The Department for Business Innovation & Skills (BIS) has published a Consultation on the implementation of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU.

This covers the topic that is close to the heart of members of this forum. The Directive requires that companies don't charge above the basic rate for calls to customer service numbers. Often (not always), sales lines are on numbers that don't take a Service Charge, but once in a contract, companies frequently give 084/087 numbers. When the Directive is implemented, it should make it illegal for businesses to do this.


A representative of the fair telecoms campaign was talking about this on BBC Radio 4's You and Yours today. The broadcast can be listened to on BBC Radioplayer here at about 25 minutes 30 seconds.

Dave wrote on Aug 20^th, 2012 at 10:48am:

The Directive requires that companies don't charge above the basic rate for calls to customer service numbers. Often (not always), sales lines are on numbers that don't take a Service Charge, but once in a contract, companies frequently give 084/087 numbers.

Given how (un)successful the ban on such numbers being used for GPs has been, do we have any confidence whatsoever that such legislation would have any teeth?

(Just listening to the prog now - well done David!)

After reading BIS's "EU Consumer Rights Directive: provisions on delivery, passing of risk, communication by telephone and consent for additional payments. Impact assessment", there are two things that worry me:
[list bull-blackball]

In paragraph 27 of the impact assessment, BIS states "084/087 numbers can be low cost to the consumer, with some telephone companies charging calls to 0845/0870 numbers at the same or lower rate than a standard geographic (01,02 or 03) numbers. These calls do, however, involve some kind of revenue-sharing and therefore, the extent to which they can be considered to fulfil the basic rate criteria has to be looked at more closely". It is worrying that BIS considers any possibility that 084/087 numbers might be considered basic rate. We therefore need to present many arguments to BIS of why these numbers should not be considered basic rate.

Article 3 of the Consumer Rights Directive states that the directive shall not apply to contracts in certain industries, e.g. healthcare, gambling, financial services and passenger transport services. It is good news that in paragraph 30 of the impact assessment, BIS states "Costs remain the same per trader, although a slightly larger number of traders will be covered, namely regulated professionals providing healthcare services, providers of private social services (care homes etc.) package travel and timeshare traders". However, it is worrying that BIS is extending the legislation only to package travel and not to all passenger transport services. This means, for example, that Ryanair can continue to operate premium rate phone numbers for complaints, an existing unfair commercial practice that frustrates its customers. It is also puzzling why financial services should be excluded, thereby allowing banks to continue operating unfairly on 0845 numbers. I do not see why any industry should be excluded from the provisions of Article 21 of the directive.

When responding to the consultation, I therefore suggest that we all include these two points in some depth.

NFH wrote on Aug 21^st, 2012 at 9:43am:

I do not see why any industry should be excluded from the provisions of Article 21 of the directive.

Well said - that point is very obvious.

The issue may be simply about the specific and differing regulatory mechanisms used for particular industries. The basic principle of the protection of consumer interests applies equally, even if various mechanisms have to be deployed to achieve the effect. We must also note that this move sits in the context of the changes being enacted by Ofcom within a similar timeframe.

The fair telecoms campaign takes the view that whilst specific regulation has a place, the most important issue is for there to be a general understanding that:

[list bull-redsq]

Calls to all 084 and 087 numbers do, and will continue to, cause callers to incur a charge to the benefit of the person called. [list bull-redsq]

These numbers should only be used where the existence of that charge is declared and justified.
It is the behaviour of companies that has to be changed. Talk of regulations that prohibit an activity, even before they come into effect, is an important way of securing that change in behaviour.

Dave wrote on Aug 20^th, 2012 at 10:48am:

… A representative of the fair telecoms campaign was talking about this on BBC Radio 4's You and Yours today. The broadcast can be listened to on BBC Radioplayer ….

… the extracted item can now be heard permantently at this link.

BBC Coventry and Warwickshire will be covering this tomorrow morning at around 9:30.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 21^st, 2012 at 4:15pm:

BBC Coventry and Warwickshire will be covering this tomorrow morning at around 9:30.

Listen here.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2012 at 11:10am:

Listen here.

Excellent work!

I asked BIS why they were not extending the scope of Article 21 to passenger transport services and financial services, despite extending the scope to healthcare. I received a reply explaining that they do not extend the scope of EU directives unless they see a pressing need and additionally that financial services are covered by industry-specific legislation. They explained that if responses to the consultation provide evidence that there is a problem in these industries regarding Article 21, they would be prepared to reconsider the scope.

I therefore suggest that we all e-mail implementingthecrd@bis.gsi.gov.uk citing many examples of businesses in the passenger transport services and financial services sectors who unfairly charge more than the basic rate for customer services lines. Examples of the former would include budget airlines (e.g. Ryanair's 0871 & 09 numbers) and of the latter would include Co-op Bank (0844 numbers) and Santander (who block their geographic number to UK callers).

This is our biggest chance to outlaw 084 and 087 numbers, so we need to give BIS as much persuasion as possible to include the excluded industries in the forthcoming legislation.

NFH wrote on Aug 27^th, 2012 at 4:25pm:

… I therefore suggest that we all e-mail implementingthecrd@bis.gsi.gov.uk citing many examples …

Hear hear.

The fair telecoms campaign is amongst the organisations formally consulted; we will be providing such a list within our response.

In addition to direct personal representations being made, we would be delighted to receive advice of them, so that our response is comprehensive.


It is important that as many cases as possible are covered by the legislation. There will however inevitably be many exceptions. Our campaigning efforts will be focussed on projecting the idea that use of 084 numbers is considered unsuitable and will therefore be prohibited for certain types of contact.

This will apply considerable pressure to those cases which will not be covered by the legislation. Furthermore, if something is recognised as being wrong and improper, there is no need for a responsible organisation to wait until the day that it is made illegal before ceasing to do it.

---

The final version of the fair telecoms media release, which identifies a number of exceptions, is published here

I might have found the worst offender in the financial services sector. Creation Card Services, which issues a number of credit cards on behalf of Marriott, Flybe and a number of football clubs, uses premium rate 0871 numbers for customer services. There is no justification for such abuse of such prefixes or for the legislation to exempt the financial services sector from complying.

I can see no good excuse for any trade/business/industry should have a Revenue Share number for Complaints/Customer Service lines including Elec, Gas, Water. RAC

All should be made to use the 03 variation before Mobile phone credit runs out waiting for the number to be answered and any problem sorted. 03 is included in all Plans.

I timed the Working Tax Credits line which is 0345 now, I phoned the number with someone I was helping from my landline and the blerb about their website etc at begining took 1.5 mins then 3 mins queuing, 10 mins answering the query Total 14.5 mins.   If this had been the old 0845 on his mobile just not useable.

Why cant GPs be included in this, surely Registration is a Contract - you can only go to another GP in an emergency - if you move you have to Register again with a Local GP - what is that if not a Contract.

Same as if you Subscribe to a Service like Sky of a Magazine and you have a problem why should people have to phone premium numbers just because you are already their Customers and have paid for a Service or Product.

speedy wrote on Oct 6^th, 2012 at 7:14pm:

I can see no good excuse for any trade/business/industry should have a Revenue Share number for Complaints/Customer Service lines including Elec, Gas, Water.

It is vital that responses to the consultation make this point as strongly as possible. The fair telecoms campaign will shortly be publishing further comments on this and attempting to excite public interest, as the deadline of 1 November approaches.

The scope of the relevant provisions must be made as wide as possible, although HMRC, DWP, NHS providers and other public bodies may not be directly covered by the legislation. Once it is clear that Service Charges are unacceptable for certain calls to the private sector, it must be seen as unthinkable that they be retained for the public sector.

Quote:

4. This Directive shall not apply to contracts: (a) for social services, including social housing, childcare and support of families and persons permanently or temporarily in need, including long-term care; (b) for healthcare as defined in point (a) of Article 3 of Directive 2011/24/EU, whether or not they are provided via healthcare facilities; (c) for gambling, which involves wagering a stake with pecuniary value in games of chance, including lotteries, casino games and betting transactions;EN 22.11.2011 Official Journal of the European Union L 304/73 (d)for financial services; (e) for the creation, acquisition or transfer of immovable property or of rights in immovable property; (f) for the construction of new buildings, the substantial conversion of existing buildings and for rental of accommodation for residential purposes; (g) which fall within the scope of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours ( 1 ); (h) which fall within the scope of Directive 2008/122/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 January 2009 on the protection of consumers in respect of certain aspects of timeshare, long-term holiday product, resale and exchange contracts ( 2 ); (i) which, in accordance with the laws of Member States, are established by a public office-holder who has a statutory obligation to be independent and impartial and who must ensure, by providing comprehensive legal information, that the consumer only concludes the contract on the basis of careful legal consideration and with knowledge of its legal scope; (j) for the supply of foodstuffs, beverages or other goods intended for current consumption in the household, and which are physically supplied by a trader on frequent and regular rounds to the consumer’s home, residence or workplace; (k) for passenger transport services, with the exception of Article 8(2) and Articles 19 and 22; (l) concluded by means of automatic vending machines or automated commercial premises; (m) concluded with telecommunications operators through public payphones for their use or concluded for the use of one single connection by telephone, Internet or fax established by a consumer.

Knowing how this government works, it will drag out implementing this for as long as it can (like it has already) and going by the exclusions in section 4 there won't be many, if any, (main) companies left that this would apply to.

bbb_uk wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 8:49pm:

Knowing how this government works, it will drag out implementing this for as long as it can (like it has already) and going by the exclusions in section 4 there won't be many, if any, (main) companies left that this would apply to.

Implementation will indeed be dragged out for as long as possible. Draft regulations will be published shortly and comments will be invited. The necessary SIs will go before parliament in the Autumn, so as to meet the deadline of the end of the year for being applied in legislation. Implementation will be by the middle of 2014 - ahead of implementation of the unbundled tariff provisions from Ofcom.

The issue of exclusions was covered in the consultation.The scope that has been achieved by negotiation between Departments (notably the Department of Transport) will be seen in the draft regulations, shortly. I believe that pressure should be applied to the FCA to introduce parallel, or perhaps stricter, regulations covering providers of Financial Services. When the form of the draft regulations is published, this will provide a strong basis for representations to the FCA. (I personally believe that the FCA is a more suitable target than the Treasury, however I would be very happy to hear alternative views.)

Pressure on government bodies providing public services is a separate issue, as they cannot be covered by this type of regulation, nor indeed those proposed by Ofcom. The argument that the government cannot itself do what it prohibits others from doing is however powerful, and is being deployed. Members have not raised any points of discussion in this thread, so this is probably not an issue of significant interest.

I personally don't think this directive is going to do much due to the years before its actually implemented and the fact that a lot of companies are excluded.

I can't figure out why there are so many exclusions?  The only companies left that this will apply to will be mostly the smaller one-man band type companies and as it's actually rare that these type of companies use NGNs (specifically 0844) then it will be a useless directive.


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 9:28pm:

Pressure on government bodies providing public services is a separate issue, as they cannot be covered by this type of regulation, nor indeed those proposed by Ofcom. The argument that the government cannot itself do what it prohibits others from doing is however powerful, and is being deployed. Members have not raised any points of discussion in this thread, so this is probably not an issue of significant interest.

Members are probably fed up with Ofcom having a (seemingly) vested interest in keeping these numbers active for their stakeholders than what is in the interest of us consumers   >:(

The new consumer regulations cover only a small number of business sectors and are likely, at least initially, to be ignored by many of those that should comply.

Is that a good reason to not proceed with change and to continue with the current unsatisfactory arrangements?

I think not.

Once the various regulations are in place for one sector of business, it will make things much easier to force change in other areas.

As I understand the current situation, finance is not covered by "consumer" regulation, but instead by a completely separate set of "financial" regulations. Likewise for several other sectors.

Compliance will likely be low to begin with, but I'll take every business that does make the change as a bonus.

There will never be 100% compliance, but I'll take any percentage above zero as a success.

Complaints call costs to be capped
The government is promising to limit the cost of calling telephone numbers for customer inquiries and complaints from next summer...


Quote:

Under new legislation, companies will be prevented from charging more than the rate for a call to a mobile or local landline number

Is this correct because the cost of calling mobiles, from a landline, costs around 15ppm isn't it at certain times which means 0844 numbers will be exempt so only really the regulated 09x premium rate numbers would come under this new directive.


Quote:

David Hickson, of the Fair Telecoms Campaign, welcomed the government's decision, telling the BBC: "We've seen the words in the draft legislation. There's no get-outs. There's no cop-outs."

Is this the same draft that is mentioned in an earlier post because when I read it, a lot of companies using 0844 numbers could potentially be exempt as there were a lot of exemptions.

The "normal" cost of a call (the money billed for the call itself based both on the length of the call and on the time of day that it is made) to an 01 or 02 number, for the vast majority of callers, is ZERO.

The amount paid when calling an 0844 number, whether it be 5p/min from BT, 12p/min from Virgin Media, 25p/min from Orange or 41p/min from Virgin Mobile, is nearly always more than zero.

Similar comparisons apply with all other 084 and 087 numbers.

Another important point to note is that BT call prices for 084 and 087 numbers are NOT typical, nor are the call prices for 0870 numbers from other landline providers, as these are the only ones that are regulated.

What is important is the presence of the Service Charge when calling an 084 or 087 number and which Ofcom will shortly require to be declared.

Ian G wrote on Aug 6^th, 2013 at 7:18pm:

The "normal" cost of a call (the money billed for the call itself based both on the length of the call and on the time of day that it is made) to an 01 or 02 number, for the vast majority of callers, is ZERO. The amount paid when calling an 0844 number, whether it be 5p/min from BT, 12p/min from Virgin Media, 25p/min from Orange or 41p/min from Virgin Mobile, is nearly always more than zero...

Although true, it's highly unlikely the government will agree.  They are likely to see it as the cost of an 01/02 call for those without an inclusive package.

bbb_uk wrote on Aug 6^th, 2013 at 5:40pm:

Quote: Under new legislation, companies will be prevented from charging more than the rate for a call to a mobile or local landline number Is this correct because the cost of calling mobiles, from a landline, costs around 15ppm isn't it at certain times which means 0844 numbers will be exempt so only really the regulated 09x premium rate numbers would come under this new directive.

No this is not correct, the quoted comment is attempting to get the gist of the requirement, but it is not expressed in those terms.


bbb_uk wrote on Aug 6^th, 2013 at 5:40pm:

Quote: David Hickson, of the Fair Telecoms Campaign, welcomed the government's decision, telling the BBC: "We've seen the words in the draft legislation. There's no get-outs. There's no cop-outs." Is this the same draft that is mentioned in an earlier post because when I read it, a lot of companies using 0844 numbers could potentially be exempt as there were a lot of exemptions.

There are two different points here.

The terms of the requirement are carefully drafted to explicitly prohibit use of 084 / 087 numbers. That was the (unusual) clarity being referred to by the quoted remark - taken from a live interview.

Whilst certain complexities of implementation mean that the present draft regulations do not include all businesses, they lay down a clear marker indicating the unsuitability of 084/087 numbers for customer enquiries - a position that the government takes and must defend against complaints from those to whom it applies. This then makes it very difficult for the government to justify its own use of 084/087 numbers and for those who are not covered to answer the charge that they are exploiting a loophole.

The enforcement of regulations is one way in which the behaviour of individuals and companies is determined - it is not the only way.

Why are banks, train operators and airlines exempt from this latest ruling?

sherbert wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 10:53am:

Why are banks, train operators and airlines exempt from this latest ruling?

This is a very good question.

We are seeking for it to be put to the Department for Transport and the Financial Conduct Authority in the following form:


Quote:

BIS has determined that vulnerable consumers need protection from "rogue traders". Why does this not apply to the consumers that you protect?

See Completing the removal of "rip-off" customer support telephone numbers.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 2:04am:

The terms of the requirement are carefully drafted to explicitly prohibit use of 084 / 087 numbers. That was the (unusual) clarity being referred to by the quoted remark - taken from a live interview.

I must have missed the bit where they clearly state 084/087 are prohibited when I scanned through it.


Quote:

Whilst certain complexities of implementation mean that the present draft regulations do not include all businesses, they lay down a clear marker indicating the unsuitability of 084/087 numbers for customer enquiries - a position that the government takes and must defend against complaints from those to whom it applies. This then makes it very difficult for the government to justify its own use of 084/087 numbers and for those who are not covered to answer the charge that they are exploiting a loophole.

So it's only a wish that the regulations will apply to all equally and us consumers have to hope the goodwill of the government will enforce this equally across the board rather than exempt themselves, financial instiutions (banks, insurance companies), airlines and other users who are generally the biggest users of these number ranges anyhow.

sherbert wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 10:53am:

Why are banks, train operators and airlines exempt from this latest ruling?

Call me a cynic but maybe so the government can continue to allow the biggest users of these stealth premium rate numbers to continue as they are (including themselves).

It just doesn't make sense to exclude the largest users of these numbers, leaving only a small minority that this directive will eventually apply to.

bbb_uk wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

I must have missed the bit where they clearly state 084/087 are prohibited when I scanned through it.

None of the four categories of permitted number covers 084/087 - nor any other similar number range that may arise in future. If 0845 were to be re-designated to have the same characteristics as 03 (should Ofcom change its mind again!) then it would become permissible, however for now all 084/087 numbers are prohibited. (Note that the NTNP will be revised before these draft regulations come into force).


bbb_uk wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

So it's only a wish that the regulations will apply to all equally and us consumers have to hope the goodwill of the government will enforce this equally across the board rather than exempt themselves, financial instiutions (banks, insurance companies), airlines and other users who are generally the biggest users of these number ranges anyhow.

There may be a serious prospect of removing the exemption for passenger transport from these particular regulations. I believe that the FCA is a better shot than the Treasury in respect of Banks etc., but this would be through a separate instrument. The Cabinet Office is currently addressing the situation with the government - which is not generally subjected to statutory regulation by the UK parliament. These particular regulations could never be expected to have universal application.

Happily there are some who engage in active campaigning and dialogue, rather than hoping that the goodwill of the government will make all things right. It is also possible for organisations to abandon 084/087 numbers without being compelled to do so.


bbb_uk wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 12:34pm:

It just doesn't make sense to exclude the largest users of these numbers, leaving only a small minority that this directive will eventually apply to.

I have not taken the trouble to explore just why the EU Directive offered member states the opportunity to exempt passenger transport, or how the balance of use of non-basic rate numbers between sectors falls across the EU, so as to make sense of the original Directive. I do not accept the suggestion that (for the sake of being sensible) BIS should have dropped the proposal because it failed to secure the support of the Department for Transport. Regulation of the financial services market is always undertaken separately, but I do not wish to debate the logic of that fact of life.

My personal view is that it is best to attempt to get a more sensible outcome by pressing for completion of the process, by whatever means this may be achieved. I am not given to assessing whether the glass is ½, ¼ or ¾ empty or full. I will celebrate any worthwhile content for what it is. If I see the possibility of adding more of the right material to the glass, then that is where I will direct my attention.

The press release from the Government is here:

Government cuts off costly calls


Quote:

Whilst many firms already offer freephone or basic rate numbers, consumers can find that some traders provide an 0800 or free phone number for pre-contract calls to lure people in, but then only offer expensive premium rate numbers when the customer has paid for a product or service. Everyday examples, such as a security company offering a freephone number for new enquiries yet expecting existing customers to call an 0844 number to report a fault, would be stopped under the measures. The government believes it is inappropriate for callers to pay high call charges for accessing vital public services and the Cabinet Office will be publishing guidance for departments’ use of number prefixes shortly.

Dave wrote on Dec 13^th, 2013 at 3:33pm:

The press release from the Government is here: Government cuts off costly calls

This is very good news indeed.

It begins with this welcome statement :---
"Customers calling helplines to complain about their faulty microwaves or incorrect train tickets will no longer have to pay more than the basic rate, ...." 
And
" ...... the government will put an end to expensive premium, 084 and 087 numbers for customers calling airlines, train operators, and major high street and online retailers. "

This begs the question of what is the basic rate ?

Later it gives a short table showing comparative call costs.   This is an extract showing landline originated calls only :---

"Calling from a landline

0845 1 to 11p per minute, plus a set up fee of up to 14p 
0844 1 to 13p per minute 

Calls between landlines are typically charged up to 10p per minute "

Presumable this last line is their answer to what is the basic rate .

Is it misleading and substantially inaccurate because it does not mention geographic numbers nor geographic rate numbers nor that for these numbers the rate is TYPICALLY zero pence per minute as they are pre-paid within packages?   Most customers will be using pre-paid packages because that is what industry statistics indicate.   The "up to 10p" rate is the exceptional rate for calls made outside the terms of a package.   

One wonders why the officials who drafted and authorised this press release presented the charges in this way?

The prices in the BIS press release probably come from Ofcom's "number crunching" document.

Ultimate clarity would be achieved if the information were presented in terms of Service Charge and Access Charge vs. geographic rate. However, Ofcom only published their documentation yesterday and it doesn't take effect for another 18 months. Life would be much simpler if Ofcom weren't a year behind schedule.


The "Basic Rate" has no specific price level. It is whatever YOU pay for calls to 01 and 02 numbers.

More importantly, the call price for a "Basic Rate" number does NOT include a fee (i.e. a Service Charge) paid to the benefit of the called party.

The regulations also allow "ordinary mobile numbers" as might be used by small traders.

The Independent carried this story yesterday (Thursday 12 December) with the headline :---
Freephone will mean free - even for mobiles: Ofcom confirms change for 2015

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/freephone-will-mean-free--even-for-mobiles-ofcom-confirms-change-for-2015-8999856.html?origin=internalSearch

In its second sentence the Indy started reporting and quoting extensively from the Press release issued today !! :---

"Meanwhile expensive helpline numbers operated by airlines, train operators, and major high street and online retailers, will be banned.

Two major announcements yesterday heralded cheaper calls to businesses and easier to understand phone charges."

The Independent seems to offer two stories for the price of one!    :-? :-[

The Independent published a short story about Ofcom's proposals yesterday morning.

Yesterday evening they added the stuff about BIS on the end of the original story.

Most other newspapers ran this as two separate stories on consecutive days.

loddon wrote on Dec 13^th, 2013 at 8:45pm:

Quote: Calls between landlines are typically charged up to 10p per minute Presumable this last line is their answer to what is the basic rate . Is it misleading and substantially inaccurate because it does not mention geographic numbers nor geographic rate numbers nor that for these numbers the rate is TYPICALLY zero pence per minute as they are pre-paid within packages?   Most customers will be using pre-paid packages because that is what industry statistics indicate.   The "up to 10p" rate is the exceptional rate for calls made outside the terms of a package.

The assumption is false.

The actual definition of basic rate, for the purposes of the regulation, is contained in the guidance associated with the regulations. This covers the messy situation that will continue to exist until the Ofcom measures come into effect in June 2015. It confirms the key purpose declared in the body of the news release (rather than in the supplementary "notes to editors" from which the quoted extract is taken):


Quote:

put an end to expensive premium, 084 and 087 numbers for customers

The text of the regulations, the guidance (which will be considered by a regulator or court when assessing any case) and the "analysis of comments", which explains how BIS has balanced the various stakeholder interests, are covered by the policy detail statement, which was published yesterday afternoon. All those who engaged with BIS during the discussions over the provisions were advised of this publication at the time it was made.


There may be some who would wish to present the requirements in public as permitting continuing use of 084 and 087 numbers, by highly selective use of a quotation to support a false assumption. We see it as important that the objective of achieving cessation of improper use of 084/087 numbers is not undermined by publication of false and misleading statements.

We cannot deny the reality that calls to 0800 or 084/087 numbers are sometimes cheaper than calls to geographic rate numbers, and sometimes not, at present. BIS has had to address this, despite the fact that there is no equality in the incidence of such cases. Furthermore, media editors want to see actual numbers, even though these might be misleading, and BIS has responded to this demand. There is no need for reference to "typical" costs in the regulations or guidance - the assumption that there is such reference must be seen as ill-informed, at best.

For those who may be thinking back to a recent situation where the issue of perverse costs was deliberately misrepresented by interested parties, BIS makes it perfectly clear that the current perverse charges relate to the circumstances of a particular caller, not a particular number. It is also able to confirm that its commentary on what is "basic rate" may be revised once the Ofcom measures have been implemented.

Good Afternoon,

Having just noticed a comment made by Dave I wanted to clarify something...

with the CRD comes into force.. will the following area's be covered by the changes?

Transport Operators / Providers of Transport Information - such as: National Rail Enquiries/Traveline/Train Companies/Bus Companies

Government Departments - such as: DWP/Job Centre Plus

I am aware that Insurance is excluded as are Banks which is a pity along with rather oddly vending machines!  :o

CJT-80 wrote on Jan 14^th, 2014 at 4:27pm:

Having just noticed a comment made by Dave I wanted to clarify something... with the CRD comes into force.. will the following area's be covered by the changes? Transport Operators / Providers of Transport Information - such as: National Rail Enquiries/Traveline/Train Companies/Bus Companies Government Departments - such as: DWP/Job Centre Plus I am aware that Insurance is excluded as are Banks which is a pity along with rather oddly vending machines!  :o

The fair telecoms campaign has produced a full explanation of the Consumer Rights Directive UK law, including exemptions.

Insurance companies come under "financial services". Government Departments are not public bodies and therefore not private companies so aren't affected by the Consumer Rights Directive.

However, the Government has published guidance on the use of phone numbers which should achieve the same outcome.

Thank you Dave for the links..

Can I just clarify that the organisations I have listed would therefore be covered by this?

I intend to contact a few and do not wish to make a case towards them if I have not got the information correct.

I appreciate Govt Departments are covered differently.

Traveline is still a private business as is National Rail Enquiries.

So am I right in thinking both of those are covered by the CRD?

CJT-80 wrote on Jan 14^th, 2014 at 5:21pm:

Traveline is still a private business as is National Rail Enquiries. So am I right in thinking both of those are covered by the CRD?

It's a good question and one I'm not sure of the answer to.

National Rail Enquiries is provided by ATOC.

The Traveline website says "Traveline Information Ltd is a partnership of transport operators and local authorities formed to provide impartial and comprehensive information about public transport. It operates in Scotland, England and Wales."

Traveline from that link advises to send all post to an address care of CPT which is the Confederation of Passenger Transport.

Perhaps contacting the Department of BIS is a better idea first..

CJT-80 wrote on Jan 14^th, 2014 at 6:01pm:

Traveline from that link advises to send all post to an address care of CPT which is the Confederation of Passenger Transport. Perhaps contacting the Department of BIS is a better idea first..

We're going off topic talking about Traveline, so if you think it'll be worthwhile to continue discussion, please start a new thread — I suppose that the Government and Public Sector section is the most appropriate place.

There are two different issues being raised here with regard to those who are on the borders of the scope of the legislation arising from the CRD:
[list bull-redball]

Could action be taken against them through the courts for using non-compliant telephone numbers
 

Will they switch to compliant numbers
Our hope is that all will switch because it is the right thing to do, regardless of the risk of being subject to legal action. That is not to say that the latter does not help the decision process, but the decision to switch is the only issue that truly matters.

Think I'm posting this in the right thread but I've just noticed this on the BBC news website, they STILL don't get that there is no local rate!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27833551

Barbara wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 5:15pm:

Think I'm posting this in the right thread but I've just noticed this on the BBC news website, they STILL don't get that there is no local rate! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27833551

You can give them feedback about it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/21012132

It's factually incorrect....

EDIT:

I decided to give them my own feedback:

"The article linked to above contains the following information: "Companies are also prevented from charging more than a local rate for a customer inquiry or complaint call."

This is factually incorrect as calls are to be charged at no more then a "geographic" rate. There is no such thing as a Local Call..

I would of expected the BBC to have checked this information before displaying it on their website.

More information on this is in Section J of the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/310044/bis-13-1368-consumer-contracts-information-cancellation-and-additional-payments-regulations-guidance.pdf#page=23&zoom=auto,0,580

The information is quite clear: Geographic Rate (01/02/03), FreePhone 080* or Mobile numbers. (*Some mobile providers charge for calls to 080 numbers, but this is due to change)

I would kindly ask you to check and then amend this incorrect information.

Kind Regards."

Hopefully it sum's it up enough for them.

How does this affect private individuals who obtained 0844 numbers to give to companies who only offered 0844 numbers?


.

My guess is...

Not at all.

I see there have been posts re compliance in a number of threads but I thought it best to use this one.  I have noticed that a number of NGN users are providing a mix of numbers, eg Eurotunnel where an 03 number is provided but buried fairly deep among a load of 084 numbers!  I find it significant that their "latest travel information" section only shows the 084 numbers, even earlier this week when they had major problems.   I have noticed that a free catalogue company give an 084 number for orders but, less prominently, an 03 number for queries.   A card protection company (not sure if this counts as financial services or is exempt but they are selling something) still only give an 084 number, except for overseas customers (it does work for the UK, have use it previously). 

To me, it seems that many organisations are paying lip service to the regulations in that, buried deep or on less relevant webpages, is an 03 number but the number(s) given greatest prominence are still the 084/087 numbers.   While great strides forward have been made with this directive, I do think OFCOM will have to keep a close eye on the situation & it might be a good idea if the regs could be slightly amended to state that 01, 02 & 03 numbers should be give equal prominence or, even better, that companies should have to use just 01, 02, 03 (or Freephone with geo alternatives for mobile users).  The current situation is going to cause further confusion to consumers and lead to them still being exploited by the unscrupulous.

(I know what will be said in reply about the unbundled tariff & also accept it is early days but it is something to watch.)

You're right that a number of companies appear to have done the bare minimum they think they can get away with. In some cases what they have done falls short of what they are legally required to do. Those cases should be reported to the Consumer Helpline on 0345 404 0506.

The BIS guidelines do state (on page 23 or so) that the "basic rate" number must have no less prominence.

I would hope that BIS are keeping an eye on the situation. Ofcom are not involved. Presumably BIS get to see what action Trading Standards has taken.

Barbara wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 12:16pm:

… While great strides forward have been made with this directive, I do think OFCOM will have to keep a close eye on the situation & it might be a good idea if the regs could be slightly amended to state that 01, 02 & 03 numbers should be give equal prominence or, even better, that companies should have to use just 01, 02, 03 (or Freephone with geo alternatives for mobile users).  The current situation is going to cause further confusion to consumers and lead to them still being exploited by the unscrupulous.

I agree with the points that are made, but would add the following comments.

Enforcement of these regulations has nothing to do with Ofcom. Those who incur additional cost in having to call a non-basic rate number are entitled to recover it, if necessary through the courts. The Citizens Advice Consumer Service will advise consumers and potentially pass cases through to the relevant Trading Standards department. Trading Standards offices have powers to intervene, although in the vast majority of cases they would do little more than speak with the organisation to make them aware of their responsibilities under the law. (Their resources are very limited and must be focussed on very serious cases.)

The BIS Guidance that accompanies the regulations states
Quote:

the ‘basic rate’ compliant telephone number should be communicated as prominently as one that is not.

(see point #8 at this link.)

No regulation will ever prevent exploitation by the unscrupulous. Limited enforcement resources must be focussed on the most serious cases. The fair telecoms campaign is doing all it can to clear up some areas of confusion around the fringes of the regulations. Once this has been done, we will seek greater publicity for the clarified terms of the regulations to both traders and consumers.

Could someone give me some advice/information please?   I have mentioned in a couple of posts that Eurotunnel are showing mainly 0844 numbers (with an 03 number hidden deep in the Contact us page).   Are they compliant with the CRD by doing this or would it be considered inadequate?  I am thinking of emailing their CEO about this (and their declining service!) but need to be certain of the facts first.  Is what they are doing adequate and is it satisfactory to provide only an 0844 number on their Latest Travel Update page as a number to call when the service is disrupted?   Thanks for the help.

Barbara wrote on Aug 4^th, 2014 at 8:40am:

Could someone give me some advice/information please?   I have mentioned in a couple of posts that Eurotunnel are showing mainly 0844 numbers (with an 03 number hidden deep in the Contact us page).   Are they compliant with the CRD by doing this or would it be considered inadequate?  I am thinking of emailing their CEO about this (and their declining service!) but need to be certain of the facts first.  Is what they are doing adequate and is it satisfactory to provide only an 0844 number on their Latest Travel Update page as a number to call when the service is disrupted?   Thanks for the help.

Unless its to do with package travel they should publish a basic customer service number .

The Govt Guidelines cover your points.

Do the regulations say that I have to provide a telephone helpline?

J 7. No. Regulation 41 on charges for customer helplines only applies if you offer a telephone line on which consumers can contact you about something they have bought.

8. Nor does the Regulation require that all numbers operated by a business are at a basic rate. Only that where the trader provides a telephone line so that the consumer can contact them about a contract concluded, there should
be a number available on which the consumer can call for this purpose at no more than the basic rate. For example, as there are times when consumers
may prefer 0845 numbers to geographic numbers it may be desirable in some circumstances to maintain both access numbers. If traders take this approach the ‘basic rate’ compliant telephone number should be communicated as
prominently as one that is not.
9. Sales lines, and those offering services paid for through a phone bill (e.g. a
weatherline) are unaffected.

Thanks bigjohn.  It seems that they are sort of compliant in that there is an 03 number for post sales etc buried in the contact us page among a load of 0844 number so they do have a compliant number but it is not as prominent nor displayed on the page people who need information when there is disruption are going to use.  I doubt if this is enough of a failure to comply to bring about action either by Eurotunnel or any regulatory authority - would you agree?   Or do you think I should pursue this with their CEO as they are not complying with the spirit of the CRD?   Or is there a better person/organisation to contact this who might pursue it?

Barbara wrote on Aug 5^th, 2014 at 1:19pm:

Thanks bigjohn.  It seems that they are sort of compliant in that there is an 03 number for post sales etc buried in the contact us page among a load of 0844 number so they do have a compliant number but it is not as prominent nor displayed on the page people who need information when there is disruption are going to use.  I doubt if this is enough of a failure to comply to bring about action either by Eurotunnel or any regulatory authority - would you agree?   Or do you think I should pursue this with their CEO as they are not complying with the spirit of the CRD?   Or is there a better person/organisation to contact this who might pursue it?

You could try Consumer Direct who will pass it to the local Trading Standards department, but don't hold your breath waiting for TS to do anything.

.

derrick wrote on Aug 6^th, 2014 at 11:34am:

You could try Consumer Direct who will pass it to the local Trading Standards department, but don't hold your breath waiting for TS to do anything.

Consumer Direct has now become the Citizens Advice Consumer Service on 0345 4 04 05 06.

Their role is to give advice about your rights as a consumer. They will also pass cases to the relevant "home authority" Trading Standards department for investigation and possible action. Trading Standards departments are not well resourced these days and have to deal with cases according to priority. Given the amount of harm caused by other breaches of consumer regulation, it is unlikely that any enforcement action would be taken in a case such as this, although trading standards officers may make contact with the business to explain their duties under the law.

The fair telecoms campaign is currently working on a few prominent cases, in conjunction with Trading Standards departments. A media briefing will be issued shortly and we will be grateful to receive any information about cases such as this.

Barbara wrote on Aug 5^th, 2014 at 1:19pm:

Thanks bigjohn.  It seems that they are sort of compliant in that there is an 03 number for post sales etc buried in the contact us page among a load of 0844 number so they do have a compliant number but it is not as prominent nor displayed on the page people who need information when there is disruption are going to use.  I doubt if this is enough of a failure to comply to bring about action either by Eurotunnel or any regulatory authority - would you agree?   Or do you think I should pursue this with their CEO as they are not complying with the spirit of the CRD?   Or is there a better person/organisation to contact this who might pursue it?

Hi Barbara. If it was me i would write to the CEO to see what his response is first. You never know it might do the trick.Plus i would pass on any useful info i might have to SCV to assist him with his media briefing .

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 6^th, 2014 at 3:02pm:

derrick wrote on Aug 6th, 2014 at 11:34am: You could try Consumer Direct who will pass it to the local Trading Standards department, but don't hold your breath waiting for TS to do anything. Consumer Direct has now become the Citizens Advice Consumer Service on 0345 4 04 05 06. Their role is to give advice about your rights as a consumer. They will also pass cases to the relevant "home authority" Trading Standards department for investigation and possible action. Trading Standards departments are not well resourced these days and have to deal with cases according to priority. Given the amount of harm caused by other breaches of consumer regulation, it is unlikely that any enforcement action would be taken in a case such as this, although trading standards officers may make contact with the business to explain their duties under the law. The fair telecoms campaign is currently working on a few prominent cases, in conjunction with Trading Standards departments. A media briefing will be issued shortly and we will be grateful to receive any information about cases such as this.

Yes I know, but old habits die hard, it is actually answered as "Welcome to the Consumer Helpline", I use the 0808 number as it is free from my landline.

I do have a case "in progress" re CPC, http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1403515755/15#15   The Consumer Helpline told on me 09-07-14 me they would report to TS and if I wanted an update to call back at a later date, I did this on Wednesday 05th August, (4 weeks later), and was advised that they had no feed back and to email LCC TS with an FOI to find out what, if anything, they have done, I did this on 06-08-14, the reply stated: 

"I write further to your email of 6 August, in which you request the disclosure of information regarding complaint to Trading Standards.  Your request has been passed to this team to process under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
The deadline date for issuing you with a full response is 4 September. We will endeavour to provide a response well in advance of this date, however, should we envisage any delays, or require more details from you, we will contact you immediately."

So another month to wait!

.

derrick wrote on Aug 8^th, 2014 at 12:36pm:

I … was advised … to email LCC TS with an FOI

I see this as an abuse of the FOI request process. A request for information, under the formal terms of the Act, should never be a routine matter. The purpose of the FOIA is to ensure that information is always provided whenever it is appropriate; formal requests, which must always go through a complex process, are to deal with exceptional circumstances.

As suggested in my previous post, I suspect the best that can be expected is a Trading Standards officer having contacted the company to explain its duties. It is, of course, possible that this may do the trick and I would be delighted to be proved to have been too pessimistic about the level of generosity shown in use of the Council Taxes paid by the people of Lancashire.

It is also possible that the advised switch to a geographic number for customer enquiries is indeed in hand!

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 8^th, 2014 at 2:45pm:

derrick wrote on Aug 8th, 2014 at 12:36pm: I … was advised … to email LCC TS with an FOI I see this as an abuse of the FOI request process. A request for information, under the formal terms of the Act, should never be a routine matter. The purpose of the FOIA is to ensure that information is always provided whenever it is appropriate; formal requests, which must always go through a complex process, are to deal with exceptional circumstances. As suggested in my previous post, I suspect the best that can be expected is a Trading Standards officer having contacted the company to explain its duties. It is, of course, possible that this may do the trick and I would be delighted to be proved to have been too pessimistic about the level of generosity shown in use of the Council Taxes paid by the people of Lancashire. It is also possible that the advised switch to a geographic number for customer enquiries is indeed in hand!

It is not something I would have done normally, but as Consumer Advice suggested it, I thought I would give it a try, after all I had waited nearly 4 weeks without any response and CA also had no feedback!

The problem is LCC TS are not proactive at feedback, I know from previous experience that you have to push at every point, and even then it is usually something on the lines of "we have no resources", these are criminal offences but they don't seem bothered, maybe if some of the TS got together and actually prosecuted a couple of these law breakers as high profile cases, the rest might come into line with the law! You suggest that "a Trading Standards officer having contacted the company to explain its duties." Well I very much doubt that.

From replies I have received from CPC, (posted in the thread linked to in post #51 above), they will get one "in due course", due course is meaningless, they have been breaking the law for nearly 2 months and despite my informing them and providing links and quotes to the legislation they continue along in their own sweet way, like a lot of other companies until they are prosecuted!


.

derrick wrote on Aug 9^th, 2014 at 10:23am:

It is not something I would have done normally … The problem is LCC TS are not proactive at feedback

My reference to "an abuse of the FOI request process" was to the behaviour of Trading Standards departments, as advised by CA. If the FOIA requires them to provide updates on the progress of cases that have been reported through CA, then they should be providing this information as a matter of routine - not awaiting specific requests.


derrick wrote on Aug 9^th, 2014 at 10:23am:

these are criminal offences … maybe if some of the TS got together and actually prosecuted a couple of these law breakers as high profile cases, the rest might come into line with the law!

The Consumer Contract Regulations do not establish use of an expensive number for contact by customers as a criminal offence. They provide for customers recovering the excess cost incurred, if necessary through the civil courts. It is open to Trading Standards departments to impose requirements on specific companies to cease using expensive numbers, with the possibility of a breach of such a requirement potentially becoming a criminal contempt of court, but that could only happen in a very extreme case.

Barbara wrote on Aug 5^th, 2014 at 1:19pm:

… there is an 03 number for post sales etc buried in the contact us page among a load of 0844 number so they do have a compliant number but it is not as prominent nor displayed on the page people who need information when there is disruption are going to use.

I have had a look at the Eurotunnel (le shuttle) "Contact us" web page.

The number for "postsale and any other queries" - 0345 7 35 35 35 - appears to be shown with due prominence, although existing "Flexiplus" customers could be misled into not using this number for their enquiries.

I agree that the premium recorded information service on 0844 463 0000 is most likely to used by existing customers (of both Eurotunnel and its agents) and should therefore never be promoted without the basic rate query number being shown with equal prominence. The page for "Latest Travel Information" is therefore an example of a breach.

I would hope that Eurotunnel could be readily persuaded to correct this error, by simply adding the alternative number that exists to this page. (Unlike others, I do not share the detail of private exchanges or specific campaigning tactics on this public site.)

bigjohn & SCV, I have just sent an email to the CEO of Eurotunnel politely asking if they intend to change the 0844 number, if so when.  I also asked if they do not intend to do this why not & why do they think they do not need to make the change.  I will post details of any reply.  Thank you again for your advice.

At long last, I've a "reply" from Eurotunnel, the CEO didn't bother to deal with it himself, passed to Customer Relations which in itself does not impress me.  I quote:

"I note your comments regarding our Travel Information telephone number.  The Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013 require that businesses make an 03 number available to all its customers for post contract enquiries. Eurotunnel complies with this obligation. The 03 number is free and available for use for by customers for all enquiries including travel updates.

It should also be noted that travel update information is provided on our web page. The information on the web page is information is free to users. The message on that page states 'This information is also available via our 24 hour (recorded) service information...' followed by the 0844 number. There is no difference in the message available via the 0844 number or on our website.  It is also important to note that the 0844 number is not dedicated for the use of commercial passengers - it is a service which is also used by our freight business customers. The Consumer Contracts Regulations do not apply to business customers."

I don't know if what they say is correct or not, it certainly does not seem in the spirit of the regulations and since when weren't freight business customers also "customers" under the Regs?  I'd be interested to hear from anyone on the accuracy of their statement.

Interestingly, I made a further complaint about waiting time problems on our return this year & have been offered a discount voucher BUT I am expected to ring an 0844 number to use it!!!!   I shall reply asking for an alternative means of contact to use the voucher and point out that I can't use it at the moment as they have, yet again, delayed opening their bookings for next year beyond May (one always used to be able to book 12 months ahead).

Barbara wrote on Sep 11^th, 2014 at 10:19am:

At long last, I've a "reply" from Eurotunnel, the CEO didn't bother to deal with it himself, passed to Customer Relations which in itself does not impress me. …

I disagree with the interpretation of the regulations presented.

When calling a number …
"in relation to contracts entered into with trader, a consumer contacting the trader must not be bound to pay more than the basic rate".


It is of no relevance that some uses of a "non-basic rate" number are not covered by the regulation and that other contact numbers are available for other purposes.

Appearance of a number on a website is only indicative of a breach - the regulation covers contact by telephone, not use of the internet. If it is of any relevance that the same information as offered by a telephone number is also available on the website, then one must question why it is shown there!
The answer is surely - for customers to note the number so as to be able to get an update when they do not have internet access.  :-?


Looking at the webpage - http://www.eurotunnel.com/uk/contact-us/ - my personal view is that a simple change to the text to reflect the comments in the "reply" would do the job - i.e.


Quote:

For postsale and any other queries (including the latest travel information) please call      +44 (0) 3457 35 35 35

This would remove the invitation for consumers to pay more than the basic rate in order to obtain travel information relevant to their contract.


With effect from 26 June 2015, all references to the 0844 numbers will have to include the statement "Calls to this number cost x per minute plus your phone company's access charge".

In the case of the recorded information number - 0844 463 0000 - 'x' is currently 2p (it is 7p for the Reservations and Insurance queries number - 0844 335 3535). Given that the "Access Charge" for the recorded information number can currently be as high as 39p per minute, one wonders why Eurotunnel is happy to damage its reputation and the pockets of its current and intended customers, when the major beneficiaries are the telephone companies.