Hi All,

A bit of a wierd question, but I'll ask it anyway.

I'm with Virgin media for phone and broadband. I had occasion at the end of June to call my local Tesco store. The number is, of course, an 0845 number (0845 677 9624), so I used saynoto0870.com to obtain the equivalent 01 number, which is 0121 253 7500. I made my call and was on the phone for five minutes or so. I can still see the 0121 number in the phone's register of outgoing calls, but I'm afraid I don't see the date or time because that is only stored for incoming calls.

I now have my bill from Virgin and see that I have been charged for a call to 0845 677 9624 at a cost of 57p + VAT = 62p. >:(

Naturally I resent paying the cost on principle, despite the minor amount. What scares me, however, is that Virgin have apparently been able to recognise that a call was made to an 01 number that is linked to an 0845 and charge it at the 0845 rate. Is this actually possible and, if so, permitted?

We have a household of four but everyone is well versed in my hatred of 084/087s et al and is appropriately schooled that these pernicious numbers are never to be called. I can't definitively rule out that someone did actually call the 0845 number, however, because they don't all always think too carefully before dialling: I can only say that it's highly unlikely. I also can't find an 0845 number in the outgoing log on any of the handsets.

Any reassuring thoughts?

We had a report recently from someone who had incurred a premium charge for ringing an alternative from a O2 mobile. See my reply (#3) in which I made a suggestion as to how to proceed. I think others might have raised this but I've been unable to find other threads.

Basically, we haven't yet got any conclusive proof, other than vague postings for which the poster invariably doesn't come back and post more precise information.

Clearly, call retailers can charge what they like for any number.

If certain providers are billing 01/02 alternatives at a premium, then this suggests that they have fed data into their billing systems to indicate which numbers should be charged like that.

Other than this site, I'm not sure where they might get information from as to which 01/02 numbers are alternatives to 084 numbers.

Dave wrote on Jul 17^th, 2011 at 11:28am:

We had a report recently from someone who had incurred a premium charge for ringing an alternative from a O2 mobile. See my reply (#3) in which I made a suggestion as to how to proceed. I think others might have raised this but I've been unable to find other threads. Basically, we haven't yet got any conclusive proof, other than vague postings for which the poster invariably doesn't come back and post more precise information. Clearly, call retailers can charge what they like for any number. If certain providers are billing 01/02 alternatives at a premium, then this suggests that they have fed data into their billing systems to indicate which numbers should be charged like that. Other than this site, I'm not sure where they might get information from as to which 01/02 numbers are alternatives to 084 numbers.

Should this be a question for Ofcom? I assume there is no restriction in law on calling numbers which are not published, otherwise attempts would have been made to close down this website some time ago

rfctabs wrote on Jul 17^th, 2011 at 11:13am:

... I now have my bill from Virgin and see that I have been charged for a call to 0845 677 9624 at a cost of 57p + VAT = 62p.

The date and time for the call should help you to determine whether this could possibly have been the call to the 0121 number that you mentioned.

The simple answer to your question is that you are only charged for the call that you dial and this must be in accordance with the published tariff.

Anything is possible ! but I would think it highly unlikely that a major telephone company would go to the lengths necessary to "reverse engineer" as you put it, without declaring it.

As you do not refer to the call to the 0121 appearing on your bill, perhaps it is free of charge. A simple test would be to have another chat with Tesco's using the alternative and see if that appears on your bill!

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jul 17^th, 2011 at 11:47am:

...The simple answer to your question is that you are only charged for the call that you dial and this must be in accordance with the published tariff. Anything is possible ! but I would think it highly unlikely that a major telephone company would go to the lengths necessary to "reverse engineer" as you put it, without declaring it.

I agree.  It's highly unlikely VM could legally charge you as if you had called the 0845 number even though you rung a geographical without first publishing exclusion to their inclusive geo calls that state calls to 0121 xxx xxxx are excluded from any inclusive geographical minutes.

Could it be something stupid like someone else rung Tesco's 0845 number?  Like SCV said, ring again but this time make note of the date/time and length of the call and wait until bill comes in and double check.

It has been known for a telephone company to exclude specific call from what would otherwise be inclusive as I've read that some mobile networks excluded calls to a geographical dial-through number used for bypassing the expensive freephone number charges.  The company supplying the bypass dial-through numbers got around this by changing the geographical number in question.

Thanks for the replies, guys. I've just dialled again and spoken briefly to someone at the store - so time is around 18:14 on 17-Jul-11, duration no more than two or three minutes. I'll let you all know what happens when I get my next bill in August (I have to wait until then as VM don't show recent activity through their on-line account pages).

FWIW, my current bill shows it was an "Operator Connected Call" and has no duration listed.

rfctabs wrote on Jul 17^th, 2011 at 5:16pm:

FWIW, my current bill shows it was an "Operator Connected Call" and has no duration listed.

Pause a moment - that extra bit of information makes the case highly suspicious and worth questioning. Is it likely that someone would have called the operator to be connected to the 0845 number ??? I would be strongly inclined to speak with VM on the basis that you cannot think why anyone would chose to make such a call (other than as a deliberate prank) and see what explanation or further information they can offer.

There is no reason why you should not tell them which number you dialled (you could say you got it from someone in the store if they press you). If they treat any geo number differently, they have to declare this in their tariff - ask for the reference if they do say that the number you dialled is charged as an operator connected call to the 0845 number.

Hey, thanks for the advice.

I called VM and explained we didn't make the call listed and the very helpful lady waived the charge immediately (I guess because it was such a small amount). She couldn't say why dialling an 0121 might come out as an 0845 but said if it persisted they could look in to it.

I also noticed in passing that the VM web site now does show charges since the last bill so I'll keep an eye on that and report back.

Well.

My call to Tesco on 0121 253 7500 has come up as:

17 Jul
18:12
Operator Connected
08456 77 9624
01:14
0.470

So VM are definitely converting these at the back end. I know with certainty that I dialled the 0121 number.  :o This is scary stuff.  :o I believe that VM are launching, or have launched, a service to include 0845/0870 numbers (i.e. the one's that can't be revenue shared) in service bundles. Maybe these events are connected?

I just called VM CS but the operative didn't appear to understand the problem. I argued a lot and he agreed to a credit in the end (at least I think he did - he might have just wanted to get me off the phone), but the facts seem to be:

Called 0121 - got charged for 0845
Says Operator Connected but was a direct dial
Says 01:14 (MM:SS) duration (roughly correct) but they said 4 mins.

The worst thing is that from their point of view there's no absolute proof which number I dialled and they are ultimately, of course, going to believe their own systems rather than me.

This is indeed very serious, and there is something odd going on, which VM needs to explain properly.

[url=]This web page[/url] gives links to the currently published tariffs. (Those for "phone review" customers are the ones which offer inclusive 084 calls).

Under the standard direct dial tariff a 1:14 call to a 0845 number would cost 11.24p + (2 x 10.22p) = £0.320, not £0.470.

The charges for operator connected calls to 0845 and 0870 numbers are quite perversely much cheaper than for calls to Geographic numbers (BT does nothing similar) - rather than a connection charge of £3.57, it is only £0.51!!! With 2 x 16p to add for a 1:14 call, this would however give a charge of £0.83, not £0.470.

I believe that we have now seen fairly clear evidence that VM is behaving improperly, unless somewhere there is a justification for this most perverse activity. Apart from the unusually low charges there is a further indication that something odd is going on because the rates for operator connected calls in the document for operator connected call charges are under the high level heading - "Direct Dialled Call Charges". This term has no place in this document whatsoever ...... or does it!!

The direct question about whether it is permissible to charge operator rates for a 0845 call when a 0121 number has been dialled must be raised with someone able to give a coherent answer. Sadly the latter requirement probably precludes the VM customer enquiry service and the Ofcom help line. I will do whatever I can to raise the issue, but it will have to be a low priority item for me at present. I hope that others will wish to take this forward.

Not a solution if the 01 call would have been inclusive, but calling an 0845 number via 18185's freephone gateway number (08081703703) costs 5p connection + 3p/minute at all times.

This looks like a good candidate for BBC Watchdog or that other TV series that looked into various rip-offs.

catj wrote on Jul 30^th, 2011 at 8:26am:

This looks like a good candidate for BBC Watchdog or that other TV series that looked into various rip-offs.

Can you or anyone suggest as to how this "reverse engineering" might be achieved in practice?

Presumably there is a database within the telecoms system that maps dialled non-geographic numbers to their geographic termination counterpart or other such routing information so that the call can be connected.

I guess that it's also not that difficult to query the database in reverse, in order to ask what NGN number(s) route to a specific normal landline or NDO number.

catj wrote on Jul 30^th, 2011 at 11:21am:

Presumably there is a database within the telecoms system that maps dialled non-geographic numbers to their geographic termination counterpart or other such routing information so that the call can be connected. I guess that it's also not that difficult to query the database in reverse, in order to ask what NGN number(s) route to a specific normal landline or NDO number.

Even if that is the case, what is the justification for using that database to charge for a call to the corresponding 0845 number if the subscriber dials the geographical number?

Further, what is the justification (apart from the obvious - inflating the cost) for falsely claiming that the call was Operator connected when the call wasn't Operator connected?

3 weeks later, a thread on www.moneysavingexpert.com shows that Virgin Media are still doing it.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=45867521

Looks like one for Watchdog, Trading Standards, and the Office of Fair Trading, and a complaint to Ofcom, the appropriate minister and your local MP.

Hi what do you mean "Reverse engineer calls" do you mean charge the customer for the call?

Yes.

Perhaps "Reverse Lookup" would have been a better term. I called an 0121 number, but VM have cross-referenced that to the 0845 number and then charged me for calling 0845 even though I never dialled it.

The info must be in the telephone system somewhere because when the 0845 is activated the owner will simply divert it to a geographic number.

So far I've only seem this with one of my local Tesco numbers. Not been an issue on other numbers or on O2 with my mobile.

As far as i'm aware, OCPs are not routinely aware of the underlying geographical to a NGN number.  If they were at the time a call is made to a NGN then they would convert it to the underlying geographical number and route it geograhpically which is cheaper than via the NGN route.

Eg:

Geographical called:  Joe Bloggs rings Company A on their 0161... number.  The OCP (originating call provider - Virgin in this case) routes the call via their own network where possible right upto the Manchester exchange and the call is then passed over to the telephone provider of Company A (in this example let's say BT).  As the call is kept on Virgin network for as long as possible then costs are kept to a minimum.

NGN (084x, etc numbers): Joe Bloggs rings Company B on their 0845 number even though they are based in Manchester.  Virgin, the OCP, would look-up the company that owns the 0845 number (we'll use BT again as an example) and then passes the call over to them where BT then look-up their own database and route the call to Company B on their 0161 geographical number.  As Virgin have had to pass the call to BT almost straight away then Virgin now have to pay extra charges for calls passed to BT.

If a telecoms provider like Virgin actually knew the geographical number of Company B themselves then Virgin could have routed the call to Company B using their own network to save costs bypassing the telecoms provider of the 0845 number.

The only time telecoms provider may know the geographical behind a 0845 right from the beginning is if the 0845 belongs to the same telecoms provider as where the call originated.  For example, Virgin originated the call and the 0845 number belongs to them so they knew the underlying geographical number.

Thanks bbb_uk - that's really interesting. It would infer that the 0845 number concerned is owned by VM.

But my next question is: "Can they legitimately charge me for ringing an 0845 when I actually dialled 0121?". I don't like the sound of that if they can...

rfctabs wrote on Aug 11^th, 2011 at 12:59pm:

Thanks bbb_uk - that's really interesting. It would infer that the 0845 number concerned is owned by VM.

I believe that Tesco's provider is Cable & Wireless:

http://www.itpro.co.uk/201609/tesco-signs-cable-wireless-in-100-million-it-deal

My belief has been re-enforced because Ipswich's branches have moved from BT allocated 01473 numbers to C&W ones.

rfctabs wrote on Aug 11^th, 2011 at 12:59pm:

But my next question is: "Can they legitimately charge me for ringing an 0845 when I actually dialled 0121?". I don't like the sound of that if they can...

I too do not like the sound of it if they can.

However, what must come first is the publication of the relevant call charges for these 'special' 01/02 numbers. Once that happens (assuming that it hasn't already), then it is clear to see and we can have a proper debate and this is much the same as with users of 084 numbers who frequently don't acknowledge the benefit they get from their use.

Returning to the subject of premium 01/02 numbers, in some cases such as dial-up ISP numbers, providers (I know BT does) charges 01/02 numbers at a premium which is understandable to disincentivise their use.

Dave wrote on Aug 11^th, 2011 at 1:12pm:

rfctabs wrote on Aug 11th, 2011 at 12:59pm: But my next question is: "Can they legitimately charge me for ringing an 0845 when I actually dialled 0121?". I don't like the sound of that if they can... I too do not like the sound of it if they can

Same here.

As I don't believe VM have access to a central database of NGNs and their underlying geographicals then one other question is where are they getting the information from?  One guess would be SayNo as we know telecom companies are, well the larger ones, aware of this site and have in the past encouraged their customers who moan about the cost of NGNs to lookup alternatives here.

I know VM and some of the larger telecom providers often look for unusually high call volumes to 01/02 numbers and then would dig deeper to see what/why, etc.  However, in this specific case, there wouldn't be an unusually high call volume to Tesco's geographical that would ring red flags with VM.


Quote:

However, what must come first is the publication of the relevant call charges for these 'special' 01/02 numbers. Once that happens (assuming that it hasn't already), then it is clear to see and we can have a proper debate and this is much the same as with users of 084 numbers who frequently don't acknowledge the benefit they get from their use. Returning to the subject of premium 01/02 numbers, in some cases such as dial-up ISP numbers, providers (I know BT does) charges 01/02 numbers at a premium which is understandable to disincentivise their use.

In my opinion, if VM (or any other OCP), wants to have different tariffs for 'special' 01/02 numbers then at the very least they have to make their customers aware and would have to publish a list of these 'special' numbers.

Without VM mentioning and therefore excluding such 'special' numbers then VM can't charge you anything but a geographical rate as it would be classed as incorrect billing on behalf of VM.  You have dialled a geographical number so you should get charged a geographical rate (or included) depending on tariff, etc.

As Dave points out, BT do charge different prices for dial-up ISP 01/02 numbers and I assume this is mentioned somewhere in the smallprint.  I'm sure it was many years ago but it may not be now because BT may not charge differently now due to lack of demand for dial-up.

As mentioned earlier, I would email Watchdog.

Could anyone else on VM confirm this so to ensure it's widespread rather than localised?

bbb_uk wrote on Aug 11^th, 2011 at 2:58pm:

Could anyone else on VM confirm this so to ensure it's widespread rather than localised?

I have made arrangements with VM for a test call to be made shortly after 6.00 when my free call allowance begins. I have also given notice that any claim that I must have made a operator connected call would be the subject of a most serious argument. Furthermore, I will not accept a simple waiver of an improperly levied charge as an appropriate complete response.

Others may wish to do the same.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 11^th, 2011 at 3:33pm:

bbb_uk wrote on Aug 11th, 2011 at 2:58pm: Could anyone else on VM confirm this so to ensure it's widespread rather than localised? I have made arrangements with VM for a test call to be made shortly after 6.00 when my free call allowance begins. I have also given notice that any claim that I must have made a operator connected call would be the subject of a most serious argument. Furthermore, I will not accept a simple waiver of an improperly levied charge as an appropriate complete response. Others may wish to do the same.

Update to the above posting.

I made the call as arranged, I also made another call - dialling the 0845 number.

The online record of un-billed charges shows only the call dialled to the 0845 number - correctly calculated as 22p (including VAT) for a 7 second call.

Charges will be recalculated when the actual bill is prepared in around 10 days time, so nothing has yet been proved. If others have seen the charge for the "operator connected" call on their list of un-billed charges however, then something is different.

I will report again when my bill is prepared.

---

P.S. I have spotted some mistakes in one of my previous postings. I correct them below:

1. I omitted a hyperlink to the Virgin media tariffs page


Quote:

This web page gives links to the currently published tariffs. (Those for "phone review" customers are the ones which offer inclusive 084 calls).

2. I also quoted VAT inclusive charges for comparison with the VAT exclusive amount shown on the unbilled charges. I now show the VAT exclusive amounts.


Quote:

Under the standard direct dial tariff a 1:14 call to a 0845 number would cost 11.24 9.367p + (2 x 10.22 8.517p) = £0.264 0.320, not £0.470. The charges for operator connected calls to 0845 and 0870 numbers are quite perversely much cheaper than for calls to Geographic numbers (BT does nothing similar) - rather than a connection charge of £2.975 3.57, it is only £0.425 0.51!!! With 2 x 16 13.3p to add for a 1:14 call, this would however give a charge of £0.692 0.83, not £0.470.

I have definitely seen the 0845 on my unbilled calls as operator connected, but definitely dialled 0121. I should like to arrange a similar test. How did you arrange yours? Did you call customer services or do you have a contact in VM that helps you with this type of enquiry? Did you dial the same number as I mentioned in the opening post (0121 253 7500 instead of 0845 677 9624)?

rfctabs wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 10:17am:

I have definitely seen the 0845 on my unbilled calls as operator connected, but definitely dialled 0121. I should like to arrange a similar test. How did you arrange yours? Did you call customer services or do you have a contact in VM that helps you with this type of enquiry? Did you dial the same number as I mentioned in the opening post (0121 253 7500 instead of 0845 677 9624)?

I simply contacted the customer services (billing) department. I asked them to confirm what charge they would expect to see for my dialled call to the 0121 number and informed them of what would arise if it were found that I were billed differently. With this conversation noted on the account prior to the call being made, it would be more difficult for them to simply state that I must have made an operator connected call.

It is possible that a different billing mechanism is being used for my account as VM may not have yet fully completed the amalgamation of the different systems which it inherited. It is also possible that the cause of the error previously encountered has quietly been removed (possible even just from this single number!).

I think it highly unlikely that someone was able to fix my account to prevent my attempt to expose this situation from being successful - I do however accept that some would think that giving warning invalidates my test.

With a similar experience having been reported on a different geo Tesco number, I cannot accept that there is nothing funny going on here. I am confident that what has been reported is illegitimate. We need help from volunteers to confirm the nature and extent of what it is, so that the necessary corrective action can be taken.

Thanks SCV for that test.

rfctabs, I'd just wait until your inclusive minutes start (if relevant).  Maybe wait about 5 mins (eg 6.05pm) if they start say at 6pm to ensure VMs clock is clearly within the inclusive minutes time just in case your clock is different than VMs.

As SCV as stated it could be that they have fixed the problem but kept quiet about it.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 9:59am:

Update to the above posting. I made the call as arranged, I also made another call - dialling the 0845 number. The online record of un-billed charges shows only the call dialled to the 0845 number - correctly calculated as 22p (including VAT) for a 7 second call. Charges will be recalculated when the actual bill is prepared in around 10 days time, so nothing has yet been proved. If others have seen the charge for the "operator connected" call on their list of un-billed charges however, then something is different. I will report again when my bill is prepared.

No need to wait, the magic is performed earlier!

Re-checking my un-billed charges an earlier item has appeared - Yes you guessed it:


Quote:

Operator Connected    08456 77 9624     32:22      £4.870

I am waiting for an explanation from Virgin Media.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 15^th, 2011 at 12:08pm:

Quote: Operator Connected    08456 77 9624     32:22      £4.870 I am waiting for an explanation from Virgin Media.

What is the 32:22?  Is that the length of the call - over 32mins?  I thought u only made a very quick call?

Quote:

But my next question is: "Can they legitimately charge me for ringing an 0845 when I actually dialled 0121?".

No. Not legal.

IANAL

catj wrote on Aug 16^th, 2011 at 9:03pm:

Quote: But my next question is: "Can they legitimately charge me for ringing an 0845 when I actually dialled 0121?". No. Not legal.

If VM made clear that calls to this specific number were excluded from inclusive minutes then they could possibly get away with it.

However, as far as i'm aware VM don't don't mention this so I'd agree that no they can't charge as if you dialled the 0845 when you actually dialled the 0121.

bbb_uk wrote on Aug 15^th, 2011 at 7:59pm:

What is the 32:22?  Is that the length of the call - over 32mins?  I thought u only made a very quick call?

I knew that making a call (of less than 1 hour) to a 0121 number within the period whilst calls to geographic numbers are "inclusive" would incur no proper charge. I asked the Tesco call centre agent about the matter and we got into a lengthy chat about telephone numbers.

I subsequently made a brief call dialled directly to the 0845 number, simply to confirm that this connected to the same call centre. I thought that a directly dialled 0845 call, charged at the distinct directly dialled rate, would sit well as part of the data. Having a chargeable call on my account would also let me know when charges for the day in question had been calculated to appear on my account.

The latter purpose was slightly frustrated as the earlier call (incorrectly charged) appeared on my account a day or more later.

---

As VM struggle to deal with this matter, it has been suggested to me by one of the call centre agents that the database of geo<->084 numbers could be that published by "SayNoTo0870".

I must therefore encourage everyone who calls otherwise unpublished geographic numbers from the SayNoTo0870 database through Virgin Media to check their bills very carefully.

It is possible that the scope of this exceptional billing exercise will be declared openly by VM, if they believe that it is justified. We cannot however rely on them taking this position.

---

It is quite interesting to be dealing with this matter on the day that Ofcom announces sizeable fines on Talk Talk and Tiscali for breaches of general conditions. The Ofcom statement points out that since 26 May 2011 a harsher penalty regime is in place for such breaches.

I believe that if the word "represents" in GC 11.1 may be fairly taken as a reference to GC 10.2 (d) (ii), as it surely must, then VM is shown to be in breach of the same General Condition as Talk Talk and Tiscali. (see General Conditions.)

Members might be interested to note the recent posting on MoneySavingExpert:


Quote:

He told me it would appear that Tesco have started diverting their calls to 0845, quite possibly to generate revenue and it has happened to quite a few VM customers. He then stated there is nothing VM can do about it and I need to take it up with Tesco.

RikJ says that the person he spoke to at Virgin Media did not wish to put what he'd said in writing: that it was caused by Tesco.

UPDATE !!

My case, which addresses the general issue, not just the particular test call I made, is now registered with the proper team at VM Head Office.

If anyone has a case to raise with VM and wishes to refer to mine (as another example of the issue fully covered by my case), please contact me and I will be happy to provide the relevant reference number.

A single case should be sufficient to establish the principle, however "the more the merrier".

Dave wrote on Aug 18^th, 2011 at 1:19pm:

Members might be interested to note the recent posting on MoneySavingExpert: Quote: He told me it would appear that Tesco have started diverting their calls to 0845, quite possibly to generate revenue and it has happened to quite a few VM customers. He then stated there is nothing VM can do about it and I need to take it up with Tesco. RikJ says that the person he spoke to at Virgin Media did not wish to put what he'd said in writing: that it was caused by Tesco.

Isn't that just a simple case of common misconception that the caller pays for all diverted to calls.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 18^th, 2011 at 4:23pm:

UPDATE !! My case, which addresses the general issue, not just the particular test call I made, is now registered with the proper team at VM Head Office. If anyone has a case to raise with VM and wishes to refer to mine (as another example of the issue fully covered by my case), please contact me and I will be happy to provide the relevant reference number. A single case should be sufficient to establish the principle, however "the more the merrier".

I'd still be inclined to mention this to Watchdog as I'll be surprised if you get to the bottom of it and VM admit they are purposely ignoring the number actually dialled (ie geo) and instead charging their own tariff without their customers being informed.

but let us know how you get on.

bbb_uk wrote on Aug 18^th, 2011 at 6:31pm:

Dave wrote on Aug 18th, 2011 at 1:19pm: Members might be interested to note the recent posting on MoneySavingExpert: Quote: He told me it would appear that Tesco have started diverting their calls to 0845, quite possibly to generate revenue and it has happened to quite a few VM customers. He then stated there is nothing VM can do about it and I need to take it up with Tesco. RikJ says that the person he spoke to at Virgin Media did not wish to put what he'd said in writing: that it was caused by Tesco. Isn't that just a simple case of common misconception that the caller pays for all diverted to calls.

These calls are apparently being itemised as "Operator Connected" which means that the operator connected them which we are lead to believe that they didn't.

Dave wrote on Aug 18^th, 2011 at 6:37pm:

These calls are apparently being itemised as "Operator Connected" which means that the operator connected them which we are lead to believe that they didn't.

I think I lost you  :)

What I meant to say is that VMs response is one of the normal the caller pays for any diverted call rather than the callee.

To the best of my knowledge, VM are not aware of any diversion taking place as they will only terminate the call in the local area so are unable to realise that in fact a call is being diverted.  This is why the person/company being called is charged for any calls they automatically divert and not the caller.

I'm edging towards whether VM do have a copy of SayNo's database.

If this is true then this could be tested by someone on VM doing another test call to a geographical that appears in SayNo's database (and has done at around the same time as Tesco's geo was added - in case VM have an old copy of the database).

Do we know if this happens to all Tesco alternative numbers or just this specific one or specific few?

UPDATE:

According to the database, 02086863313 for DirectLine switchboard was added prior to Tesco's alternative number.

Can I ask if one person with VM wishes to do a test call to this geographical and note the date/time and see if a "operator connected" appears

My understanding of diverted call charges is that the originating caller (C) pays to call person 'X' on number 'N1', but if X has diverted their calls to number 'N2', then X pays to call N2 from N1. It would be quite iniquitious for C to have to pay to call N2 when they have no control over what N2 might be and indeed may not even know that N1 has been diverted to N2 by X (technically in the above scenario Tesco should be paying 0845 rates to call themselves from one of their own landlines.  ;D ).

This is how it works when my mother diverts her BT line to my VM line when she comes to stay, and also how it works when I divert my O2 mobile to my O2 car phone. Is there any other way that call diverts can be configured such that VM have no control over the charging process or does the fact that VM users are being charged at 0845 rates imply some connivance between Tesco and VM? Is there any other way that call diverts can be set up such that VM may not be culpable? Can Tesco configure their system to broadcast to the wider telephony network that 0121 xxx xxxx is actually 0845 xxx xxxx? And if so, why does it appear to be only VM customers that are affected?

But these are listed as being Operator Connected calls. So where was the Operator in all this?

If you refer to Virgin Media Call Costs and download the Operator and reverse charge rates document, it gives these rates...under the heading "Direct Dialled Call Charges".  ::)

rfctabs wrote on Aug 19^th, 2011 at 9:36am:

My understanding of diverted call charges is that the originating caller (C) pays to call person 'X' on number 'N1', but if X has diverted their calls to number 'N2', then X pays to call N2 from N1....

That is true as far as I'm aware.

In conversation with me, VM representatives have been stout in suggesting that there are circumstances in which it is proper for VM to charge for a directly dialled call to a geographic number as if it were an "operator connected" call to a non-geographic number.

Whether or not this is true, I have not yet heard any justification for withholding the relevant information from the published price guides.


There is little point in me making further test calls whilst my case is progressing. My case is, as I declared to VM before making the test call, intended to completely flush out the practice of charging for calls other than as dialled. My test call has been sufficient to show that the practice exists.


In looking for other cases, we may need to focus on a particular, and unusual, characteristic of the Tesco situation.

Commonly, calls to a non-geographic number will be routed over the PSTN (using a geographic number) to a local termination point. The geographic number, local to the point of termination, may be found and published on SayNoTo0870. Calls may however be routed by their destination by other means, e.g. VOIP or a private circuit.

In the Tesco case, calls to the 0121 number (and presumably others) are routed to a national call centre in Dundee. This could be through the intelligent switch on the 0845 number, thereby supporting the claim by VM that my call was "automatically redirected" to the 0845 number. I wonder if there is some particular process, which I will refer to as "automatic redirection", in play here.

The idea of "automatic redirection" also appears to fit with the fact that the 0121 number is still seen in some old telephone directory listings for the store - suggesting that Tesco changed over from local numbers to the 0845 numbers it currently publishes for its stores. This "automatic redirection" (something quite different from the routing that happens on non-geographic numbers) could be the method used by Tesco to collect calls dialled to the old numbers. It could be that this particular process feeds back to the VM billing system.

Whatever fancy technical routing arrangements are in place does nothing to provide any justification for a charge other than that advised in the published price guide. There must however be some logic somewhere behind this systemic mis-charging, or failure to openly declare terms of service. If there is some process such as that which I have described then it would provide a more satisfactory explanation than a deliberate attempt to undermine SayNoTo0870.


This is however pure speculation on my part and an explanation is not the same as a justification. Systemic failure to bill in accordance with the published Price Guide must be regarded as a breach of the Ofcom-imposed General Conditions, even if the future remedy is a revision to the Price Guide.


If we are keen to discover the extent of this practice, in advance of advice from VM, then these comments may be of assistance.

I repeat my offer for further complaints to VM about similar occurrences to be associated with the general complaint submitted by myself. It may be of benefit to link instances together with VM, before the issue is forwarded to Ofcom.

rfctabs wrote on Aug 19^th, 2011 at 9:36am:

My understanding of diverted call charges is that the originating caller (C) pays to call person 'X' on number 'N1', but if X has diverted their calls to number 'N2', then X pays to call N2 from N1.

That is what happens when I use BT's Call  Diversion facility to divert calls incoming to my BT landline to my mobile (the call is diverted via my CPS calls provider and I pick up the cost of that 'part' of the call).

rfctabs wrote on Aug 19^th, 2011 at 9:36am:

My understanding of diverted call charges is that the originating caller (C) pays to call person 'X' on number 'N1', but if X has diverted their calls to number 'N2', then X pays to call N2 from N1.

I quote from the Virgin Media Price Guide - p3 of this document - with reference to the "Call Divert" Calling feature:-


Quote:

The caller is charged only for the call to the dialled number at normal rates. You will be charged for the diverted part of the call from when the call is answered.

Whatever is happening in this case has nothing whatsoever to do with this Calling Feature.

SCV: I don't quite follow why you think the Tesco anomaly has 'nothing to do' with the ad hoc call diversion which most TPs offer to retail consumers. It seems to me that the principle is the same: if I make a call to 0SAB... which my OP's tariff says will cost me x pence plus y pence a minute (where x and y may be 0), my OP can only charge x and y. If the recipient of the call has arranged with its TP for this call to go to a call centre in Dundee or Calcutta, the cost of that termination is a matter between the recipient of the call and its TP.
What is really weird about VM's stance, and I do hope you get to the bottom of, is their claim that an arrangement between Tesco and Tesco's telecoms provider can hijack VM's billing system. If I call, from a landline, an 0800 number (for example) that in practice terminates in Calcutta, as far as I know my telecom provider does not know (or care) where the call terminates. It is simply entitled to collect from  the TP the agreed cost of its delivering the call to the TP's switch.
All this seems to me different from the explicit tariff provision some (all?) OPs make, to the effect that calls to specified geographic numbers used by dial-up internet providers (if any still exist?)  are excluded from deals at £z a month for 'all' calls to geographic numbers.

Has anyone who is not with VM tried calling a Tesco geo number recently to see if it is happening with other telecoms providers or just with VM?   Surely if Tesco were using some kind of different system as suggested in an earlier post that would affect all telecoms providers ; why would Tesco have set up one systm for VM & left calls coming via other providers unchanged?  Or have I miseed something?   I do feel this is very worrying as, if Tesco can & have done it, how long before other large organisations try the same?

To address the well made points by nicolas43 and Barbara.

I am now inclined to agree with VM in its suggestion that there is something fundamentally different about what is happening with these numbers. I see it as unrelated to the "Call Divert" calling feature, mobile roaming, or the termination of a non-geographic call via a geographic number. Each of these cases involves the call ending up somewhere other than what may be expected from the number dialled, however this is about exceptional charging.

Barbara's suggestion of tests using other providers is a sound one. I am prepared to wait a few days for VM to come back with a coherent explanation of what is happening here before I engage in further testing myself. If VM defends the practice, then the fact that others do the same will doubtless form part of its defence.

I have kept the idea of the special billing for ISPs on geographic numbers in my mind throughout this. I am still waiting for BT to come back to me with details of where their list of such numbers is published. As suggested, it could be that there are no longer any such cases. VM makes no reference to this in its Price Guides.

---

The bottom line is as follows.

VM can charge whatever it likes for any telephone call. If VM wants to charge for calls to certain geographic numbers at the rates applicable for operator connected calls to 0845 numbers, it is perfectly entitled to do so. It must however declare this arrangement in its pricing literature. Failing to do so, and failing to bill in accordance with the advised prices is a serious breach of General Conditions (10 and 11).

If calls are to be itemised on bills other than as they were dialled, then there must be appropriate information to tally the billing information to what happened in practice. Failure to do this is also a breach of General Conditions (12).


If calls to some geographic (01/02) numbers are billed in an unexpected manner (i.e. not as "Geographic Rate"), there should be an obligation on whoever advertises these numbers to declare the fact. If these are effectively "Business Rate" or "Premium Rate" numbers then I would expect the forthcoming Ofcom regulations to make these numbers subject to the conditions appropriate to how they are billed.

The consultation on the Ofcom proposals failed to address numbers that are treated differently for billing purposes from the range in which they are seen to reside - I cannot find any reference to the ISPs on geographic numbers. This matter may need to be addressed!


As stated previously, I am speculating about what may be happening in this case. I look forward to hearing, fairly shortly, about the full truth of the matter. A systemic billing error by VM is beyond question - the whys and the wherefores are to come.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 20^th, 2011 at 8:04pm:

Barbara's suggestion of tests using other providers is a sound one.

That is a good idea Barbara thank you.  I have today at 10pm made a test call of 1min to Tesco via their 0121 number.  I made this from my inclusive minutes on my mobile account.  I didn't make it from a landline because I dont get any inclusive minutes because I generally use my mobile for that.

I don't expect to get charged but I will wait a little while and check my online billing account.

Could someone try within their inclusive minutes from a landline who also ideally has online billing so we don't have to wait for upto a month to see if any "operator connected" calls appears?

For what it is worth, I called the Tesco number from an AT&T landline through a discount provider. The call was charged at the same rate as that applicable for any other UK geographic or 03 number, ie 2c/minute. Before the call connects, the provider indicates the number of minutes available, thus giving an indication of the applied call charge.

Date/Time/Calling from/Calling to/Rate/Minutes/Total cost ($)

8/20/2011 14:49 561xxxxxxx 441212537500 0.020 1 0.020

This shows just how broken UK telephony, or more specifically the regulation of UK telephony really is. Here we have a case where the original UK-based contributor is charged 62p for a five minute call; a call that would cost me 10c, or 6p, calling from some 4500 miles away.

A similar scenario here would be a telephone subscriber calling, for example, a bank using a local number (generally free), and being charged for a long distance call (not free) as the call was ultimately handled in the corporate center in say Los Angeles. If this were to happen, on a systemic basis, the consequences for the telephone company would be severe, with either the FCC or state regulators taking action. That assumes that the class action attorneys do not get there first!

The calling party should not be concerned with the call transit mechanism or whether any diversion or intelligent call handling occurs. If a given call is charged at zero, or a specified rate per minute, as given by published tariffs, then that is what the subscriber must pay for the service provided.

One can reasonably assume that Ofcom is already aware of what is happening here. All that needs to happen is for the regulator to inform VM that it is violating various requirements, order it to make full refunds, and slap it with a punitive fine in the hope that it doesn't do it again. 

A test call I made via Finarea (18185) shows up, correctly, as

Quote:

21-08-2011      16:21:22      01212537500 00:00:12      0.0500

My hypotheses are that
(a) Tesco has arranged, innocently and legitimately, with its telecoms provider (Cable & Wireless?) that calls to the historic geographic store numbers are routed to the call centre. Possibly C&W pays Tesco 0.5 p a minute (or whatever) for all calls to the call centre; possibly C&W pays Tesco only for calls where the customer actually keyed 0845; possibly Tesco pays C&W for calls re-routed from the geographic numbers.
(b) Noticing this, a bored geek at VM bet his mates that he'd add a tweak to VM's billing system so that calls to Tesco's historic geographic store numbers would get charged at an arbitrary price and listed as operator calls to the 0845 number of Tesco's call centre, and that no-one would notice  for at least three months (or whatever).
(c) Meanwhile VM pays C&W the agreed (tiny) termination rate for all calls to all geographic numbers owned by C&W, including the historic Tesco store numbers (unless the geek has also tweaked that).

As I suspected, my test call came back as an inclusive call, not a 0845.


Quote:

20 Aug 11  21:57:45  01212537500  Weekend 00:01:05  £0.000  F

Therefore, the problem in question is all related to VM and them trying to charge for a 0845 even though that wasn't the number dialled and nothing to do with Tesco diverting (or not) the 0121.

Okay a further development.

I managed to ask someone who works in the telecom industry.  I asked this:
Quote:

Two forum members have reported that whilst calling a Tesco store on their geographical number (0121 253 7500) when it came to billing, VirginMedia bill the call as "Operator Connected" as if they had dialled the 0845 677 9624. The 0845 is Tesco's number they publish with the geo being the underlying number. VirginMedia (VM) claim this is because the 0121 is re-directed to the 0845! Now my limited understanding is that when VM carry the geo call they would terminate it with the called party's TCP and it would then be the TCP which would divert the call to whichever number Tesco have setup. The TCP would pay for this divert and pass the divert costs on to Tesco in some way. Therefore, VM as the OCP only wouldn't know whether the 0121 dialled is diverted or not!! Am I right?

The reply:
Quote:

Yes, you're broadly correct. If someone dialled the 0121 number and it was diverted to the 0845 by the TCP, then VM would continue to route the call to the TCP. As far as they were concerned, the call would be going to the 0121 number and they should bill accordingly. The leg from the 0121 to the 0845 number should be billed to the holder of the 0121 number (i.e. Tesco). I can understand why Tesco would want the calls diverting on, because they've got pretty complex call logic on their 0845 number (e.g. typically their colleagues are on mobile phones even within the store, with "roles" such as answering inbound calls being assigned dynamically according to how busy individual colleagues are...the days of it being a phone in the corner of the staff office are long gone), but obviously if they choose to redirect calls from an 01 number, they've got to pick up the cost. Incidentally VM as the originator will know that the call's been diverted...it's conveyed in the signalling...but the "pivot point" is at the TCP and the only reason they're informed is so they can play the "please wait, this call is being diverted" message if they wish - they wouldn't know where the call's being diverted to (only exception is if Virgin were co-incidentally the TCP)

Update

My complaint with VM has progressed, within the promised timescale.

More progress is however required - the necessary action has been set in hand.

Perhaps what is going on here is not unconnected with what clive.davison says happened to him when he called Admiral Insurance from his O2 mobile.  :-/

Just for clarity, I don't believe that the 0121 number (etc) is an 'underlying geographical' to the 0845. I think that Tesco has arranged with its provider (Cable & Wireless, we think) that most/all former geographic numbers for its stores now route to the call centre 0845 number, from whence they can be routed either to automated announcements eg about opening hours, or to desks in the call centre (if any), or to the mobiles of staff in the stores.
So the questions that VM are (I predict) about to fudge are:
1. Who tweaked VM's billing system so that calls to Tesco's obsolete geographic store numbers get charged at an arbitrary price, and mis-labelled as operator calls to the 0845 number?
2. Why did the tweaker do this?
3. What termination rate is VM paying to Cable&Wireless for these calls?
4. Where did the tweaker get a list of (some/all?) obsolete Tesco geographic numbers?
5. In addition to the refund they are obviously entitled to, what compensation is VM paying to people caught by this cockup for their annoyance and wasted time?

nicholas43 wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2011 at 8:34pm:

Just for clarity, ...

I share the belief expressed at the beginning of these remarks.

I intend to see the answers to points 1, 2 and 4 addressed, although in a more comprehensive form, covering all cases where VM charges other than in accordance with its published tariffs.

If VM and / or Tesco, or others, wish to comment on point 3 that is up to them - any such arrangement is private between them.

On point 5, when Ofcom addresses the case of the breach of General Conditions, it will need to rule on the adequacy of whatever remedial action has, by then, been taken by VM.

It will be for the media and Ofcom to judge how far VM has "fudged" its answers. I have already rebutted one inadequate attempt at resolution.

Dave wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2011 at 8:09pm:

Perhaps what is going on here is not unconnected with what clive.davison says happened to him when he called Admiral Insurance from his O2 mobile.  :-/

I made the same call from my o2 mobile and it is showing up as an inclusive call.

A little more information on a related point.


I have just heard from BT that the only exclusions from the principle that numbers beginning 01/02 are treated as "geographic rate" calls are:

· Indirect Access Numbers

· Numbers used by Internet Service Providers for dial-up internet access

Indirect Access Numbers are those where the caller may access another number that they select.
This does NOT include numbers which are simply subject to a set diversion to another number.


It is acknowledged by BT that the published list of ISP numbers referred to in the full price list no longer exists.

I have been assured that the statement quoted below, which appears repeatedly in the large formal BT Price List (not in the pdf Tariff Guide), will be corrected as shown.


Quote:

Calls to identified Internet Service Providers using geographic numbers will be charged at the rates shown in Table 1b above. A list of these numbers is available on bt.com.

I am content that those calling an ISP or an Indirect Access Number will be aware of the fact. Call cost information could always be more clearly presented, by all parties, however I see no issue with BT here (once the misleading references to a non-existent list have been removed).

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2011 at 10:15am:

...· Indirect Access Numbers ... Indirect Access Numbers are those where the caller may access another number that they select.

I suspect they are referring to 0844 numbers that allow access to cheaper international calls, or more likely, any underlying geographical for these 0844 numbers.

Getting back to VM, they appear to be the only ones doing this as far as I can tell and hopefully we will find out why/how they are doing it.

Although I suspect they may want to keep this as quiet as possible.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2011 at 10:15am:

I have just heard from BT that the only exclusions from the principle that numbers beginning 01/02 are treated as "geographic rate" calls are: · Indirect Access Numbers · Numbers used by Internet Service Providers for dial-up internet access Indirect Access Numbers are those where the caller may access another number that they select. This does NOT include numbers which are simply subject to a set diversion to another number.

As they are specifically referring to 01/02 numbers, 'Indirect Access Numbers' cannot mean the likes of 0844/0871 'gateway' numbers typically used for cheap overseas dialling.

I think they refer to the geographical alternatives offered by 1899, 18185 and 18866 and intended for use by mobile callers using their inclusive minutes - but which, of course, can be similarly used from landlines.

I have not heard of anyone being charged for such use (possibly because, from a landline, use of the alterative freephone number works in the same way) but BT appears to be 'reserving the right' to charge differently.

Heinz wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2011 at 2:32pm:

As they are specifically referring to 01/02 numbers ....

... That is the question!

BT does confuse matters by treating 0870 and 0845 in the same way as geographic numbers in some contexts. Looking at published statements, it may be that it is these which are addressed by an exclusion of Indirect Access Numbers from the terms of inclusive Call Plans.


In theory, there could be a reason to penalise BT callers who call 01/02/03 "dial-through to 0800" numbers, as BT is losing the benefit of the negative termination fee it would have received had the 0800 number been dialled directly. On the other hand, there is no reason why anyone would use this indirect means of calling a 0800 number from BT, unless (as I have proposed) the dial-through number was being operated for the benefit of a charity, rather than for commercial gain.

The important point is that BT declares calls to these numbers as being excluded from the terms of inclusive packages and those who call them are aware that they are calling a "special" number, which may fairly be understood to be used for "indirect access".

All is perhaps not quite as clear as it could be, however this is totally different from the particular case being addressed primarily by this thread.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2011 at 3:56pm:

The important point is that BT declares calls to these numbers as being excluded from the terms of inclusive packages and those who call them are aware that they are calling a "special" number...

O2 also declare what they class as "special numbers".

VM aren't, however, so forthcoming and it must be illegal what they are doing!

I think this is a similar experience to one I have just encountered so instead of starting a new thread I'll add my comment here. 

I have just called healthy Living Direct using the geographical number supplied by saynoto0870, and asking for the HL customer care as advised once I was connected.  But before I was transferred an automated message said the call would be charged at 10p per min!  Then I was put thorough to another dept and again I was told that the call would be charged at 10p per min.  I was very surprised that an 0871 charge can be applied in this way when I called a geographical number.  I shall read with interest any comments. :-[

[quote author=4E5340424D44121313210 link=1310901185/64#64 date=1314188053]I think this is a similar experience to one I have just encountered so instead of starting a new thread I'll add my comment here. 

I have just called healthy Living Direct using the geographical number supplied by saynoto0870, and asking for the HL customer care as advised once I was connected.  But before I was transferred an automated message said the call would be charged at 10p per min!  Then I was put thorough to another dept and again I was told that the call would be charged at 10p per min.  I was very surprised that an 0871 charge can be applied in this way when I called a geographical number.  I shall read with interest any comments. :-[/quote]
I don't think you have anything to worry about.

When you call the published 0871 it probably just delivers the call to the company's 01/02 number. So when the call answers (having dialled the 0871 number), what you hear is what you would have got had you called the 01/02 number.

In this case I haven't tried it, but I assume that the alternative is 01377 232330.

The likely reason for playing such a message on the 01/02 number is to advise callers of the cost having dialled via the 0871 number. The sheer fact that you got the message suggests that your call was dealt with in the same way as it would have been on the 0871 number, albeit that you will be charged as per a geographic call*.


* The discussion on this thread relates to one telephone call provider acting to charge calls to some 01/02 numbers at a premium. I assume that the message you refer to was played out by the receiver, so it has no bearing to affect the likelihood that you have been charged a premium by your telephone company.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2011 at 5:29pm:

Update My complaint with VM has progressed, within the promised timescale. More progress is however required - the necessary action has been set in hand.

Have you heard anything over this yet?

Another example of this dodgy practice.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=3493027

I have just heard from Virgin Media that the investigation has been concluded and the issue has been resolved.

In my words, the story is as follows:

---

On adopting 0845 numbers, Tesco arranged for calls to the existing geographic numbers to be diverted. Unfortunately the way in which this was done led to an error in the Virgin Media billing system. Calls to the geographic numbers were being charged at "Operator Connected" rates and identified as being made to the 0845 numbers.

This fault has been corrected; there will be no further cases.

All of those who have been overcharged will shortly be provided with an appropriate adjustment to their account.

---

It is with some relief that we can reaffirm the principle that you pay for the call to the number that you dial.

I will be issuing a media release and notifying Ofcom. As the error has apparently been corrected and remedied, it may be of little concern.

The dismissive initial approach from billing enquiries personnel (which is now seen to have been mistaken) does however warrant some comment. Any grounds used for maintaining the charge were clearly ill founded.

Thanks are due to rfctabs, and others for having raised the issue. Without their efforts, Virgin Media would perhaps not have had the opportunity to identify this error and make the necessary corrections.

(I will be referring to this discussion thread as I draw public attention to this issue. Moderators and members may wish to take note.)

Well done, SCV, for persisting in getting the issue resolved.

Do you have any insight into the underlying technical issue?


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Sep 19^th, 2011 at 5:43pm:

In my [SCV's] words, the story is as follows: On adopting 0845 numbers, Tesco arranged for calls to the existing geographic numbers to be diverted. Unfortunately the way in which this was done led to an error in the Virgin Media billing system.

So VM is claiming that, when VM delivers to C&W a call to 01 which C&W is doing clever things with, C&W can send some message to VM which spooks VM's billing system?
On the face of it, this is incredible.
I still hold to the theory that someone at VM must have done something wrong, either by extraordinary mistake, or for fun, or, just possibly, malevolently.
As you so rightly say, a particularly heinous feature of the story is that initially, when told about it, VM staff just made up nonsense about it being Tesco's fault.

nicholas43 wrote on Sep 20^th, 2011 at 9:22am:

So VM is claiming that, when VM delivers to C&W a call to 01 which C&W is doing clever things with, C&W can send some message to VM which spooks VM's billing system? On the face of it, this is incredible. I still hold to the theory that someone at VM must have done something wrong, either by extraordinary mistake, or for fun, or, just possibly, malevolently.

The bottom line is that VM is responsible for the accuracy of its billing, so it must have done something wrong.

Whether or not other parties are in some way to blame and the precise nature of the failing within VM are not matters of any great concern to me. Issues of internal discipline and relationships with other companies are properly confidential - responsibility has to be carried at the corporate level.

Ofcom may decide to delve deeply into the reasons for the error - I have presented a number of reasons why it should look into the matter. Others are free to lobby Ofcom to conduct a thorough investigation.

I hope that VM will issue a statement if the issue is covered by the media, following a release that I will issue later today (I am awaiting comments from Tesco). Others are free to press VM for an explanation, and to challenge any statement that is made.

I understand that representatives of Virgin Media are following this thread. This is an open forum; they are free to comment here if they think it appropriate. (I would not myself press them to do so.)

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Sep 19^th, 2011 at 5:43pm:

In my words, the story is as follows: On adopting 0845 numbers, Tesco arranged for calls to the existing geographic numbers to be diverted. Unfortunately the way in which this was done led to an error in the Virgin Media billing system. Calls to the geographic numbers were being charged at "Operator Connected" rates and identified as being made to the 0845 numbers.

In what way do they mean?

From what I'm aware (from what I've been told), VM wouldn't know the final destination of the call (ie the leg of the call from the dialled 01x number to the 0845 number) as this is done by the TCP.

VM are aware that the call is being diverted as it's in the signalling flag of the call but only the TCP know the 0845 number it is being diverted to as Tesco themselves are billed for this side of the call.

The exception to this is, as mentioned in an earlier post, is if VM are the OCP and TCP.


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Sep 19^th, 2011 at 5:43pm:

I will be issuing a media release and notifying Ofcom. As the error has apparently been corrected and remedied, it may be of little concern.

I personally don't think Ofcom will do much.

Thank you SCV for taking the time to have this sorted and corrected.

Without your knowledge and persistence, I doubt this would have been sorted as quickly as it was, if at all.

bbb_uk wrote on Sep 21^st, 2011 at 5:12pm:

VM are aware that the call is being diverted as it's in the signalling flag of the call but only the TCP know the 0845 number it is being diverted to as Tesco themselves are billed for this side of the call.

Do we actually know that these calls are being diverted, in the technical sense? Couldn't it just be that C&W has programmed some/most/all of its switches to answer calls to obsolete geographic store numbers specified by Tesco (and currently owned by C&W), and calls to the 0845 number(s?) advertised by Tesco, by playing the Tesco-specified menu, including options eg for an message about opening hours / talk to a human in a store / ... ?

You could 'Reverse Engineer' anything, but in this case, never.

You know what I think? It's simple, this was some engineer or systems-geek looking to go home early!

Well. ask yourself, could it be an active move on Virgin's part to over-bill. Certainly not. Why would it be... it would not be worth the corporate effort and PR disaster when it comes out.

I'm an ex-telephone engineer and although that was near 24 years ago, I rememer, I made some monumental c*ck-ups. We all did. I suspect not a lot has changed, largely becasue your 'actual' engineer at heart, hasn't. Engineers, like any other profession - we're a breed.

What do I mean by this? Call-logic. metering and switching was damned complex in my day, and it has to be far more intense now, and given the choice of an early tea-break or sweating and head-scratching over call-logic, switching or porting it right, I'll bet I know what happened.

A quick-fix was done, a few key presses on a porting desk, and "Tomorrow is another day", out the door...

Careless... yes.
Knowingly Slapdash?... Could be?.
Incompetent... Probably.
A simple error.. Likley.
POETSday? Definitely.

And that Engineers "go-home-early" quick-fix works too, if you don't try to circumvent it, by dialing 01.

But real malevolence. Nope. Not ever.

More likely , Chelsea were playing at home.

Here's a mildly amusing foul-up from 1982: A young apprentice mis-soldered the MDF (a massive cable termianation block) such that 50 odd lines were linked together. Thus a call to any one of them, rang the lot. This caused chaos, until we found it.

Another time we did much the same thing, this time, quite  deliberatly to two rival publicans that hated each other. Got the operators to voice a 'opeartor connected' call, one to other. Then initiated a call, going back the other way. And so that we were all privy to the furore,  we hooked up the calls over the switch-room Tannoy.

We'd hook the unsuspecting, up to the weird and wonderful, the Tokyo speaking clock was a favourite.

Engineers larking about.


Of course, we worried about the billing...

I have now issued a media release. If any organ of the media wishes to cover the story, they may obtain a statement from Virgin Media.

There is no reason why anyone interested in the technical explanation for this error should not pursue VM about it. How close they would be able to get to the truth is anyone's guess. Ofcom has the powers to dig into this, but it is not obliged to report its findings in full.

The fact that it has been acknowledged as an error that must be corrected is sufficient for me in terms of the reason for the problem.

 
I am however concerned that many reports of the error were dismissed and covered by wholly spurious invented explanations devised by billing representatives who were acting with no true authority.

I received a message from the Complaints Team Manager including the following comments:


Quote:

... the call was charged at the correct destination rate ... ... Virgin media are unable to cover every eventuality in our terms and conditions ... ... Statements and opinions expressed in this email may not represent those of Virgin Media ...

Although the first quoted statement is now accepted as being false, the latter quoted statement indicated that it was totally meaningless anyway, as it could have simply been the opinion of one person. The contention that if an item is not covered by its published terms then Virgin Media can levy any charge it wishes, and describe it as "correct", is nothing but laughable. It is certainly untrue, but it may not be the view of Virgin Media.
 
The fact that a Complaints Team Manager is encouraged to make statements and express opinions without the authority of Virgin Media, whilst acting as the key representative of the company dealing with a customer, is disturbing. It implies that any old nonsense that will get rid of a complaint is acceptable, as it can be disowned later if necessary.
 
Whilst the general case has been resolved, I am still awaiting a resolution of the matter of my own account and a conclusion to the chain of correspondence including the comments quoted above.

I would be interested to see the letters of apology sent to the genuine victims of this overcharge, especially those who had previous complaints dismissed, even if a "goodwill" refund was offered.

Members may be interested to note that further developments in this saga have been reported and discussed in the parallel thread on MSE - Calling Tesco #19

Thanks to SCV for taking this up with VM and getting a positive outcome for us all.

As a victim of the error, do I need to do anything with VM to get a refund of my erroneous call costs to Tesco? I haven't heard anything from VM about this and there have been no automatic credits to my bill as yet.

It gets worst !

See this new thread on MSE

This time a Tesco 0161 geo number is called from Virgin Media and they are charged for calling a UK Mobile Number belonging to Tesco.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=47911043#post47911043

See also post 26 in this thread where a poster says the same thing happened to them.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=3493027&page=2

It is very clear that, contrary to what I have been advised, the problem has not yet been sorted.

For completeness, it may be noted that there are three threads on MSE covering this matter. In addition to the two mentioned above there is also http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=45867521.

bigjohn wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2011 at 3:36am:

It gets worst ! See this new thread on MSE This time a Tesco 0161 geo number is called from Virgin Media and they are charged for calling a UK Mobile Number belonging to Tesco.

The mobile telephone number in question is prefixed with 078228 which is allocated to Tesco's provider, Cable & Wireless UK.

I would just like to add another story here.

My dad works for Tesco and he was pretty gobsmacked to find his recent Virgin Media Phone bill at £60 for phone calls, of which £48.81 are these Operator Connected Call types.

It appears that every time you call Tesco and are put through to different departments you are eventually put through to a mobile beginning 078228.

The strangest thing on my dads bill, is that there are 12 calls with 0:00 Mins Secs but cost either £3.85 or £4.72.  9 have been billed at £3.85 and 3 have been billed at £4.72.

He rang up Virgin Media and they have said they are investigating.  We have heard nothing back but reading through this thread I believe this has been resolved and he should expect a refund on his next bill for an amount of £48.81?

## QUICK UPDATE ##

He was told today by a Scottish lady from Virgin Media that it is a National Problem that appears to be an issue when phoning Tesco's numbers. I assume this is most likely true for any phone number for departments such as the Opticians or Photoshop. He was told that he will get a refund on his next bill for all of these errors.

byb3 wrote on Oct 27^th, 2011 at 1:24pm:

I would just like to add another story here.

I've sent you a private message.  ;)

Hi Dave,

At the time he was calling in sick so it was a local number for the store that must have been given out to staff.

I think my family quite often call up to speak to my dad as he often works nights, so the other calls must have been to the local 01 number.

Regards,

byb3 wrote on Oct 27^th, 2011 at 1:24pm:

He rang up Virgin Media and they have said they are investigating.  We have heard nothing back but reading through this thread I believe this has been resolved and he should expect a refund on his next bill for an amount of £48.81?

A further update today from one campaigner: Virgin Media STILL overcharging callers trying to avoid Tesco Business Rate numbers | Ofcom does nothing (no news there!)

I totally agree with the comments made on that page.

Ofcom should not be waiting until a certain number of complainants have made representations. It knows that there is an issue and it should act as a matter of principle.

There should be no threshold of number of consumers contacting the regulator before it acts. These people are those who notice that they have been overcharged and then decide to report the fact to the regulator.

By functioning in the way its does, Ofcom is acting to support wrongs that are done by providers, but which aren't noticed by a large enough group of consumers.

Furthermore, those who do report such matters will be less enthused to do so in the future, should they be on the receiving end of another provider that is behaving outside of the rules.

Ofcom launched a consultation the other day and having had a quick look at it, it struck a chord with the current status of the issue discussed in this thread.

Draft Enforcement Guidelines - Ofcom’s draft guidelines for the handling of competition complaints and complaints concerning regulatory rules

I'm not sure whether there's anything of any great interest to us within it.  :-/

Dave wrote on Nov 4^th, 2011 at 10:19pm:

Ofcom launched a consultation the other day and having had a quick look at it, it struck a chord with the current status of the issue discussed in this thread. Draft Enforcement Guidelines - Ofcom’s draft guidelines for the handling of competition complaints and complaints concerning regulatory rules I'm not sure whether there's anything of any great interest to us within it.  :-/

Having had a brief look at the Ofcom document, I note that (despite being described as "draft") it is written in the present tense and fails to indicate where the content differs from the procedures being followed currently. This is simply an attempt to consolidate and gain implicit consent for (through having "consulted") the approach that Ofcom has been following for some time.

It is a charter for consumerism. Intervention will only occur when compelled by a weight of pressure from consumers. It is not sufficient for the interests of consumers or citizens to be seen to be damaged. Unless Ofcom itself decides that it wishes to deploy its limited resources to address an issue (to serve its own interests), only a vast number of complaints to its Contact Centre will be likely to trigger an investigation.

This may be an issue of the resources which Ofcom has, or it may be a matter of policy - it is impossible to determine which. The problem is that, as Ofcom is an essentially unaccountable QUANGO, there is no ready mechanism by which to get to know the answer. Ofcom's only accountability is to parliament, through the Culture Media and Sport Committee, which has an annual evidence session with the Chairman and Chief Executive.

All of this touches on other political issues, which I will not expand here, but there is much food for thought.

Further to my unkind comments about Ofcom in the previous posting, perhaps now is a good time to express my thanks for a series of formal statements provided to me earlier this year.

The statements included in the letter published at this link are intended for formal publication and attribution to Ofcom.

Because they reflect a degree of balance and moderation, as must be shown in formal statements, they may not contain all that we may seek to debunk the nonsense that is spouted from certain quarters. I believe that they are however useful. (The final versions of the wording used was the subject of some debate and negotiation.)

Although provided to me, they are intended for public use, with the modest qualifications stated in the letter.

I invite any member who wishes to make proper use of these statements in any context to do so. Mr Sivak will be happy to be named as the source within Ofcom to confirm that they are authentic. When used, they must be attributed to OFCOM as public statements, not to him personally, nor with any reference to myself.

(I have added this posting here, to a current discussion, and as it has some relevance in balancing the view of Ofcom expressed above. Moderators or members may wish to draw attention to this publication in another thread, or perhaps start a new thread to discuss it.)

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 5^th, 2011 at 4:50am:

The statements included in the letter published at this link are intended for formal publication and attribution to Ofcom.

"Only 03 is charged the same as 01 and 02 numbers and generally included in calling plans."

That is a trifle ambiguous. I am hoping that it means that if 01 and 02 are included in a calling plan, then so is 03, not that operators can choose to include 01 and 02 numbers in calling plans but exclude 03 numbers, which I thought was not allowed.

kasg wrote on Nov 5^th, 2011 at 4:43pm:

… That is a trifle ambiguous. I am hoping that it means that if 01 and 02 are included in a calling plan, then so is 03, not that operators can choose to include 01 and 02 numbers in calling plans but exclude 03 numbers, which I thought was not allowed.

You are absolutely correct. It is ambiguous, but it does mean what you suggest (and the author would be ready to confirm this if questioned). Where 01 and 02 are included, 03 must be also. Some calling plans may exclude 01, 02 and 03 under certain conditions.

I will not share the detail of the lengthy and heated correspondence which led to me happily accepting what was offered, after a number of requests for revision had been satisfied. The general thrust of each of the statements is sufficiently positive (from our perspective) to carry these minor (if fully justified) quibbles.

I note and respect the suggestion that quotations should use the full question and answer. I am however prepared to use extracts when they are identified as such (perhaps using an ellipsis - …). There are contexts where the reference to packages is unnecessary and its omission cannot be said to be corrupting the meaning of the statement.

I offer these statements for use by others. They may wish to follow the same approach as myself. Ultimately it is for Ofcom to confirm or deny the authenticity of any statement attributed to it.

Here is another report (on MSE) of someone being charged for a call to a mobile number when they dialled a local number to ring a Tesco supermarket.

Dave,

Searching for the number listed on the MSE post, it seems it's associated or has been associated with something called Noodle Chat and is/was excluded from some mobile networks included minutes

CJT-80 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2011 at 11:55am:

Dave, Searching for the number listed on the MSE post, it seems it's associated or has been associated with something called Noodle Chat and is/was excluded from some mobile networks included minutes

The now defunct Noodle who were a cheap intl call provider did have some numbers in the 07822 range, but the 078228 number referred to is a number allocated to Cable and Wireless Tescos Supplier.

The saga continues. There is a recent report on MSE of a bill for £218 for calls to a 07 number when a 02 number was dialled.

Is is very confusing for personal numbers to start 07 why is this allowed

Most people assume that an 07 number is a mobile number

How can a mobile number and a personal number be identified or do you have to wait to get your bill to find out.

bazzerfewi wrote on Dec 6^th, 2011 at 11:00pm:

Is is very confusing for personal numbers to start 07 why is this allowed Most people assume that an 07 number is a mobile number How can a mobile number and a personal number be identified or do you have to wait to get your bill to find out.

070 numbers are personal numbers, 074-079,(except 076 which are for pagers), are mobiles.
See the following;-

http://www.area-codes.org.uk/07.shtml

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/numbering/guidance-tele-no/070-guidance

bazzerfewi wrote on Dec 6^th, 2011 at 11:00pm:

Most people assume that an 07 number is a mobile number

Indeed - and there was a proposal to change personal numbers (and probably pagers - I can't remember) to 06 to avoid this but, outrageously, this was dropped because the industry didn't like it and it was of too much benefit to the consumer.

I can't remember) to 06 to avoid this but, outrageously, this was dropped because the industry didn't like it and it was of too much benefit to the consumer.
[/quote]

Surely there should be a campaign against this action just as there is one in regard to the use of 0800 numbers on mobiles at present.

This may be a task for members that are more knowledgeable than myself in these matters

06 numbers were resisted because it would mean all personal number users would have to change their numbers, which they objected to when they had obtained such a number exactly so that they never have to change their number. Also, anyone with a memorable number containing lots of 7s wouldn't want to change to 06.

Quite why anyone would want to call someone on such a number, though, I don't know. But then I'm someone who avoids calling a mobile number if at all possible anyway, and still thinks it's bad if a business provides one instead of a landline number. So I'm the last person who'd call a personal number!

The concept of a "get me anywhere" personal number had a certain appeal (for some) when it was launched, however the idea did not catch on, partly because the costing structure could not be made to work properly. The idea was then seized on as a means of ripping people off with expensive numbers.

Whilst the confusion with mobile numbers is a major concern, I do not believe that allocating the whole of a single digit range to a failed idea would be a proportionate response.


Ofcom is expected to be making an announcement on all of the issues addressed in its consultation early in the new year. Its latest published thoughts on 070 and 076 are found starting at page 434 of this document.

Some may be encouraged to note that these include the statement -

Quote:

we no longer consider the status quo to be justifiable given the lack of pricing transparency, the confusion over the nature of the number range and the persistence of scams being undertaken

These 01 numbers are very much active and not historic as they would like you to believe.  However 01 and 02 numbers do not generate any income.  The 084 and 087 prefix numbers generate a small / varying amount from each call to the recipient, therefore making the company's phone bill far less than it would otherwise be.  The rest of the call charge goes to the telephone company. 

If this was not the case and these were just "national" and "local" calls, as described in rate of charge, then they would be included in your inclusive minutes.  This is the reason they do not want to give out the geographic number.  It runs through the exact same phone system, but at your cost if you dial 084 or 087. 

Use the 01 or 02 number and make sure your phone company bills you correctly.  :)

I have just had my brush with VM, slightly off Op but we are on Unlimited Calls with virgin, at a cost of £8 per month,so not entirely free but an all inclusive package
I had purpose to log into my account,something which I haven't done for months, and was shocked to find some land line call charges were showing for 14p connection fee plus vat
Eventually getting through I found out that this charge was because i had dialled 1471,which funnily enough is advertised on Vm front page has being free, and then dialled "3" to return the call
In the tariff it says a call charge may apply but I would expect an all inclusive package means just that but with virgin it obviously only means part inclusive

On BT they charge for that service, even if you have a package. The easiest way round it is not to press 3 but to dial the number yourself, then you wont be charged.

Otherwise 1471 is 'free'

grun wrote on Jan 9^th, 2012 at 10:50am:

I have just had my brush with VM, slightly off Op but we are on Unlimited Calls with virgin, at a cost of £8 per month,so not entirely free but an all inclusive package I had purpose to log into my account,something which I haven't done for months, and was shocked to find some land line call charges were showing for 14p connection fee plus vat Eventually getting through I found out that this charge was because i had dialled 1471,which funnily enough is advertised on Vm front page has being free, and then dialled "3" to return the call In the tariff it says a call charge may apply but I would expect an all inclusive package means just that but with virgin it obviously only means part inclusive

Virgin Media publishes its call charges at [url=www.virginmedia.com/callcosts[/url]]www.virginmedia.com/callcosts[/url]

The current residential document (PDF) states:

Calling 1471 is free, but if you choose to return the call (that's Option 3) you will be charged 16.34p, in addition to your call charges
- just listen to the announcement carefully.

As sherbert says, BT also makes a charge for returning a call by pressing 3 having dialled 1471. Having read out the number, the recorded message says "To return the call, press 3. There is normally a charge for the service."

What does the Virgin Media 1471 say? What is the announcement that the price list advises should be listened to "carefully"?


This thread is about Virgin Media charging for calls that were dialled not in accordance with the price list. I am not sure that this is the case here.

Some good news! We've had a message from Virgin Media letting us know that this issue was resolved last September. Customers who were overcharged were given automatic refunds early this year.