"Own-initiative investigation into TalkTalk Group concerning compliance with General Condition 4 (Emergency Calls)

CW/01068/03/11

Complainant: Ofcom own-initiative investigation
Investigation against: TalkTalk Group plc
Case opened: 21 March 2011

Issue: Access to Emergency Call Numbers and the provision of caller location information

Relevant Instrument: General Condition 4 (emergency calls) of the General Conditions of Entitlement.

Under GC4 TalkTalk Group is required to ensure that its customers can access Emergency Organisations by using emergency call numbers.

TalkTalk is also required, to the extent technically feasible, to make Caller Location Information for all 999 and 112 calls available to the Emergency Organisations handling those calls.

Ofcom considers the provision of Caller Location Information by Communications Providers to Emergency Organisations to be of vital importance. Ofcoms investigation will examine whether TalkTalk Group is compliant with the requirements of GC4.

Case Leader: Paul Dean (email: paul.dean@ofcom.org.uk)
Case Reference: CW/01068/03/11 "

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/competition-bulletins/open-cases/all-open-cases/cw_01068/

This seems to be about a fairly technical issue relating to the effectiveness of the emergency services.

Is there anything here to discuss?


Those who wish to follow Ofcom activity can sign up to email updates here, or visit this page to subscibe to rss feeds. As always, most of the stuff is of little interest, however it is good to have the first news of something exciting, and to be sure that you have not missed something of importance.

Surely it is totally shocking that TalkTalk would not already be adequately disclosing and providing the required information to the emergency services regarding their customers and are only apparently prepared to do so following an Ofcom investigation and intervention.

Surely this consultation could in fact be translated as "How Many People Has TalkTalk Killed or Injured Due To Not Giving The Emergency Services The Information They Require"

Once again SilentCallsVictim springs to the defence of the telecoms industry................................

NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 21^st, 2011 at 10:23am:

Surely it is totally shocking that TalkTalk would not already be adequately disclosing and providing the required information to the emergency services regarding their customers and are only apparently prepared to do so following an Ofcom investigation and intervention. Surely this consultation could in fact be translated as "How Many People Has TalkTalk Killed or Injured Due To Not Giving The Emergency Services The Information They Require"

As Ofcom issued an update on this yesterday, perhaps you could fill us in on what it was about. I understand that it is a complaint and not a consultation.

Dave wrote on Apr 21^st, 2011 at 10:33am:

As Ofcom issued an update on this yesterday, perhaps you could fill us in on what it was about. I understand that it is a complaint and not a consultation.

Below is what Ofcom have revealed so far.  I know nothing further than what Ofcom have so far revealed but since Ofcom is not known for its heavy-handedness in dealing with the telcos I would be inclined to suggest that there have been a number of occasions on which the emergency services were seriously impeded in their ability to carry out their work by the failure of TalkTalk group to provide the required information about the caller and their location.

The fact that TalkTalk seem to have had difficulty in remedying the breach and that Ofcom are going to continue to need to monitor them is to my mind testament to the profit first and quality of service last approach for which TalkTalk are so justly infamous:-


Quote:

CW/01068/03/11 Complainant: Ofcom own-initiative investigation Investigation against: TalkTalk Group plc (TalkTalk) Case opened: 21 March 2011 Investigation closed: 19 April 2011 Issue: Access to Emergency Call Numbers and the provision of Caller Location Information Relevant Instrument: General Condition 4 (emergency calls) of the General Conditions of Entitlement. On 19 April 2011 Ofcom issued a Notification to TalkTalk under sections 94 and 98 of the Communications Act 2003. The Notification sets out that there are reasonable grounds to believe that TalkTalk has failed to make Caller Location Information for all 999 calls available to the Emergency Organisations handling those calls. The Notification therefore requires TalkTalk to take the following actions by 10 May 2011: 1. to complete the audit that it is currently undertaking (including the appropriate implementation of any findings and recommendations that arise from that process) to ensure that TalkTalks Caller Location Information reflects the correct location at which TalkTalks services are being provided to its customers; and 2. to ensure that its future arrangements in relation to Caller Location Information (for new and existing customers) enable TalkTalk to comply with its obligations under GC 4.2. TalkTalk may make any relevant representations to Ofcom about the matters contained in the notification and explanatory statement by 10 May 2011. Ofcom has reasonable grounds to believe that this is an urgent case and it is therefore appropriate to require these actions to be completed sooner than the normal deadline (which would be one month after a Notification is issued). Ofcom will monitor TalkTalks compliance with this Notification. If TalkTalk fail to take all reasonable steps to comply with the Notification by 10 May 2011 Ofcom will consider whether further enforcement action, including a penalty, is required. A non-confidential version of the Notification is currently being prepared and will be published shortly. Text published when case was opened Under GC4 TalkTalk Group is required to ensure that its customers can access Emergency Organisations by using emergency call numbers. TalkTalk is also required, to the extent technically feasible, to make Caller Location Information for all 999 and 112 calls available to the Emergency Organisations handling those calls. Ofcom considers the provision of Caller Location Information by Communications Providers to Emergency Organisations to be of vital importance. Ofcoms investigation will examine whether TalkTalk Group is compliant with the requirements of GC4. Case Leader: Paul Dean (email: paul.dean@ofcom.org.uk) Case Reference: CW/01068/03/11

I find it odd that SilentCallsVictim thinks there is nothing of interest here as if such news of potential enforcement action by Ofcom against the purveyors of Silent Calls I am sure he would be jumping for joy about the matter.

My view is that if even Ofcom are stirred in to taking action against TalkTalk then clearly their behaviour has been totally and utterly lamentable and they have failed to remedy the breach even after it was previously drawn to their attention.

If you take a look at this latest report Ofcom have issued on complaints against telecoms operators and the consistently 300% to 400% higher complaint rate about TalkTalk group than their fixed or landline competitors on nearly all issues then you might get some idea as to why even Ofcom is finally beginning to wield the big stick against them rather than continuing with a softly/softly approach.

See http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/telecoms-research/complaints/oct-2010-feb-2011.pdf for the various interesting graphs about complaints.

It would appear that for mobiles O2 offers a vastly superior level of customer service to any of its main competitors.

NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 21^st, 2011 at 11:14am:

I find it odd that SilentCallsVictim thinks there is nothing of interest here as if such news of potential enforcement action by Ofcom against the purveyors of Silent Calls I am sure he would be jumping for joy about the matter.

To be fair, SCV only raised the question -
Quote:

is there anything here to discuss?

Ofcom has many duties and issues many statements about actions being taken in (alleged) fulfilment of them. I provided links to assist those who are keen to follow all of Ofcom's activities - as I do.

Clearly Talk Talk has done something badly wrong. We await news of the possible impact and the scale of any malice or negligence. If anyone knows more than I do about this particular case then it may well be that we have something to discuss.

It is for members to decide what aspects of Ofcom's activities (or indeed those of anyone else) they wish to discuss in this forum. We each have different prioirities; mine would generally be reflected by the topics on which I contribute. With the amount of current activity in relation to non-geographic telephone numbers, I am surprised to find that this thread is the most active in this forum. That is however for members to determine, as they wish.

Some more info on this issue.

"A phone company is facing action for failing to provide the correct location information to 999 operators after a baby became critically ill in Falkirk.

Kai Curran was 15 weeks old when he died from swine flu on 3 January.

When his grandmother called for an ambulance the 999 operator could only find an address in England.

Ofcom has told TalkTalk to fix its errors by 10 May or face further action. TalkTalk said it was confident it could meet the deadline.

Ofcom ruled that there were "reasonable grounds" to believe that TalkTalk had failed to provide the correct information for all 999 calls.

Kai was being looked after by his grandmother, Jennifer Whiteside, at her home in Carronside when he developed breathing difficulties.

However, the 999 operator could not find Ms Whiteside's address and the family had to wait 30 minutes before two ambulances turned up at the house in Skaithmuir Avenue. "

Continue reading the story here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-13156917

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 21^st, 2011 at 11:44am:

It is for members to decide what aspects of Ofcom's activities (or indeed those of anyone else) they wish to discuss in this forum.

What gives you the right to tell other members what they can and cannot do ? I found your response to my original post rude and condescending in case your interested.

bigjohn wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2011 at 1:56am:

What gives you the right to tell other members what they can and cannot do ? I found your response to my original post rude and condescending ...

If my comments were found offensive then I must apologise.

Now I know that Talk Talk's failure had a part in delaying the ambulance response to a case that resulted in the death of a baby, this matter is clearly seen to be serious rather than "technical" as I hinted. If the full story had been given initially, then I would have recognised it as an issue of importance and some sensitivity. I am very sorry that my comments may have been seen to be belittling the importance of the death of a baby.

Awareness of the nature of the case also explains why Ofcom had to be seen to be doing something about it.


My statement - "It is for members to decide what ... they wish to discuss in this forum" was intended to contradict a suggestion that I was attacking use of the forum to raise this matter. I was intending to make the general point that nobody has the right to tell members what they can and cannot do or say. I am sorry if my choice of language created the impression that I was making the opposite point.


Unaware of the full story, I had only asked "Is there anything here to discuss?". I will admit to a sense of frustration at the fact that there is so little discussion of what I see as important topics of current concern relating to the scandalous misuse of non-geographic telephone numbers, which I understand to be the centre of focus for the forum. I see no problem in straying into discussion of closely, or even loosely, related issues, however one might expect to find most discussion around the central issues.

I am very ready to criticise members of the telecoms industry and Ofcom on things that they say and do. I believe that any such criticism is weakened in its effect if seen to come from sources that simply attack everything that they say and do. I also see it as rather pointless to waste energy in attacking someone one believes to be incapable of making the necessary correction to their behaviour.

I do however accept that many members totally disagree with me and I do not challenge their right to make whatever contribution they may wish to make to open discussion of issues in this forum.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2011 at 9:15am:

Now I know that Talk Talk's failure had a part in delaying the ambulance response to a case that resulted in the death of a baby, this matter is clearly seen to be serious rather than "technical" as I hinted. If the full story had been given initially, then I would have recognised it as an issue of importance and some sensitivity. I am very sorry that my comments may have been seen to be belittling the importance of the death of a baby.

I must disagree on the point that such a failure could ever be described as "technical" and is only increased to "serious" in the event of loss of life.

As a matter of principle, all providers should fulfil General Condition 4. The emergency services clearly rely on this information, and it should not be allowed to be correct most but not all of the time. If this were to be allowed, then there would be distrust of all the location information provided by telephone companies and all operators would have to resort to asking for location information verbally, thereby delaying the despatch time of the service in question and delaying any advice that the operator may impart to the caller, such as medical advice.

Dave wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2011 at 10:31am:

... it should not be allowed to be correct most but not all of the time. If this were to be allowed ...

I totally agree. I cannot see how I may have suggested an alternative position with which one could disagree!

The world is full of situations where minor "technical" breaches of regulations could potentially have disastrous consequences. If and when this occurs we look on them differently. This may seem wrong, but it is a fact of life. There is very little absolutism in reality.