In one of today's papers, an advertisement for Northern Rock Cash ISAs contains an 0845 number (no surprise there!) with an asterisk referring to the small print ...

* Calls are charged at your service provider's prevailing rate and may be monitored and recorded.


Of course calls will be charged at the prevailing rate  >:(  But should the actual cost be declared?


I'm confused  :-/  Is this terminology acceptable under the rules for specifying call charges?

Golf_Paul wrote on Apr 10^th, 2011 at 4:47pm:

Of course calls will be charged at the prevailing rate  >:(  But should the actual cost be declared?

What is it exactly that you are questioning?

Should there be a different version of the paper in question (each with different text in the advert) for subscribers of each telephone service provider?

Seems not very feasible to me.  :-/



Golf_Paul wrote on Apr 10^th, 2011 at 4:47pm:

I'm confused  :-/  Is this terminology acceptable under the rules for specifying call charges?

It seems to be to be more a question of "what yer gonna do about it?"


I have received a voucher for Homebase, enclosed within a purchase from Amazon.co.uk in which it says that calls to a 0845 number are "charged at local rate".

Numbers to 0845 are not local and they are not charged at local rate, in some cases a connection charge of up to 10p can be charged and then a rate per minute this is certainly not a local call rate.

The term local rate in regard to 0845 numbers should be banned

Apologies if I was not clear  :-[  :D

Usually the small print states "Calls from a BT line cost 5p/min, calls from other providers may vary" or similar.  What I was getting at was that there is no actual example of the likely cost.  To state "prevailing rate" is unhelpful to say the least.

I wondered if the regulations stipulate that an actual cost must be given.  I have never seen the 'small print' in this style before.


Anyway, I don't deal with NR anymore ( investor taxpayer  :'( )

Golf_Paul wrote on Apr 10^th, 2011 at 8:08pm:

Usually the small print states "Calls from a BT line cost 5p/min, calls from other providers may vary" or similar.  What I was getting at was that there is no actual example of the likely cost.  To state "prevailing rate" is unhelpful to say the least. I wondered if the regulations stipulate that an actual cost must be given.  I have never seen the 'small print' in this style before.

But stating the cost from a BT landline is applicable to whatever (relatively small) percentage of telephone users subscribe to BT. I do not see that as anywhere near greatly helpful in general.

This is a delightful little teaser.

It is rather like the famous "terms and conditions apply" statement. I always wonder how many people would have assumed that a sale could be made without terms and conditions applying, had the statement not been made.

Is it better to say nothing than to say something that is wrong - as many do with 0845?

I would like to think that they wanted to say something, but found that you could not say anything true and useful (under the present regime) without writing a lengthy essay that would have to end up saying - "check with your provider" anyway.

Ofcom has now put an answer to all this on the table - let us hope that it does the job. I seriously hope that NR and the like will give up on 0845 because the benefit of a modest bit of subsidy is not worth the embarassment caused by having to declare it and the grief that follows - especially on a sales line.