Relations
simon.entwisle@ico.gsi.gov.uk   -  Chief Operating Officer

You might also like to quote to them all these references including the one from the CEO of BT Retail, Ian Livingston, showing why 084/7 numbers are not Local/National rate and are a scam that in his view discredit telecoms companies.

The view of a county council trading standards department

Para 1.3 Page 1 of www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/oftel_0845/responses/leicester_cc.pdf

and

the view of the CEO of BT Retail, Ian Livingston

http://business.scotsman.com/banking.cfm?id=764772005

and

two recent guidances from the Advertising Standards Authority

www.asa.org.uk/cap/news_events/news/2005/Hanging+on+the+telephone+on+and+on+and+ on.htm

www.asa.org.uk/cap/news_events/news/2005/Stop+the+call+confusion.htm

and

the Parliamentary Early Day motion deploring the use of 0870 telephone numbers by government departments

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=28872%09%09%09%09%09%09%09&; amp;SESSION=875

and

Another guidance from the Committee of Advertising Practice of the Advertising Standards Authority

www.cap.org.uk/cap/news_events/news/2005/CAP+rings+the+changes+for+telecoms+providers.htm

and Pages 5 and 6 of the below minutes from my own district council where we agreed policy to stop the future use of 0845 and 0870 numbers.

www.molevalley.gov.uk/media/pdf/1/s/Council_Minutes_190705.pdf

And the most recent ASA guidance saying that Inclusive call packages must not fail to disclose that 084/7 calls are excluded from them.

www.cap.org.uk/cap/news_events/news/2006/Ringing+the+Changes.htm

First response returned, although I know all  4 of my e-mails have been opened:-

Thank you for your email about the cost of our telephone lines. I have forwarded it to the manager who is in charge of our customer service department, kind regards, Susan Fox

Susan Fox

Director of Communications and External Relations

tel 01625 545 776

susan.fox@ico.gsi.gov.uk

www.ico.gov.uk

derrick wrote on Jan 15^th, 2007 at 1:57pm:

Thank you for your email about the cost of our telephone lines. I have forwarded it to the manager who is in charge of our customer service department, kind regards, Susan Fox Susan Fox Director of Communications and External Relations tel 01625 545 776 susan.fox@ico.gsi.gov.uk

Actually its her job as the no doubt highly overpaid director of Communications to monitor and correct the crass error made by her customer service manager or website manager.  Still perhaps she was too busy whizzing off to a nice lunch of conference to have time to deal with the issue. ;) >:( :'(

I think a few more emails from other forum members with cc to ed.carter@ofcom.org.uk, sean.williams@ofcom.org.uk and matt.peacock@ofcom.org.uk are required to make Ms Fox realise there is a problem here.

Derrick you might also care to email Ms Fox the link to this discussion thread with cc to Mr Thomas and Mr Entwisle.

Come on, she is  a DIRECTOR, can't be bothered with the mundane stuff when she has minions to carry out the work  ;D ;D


Have already e-mailed the same message to both of those people although not linked to this discussion

derrick wrote on Jan 15^th, 2007 at 2:18pm:

Come on, she is  a DIRECTOR, can't be bothered with the mundane stuff when she has minions to carry out the work  ;D ;D

But like ministers she is the one who ought to resign if they screw up because she hasn't been keeping tabs on what they are up to.

NGMs ghost,

I have done as you suggested, don't know if they will bother with the link though, or any of the others I sent in the first e-mail.

derrick wrote on Jan 15^th, 2007 at 2:27pm:

NGMs ghost, I have done as you suggested, don't know if they will bother with the link though, or any of the others I sent in the first e-mail.

Emails to the directors of organisations usually cause these matters to receive the attention they deserve in my experience.  Whereas emails to customer service departments usually cause them to be ignored as most customer service employees seem incapable of understanding significant policy issues.

If you want to find another regulator doing the wrong thing on phone numbers try none other than the telecoms ombudsman www.otelo.org.uk/content.php?pageID=99&PHPSESSID=992c6e7b40091aec003ef7c2237bb2f5 where you find their 0845 number described as "Our phone number" and their geographic 01 phone number as "our regional phone number".  But what exactly is a regional phone number as BT abolished regional phone call rate at least 10 years ago. :-/ >:( :'(

In Otelo's case I have tried raising this several times with them but their IT manager responsible for their website is a moron (I know because I have tried discussing this with him on the phone and ended up hanging up in fury at his ignorance, arrogance and stupidity) and absolutely refuses to accept that this is incorrect.  With the ICO on the other hand I had always been pleased that they only ever displayed a geographic phone number on their website for at least the last two years so where the 0845 phone number described as being local rate has suddenly come from heaven only knows. :-/

Ah but it is described as "Lo-call" they seem to think this is not the same as "local rate", and cannot grasp it is just a play,(con), on words.

derrick wrote on Jan 15^th, 2007 at 3:35pm:

Ah but it is described as "Lo-call" they seem to think this is not the same as "local rate", and cannot grasp it is just a play,(con), on words.

But is Lo-call not a BT trademark?

derrick wrote on Jan 15^th, 2007 at 3:35pm:

Ah but it is described as "Lo-call" they seem to think this is not the same as "local rate", and cannot grasp it is just a play,(con), on words.

A brand abolished by BT so they as a responsible ombudsman can surely no longer use it? :-/ ::) :o

The problem at Otelo is the IT manager responsible for the website - a total power crazed moron who knows his sad misunderstanding of the world is right!

Dave wrote on Jan 15^th, 2007 at 3:36pm:

derrick wrote on Jan 15th, 2007 at 3:35pm: Ah but it is described as "Lo-call" they seem to think this is not the same as "local rate", and cannot grasp it is just a play,(con), on words. But is Lo-call not a BT trademark?

Not sure, but it is very close to "local" and I thought now BT had stopped udsing that term!

derrick wrote on Jan 15^th, 2007 at 3:38pm:

Not sure, but it is very close to "local" and I thought now BT had stopped udsing that term!

But if it is a BT trademark, BT therefore have a say on its use.

See the bottom of this page.

Report ICO's use of 'Lo-Call' to BT and ask if it's a BT trademark.

The offending words have now been removed from ICO's website.

Dave wrote on Jan 15^th, 2007 at 3:45pm:

The offending words have now been removed from ICO's website.

But it is still at the bottom of this page http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/unhappy_with_our_service.aspx

Dave wrote on Jan 15^th, 2007 at 3:45pm:

The offending words have now been removed from ICO's website.

But not the offending number. >:( [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Ofcom did try for a while also displaying the 0845 number for their Contact Centre on their website along with the 020 number with a complicated message explaining that it would be cheaper to use the 0845 for the small number of people on the BT Light User Scheme (about a million lines in all but lines making almost no outgoing phone calls) who are not in the London local phone area but I see they have now abandoned that as being too complicated a message and only list their geographic 01 phone numbers as the correct number to call. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

derrick wrote on Jan 15^th, 2007 at 3:50pm:

But it is still at the bottom of this page http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/unhappy_with_our_service.aspx

The bigger question though is where the 0845 has suddenly come from at this late stage in the day with the ICO up to now only ever having listed its 01 geographic phone number on its website.

I think its time to send Mr Thomas, Ms Fox and the other directors of the ICO an email with links to all the references showing why 0845 is not local rate but covert premium rate.

I also think a copy should be forwarded to Ed.Richards@ofcom.org.uk and all Board members at Ofcom plus all Ofcom Consumer Panel Members saying why this kind of error by someone like the ICO shows why Ofcom is failing in its duty to UK citizen consumers by not adopting new powers that allow it to impose summary fines on any company that still claims 0845/0870 are local rate/lo-call or national rate.  Also where is Ofcom's radio and tv campaign or newspaper adverts to educate the public on this issue and about its new forthcoming 03 area number code? ::) :-/ :'(

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 15^th, 2007 at 3:56pm:

The bigger question though is where the 0845 has suddenly come from at this late stage in the day with the ICO up to now only ever having listed its 01 geographic phone number on its website.

Numbers beginning 0845 630 are allocated to Opal Telecom, a part of Carphone Warehouse Group. The change date is 07/2006, so most probably a new block of numbers.

See the Richmond Council thread here for more on Opal's marketing techniques including "0845 Appear local to everyone".

Dave wrote on Jan 15^th, 2007 at 4:12pm:

See the Richmond Council thread here for more on Opal's marketing techniques including "0845 Appear local to everyone".

All of which points to the gross dereliction of its duty by OfCoN in failing to publicise on a national scale that these numbers are not local rate.

Why did OfCoN take national newspaper adverts in the summer to say that it deregulating BT prices would lead to a better and cheaper deal for consumers (a total lie as it turns out) but has never done any publicity at all in the national press about the evils of 084/7 apart from Matt Peacock's one interview on BBC Radio 4 two years ago (telling us all companies in the public sector would have to publish a geographic number in due course) which his Ofcom colleagues seem to have been trying to backtrack on ever since.

And how to explain rationally to the public that 0870 will be charged as per 01/02 calls in Most (but possible not all) cases on 1st Feb 2008 while 0845 will still go on being charged as a premium rate outside bundled minutes by most mobile phone operators? :o :-/ :'(

It beggars belief that the zero brain cell salesmen at Opal telecom would have the audacity try to sell an 0845 number to a body like the ICO at this late stage when it is sure to cause them nothing but trouble.

Just received the following e-mail:


Our Reference:

15 January 2007

Dear Sir

I am writing following your recent emails to the Information Commissioner’s Office in which you raise concerns about our use of the term ‘lo-call’ when advertising our Helpline services.  Your complaint has been passed to me as head of ICO customer services in line with our service complaint procedures.  


In responding to your complaint it may help if I briefly explain the rationale behind the way we have chosen to advertise our Helpline services before addressing the specifics of your complaint.


The ICO Helpline Service

For a number of years customers contacting our office by telephone have been asked to ring 01625 545745 to speak to our Helpline staff, or 01625 545700 to speak to our switchboard operator.  We are currently mid-way through a project to improve this service, streamlining the number entry points into our organisation, whilst seeking to provide our customers with as much choice as possible in what we recognise as an ever changing world of telecoms service provision.  


Recognising that for many customers the cheapest option, depending on their telecoms service provider, may well be to call our traditional 01625 number, we chose to retain this service at the heart of our Helpline strategy.  However, we also wanted to provide customers with the choice of calling what have traditionally been termed an 0845 or ‘lo-call’ number.  We have been absolutely clear from the outset that we did not wish to force our customers to incur unnecessary or prohibitive telephone charges when seeking our advice or assistance.  Given that we are unfortunately not in a position to offer a freephone service, it was felt that the choice of the two numbers, as described above, would provide our customers with the ability to choose the number which would see them incur the lowest charges.


The use of the ‘Lo-Call’ tag

When looking to explain to our less technically proficient customers the reason for offering two numbers, I chose to use the term ‘lo-call’ due to its direct association with the 0845 service.  It was never our intention to suggest that this number was necessarily cheaper than the ‘national rate’ and indeed, when we advise our customers to ring our Helpline when we write to hem, we go on to explain that we have a ‘national rate’ number for those who have access to ‘cheaper national rate calls’.  However, I acknowledge that in attempting to keep the description of our service as succinct as possible on our website, I may well have given the impression that our 0845 number was being offered as the cheapest service.  In an attempt to remedy this situation I am now in the process of adding some more detailed guidance to our website to avoid any future unfortunate misunderstandings.  


I would therefore like to conclude by stressing that it certainly isn’t our intention to mislead any of our customers, and if you felt in any way confused or misled by the services we were offering I can only apologise, and hope you are suitably reassured by this explanation.

If you have any further concerns, or wish me to clarify any of the information in this email, please do contact me by replying to this email, or quoting the reference number at the top of this email if you wish to contact us by telephone.  


Yours sincerely


Paul Arnold

Head of Customer Services

The Information Commissioner’s Office


Cc Susan Fox – Director of Communications and External Relations

Perhaps you would care to point the sadly deluded Mr Arnold to the following:-

the view of the current CEO of BT Retail, Ian Livingston

http://business.scotsman.com/banking.cfm?id=764772005

The view of a county council trading standards department

Para 1.3 Page 1 of www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/oftel_0845/responses/leicester_cc.pdf

and

two guidances from the Advertising Standards Authority

www.asa.org.uk/cap/news_events/news/2005/Hanging+on+the+telephone+on+and+on+and+on.htm

www.asa.org.uk/cap/news_events/news/2005/Stop+the+call+confusion.htm

and

the Parliamentary Early Day motion deploring the use of 0870 telephone numbers by government departments

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=28872%09%09%09%09%09%09%09&; amp;SESSION=875

and

Another guidance from the Committee of Advertising Practice of the Advertising Standards Authority

www.cap.org.uk/cap/news_events/news/2005/CAP+rings+the+changes+for+telecoms+prov iders.htm

and Pages 5 and 6 of the below minutes from my own district council where we agreed policy to stop the future use of 0845 and 0870 numbers.

www.molevalley.gov.uk/media/pdf/1/s/Council_Minutes_190705.pdf

And the most recent ASA guidance saying that Inclusive call packages must not fail to disclose that 084/7 calls are excluded from them.

www.cap.org.uk/cap/news_events/news/2006/Ringing+the+Changes.htm

I'm beginning to wonder if this Paul Arnold is the guy who used to work at Otelo (the 01 are definitely Regional Call Rate numbers because I say they are man) as I see that the ICO and Otelo have their offices in much the same part of the world.  Also it doesn't say much for Ms Fox and Mr Thomas as Director and CEO of the ICO that they allow this kind of misinformation to be foisted on the great British public without any form of approval at Board level. :o >:( :'(

However this case is going to prove very useful indeed in demonstrating to Ofcom and the EU Commission how their current sad inaction over educating the public on the cost of 084/7 numbers is not protecting the best interests of the UK citizen consumer who are supposed to be Ofcom's principal duty to protect.

If the Information Commissioner's office can be easily duped then surely everybody can. ::)

I think I sent most of those in my original e-mail that where passed to him, I have also replied to him pointing back to that e-mail and giving further pointers to the wrongful use of 0845, and inviting him to look at this thread and also the site.

derrick wrote on Jan 15^th, 2007 at 5:19pm:

I think I sent most of those in my original e-mail that where passed to him, I have also replied to him pointing back to that e-mail and giving further pointers to the wrongful use of 0845, and inviting him to look at this thread and also the site.

You could do worse than to email your MP and all your 10 or so MEPs via www.writetothem.com alerting them to this kind of error by none other than a major UK regulator controlling the supply of information being the sad end consequence of the pathetic failure of the UK telecoms regulator Ofcom to ensure the correct implementation of the EU Misleading Advertising Directive and basic uk trading standards law requiring that people know the correct prices of goods and services before they buy them.

You might want to draw attention to the fact that while Ofcom is grudgingly finally moving 0870 to being normal priced calls in Feb 2008 it is not doing the same for what are still widely and wrongly misunderstood to be Lo-Call rate calls despite the best efforts of the ASA.  Perhaps you might suggest this is the inevitable consequences of Ofcom having a CEO for several years (Stephen Carter) who only understood the needs of business and business profitability rather than the need to protect the UK citizen consumer which part 3 (i) of the Communciations Act 2003 suggests are Ofcom's principal duty to protect.

I am afraid I have no confidence whatsoever in ANY MP to do anything relating to the right thing

derrick wrote on Jan 15^th, 2007 at 5:53pm:

I am afraid I have no confidence whatsoever in ANY MP to do anything relating to the right thing

There are a number of Parliamentarians on our side on the 0870 question.

Lord Paul Tyler, Vince Cable MP, Bob Spink MP, Peter Bottomley MP, John Randall MP, Andrew Rosindell MP and the new Conservative MP for the constituency next to mine of Guildford (Ann Milton) have all shown they are pretty active in pursing and understanding this cause.  See the Parliamentary Update thread:-

www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1130983483/90#90

You may not like polticians for whatever personal reasons but ultimately MPs and the EU are the only people who have the power to call Ofcom to account for its disgracefully incompetent and negligent actions and/or inaction over this issue.

Quote:

22nd January 2007 Case Reference Number ENQxxxxxxx Dear I am writing following your recent emails to the Information Commissioner’s Office in which you raise concerns about our use of the term ‘lo-call’ when advertising our Helpline services. Your complaint has been passed to me as manager of the Advice and Enquiry section of our Customer Service’s team in line with our service complaint procedures. In responding to your complaint it may help if I briefly explain the rationale behind the way we have chosen to advertise our Helpline services before addressing the specifics of your complaint. The ICO Helpline Service For a number of years customers contacting our office by telephone have been asked to ring 01625 545745 to speak to our Helpline staff, or 01625 545700 to speak to our switchboard operator. We are currently mid-way through a project to improve this service, streamlining the number entry points into our organisation, whilst seeking to provide our customers with as much choice as possible in what we recognise as an ever changing world of telecoms service provision. Recognising that for many customers the cheapest option, depending on their telecoms service provider, may well be to call our traditional 01625 number, we chose to retain this service at the heart of our Helpline strategy. However, we also wanted to provide customers with the choice of calling what have traditionally been termed a 0845 or ‘lo-call’ number. We have been absolutely clear from the outset that we did not wish to force our customers to incur unnecessary or prohibitive telephone charges when seeking our advice or assistance. Given that we are unfortunately not in a position to offer a free-phone service, it was felt that the choice of the two numbers, as described above, would provide our customers with the ability to choose the number which would see them incur the lowest charges. The use of the ‘Lo-Call’ tag When looking to explain to our less technically proficient customers the reason for offering two numbers, we chose to use the term ‘lo-call’ due to its direct association with the 0845 service. It was never our intention to suggest that this number was necessarily cheaper than the ‘national rate’ and indeed, when we write to our customers and advise them to ring our Helpline, we go on to explain that we have a ‘national rate’ number for those who have access to ‘cheaper national rate calls’. However, I acknowledge that in attempting to keep the description of our service as succinct as possible on our website, we may well have given the impression that our 0845 number was being offered as the cheapest service. In an attempt to remedy this situation we are now in the process of adding some more detailed guidance to the ‘complaints about our service’ section of our website to avoid any future unfortunate misunderstandings. I would therefore like to conclude by stressing that it certainly isn’t our intention to mislead any of our customers, and if you felt in any way confused or misled by the services we were offering I can only apologise, and hope you are suitably reassured by this explanation. If you have any further concerns, or wish me to clarify any of the information in this email, please do contact me by replying to this email, or quoting the reference number at the top of this email if you wish to contact us by telephone. Yours sincerely Robert Cole Advice and Enquiries Manager Customer Services Team

Almost word-for-word his boss's reply of 15/1/07 (http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1168526326/25#25)

Makes you wonder why they need two people to send the same reply - if they use a pro forma.

Heinz wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2007 at 8:18pm:

Almost word-for-word his boss's reply of 15/1/07 (http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1168526326/25#25) Makes you wonder why they need two people to send the same reply - if they use a pro forma.

You clearly need to push for an internal review so that you can reach deadlock and then take this matter to your MP to have it reviewed by the Parliamentary Ombudsman with an eye also to severe regulatory failure by Ofcom to fail to inform other public bodies adequately of the true status of these numbers.

Its a shame that the Parliamentary Ombudsman uses an 0845 number though. ;) ::) :'(

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2007 at 12:27am:

Its a shame that... (

Sadly, NGM, that is the problem; none of these people is ashamed.

Tanllan wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2007 at 8:51am:

Sadly, NGM, that is the problem; none of these people is ashamed.

Or more like none of them have a brain and instead just blindly believe and absorb the massive confidence trick over the cost of UK NGN phone call pricing that the shysters and sharlatans at Ofcom, and their even more incompetent predecessors at OFTEL, have so cynically allowed to be foisted and continue to allow to be foisted upon the great British public.

I suspect that the cretin at the ICO generating these absurd stock letters and suddenly listing the 0845 number on their website is the same cretinous IT manager who previously worked for Otelo, who have their offices in the same part of the world.

I have just received the following e-mail:-


31 January 2007

Dear Derrick

In response to your recent email I can confirm that I did view the links you initially provided and have also viewed the content of the ‘saynoto0870’ forum.  I can confirm that all points have been noted and taken into account.  I can confirm that all callers to our 0845 number are charged 3.3p per minute, none of which is passed on to the ICO.  We raise no revenue what so ever from any of our telephone helpline services.

Our aim, as stated, is to offer choice to our customers, and we are satisfied that in offering an 0845 (not 0870) number in addition to our 01 number we are doing this very effectively.

There are no more references to the term ‘lo-call’ on our website in the hope this might avoid any further confusion.


Yours sincerely

Paul Arnold

Head of Customer Services

The Information Commissioner’s Office

derrick wrote on Jan 31^st, 2007 at 5:14pm:

I have just received the following e-mail:- 31 January 2007 Dear Derrick In response to your recent email I can confirm that I did view the links you initially provided and have also viewed the content of the ‘saynoto0870’ forum.  I can confirm that all points have been noted and taken into account.  I can confirm that all callers to our 0845 number are charged 3.3p per minute, none of which is passed on to the ICO.  We raise no revenue what so ever from any of our telephone helpline services. Our aim, as stated, is to offer choice to our customers, and we are satisfied that in offering an 0845 (not 0870) number in addition to our 01 number we are doing this very effectively. There are no more references to the term ‘lo-call’ on our website in the hope this might avoid any further confusion. Paul Arnold Head of Customer Services The Information Commissioner’s Office

And what choice are they offering?  The choice for the unsuspecting and uninformed to be ripped off by dialling the 0845 number from their mobile wrongly thinking it is lo-call or local rate only to find it is covert premium rate? ::) >:( :'(

Write back pointing out that Ofcom used to try and list the 0845 number with wording suggesting it might be cheaper for people on the BT Light User Scheme calling out of area than their geographic number but then dropped the 0845 because it was obviously far too complicated and difficult to understand for Jo Public.  Ofcom now only list their geographic number for consumers to call.  The ICO has always done the right thing on phone numbers up to now but suddenly is now doing the wrong thing.  I have a horrid felling this Paul Arnold is the same numpty who worked down the road at Otelo and is responsible for their bizarre phone number listing at www.otelo.org.uk/content.php?pageID=99&PHPSESSID=81379f4a9680a836763ffe520c7f713c which says


Quote:

Our phone number is: 0845 050 1614 Our regional phone number is: 01925 430 049

But what is Regional phone rate.  Abolished around 10 years ago by BT as I recall. ::)

Actually don't email To Paul Arnold only cc him.

Email the Information Commissioner himself - richard.thomas@ico.gsi.gov.uk and cc Chief Operating Officer simon.entwisle@ico.gsi.gov.uk and Communications Director susan.fox@ico.gsi.gov.uk

if you look at the Information Commissioner's website https://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/contact_us.aspx

it says

Call us on 08456 30 60 60 or 01625 54 57 45. Our helpline is open from 9am to 5pm, Monday to Friday.

Why can't more people do the same?

I am sorry to disagree, but this is quite wrong. It should read as follows:


Quote:

Call us on 01625 54 57 45. Our helpline is open from 9am to 5pm, Monday to Friday. Special arrangement for callers from BT*, when inclusive calls are NOT in effect At some times some callers may find it cheaper to use our alternative number - 08456 30 60 60. The ICO benefits from a financial subsidy from such calls, however some telephone providers* perversely charge less than for calls to our normal (un-subsidised) number. *This arrangement is known to apply to callers on BT call plans, but outside the times when the call plan is in effect. It may also apply to some tariffs offered by other landline and mobile providers, often under particular circumstances. Please check the tariff from your provider carefully before choosing which number to call. Both numbers give equal access to the same facilities.

If organisations, especially public bodies, want to offer alternative numbers for particular callers, then the group of callers must be clearly identified, e.g. those using the RNID typetalk facility or callers from overseas. There are many ways in which one could offer special numbers suited to particular telephone tariffs - one on each mobile network for example!

It is not satisfactory to simply offer two alternatives. THis is especially true of 0845 vs. geographic. Many telephone users still believe (quite wrongly in most cases) that 0845 offers long distance calls at local rates. Some may think that the "fancy" 0845 number would lead to an IVR menu, whereas the other number is a direct line that could be engaged. It is totally unsatisfactory to simply give two numbers without any indication of which should be used.

SayNoTo0870 offers a most valuable facility for those who are at least a little cute about telephone charges. It is quite wrong for organisations to treat all those who may wish to contact them as through they possessed the detailed knowledge that is necessary to choose between different numbers.

In some ways it is even worse to offer an alternative (without explanation), than not to do so. Offering an alternative may be seen as a way of excusing responsibility for the impropriety of revenue sharing - the old "well you had a choice!" defence. I do not find this consumerist buck-passing, putting all the responsibility on the service user, to be acceptable.

On further consideration the suggested telephone number information from the ICO should have a further comment, as follows:


Quote:

For some callers** there is no difference in cost between the two numbers. If that applies to you, and completely at your discretion, you may prefer to call the 0845 number. This would help the ICO, as your telephone service provider will be contributing to our revenue share at no additional cost to you. This money is only used to offset the cost of the ICO telephone system, nobody actually profits. ** This is known to apply to subscribers to the BT Unlimited Anytime Call Plan. This provides daytime calls (of up to one hour) to 0845 numbers at no additional cost. The cost of all inclusive calls, including the revenue share element of 0845 calls, is covered by the package fee. It is hoped that other providers will move to a similar approach in future.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Sep 25^th, 2009 at 10:54pm:

nobody actually profits

...apart from the terminating telephone company...

---

~ Edited by Dave: Link on quote box updated after joining threads together

irrelevant wrote on Sep 26^th, 2009 at 9:14am:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Sep 25th, 2009 at 10:54pm: nobody actually profits ...apart from the terminating telephone company...

And often also the called party who may receive a discount on their outgoing calls, a free switchboard, free line rental or free phone equipment maintenance that is all contingent on a certain volume of calls per annum being received where the revenue then goes to their telco who then provides these discounted services to the organisation or individual actually receiving the calls................

I can also name you a great many other things not to praise about the ICO including their longstanding appalling slowness to investigate complaints and the fact that they insisted on printing a paper form from their website signing it and sending it back in the post for several years as a way of making it as difficult as possible for a member of the public to lodge a complaint with them (because they were overwhelmed with complaints).

Also if you look back to the start of this thread on Page 1 you will find that the ICO was being roundly condemned by myself and another forum member (Derrick) for its misleading and confusing phone call cost description policy on its website.  The telecoms ombudsman (www.otelo.org.uk) was even worse at the time by describing their geographic phone number as a Regional call rate when BT must have abolished regional calling rate (not local but under 56km away) at least 15 years ago now.  If the so called regulators can't get these things right then what hope for mere commercial companies to do so. :o

I wonder if our new forum member who has come here to praise the ICO specifically is in fact an employee? ;) ::)

I see that over at www.otelo.org.uk/pages/13contactus.php they now use a very similar methodology to the ICO for describing phone call costs that will still leave the average Sun reader feeling highly confused about which phone number it is best for them to call:-


Quote:

Phone:  0330 440 1614 or 01925 430 049 These numbers may be cheaper to use if you use a mobile phone or phone provider other than BT, and will be “free” if you pay a monthly charge for calls to numbers starting 01 or 02 You can also call us on: 0845 050 1614 Text Phone:  0330 440 1600 or 0845 051 1513 We are pleased to take calls from those using RNID Typetalk Relay and TextDirect Services. Online Enquiry Form Please add as much detail as possible to our online Enquiry Form, this will help us deal with your enquiry more quickly. Post:  Otelo, PO box 730, Warrington, WA4 6WU We recycle all written correspondence we receive and cannot return original documents, please help us reduce paper consumption in our office by considering if you can call us or use the online Enquiry Form. Fax:  0330 440 1615 or 01925 430 059 We issue information in other languages and other formats.  Please let us know if you have any specific needs.

The policy of having both 03 and 01/02 numbers listed in particular is both scattergunlike in nature and highly pointless and confusing as they both achieve the same thing for the caller.  If an organisation really needs the so called additional call routing and call statistics features that they (and not their caller) pays extra for on an 03 number then why on earth are they still happy to list their 01 number that bypasses all this too? :-? :-/

About the only possible justification for listing an 01/02 number where you also have an 03 number is as a number for international callers with the prefix +44 shown as not all overseas telecoms companies may yet be connecting calls to UK 03 numbers and they are also not bound by Ofcom's General Condition for Uk telecoms operators that requires them to charge calls to these numbers at the same rate as 01/02 numbers.