Solicitors claim 0845 is Freephone!

I have sent a complaint to the ASA.

Advert from our local raf;-

[IMG]http://i43.tinypic.com/339u1on.jpg[/img]

Do you think this is in error or a deliberate attempt to rip callers off :-/

bazzerfewi wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 2:03pm:

Do you think this is in error or a deliberate attempt to rip callers off :-/

Not sure, but on the same page an adjacent advert by the same solicitors for similar services has for contact:-
Freephone: 0808 131 0451
From a mobile: 01623 782082

So it would seem they do know the difference!

.

In that case it seems very likely it is a simple mistake.

kasg wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 4:27pm:

In that case it seems very likely it is a simple mistake.

I am of the same opinion maybe if you contacted them they would alter it to an elternative number

bazzerfewi wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 2:03pm:

Do you think this is in error or a deliberate attempt to rip callers off :-/

In a previous life, the oft-spoken question was as quoted below.

derrick wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 1:39pm:

Solicitors claim 0845 is Freephone!

Derrick,

Have you had no answer or resolution as yet on this from the ASA?

If not you might also like to consider trying to report them to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (www.sra.org.uk) or the new Legal Ombudsman service (http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk) who you will be pleased to hear use an 0300 number for all customer contact with them.

Speaking as one who has another of these bank account leeches without a conscience (aka solicitors) recently cost me a very large amount of money whilst operating in the most morally questionable manner possible I find it particularly disgusting that people who charge £175 per hour and upwards for their services cannot afford to take their phone calls without expecting to benefit from a revenue share! :o >:( :'(

By the way I do not think a solicitor should ever be let off for making a so called "mistake" of this kind when it is not ever their habit to encourage their clients to ever be generous over genuine mistakes committed by other people.  If solicitors aren't supposed to be people who can get things right under the rules then I don't know who exactly is?!!!

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 11^th, 2012 at 4:05pm:

By the way I do not think a solicitor should ever be let off for making a so called "mistake" of this kind when it is not ever their habit to encourage their clients to ever be generous over genuine mistakes committed by other people.  If solicitors aren't supposed to be people who can get things right under the rules then I don't know who exactly is?!!!

A number of police forces have, in the past, been tricked into thinking that 0845 was "local rate" when the evidence in the form of call charges (0845 vs local calls) from many providers suggested this was false. Do they solve crimes by not looking at the evidence as well?

Dave wrote on Jan 12^th, 2012 at 11:05am:

Do they solve crimes by not looking at the evidence as well?

I believe most UK Police forces also fail to look at all the evidence and simply work on a basis of guilty till proven innocent when it comes to the very questionable basis on which tickets are issued for alleged speeding offence by mobile speed camera vans often parked half way round blind bends in violation of most of their own guidelines.

Surrey Police also seem to cheerfully and repeatedly ignore all the compelling evidence put in front of them for swithching from an 0845 number to an 0345 number put in front of them both by myself and other campaigners against the misuse of 084/7 numbers.

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 12^th, 2012 at 1:50pm:

Surrey Police also seem to cheerfully and repeatedly ignore all the compelling evidence put in front of them for swithching from an 0845 number to an 0345 number put in front of them both by myself and other campaigners against the misuse of 084/7 numbers.

Surrey Police were indeed one of the worst - however the situation has changed.
They now fully comply with Home Office guidance as seen on their "Contact Us" webpage.


Quote:

Please dial 999 in an Emergency ... For all other Police matters please dial: 101 or 01483 571212

Whatever may have gone before, there is little to criticise in that quote. A little more information about 101, including call cost, would however be a most helpful addition.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 12^th, 2012 at 4:03pm:

Whatever may have gone before, there is little to criticise in that quote. A little more information about 101, including call cost, would however be a most helpful addition.

And what does 101 cost or does it depend on your telco? And no doubt that now includes the massive and iniquitous connection fee pioneered by BT.  Also 101 can't be used if you are calling from outside Surrey even though you may have experienced a crime there.  So again is the other reason why I think 101 doesn't work at all as a concept unlike 112/999 where the system simply routes you to the nearest call centre for urgent assistance to your point of calling and you will not be calling out of area on a non urgent basis.

Surrey Police were one of the worst not just for 0845 number but also for mobile camera vans parled on the apexes of blind bends.  Happily due to Police cutbacks they no longer have the funding to operate the majority of these.

Quote:

And what does 101 cost or does it depend on your telco?

15p per call, regardless of length. I believe this is the same from any telephone company, including mobiles. (How it works in phone boxes, with their humungous minimum charge, I don't know).


Quote:

Also 101 can't be used if you are calling from outside Surrey even though you may have experienced a crime there.

The system gives you the option of being connected to the local force, or choosing another if yu're out of area.

MZ

G7MZH wrote on Jan 12^th, 2012 at 11:01pm:

Quote: And what does 101 cost or does it depend on your telco? 15p per call, regardless of length. I believe this is the same from any telephone company, including mobiles. (How it works in phone boxes, with their humungous minimum charge, I don't know).

The Home Office believes that every telephone company is committed to the 15p per call agreement. There has been a problem with Telefonica (o2 and BeUnlimited) but this is being sorted - I am told that as it may take some time to adjust the tariff, calls to 101 will be free of charge for the time being.

I believe that resolution of the Telefonica problem was initially triggered by a report in this forum. I am sure that the Home Office officials will be pleased to receive other reports of exceptions and will seek to resolve them, as I understand that they have in this case.

BT public payphones offer calls to 101 at no charge. If other payphone operators are found to charge more than 15p per call, I am sure that the Home Office would be pleased to address this.


G7MZH wrote on Jan 12^th, 2012 at 11:01pm:

Quote: Also 101 can't be used if you are calling from outside Surrey even though you may have experienced a crime there. The system gives you the option of being connected to the local force, or choosing another if yu're out of area.

Calls to 101 will, like 999, 111 and many other services, always connect you to the service local to where you are calling from (be it from a landline or mobile). With 101, there is the option of being redirected, as already stated.

Surrey, as should all other Police services, offer a direct geographic number for direct calls from outside the area and from overseas. This number is also available to be used as an alternative by callers within Surrey.

We may believe that the Home Office should have put up the money to make 101 calls free of charge, but apart from this it is very hard to criticise the telephone arrangements. There are some Police services which have not yet complied with the Home Office guidance by publishing the geographic alternative clearly alongside 101. We hope that this failing will shortly be corrected.


There is of course much to criticise about other aspects of Police operations and policy.

I personally have an issue with the fact that the reporting of crime is treated as an "administrative" matter, as dealt with by calls to 101. Not all reporting of crime requires an emergency ("blue light") response, which is what 999 is for. I do however feel uncomfortable with the fact that it is regarded as sufficiently insignificant so as not to justify public expenditure on a free to caller number.

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 11^th, 2012 at 4:05pm:

derrick wrote on Nov 19th, 2011 at 1:39pm: Solicitors claim 0845 is Freephone! Derrick, Have you had no answer or resolution as yet on this from the ASA?

Dear Mr ******



YOUR COMPLAINT ABOUT RAPID RESPONSE SOLICITORS LTD



Thank you for your recent complaint.



We think you have a valid point and, with a view to acting quickly, we instructed Rapid Response Solicitors Ltd to change their ad. We asked them to remove reference to the ‘freephone’ number and not to use this claim in any similar future advertising



We have received assurance from them that they will make the changes discussed and will take every precaution to ensure that this doesn't happen again.



We shouldn’t need to contact you again.  However, in due course, basic information including the advertisers’ name and where the ad appeared will be published on our website, www.asa.org.uk. 



Thank you for taking the time and trouble to write to us.  If you’d like some more information about what we do and the action we’ve taken against advertisers who break the code, please have a look on our website.



Yours sincerely

Well done Derrick good result, you pursued it to the very end

So the - had to change in the end but didn't even have to pay a fine for their cavalier incompetence in relation to correctly describing the price of these calls.  And this from people who are suppose to be experts at getting documents correct!

Yet no member of the public can even ask them a simple question without being subject to numerous hours of extortionate charges at £200+ per hour. >:( :o :'(