http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10245409.stm

Firms charge for free government information

By Ben Carter
BBC Radio 4's Money Box

<<
Commercial websites are charging up to £1.50 per minute to access information which is provided for free by the government.

An investigation by Radio 4's Money Box programme found that one website was providing a number giving child benefit advice that would cost nearly £30 if listened to in full.

Digital Select Ltd also charges £11.69 to apply for child benefit.

The company says it offers advice and that its charges are clearly stated.

But Michael Fallon, Conservative MP for Sevenoaks and currently the only candidate to be the new chairman of the government's Treasury Select Committee, told the programme that action should be taken against what he called "rip-off" sites.

"I think there is a role for the regulator and for the Cabinet Office to look at these unscrupulous websites and do something about them," he said.

One of the Digital Select Ltd websites offered advice on child benefit using a premium rate 0911 number but the pre-recorded information can be found for free at www.direct.gov.uk.

The phoneline provides no facility to skip to the specific information required and only provides the official number for the Child Benefit Office at the end of the message. It would cost the listener nearly £30 to listen to the message in full.

"The service was created due to HMRC information on child benefit being difficult to obtain, not very clear and frequently confusing," the company's managing director, Shaun Freeman, told the programme.

Another one of his companies' websites provides an 0844 number, which it says is for HMRC Child Benefit Office.

Using this number is more expensive than calling the official HMRC helpline but it just connects the caller to the official line.

Dialling the 0844 number costs 5p per minute, which is substantially more than HMRC's own 0845 number, which costs between 0.5p and 2p per minute.

"The website does not display HMRC's 0845 number due to disaster recovery reasons," Mr Freeman said.

"Should HMRC suffer a problem with their 0845 numbers then callers would not be connected."

But an HMRC spokesperson dismissed this suggestion and said that it had contingency measures in place so that the line would be diverted to another department should it encounter any problems. Mr Freeman admitted that HMRC's number had never suffered problems preventing callers from getting through.

Mr Fallon said: "In this particular case he's quite clearly taking advantage of people who can easily access this information for free. They may be quite vulnerable, they may need the child benefit quite quickly and they may be people in most need of it."

In response, Mr Freeman said: "The website clearly states what the service provides, the cost of the service and that the service is not affiliated to HMRC. In addition, the website does state that applicants can claim for free by going direct to HMRC with contact details provided."

But in July 2009 the phone regulator PhonepayPlus fined Digital Select Ltd £50,000 for serious breaches of its code.

In its ruling the regulator said: "There was material consumer harm as the service had the likely effect of undermining consumer confidence in official government websites."

Digital Select Ltd is currently on a number refusal list which means it will not be allocated any further 070, 087 or 09 numbers. Although it is still allowed to use 09 numbers it was given prior to the ban.

Mr Freeman disputed the ruling and says the websites run by his company are now fully compliant with the code.

The websites also offer a facility to apply for child benefit online, and charge £9.95 plus VAT for the privilege. The user enters details into the appropriate fields and is then sent the completed form, which he or she is told to forward on to HMRC.

Users of the websites are told they are responsible for all the accuracy of all the information they provide as the company admitted it had no way of verifying the information was correct.

A spokesperson for HMRC said: "We would encourage people looking for official information or wanting to complete online transactions to use our website, www.direct.gov.uk as their starting point."

BBC Radio 4's Money Box is broadcast on Saturdays at 1200 BST and repeated on Sundays at 2100 BST.
>>

Paul Lewis, the presenter of Money Box, was on BBC Breakfast last Saturday, before the piece went out. Regarding the HMRC helpline, he said that 0845 numbers were "often free".

I note that the report quoted in the OP gives BT landline rates:


Quote:

…HMRC's own 0845 number, which costs between 0.5p and 2p per minute.

It's as if these people think that BT is the only provider.  ::)

Dave wrote on Jun 13^th, 2010 at 12:07am:

It's as if these people think that BT is the only provider.  ::)

Or worse still that they, the called party, dictates how much calls cost, not the originating network called from like BT!

They should be made to say that "calls can cost upto 10ppm, with an 11p connection charge from landlines. Calls from other mobile networks may be higher."  This, I believe, would be a more accurate way of stating how much these calls can cost upto from a landline.

Saying a call costs 2ppm from a BT landline means that some people will assume that Virgin charge the same or similar as well instead 10ppm.

My god, the revenue sharing has ended on 0870 and most, if not all, landline and mobile providers still charge higher rates.  It's not just profit for them, but pure profit in my opinion.

From today's (13th June) Sunday Telegraph. (My highlight)



Vodafone slams plan for lower connection charges
Vodafone has warned that the regulator's plans to slash the cost of calling mobile phones could leave pensioners, low-income families and other vulnerable groups facing a much bigger bill.


By Rupert Neate
Published: 9:46PM BST 12 Jun 2010

The company, which is the world's largest mobile phone operator, said plans to force mobile operators to cut the price they charge to connect calls will dramatically increase the cost of owning a mobile that is used mainly to receive calls, or is saved for emergencies.


Ofcom, the telecoms regulator, will force operators to cut so-called mobile termination rates from
4.3p per minute to 0.5p by 2014. The cut will hurt the UK's four biggest mobile operators – Vodafone, O2, Orange and T-Mobile – which collect hundreds of millions of pounds a year from the charges. It will benefit BT and 3 (the country's smallest mobile operator) because they currently pay out the most to the big networks. Ofcom said the plan will save consumers almost £800m a year from 2015, and will lead to increased demand from Britain's 32.7m homes and businesses with a land line.

However, Guy Laurence, chief executive of Vodafone UK, warned that mobile operators will be forced to increase the cost of owning a phone in order to recoup money lost through the lower termination rates.

Vodafone said it may have to introduce monthly charges for pay-as-you-go mobile users who do not use their phones very often.

Operators could also increase the price of a handset, or even start charging customers to receive calls.

A new ICM survey shows that 4m people would give up their mobiles if the cost of owning one increased by £1 a month, even if the price of calls dropped by 20pc. Mr Laurence said: "Ofcom's proposals to slash our incoming-call revenues are likely to mean that low-income families will start paying more to use their phones, because the money we receive from incoming calls will disappear. This revenue has allowed us to support low spenders.

"We see these proposals as an unnecessary intervention which taxes low-income families, and they should be reconsidered," he said.

sherbert wrote on Jun 13^th, 2010 at 12:14pm:

From today's (13th June) Sunday Telegraph. (My highlight) Vodafone slams plan for lower connection charges … Vodafone said it may have to introduce monthly charges for pay-as-you-go mobile users who do not use their phones very often. Operators could also increase the price of a handset, or even start charging customers to receive calls.

Mobile telephone users have been subsidised by callers for years. I do hope that we will not end up with a market where mobile users pay relative to the number of call minutes they receive (i.e. where calls cost a 'per minute' charge or from a finite inclusive bundle). Any charges on the receiver should be fixed monthly fees, just like with line rental (in the true sense) on a landline.

The sooner we end this nonsense where alot of the cost of mobile telephones are passed on to callers, the better!



sherbert wrote on Jun 13^th, 2010 at 12:14pm:

A new ICM survey shows that 4m people would give up their mobiles if the cost of owning one increased by £1 a month, even if the price of calls dropped by 20pc. Mr Laurence said: "Ofcom's proposals to slash our incoming-call revenues are likely to mean that low-income families will start paying more to use their phones, because the money we receive from incoming calls will disappear. This revenue has allowed us to support low spenders. "We see these proposals as an unnecessary intervention which taxes low-income families, and they should be reconsidered," he said.

But of course the cost of originating mobile calls will also be reduced, so it's not as bad as Mr Laurence makes out. Thus, Vodafone will pay out less when its customers ring mobile phones on the other networks.

Dave wrote on Jun 13^th, 2010 at 1:26pm:

sherbert wrote on Jun 13th, 2010 at 12:14pm: From today's (13th June) Sunday Telegraph. (My highlight) … Vodafone said it may have to introduce monthly charges for pay-as-you-go mobile users who do not use their phones very often. Operators could also increase the price of a handset, or even start charging customers to receive calls. Mobile telephone users have been subsidised by callers for years. I do hope that we will not end up with a market where mobile users pay relative to the number of call minutes they receive (i.e. where calls cost a 'per minute' charge or from a finite inclusive bundle). Any charges on the receiver should be fixed monthly fees, just like with line rental (in the true sense) on a landline.

It does not look good for a wealthy mobile company to be pretending to be the friend of the poor. There is however an inevitable truth in the point that is being made. Unless the mobile companies were nationalised so that taxpayers could fund the provision of low cost mobiles to those in need, we can have no control over what they do to make up the loss of subsidy from callers.

I believe that it falls on mobile companies which make this point to either defend the status quo, with the inequity of all mobile users being subsidised by those who call them, or to propose an alternative way of addressing the social issue which they raise.

This is a very serious issue (perhaps it warrants a thread of its own). I have long argued that "terminating the (mobile termination) rate" could not be done until someone has found an effective way of addressing this issue. It is commonly suggested that this should fall to the mobile companies themselves. That would be splendid if they showed any inclination to themselves offer "social tariffs" or whatever is needed. I see nothing in Vodafone's comments to suggest that they may be so inclined.

---

~ Edited by Dave: Quote box completed