I believe there have been other topics which have included the use of Lo-Call and National Rate as terms with reference to 0845 & 0870 numbers but was unable to track down the thread/s hence starting a new one.

I have received my latest bill from Utility Warehouse (yes, I know but there are reasons) and they are publicising changes to their telephone charges, one of which says

"We are substantially reducing our rates for calling non-geographic numbers as follows:

• Lo-Call (0845)  Peak 2.0p Off-peak 0.5p
  
• National Rate (0870) Peak 6.0p Off-peak 1.5p"

I have emailed them pointing out that OFCOM believes the use of such terms to be misleading (apart from info on this site, I have an email from OFCOM stating this) as they have been obsolete since July 2004.  I have asked for an assurance that they will remove all such references from all their material including the website if appropriate.

I will post any response and, if necessary, contact OFCOM to report this.

Just had a water meter fitted yesterday by United Utilities, on one of the forms it says call customer services department on 0161 665 5159  between 8am- 4-30pm, but if you have an emergency out of hours ring 0870 6099941 (local call rate)

H20Water Services & Atlantic Water Services , working of behalf of United Utilities

Barbara wrote on Oct 24^th, 2007 at 1:56pm:

. . .  "We are substantially reducing our rates for calling non-geographic numbers as follows: Lo-Call (0845)  Peak 2.0p Off-peak 0.5p National Rate (0870) Peak 6.0p Off-peak 1.5p"

But did they say anywhere that those rates included VAT ???  :-/


jimjim wrote on Oct 24^th, 2007 at 2:43pm:

. . . between 8am- 4.30pm, but if you have an emergency out of hours ring 0870 6099941 (local call rate)

They're obviously getting ready for the change over to the revised 0870 rates in the New Year  ::)

T-Plus are just bringing their prices for 0845/0870 in line with BT.

Their site contains at least 2 misleading statements. :o

Having been told by a customer adviser that my email was being passed to the marketing manager, I have now received the following in reply from the same customer adviser (not the manager!):

"Further to my email of yesterday, I can confirm that it is not misleading to use the terms Lo-call and National Rate.   As long as the charges are advertised or announced before any calls to us are connected, we are in keeping with OFCOM guidlines".

I was then thanked for bringing this matter to their attention.   Obviously, the reply is abolsute nonsense as I have an email from Clive Hillier of OFCOM (whom I am now going to contact) stating that it IS considered misleading to use these terms.  UW make no comment on my point that these terms became obsolete in July 2004.  Also, the notification from them in question did not refer to calls TO them but the costs to their customers of calls to 0845/0870 numbers in general.   I do intend to reply in those terms.

If anyone else would like to make complaint as well or has any useful points I could add, I would be most grateful.

By the way, moneysavin, what were the other mistakes on their website?  Perhaps you could bring those to their attention as well or let me know via the forum (let's keep it public!) so that I can add those to my list.   Just to clarify, my issue was not the prices they are charging (we know they are always extortionate) but their misleading and outdated decription as Lo-call and National Rate.

Barbara here are some links that you can send them proving that it is misleading to call 0845 local rate:-


http://www.cap.org.uk/cap/advice_online/ad_alerts/Advertising+0845+and+087+numbers.htm


http://www.cap.org.uk/cap/advice_online/advice_online_database/Show+Entry.htm?advice_online_id=427


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

http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/735C4641-4E0A-48DA-BA19-8A5007CE0AB6/0/BSN0800numbers.pdf


Including this one that the ASA upheld against Windsor Telecoms:-

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/non_broadcast/Adjudication+Details.htm?adjudication_id=40724

Thank you, Derrick, much appreciated.   On a technical note, how do I forward these links to UW?   Do I have to copy them then type them into an email?   (I am not very technical, have never worked out how to copy a response into a post - always have to write it out then copy type it to a post!)   For info, I am dealing with a Ms Alaja (or Aloja)-Browne at memberservices@telecomplus.co.uk

Thanks.

Copy and paste the links.

Thanks everyone, I have forwarded the links.   I suspect they will come back & say that are OK because they gave the cost per minute but that is beside the point in my view as they are still using terms which are obsolete and which imply that the national geographical rate is 6p peak & 1.5p off-peak which is nonsense as their own tariffs for those not on a package demonstrate hence they are still misleading customers.   One further point, as this info was included with a bill as info, am I correct to assume it will not fall within the remit of the ASA as advertising?

IF your assumption is correct, then I would have thought the trading standards offficer would be interested if people were being misled.

See also here:

http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1157964491/30

Details of the board at Utility Warehouse are here.

UPDATE.  Following my sending of all the links you provided, I have received the following email from the person who had been dealing with my complaint:

"I merely sought to confirm that as long as customrs are made aware of the call charges prior to making the call, the use of the terms Lo-Call and National rate do not contravene OFCOM's guidelines.

Our charges for calling 0845 and 0870 numbers are clearly advertised and therefore cannot be regarded as misleading.

This matter has been looked into by our Director and confirmed as correct.   I trust this concludes matters regarding this issue."

In other words, this is what we say & do, so.....go away!

I am still waiting for a response from Clive Hillier on this one (& the National Trust).  Anyone got any suggestions?   I STILL think it is misleading to use the terms at all when they have no true status.  Yes, UW did state the prices in the announcement attached to the bill so, if that is the case, why bother with the terms Lo-call & National rate?   PLEASE can someone clarify the situation.

Barbara, have a look here....

http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1158592308/34#34

Have now received a further lengthy email from UW as they have now read the link to the ASA/Windsor Telecom adjudication and it seems to have prompted a more detailed and polite response.   I would like to post the email here but, sorry, don't know how to do it or to copy & paste.  If someone who knows how to do this is prepared to let me forward the email to their address & then post it, I will happily forward it (I know Heinz did this on a previous occasion but do not like to presume).  Thanks.

It is quite easy to post the e-mail.

Just highlight what you want to post from the e-mail, right click> copy, click reply in this thread as normal then right click in the reply box  then paste, the text should now be in the reply.

Posted on behalf of Barbara......


Dear ********

Thank you for providing the internet links.  Further to my email of yesterday, please find below a response from our Communications Director which I hope will clarify matters:


Some time ago the link was broken between 'Local Rate' and 'National Rate' numbers and the actual cost of a local or national call.  In other words, it started to cost a lot more to call a 'Local Rate' 0845 number than to call your next door neighbour's landline phone number.  Ofcom, the ASA and CAP do now say that as the terms 'Local Rate' and 'National Rate' might therefore be misleading, marketers (i.e. people who are creating marketing messages such as advertisements or letters to customers) should not use those terms to promote 0845 or 0870 numbers. This extends to related terms such as 'Lo-Call'. Instead, they should be referred to as 'NTS numbers' or 'special rate' numbers or just by the number.  But the most important thing is that marketers should make it clear to customers what the cost of the call is.

Having said that, in the message on our bills, we are not promoting 'Lo-Call' or 'National Rate' numbers to our customers.  We are advertising the low rates we charge people for calling 0845/0870 numbers provided by other people. We have used the terms simply because many other people are still referring to 0845 numbers as Lo-Call rate and we want to make it clear to our customers what these calls cost.

When we promote our own contact numbers to our customers we do not refer to them as Lo-Call or National Rate numbers.

Regards,


Lola Alaja-Browne

Correspondence Administrator
Telecom plus PLC

sherbert wrote on Oct 30^th, 2007 at 5:31pm:

Ofcom, the ASA and CAP do now say that as the terms 'Local Rate' and 'National Rate' might therefore be misleading, marketers (i.e. people who are creating marketing messages such as advertisements or letters to customers) should not use those terms to promote 0845 or 0870 numbers. This extends to related terms such as 'Lo-Call'. Instead, they should be referred to as 'NTS numbers' or 'special rate' numbers or just by the number.  But the most important thing is that marketers should make it clear to customers what the cost of the call is.

So why do they continue to use these terms on the business section of their website,s.
See: http://www.utilitywarehouse.co.uk/business/ngn.taf

Yet another incorrect statement on their sites is "Standard residential line rental just £11 per month, saving you up to £12 per annum compared to BT" :-?

Their Energy Triple Value Guarantee also appears to be misleading.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=585460

UPDATE.   Have just received a response from OFCOM (to whom I complained about this issue) saying they have emailed UW/Telecom Plus drawing OFCOM guidelines on this to their attention.  From this, I would deduce that OFCOM feel the guidelines may have been breached.   I believe this is some kind of result, now let's see if UW take these on board or just ignore them!   At least it proves that this is an issue which should be raised.

Barbara wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2007 at 5:02pm:

UPDATE.   Have just received a response from OFCOM (to whom I complained about this issue) saying they have emailed UW/Telecom Plus drawing OFCOM guidelines on this to their attention.  From this, I would deduce that OFCOM feel the guidelines may have been breached.   I believe this is some kind of result, now let's see if UW take these on board or just ignore them!   At least it proves that this is an issue which should be raised.

Sadly they are probably about as afraid of Ofcom as a dead sheep as Ofcom virtually never ever take any action to enforce their guidelines.

If Ofcom can't get this enforced then I would suggest going to your MP and having him refer this to the Parliamentary Ombudsman as an example of regulatory failure by Ofcom to protect the best interests of UK Citizen Consumers as they are required to do as their principal duty under Section 3(i) of the Communications Act 2003.  As this is not an advertisement it cannot be dealt with by the ASA so must therefore fall to Ofcom who deal with all trading standards matters for the telecommunications industry.

NGMsGhost wrote on Nov 5^th, 2007 at 6:17pm:

If Ofcom can't get this enforced then I would suggest going to your MP and having him refer this to the Parliamentary Ombudsman ...

Remember, Parliamentary discussion is also full of 0845 "local rate" lies.

Dave wrote on Nov 5^th, 2007 at 9:11pm:

Remember, Parliamentary discussion is also full of 0845 "local rate" lies.

Dave I find your comment unhelpful for two reasons:-

(a) The Parliamentary Ombudsman is completely indpendent of Parliament and must work on an evidence based approach like a court.  It is therefore wrong to suggest they will just support the government lie.

(b) A large number of backbench MPs have been extremely active asking questions trying to expose the 084/7 abuse.

The only part of Parliament still trying to perpetrate 084/7 lies are therefore some government ministers and their civil servants but with the launch of 03 even they now seem to have thrown in the towel on trying to do this.