John Lewis have switched their store contact numbers from geo to 0844. Their standard response to complaints about this includes the following utter nonsense:

Quote:

The number has been put in place to reflect a move to a centralised contact handling operation and allows all customers, no matter where they live, to call us at the same cost. An 0844 number, depending on your calling plan, can be less expensive than an 01/02 geographic number. It is more and more frequently included in mobile calling packages and can cost less than calling an 01/02 number from a landline, particularly during the day when most customers call us.

Particular shame on John Lewis who have a reputation as an ethical company. So far Waitrose have not followed suit.

It is a shame that John Lewis have chosen to damage their reputation for good customer service by using 0845 and 0844 numbers.    You would think that with their highly thought of approach to customer care they would be more careful about this issue.

However, their attitude is not totally beyond redemption as can be seen in the "Contact us" part of their website which states :---

"Contact us @johnlewis.com

If your query relates to order tracking, please click here.

If you're experiencing difficulties placing an order, please email us with details of the problem and we'll try to resolve it as quickly as possible. Alternatively you can contact our Customer Service team on 08456 049 049 to place your order.

If you'd like to ask a question, make a comment on your experience of using johnlewis.com, or tell us you're not happy with a product or service you've received, please contact us through one of the methods below.
◾By email
Complete our online form to send an email to our Customer Service team. We aim to respond to your email within 24 hours of receipt
◾By telephone
Call our Customer Service team on 08456 049 049, any time between 7am and midnight, 7 days a week. (Please refer to your service provider for call charges.)
◾By telephone from abroad
Call +44 (0)1698 54 54 54
◾By fax
Fax us on 08456 049 050. (Please refer to your service provider for call charges.)
◾By post
Write to: Customer Services, johnlewis.com, PO Box 19615, Erskine PA8 6WU.
◾Technical support
If you have any queries or problems with an electrical or technology product, call our JL technical support line on 0844 693 1799 (call charges will depend on your telephone provider.  Please check with your operator for exact charges) or email technicalsupport@johnlewis.com from 8am to 9pm weekdays, 8am to 8pm Saturday and 10am to 6pm Sundays. To help us handle your query promptly, please have your model number available."

http://www.johnlewis.com/customer-services/essential-information#cq-i-contact

I have just called the 01698 number from within the UK as a test and had a reasonable conversation with a JL representative and said that I was testing their number to see if they would service a UK customer.   She said it was ok to call this number but would recommend that UK customers call the 0845 number.   When I asked why that recommendation she didn't know.  I mentioned that 0845 and 0844 are rip-off numbers and they can be very expensive to call and would she pass on my comments to her management; she agreed.   JL also offer email contact which is better than having no alternative.

It is deplorable that they are promoting an 0844 number for technical support which is clearly in contravention of the new requirements of the proposed legislation implementing the EU's CRD rules.    It is surprising that JL would introduce an 0844 number at exactly the time when legislation is being introduced to prohibit such numbers!!!  :o   One wonders just how aware of the business environment JL actually are?   :-[      Do they realise that soon they will be required to abandon use of this 0844 number under the new legislation????   :-[ :'(

I have passed my comments to John Lewis via their contact us email/web system and will post their response here when received.

nicholas43 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 8:11pm:

It is more and more frequently included in mobile calling packages

I bet they can't find a single example of that.

Hi, has anyone who has been emailing John Lewis over this used the email addresses from ceoemail.com?  I have used these for something else a couple of months ago & got a phone call from a member of the CEO's staff?   FYI the CEO's email is: charlie_mayfield@johnlewis.co.uk.   I do find their attitude over this appalling as, if I needed to contact them, my nearest store is some 50+ miles away & I would want to check stocks etc rather than make an abortive trip - why should this cost me money??   They would lose my business as email contacts are all very well but if I'm calling before I set out, I need a reply there and then not the usual "within24/48 hours".

Thank you Barbara for your suggestion.    I have now sent the following message to both the Chairman and Managing Director of John Lewis Partnership :---


"We see you want customers to call you on 0845 and 0844 phone numbers even though you also have normal geographic numbers and offer at least one for customers overseas.    We also understand that you have just introduced additional 0844 numbers.

Do you realise that these numbers cost most callers a heavy premium when compared to normal geographic numbers?    Most people these days have already paid for their calls using a “calls inclusive package” so the marginal cost for calling a normal number (01, 02, 03) is zero whilst 0845 numbers are excluded from most packages and 0844 numbers are excluded from ALL packages.

We advocate that companies should offer normal numbers for their customers to use, with 03 numbers where a non-geographic number is desired by the company.

We would like to know why John Lewis Partnership has decided to introduce 0844 numbers at precisely the time when the Government (Dept for BIS) is in the process of implementing the EU Consumer Rights Directive (CRD) which will require companies to make available to customers non-premium rate numbers for all post- contract phone based communications.    So for technical queries on electrical goods 0844 and 0845 numbers will be prohibited.    It seems remarkable that JLP should be introducing such numbers at this inappropriate time.    We ask if JLP is aware of this imminent legislation and the EU directive on CRD?

We also ask how you intend to justify the use of 0845 numbers for your Customer Services functions in the light of the forthcoming Ofcom regulations which will introduce the need for users of such numbers to declare the “Service Charge” associated with such numbers and how you will justify the imposition of charges on your customers when they wish to call you?

It is surprising to us that John Lewis Partnership would risk damaging a cherished reputation for good customer service by using 0845 and 0844 numbers."



Any response will be posted here.   

Thank you loddon, I was going to email the person in the CEO's office to whom I spoke previously (& who still owes me a further reply!!) but I think it might be best if I wait now until you have a response to your emails, I will check for the postings.  (Incidentally, that website I mentioned has been invaluable in making contact with the person responsible at the head of organisations - not just in relation to telephone numbers - I may not have always received the reply I wanted but at least I have always had a more considered response than the usual dross from CS staff.)

Their is a thread running on MSE on this subject

See: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4738691

The original poster there said " A reply I had from JL customer services states "The 0844 numbers that we use reflect a move to our centralised contact handling operation and to provide customers with the means to contact us at a standard rate, which is set by the customer's telephone operator, and is the same regardless of the time of day"

He also said " A reply from a JL customer care case manager about the change to 0844 numbers affirms "This change has been a well considered business decision, we have researched this thoroughly and ran a trial on a number of stores before deciding to implement this change".

The Partnership Board of John Lewis can be found here http://www.johnlewispartnership.co.uk/content/cws/about/the-partnership/governing-authorities/partnership-board/all-directors.html

For my local store Poole http://www.johnlewis.com/our-shops/poole they come up with a unhelpful statement.

" Telephone
0844 693 1753*

*Call charges will depend on your telephone provider. Please check with your operator for exact charges."

The old number 01202 756 020 still works the 0844 693 1753 number is answered by the John Lewis contact centre.

(Amended to correct my error ). :)

bigjohn wrote on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 5:09pm:

The old number 01202 756 020 no longer works the 0844 693 1753 number is answered by the John Lewis contact centre.

The 01202 number is answered with an IVR (menu). In what way did you find it not to work? :-?

Quote:

*Call charges will depend on your telephone provider. Please check with your operator for exact charges.

At least they have a space in the page template ready for when Ofcom demands:

*Calls incur a 7p/min Service Charge. Your telephone provider will add their Access Charge."

Maybe then it will sink in what they have done.

Dave wrote on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 6:02pm:

bigjohn wrote on Sep 5th, 2013 at 5:09pm: The old number 01202 756 020 no longer works the 0844 693 1753 number is answered by the John Lewis contact centre. The 01202 number is answered with an IVR (menu). In what way did you find it not to work? :-?

I stand corrected Dave i must have misdialed. :-[

loddon wrote on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 7:29am:

I have passed my comments to John Lewis via their contact us email/web system and will post their response here when received.

I have just received a response from the John Lewis Customer Services department :---


"Dear .............,

Thank you for your email in response to my colleague, H...... .

I have duly noted your concerns over the 0845 and 0844 and can only advise from my position that the move was to reflect a centralised contact handling operation.

As you have already written to our Managing Director and Chairman, I would advise that you await for an equally detailed response from them to ensure that the matter is being discussed without duplication.

If you require any further assistance in the meantime, then please feel free to contact me again.

Kind regards,

A...... S.............
Customer Service
John Lewis"

Yes, you phone an 0844 number to speak to a particular store, but still get the call centre and wait on hold while they try to contact the store, clocking up 0844 profits meanwhile.

Judging by that response the change to 0844 does have a feel of cock up about it rather than conspiracy. Where nobody in the team making the changes was aware of the issues surrounding 08xx numbers, even though they should have been. Combine that with some unscrupulous telephony "consultants" and you get a bad result, just as with GPs.

Either way, whether it's cock up or deliberate policy, it's a black mark against one of our best retailers.

loddon wrote on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 2:03pm:

Any response will be posted here.

We have received a reply from John Lewis, so as promised it is reproduced below.

[edit]Response removed by Dave[/edit]

Hope this doesn't sound too negative but I think that is really a bit of a nothing "cop out" response.   Firstly, what on earth is an "omnichannel" retailer???!!!   It's certainly not a term I have heard previously & to me is totally meaningless jargon.   Further, I would agree customers do not expect to ring a store & get a centralised system, I think most customers would expect, as I do, to ring the store & get through to a human being at that store who can help with my specific question, such as "do you have any X in stock, can you see it on the shelf & can you put one aside for me that I can collect?"   All this to avoid a wasted journey, most such retailers suggest checking stock with them before making a significant journey.  As I have said so many times on this issue, I don't have to insert a coin to gain entry to the store, I don't have to pay for an appointment with a member of the sales staff, so why should I have to pay the store to make contact by phone?   The whole point about JL & why one might choose it over other retailers is that their staff are properly trained about the products they sell (my daughter used to work for them years ago).   With a centralised system, you have staff with no in depth knowledge of a particular store or their stocks (computer stock listings are notoriously unreliable) and so are pretty useless, it's the personal, informed contact which made JL different.   In spite of the fine words, this just seem an example of JL following the bad example of so many other organisations where the customer has become merely a milch cow to be exploited as opposed to a valued asset for their business.   

Barbara wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 10:32am:

… Firstly, what on earth is an "omnichannel" retailer???!!!   It's certainly not a term I have heard previously & to me is totally meaningless jargon. …

"Omni" means "all" or "every". A "channel" is a means of access. I would have thought "multi-channel" would have been a more fitting word. Anyway, the response continues: "customers continue to have ways to get in contact which carry no additional cost, these include email, social media and in person at our 39 shops". These are the "channels" previously referred to.



Barbara wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 10:32am:

… Further, I would agree customers do not expect to ring a store & get a centralised system, I think most customers would expect, as I do, to ring the store & get through to a human being at that store who can help with my specific question, such as "do you have any X in stock, can you see it on the shelf & can you put one aside for me that I can collect?"   All this to avoid a wasted journey, most such retailers suggest checking stock with them before making a significant journey. …

The reason for non-geographic numbers being introduced is given: it is because telephone calls are answered centrally which makes geographic numbers innappropriate for the reason you highlight.

Presumably the centralised call centre has access to stock levels, which means that all in the above quote is not an issue. Indeed, it wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility these days for a website to give stock levels.



Barbara wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 10:32am:

… With a centralised system, you have staff with no in depth knowledge of a particular store or their stocks (computer stock listings are notoriously unreliable) and so are pretty useless, it's the personal, informed contact which made JL different. …

I cannot think that any business would implement a system and then disregard it due to unreliability. If it isn't satisfactorily reliable then it is of no use and therefore a wasted expense.

Dave, please believe me, centralised contact centres for stock levels are USELESS.   Many times, I have been searching for an item, particularly clothing, in a store, I have then asked at the counter, the assistant says she will just check, uses the computer system, said yes they do have the said item in the size requested but then they cannot find it, I have regularly been told that the computerised stock levels are not regularly updated (perhaps only once a day, sometimes less frequently) and the only fool proof means of checking if a particular store has a particular item is a manual search, as one assistant at JL said to me: "It's only definitely here if I can lay hands on it now & put it to one side for you" hence the need to phone the particular department in a particular store for a manual check before, in my case, setting out on what would be a 100 mile round trip to my nearest JL!

It is also the case that, until now, the staff in John Lewis stores generally have an extremely good product knowledge, both technical and, if they can see the item, descriptive, eg they can give me an idea of size (not all the items would have dimensions in online descriptions and that is all a call centre operator would be able to access).

These are the very things that set JL customer service apart and this change now reduces them to the same level as all the others.   They are not always the cheapest, in spite of their price guarantee (which does have exclusions anyway) so now there is absolutely no reason to put myself out to use them.

By the way, I know what "omni" means (from the Latin), my point was that it is yet more pointless jargon, there are far better plain English means of saying what he is trying to say.   As for other "channels" of contact, if I am planning to visit one of their stores for a particular item, I need to be able to contact that store (see above for why) just before setting out to check their stock, I would not, for example, want to email 24 hours in advance (I suspect that or longer is their guaranteed time for a response).   I do not use social media and object most strongly to the growing trend of companies to try & force people to do this by restricting other means of access (I suspect merely so that they can gather personal data).

In my view, there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for JL's change to 0844 numbers, other than (1) to make revenue from customers who need to call them; (2) to reduce the numbers of staff in store to increase profits while decreasing customer service.

While multi-channel means there's more than one, I think omni-channel is meant to convey that they cover every channel.

loddon wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 10:14am:

loddon wrote on Sep 5th, 2013 at 2:03pm: Any response will be posted here.    We have received a reply from John Lewis, so as promised it is reproduced below.

And what utter clap-trap it is. A ludicrous decision with a further attempt to justify it with marketing nonsense from some MBA hipster idiot who presumably has never dialed an 0844 number and checked his bill. What is depressing in this specific case is that JLP has a favorable image with both customers and employees together with strong financial performance. This idiotic decision will simply annoy many of its customers. Omnichannel...... really!

Sounds like the guy actually believes the rubbish he's writing. If people of that calibre are running JL then it's a sad day for the company (or strictly speaking, Partnership).

I don't know his history within JL but their senior staff are normally promoted from within. Perhaps it's just another case of the Peter Principle - he's risen to the level of his own incompetence.

My first post to this forum. I have also been in dialogue with JLP about their use of 0844 numbers for customer service and can report the following.
I was originally given the line about them being frequently included in call packages on August 10. After I asked them to prove it they replied on August 15th that they had been "misadvised" on that point - so they are still using that line even though they know it is not true. Subsequently I was given the twaddle about omni-channel retailer but did get them to confirm that they make money from the 0844 number. I then wrote a letter which was published in the Guardian Money section of Aug 31 inviting others to complain to JLP.
I will now email the CEO to add weight to the complaints of other in this forum.

Welcome to the forum & congratulations on your activities on this matter.    It now remains to be seen whether, knowing & admitting their errors, they will actually see fit to correct them & revert to geographical numbers directly connecting to the stores.   We will be interested in any further contact you have.

I tweeted yesterday:
Quote:

I just found the Email for the @johnlewisretail MD on http://ceoemail.com ; & next is my email of disgust on their change to 0844 numbers.

They emailed me asking for email contact. 

Well, as I'd already done that (did they read the tweet?) and he hadn't had the courtesy to reply .......

John Lewis Partnership profits fall nearly 40%

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/sep/12/john-lewis-partnership-profits-fall

Perhaps a reason for the change.

I notice they still claim 0844 is local and 0870 national on their site.

"Technical support

If you have any queries or problems with an electrical or technology product, call our JL technical support line on 0844 693 1799 (call charges will depend on your telephone provider.  Please check with your operator for exact charges) or email technical support@johnlewis.com from 8am to 9pm weekdays, 8am to 8pm Saturday and 10am to 6pm Sundays – calls are charged at a local call rate. To help us handle your query promptly please have your model number available.

We offer access to a 90 day helpline when you buy a new desktop or laptop computer from John Lewis. The service is available for a period of 90 days from the date you make your purchase, and you can call the helpline on 0870 600 0060 from 8am to 9pm weekdays, 8am to 8pm Saturday and 10am to 8pm Sundays - calls are charged at a national call rate."


http://www.johnlewis.com/customer-services/information-about-shopping-on-johnlewiscom#cq-i-guarantees

Further to my post of last week I'd like to share a portion of the response I had from their Customer Service person having asked why they choose to charge their customers for speaking with them.

"A range of options including 0330 and other alternative numbers were considered in full knowledge and understanding of the implications each of these would bring. In addition, consideration was given to the costs involved in providing telephone support to a large omnichannel retailer such as ourselves. As previously advised by Customer Relations, the decision was made knowing we also offer customers a number of ways to get in contact which carry no additional cost.

The decision to change our branch numbers is not one we made lightly knowing some customers such as yourself, may not agree with the approach. For this reason, we continue to monitor customer feedback on this change, including online consumer review websites such as Which. As part of this process, I would like to thank you for getting in contact and assure you that your concerns have been taken on board."

It seems we need to get the word out some more and they might just change. I am going to go back and ask them to be transparent on their website about what these calls cost and that they make money from them. I hope to report back on that too.

I had cause to call John Lewis recently over a problem with a laptop purchased from them the day before.  I rang the 01698 number although I was in the UK,  having 'blocked' my outgoing number, and this was not questioned.  I explained the problem and was offered an exchange with no argument or quibbling.  Outstanding service as one expects, and this is why I have used John Lewis for many years.

The lady did mention that 'we offer free technical support for laptops for 90 days......" and I said : "It's not really free as it's an 0870 number which is expensive to call and for which John Lewis retains part of the revenue."  She said she would mention this at a higher level.

I am satisfied with the outcome of this incident but I can imagine that others may not be if given the same response.

Allenmac wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2013 at 8:55am:

and I said : "It's not really free as it's an 0870 number which is expensive to call and for which John Lewis retains part of the revenue."  She said she would mention this at a higher level.

Revenue sharing on 0870 numbers was abolished a long while ago.About August 2009 if i recall correctly.But if your calling from a mobile they are not normally inclusive. Where as a number of landline suppliers include them in their inclusive bundles.

Revenue sharing was removed from 0870 numbers in 2009, and that act has led to much confusion. Big changes are coming that will end the confusion.

Many companies currently use BT's low 0845 and 0870 rates as justification for retaining all types of 084 and 087 numbers (believing the 0845/0870 rates also apply to other 084/087 numbers and to other providers). Lack of a Service Charge on calls to 0870 numbers is not typical for 084/087 numbers (all other 084/087 numbers do have a Service Charge). Inclusiveness of 0870 numbers in call plan allowances is also not typical (mobiles don't include them). BT's call rates for 084/087 numbers are not typical in the market (BT's rates are capped by regulation). BT's ability to designate 0845 calls as inclusive, by subsidising the Service Charge, is especially untypical for 0845 numbers.

Under Ofcom's "simplifying non-geographic numbers" plans, a Service Charge high enough to generate a revenue share payment will once again be levied on 0870 calls, and a Service Charge barely enough to generate a revenue share payment will continue to be levied on 0845 calls. Users of 084/087/09 numbers will have to declare the Service Charge that applies to their number. Connection fees on calls to 084/087/09 numbers will be scrapped. Phone networks will each set a single Access Charge per tariff covering all 084, 087 and 09 calls. The "NTS Condition" that currently caps BT's 084/087/09 call prices will also be removed.

These measures will end the anomalies with pricing on 0870 calls made from all types of landline and with pricing on 084/087/09 calls made from BT landlines, and end the ability of BT and others to make calls to 0845 and 0870 numbers fully inclusive.

It will reinforce the rule that the 03 range is the ONLY one that has the same pricing as 01 and 02 numbers from all landlines and all mobiles.

It will dispel the myth that 0845 and 0870 numbers are cheap to call, or are in some way tied to "local" or "national" rates - something that hasn't been true since 2004.

Before that happens, the Consumer Rights Directive will force many companies to replace their 084 and 087 numbers with numbers beginning 01, 02, 03 or 080.

I have not posted for some time so maybe this topic has recently been discussed. Some time ago I was surprised to discover that John Lewis has started using 0844 numbers.  I have been writing to them for some time, but only received a number of slick and evasive replies.  I  am due a reply to my recent series of emails to the company, but notice in the newspapers today that they now intend to use only geographical numbers.  Does anybody have any further information regarding the John Lewis statement.

kk wrote on Dec 14^th, 2013 at 3:52pm:

… notice in the newspapers today that they now intend to use only geographical numbers.

The reference in this Telegraph article - Premium rate phone lines ban -
may be linked to a series of tweets - https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/411164378495717376 -
including three claims of responsibility!

The absence of a formal statement from the John Lewis Partnership remains a mystery.

If there are other references in newspapers, then further evidence may help resolve this mystery.

It appears that a decision to "do the right thing" was made ahead of being required (in many cases) to make this change by regulation. One would have expected the Partnership to be keen to be seen to be proactive, by announcing the decision, rather than being seen to have been compelled.

What could have stood out is the fact that John Lewis Insurance would seem to be the first insurance company to announce the voluntary move by companies in the financial services sector, who are not yet covered by announced regulations requiring the abandonment of 084 / 087 numbers.

So John Lewis have finally been embarrassed in to a retreat on 0844 numbers.  I didn't participate as I wasn't trying to shop there at the time and I am all worn out with the pick them off one by one approach to dealing with the 084/7 number problem.  A regulatory ban accompanied by large fines for breaches is the only real world solution.

However it says almost everything there is to say about the current John Lewis CEO (as seen extensively on the tv series Inside John Lewis) that he and his Board allowed this appalling decision to go through in the first place.  He has already allowed almost everything else that John Lewis once held dear, such as their historic store Caleys in Windsor, to be trashed in favour of short term profit.  So why not copy Tesco and DSG Retail on the phone numbers front too he appears to have thought.

John Lewis is certainly not what it once was as other bad decisions such as a "restocking fee" on returns of electronic goods (that is if you are unwise enough to say that you simply didn't want the item rather than claiming it is faulty in some manner in which case no restocking fee is charged) all tend to show.

As to Ominichannel its just power crazed psychobabble to justify unethical decisions by obedient and unquestioning footsoldiers of large faceless modern businesses.

I agree.   The point which has not been mentioned so far is WHEN are John Lewis proposing to abandon the 0844?  There's certainly no other option on their website - being cynical, are they waiting till after the Christmas rush to maximise their gains on revenue share????   A number of other organisations seem to have made similar advance announcements with no commitment as to dates (bit like the government which is always re-announcing things as new!)  John Lewis has always required unquestioning obedience from its staff, my daughter claimed, when working for them years ago, that she'd never prosper as she didn't have the required "green blood" in her veins!  However, in the past, at least there was some commitment to customer service which has long gone and their prices are not that competitive either, they've become just another High Street chain I'm afraid.

It could be that the absence of a plan for each area of the business to implement a Partnership-wide executive decision
explains the lack of a formal statement.

My personal view is that it is remarkable that a business which operates on the co-operative principle has survived at all into the 21st century, as we see another (The Co-operative Banking Group) have to abandon its principles in order to survive. If standards are being allowed to suffer, that is deeply regrettable. I am also disappointed that the Partnership did not take advantage of the suggested opportunity to set an example to all of its competitors by a clear announcement of a decision to abandon all 084 numbers, ahead of the announcement of the regulations requiring this change.


NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 11:51am:

… I am all worn out with the pick them off one by one approach to dealing with the 084/7 number problem.

I agree. There can however be merit in choosing one suitable case to act as an example, given that it is likely to secure sufficient publicity to put pressure on others.

Sadly, campaigning resources are not sufficient to handle too many specific cases anyway, even though ultimately it is lots of individual decisions (if only the decision to comply with regulations, rather than risking a penalty) that makes the difference.

Yet another five weeks have passed & John Lewis STILL have not changed their numbers for store contact on their website from 0844 - has anyone any idea when this is going to happen or did they just say they would do it to get rid of the campaign against their use of these numbers?  Have they changed their minds or are they waiting until June when they are forced to change thinking the revenue share (by whatever means) is worth it in the meantime?

Barbara wrote on Jan 31^st, 2014 at 9:43am:

Yet another five weeks have passed & John Lewis STILL have not changed their numbers for store contact on their website from 0844 - has anyone any idea when this is going to happen or did they just say they would do it to get rid of the campaign against their use of these numbers?  Have they changed their minds or are they waiting until June when they are forced to change thinking the revenue share (by whatever means) is worth it in the meantime?

I note from earlier references in this thread that some individuals and groups are directly engaged with the Partnership over this issue. I would expect them to be able to respond to this comment.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 31^st, 2014 at 10:38am:

I note from earlier references in this thread that some individuals and groups are directly engaged with the Partnership over this issue. I would expect them to be able to respond to this comment.

Can you perhaps translate that from Convoluted Toadying Up To The Regulators Speak in to Human Speak (the language here that I and idb in particular always speak) for the rest of us who do not seem to spend most of our days trying to cosy up to regulators or government ministers in the hope of being invited to some private meeting behind closed doors that you will undoubtedly not tell the rest of us about!!!

Personally I would have thought the remedy on John Lewis's woeful lack of speedy action is a great deal simpler and consists of sending an email to John Lewis CEO, Andy Street, as shown at www.ceoemail.com/s.php?id=9070   You may also possibly want to email a number of other senior members of the John Lewis Management Team using the same email address format using the details listed for them at www.johnlewispartnership.co.uk/about/john-lewis/management-team.html

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 11^th, 2014 at 9:28pm:

Personally I would have thought the remedy on John Lewis's woeful lack of speedy action is a great deal simpler and consists of sending an email to John Lewis CEO, Andy Street

It may well be that Andy Street would be able to expedite the necessary action or, as requested, advise when it will be taken. The fair telecoms campaign has long been pressing the Partnership to make a clear public statement about exactly what is going to be done and when. The June deadline is now approaching, so any opportunity to be seen to be proactive has now probably passed anyway.

Sadly, I have nothing to add, as private contacts cannot necessarily provide a basis for public statements, which have to come in their own time. The proper basis for the regulations has been secured, even though some may object to the techniques used to achieve this, most of which was in public. It will be disappointing if the John Lewis Partnership does nothing more than join with others in complying, however that may still be classed as a victory for the efforts of all campaigners.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 12^th, 2014 at 1:17am:

The June deadline is now approaching, so any opportunity to be seen to be proactive has now probably passed anyway.

And I am quite sure that in June the need for this website will not disappear because of the many more cynical companies who will continue to run contact lines that they maintain are not a form of "customer service" and on which they will therefore maintain they are entitled to levy a "service charge".

I also anticipate that where companies run differentiated lines for "customer service" without a "service charge" and areas such as "technical support", "product advice" (expect BSH Appliance Care to be especially big users of such an excuse) lines with a "service charge" that there will be very long waits to get through to an adviser on the 03 "customer service" number with no "service charge" but much more immediate response on the lines with a "service charge". 

I also anticipate companies with such a segmented calling line strategy rudely and abruptly terminating calls to anyone calling their "customer service" line on matters they deem not to be "customer service".  I further anticipate that some companies will withdraw the right to contact them by telephone at all for "customer service" matters (the EU Customer Service Directive does not I believe mandate that customer support by telephone is obligatory) and only provide it via web form where response times will be long (or there may be no response at all) and where if there is a response it will frequently not be to the enquirer's satisfaction.

So the idea that this website has now completely won the battle on phone lines with exorbitant "service charges" is, in my humble opinion, almost certainly very much mistaken.  Only certain companies who already have major image problems and declining sales (eg Tesco) are likely to embrace a complete change to to the use of 03 numbers for all forms of customer contact.

As John Lewis's CEO, Mr Andy Street (as constantly seen on the BBC tv series Inside John Lewis), is most closely personally identified with the unwelcome move to 084, as well as other unwelcome changes to customers like the replacement of direct in store customer telephone contact with staff with two faceless regional call centres and the closure of the company's historic Caleys store in Windsor (which was later spectacularly vandalised by complete destruction of the historic internal fabric by TK Maxx) it may perhaps pay dividends for unhappy John Lewis customers to email the group's Chairman, Charlie Mayfield.

His email address can be found at http://ceoemail.com/s.php?id=76391

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 12^th, 2014 at 1:17am:

The June deadline is now approaching, so any opportunity to be seen to be proactive has now probably passed anyway.

I agree with NGM that the new changes will not mean an end to consumers being ripped off.

Yes, in a perfect world where companies are honest and customer focused then yes they may change numbers to accommodate new changes but in reality, I believe, we will see companies either not bother changing anything or use loopholes to get around the changes.

bbb_uk wrote on Feb 12^th, 2014 at 8:16pm:

Yes, in a perfect world where companies are honest and customer focused then yes they may change numbers to accommodate new changes but in reality, I believe, we will see companies either not bother changing anything or use loopholes to get around the changes.

bbb_uk,

Its good to hear from you again.  I had thought that this forum and website was now run single handedly by Dave and that you and DaveM had long since disappeared in to the sunset of saynoto0870.com history.

Regarding telecoms companies their naked and disgusting greed seems to no almost no bounds if they think they can get away with it and no one is looking.

Only last week BT Payphone were exposed for their shameful and unbelievable behaviour in having raised the minimum call charge to use one of their kiosks with a credit or debit card from an already 100% inflated (over cash which has a 60p minimum fee) £1.20 charge to an incredible £6.50 per call.  The embarrassment caused to BT by the You & Yours probe was such that they announced they would be reversing the charge to £1.20 and refunding all the card holders who were charged £6.50  This was after BT were also leaned on by none other than normally dozy Ofcom following the You&Yours probe in to the matter.

I am fighting a similar battle on naked telecoms day light robbery with Orange Spain who I have a SIM card with on their SIM Mundo tariff.  This offers calls to UK geographic numbers at 1 Euro cent per minute plus a one off 30 cent connection charge.  Last October I called Plusnet's 03 number using this service with a 5 Euro credit balance on the phone (luckily it wasn't say 20 Euros) only to find my credit balance wiped out amd the call disconnected in 20 seconds.  This was because Orange Spain had wrongly classified UK 03 numbers as being Premium Rate (as in 09 sex chat lines type Premium) despite the longstanding existence of Ofcom GC17.  This Premium rate charge was 15.4 EUR a minute last October but has now gone up to an even more outrageous 19.2 EUR per minute.  Yet they only charge 0.23 EUR per minute to UK PNS 070 numbers showing how ludicrous are their charge to 03 numbers.  They also fail to define on their website what they class as Premium Rate and do not publish any comprehensive tariff and code lists.  See http://movil.orange.es/tarifas/llamar-a-otro-pais/tarjeta-sim-mundo/

Only today a senior marketing lady at Orange Spain called me back to continue to insist that they had to charge 19.2 EUR a minute as these were the costs they were suppsedly incurring in connecting calls to UK 03 numbers.  If that is true then Ofcom is going to come in for some very severe embarrassment when the UK Customer Service Directive comes in to effect and most 084 users (calls to whom Orange Spain only charges at 0.13 EUR per minute change to using 03s!!

I have emailed all the way to CEO level at Orange, Spain and copied in the generally completely recumbent and supine Messrs Steve Unger and Claudio Pollack at Ofcom (their supposed telecom and consumer matters experts), who have been drawing their large salaries and pension rights for a very long time now, and so far got precisely nowhere.  Some Limousine riding bunch of bandits in the middle or Orange Spain itself are still to this day creaming off nearly all of the 19.2 EUR per minute.

So yes I fully expect all the more immorally run call centres in the UK (eg those run by Sky in particular) not to give up using 03 numbers and to fight to continue using Service Charge based NGNs till the very last.  The telecoms industry seems to attract the very worst kind of commercial practice mainly because people frequent incur a liability to pay outrageous charges without knowing in advance what those charges will be.  My 15.4 EUR a minute experience with Orange, Spain is a case in point.

I have just discovered John Lewis has chose to make a profit from customers by using 0844 numbers, as I saw from another thread where replies had been removed from the  thread.
As a OLD Newbie,I can't refer back easily.
Is it worth me bothering to try to post my replies from J.Lewis re 0844 where they are happy to say from 1p to 13p per minute; but their gain is commercially sensitive!
regards Shalimar

It's easy enough to find the "enhanced termination rate", or "service charge" as it will become known, for their particular 0844 numbers. It's around 7p/min including VAT.

By June 2015, all users of 084, 087 and 09 numbers will be required to declare this charge, making it clear they are financially benefitting from the call. However, traders must start using 03 or other "basic rate" numbers for their customer service lines by 13 June 2014.

Ian G wrote on Mar 8^th, 2014 at 11:29pm:

However, traders must start using 03 or other "basic rate" numbers for their customer service lines by 13 June 2014.

And what will happen if they don't?

Will the Information Commissioner perhaps eventually prosecute only the single leading offender for non compliance after another 10 years of blatantly continuing to ride the revenue share gravy train..............

shalimar wrote on Mar 8^th, 2014 at 5:28pm:

Is it worth me bothering to try to post my replies from J.Lewis re 0844 where they are happy to say from 1p to 13p per minute; but their gain is commercially sensitive!

Yes please do post your reply from John Lewis here in this thread Shalimar.  Even if it does take you a while to work out how to do it.

Now that Tesco has already changed away from 084 numbers to using 03 numbers instead John Lewis has absolutely no excuse for their continued 084 customer number abuse. :o >:(

NGMsGhost wrote on Mar 10^th, 2014 at 11:18am:

Now that Tesco has already changed to away from using 084 numbers John Lewis has absolutely no excuse for their continued 084 customer number abuse.

Good News!

It would appear JLP has decided to reverse it's use of 084 numbers for it's stores!  :) :) - http://www.johnlewis.com/our-shops

Additionally the central number for John Lewis is now: 0345 604 9049 (or 03456 049 049 as they style it)  :)

A recorded message on the 0845 number now ask's callers to redial!

This is a fantastic decision from JLP and I am very sure several members of this forum have caused the changed.. as well as the impending CRD.  :) :)

I have updated the database with the revised number  :)

CJT-80 wrote on Jun 5^th, 2014 at 8:41pm:

This is a fantastic decision from JLP and I am very sure several members of this forum have caused the changed.. as well as the impending CRD.  :) :) I have updated the database with the revised number  :)

Come, come let us not get carried away CJT-80.  The European Consumer Rights Directive is required to be transposed in to law in the Member States from June 13th 2014.  See http://ec.europa.eu/justice/consumer-marketing/rights-contracts/directive/index_en.htm   According to lawyers http://www.eversheds.com/global/en/what/articles/index.page?ArticleID=en/tmt/consumerrightsdirective_april2014 this has been transposed in to UK law by various pieces of legislation all of which require compliance only by the last possible day on June 13th 2014.  According to Eversheds website "Businesses who provide consumers with a telephone line for the purposes of contacting them in connection with their contracts will not be able to charge the consumer more than the applicable basic rate for that call.  For those businesses who operate one telephone line for all enquiries (whether pre-contract or post-contract), steps will need to be taken to ensure that the number being used complies with these requirements."

So this is the only reason John Lewis is changing away from the ripoff numbers their idiot Managing Director Andy Street so stupidly allowed against the whole ethos under which the John Lewis partnership was founded and not because they are good guys or wanting to do the right thing.  They are only changing at the last possible minute to avoid being prosecuted for breaking a UK law as a result of a new EU Directive's implementation. :o >:( :'(

Moreover John Lewis are not switching back to their nice memorable previous 01 and 02 numbers but are using devious and sneaky 03 numbers.   The bad thing about 03 numbers is that their charging structure is completely different from 01 and 02 numbers and basically they are considerably more expensive for the originating telco and the only reason UK telcos include them in call plans and charge them at 01/02 rates is because an Ofcom General Condition says they have to.

However sitting out here for a few weeks in Spain on holday I can call UK 01/02 numbers for 1 Euro cent per minute plus 30 cents connection with www.orange.es on their SIM Mundo plan but they don't include 03 numbers in this rate and now charge them at either their VAS 1 rate at 50 Euro cents per minute or their VAS rate at 3 Euros per minute. Not even that is clear from their entry against Reino Unido at www.simmundo.es/   I don't know which because Orange makes no announcement of the extra charge before calling and all I do know is that they previously charged 03 numbers last year at up to 19.2 Euros per minutes as a Premium Rate number (the same rate as charged to the most expensive UK sex chat and lawyer advice lines) and only after several complaints to the Chief Executive of France Telecom (the owning company of Orange Spain as Orange Spain's own CEO Jean-Marc Vignolles, another Orange France Frog seconded to run the Spanish outfit, repeatedly ignored my emails) were these lower rates to non standard UK numbers that do not start 01 and 02 adopted.

Once the Consumer Rights Directive takes effect I may well begin pursuing the fact that it is still not being complied with for consumers calling between one member state and another by many telecoms providers.  This could ultimately put the call recipient (John Lewis) in breach of the EU Directive if not in breach of its transposition in to UK legislation.   If I am a John Lewis customer and need to call them from Spain (another EU Member State) about a product I have bought from them while in the UK then surely the Directive itself is still being breached.

It has to be said that this tomfoolery with the ripoff on 03 numbers seems to be confined to www.orange.es as neither www.vodafone.es or Spanish Voip supplier www.neteck.es seem to be charging more for a UK 03 number than to a UK 01 or 02 number.

But for as long as this situation persists companies who use 03 numbers must apply pressure on Ofcom and the EU Commission to bring this disgraceful continued cross border breaching of the EU Consumer Rights Directive by some greedy telcos to an end. :o >:( >:( >:(

So in short no points at all to John Lewis for only changing at the last possible minute and for now only using 03 numbers that cannot be guaranteed to be included in standard call packages to UK landlines when calling the UK from another EU Member State. :o >:( :'(

Just be thankful you don't live in Ireland.

The Irish legislation based on the Consumer Rights Directive defines a "basic rate" telephone number as:
- Geographic
- Mobile
- Freephone
- Shared Cost (Fixed), i.e. 1850 "CallSave" - equivalent to UK 0844 and 0871 "fixed fee" numbers,
- Shared Cost (Timed), i.e. 1890 "lo-call rate" - equivalent to UK 0845 numbers,
- Universal Access, i.e. 0818 "national rate" - equivalent to UK 0870 numbers,
and excludes defined Premium Rate Services.

If it hadn't been for the sterling efforts of a small number of individuals, the UK would now be in a similar situation with "basic rate" being defined as: 01, 02, 03, standard mobile, freephone, 0843, 0844, 0845 and 0870. Thankfully, at the last minute, the last four were excluded.

The UK has done the right thing in introducing 03 numbers. There are no issues with these when called from the UK. Every UK network abides by Ofcom's charging rules.

The UK is doing the right thing in introducing the "unbundled tariff" for 084, 087 and 09 numbers. That will properly expose the realities of call pricing.

One loose end to tidy up is the charging policies for calling 03 numbers from foreign networks. I doubt Ofcom has any direct control over that.

Ian G wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:46am:

One loose end to tidy up is the charging policies for calling 03 numbers from foreign networks. I doubt Ofcom has any direct control over that.

But the EU Commission clearly does have such control via their requirement for say the Spanish government to properly transpose the Consumer Rights Directive in to Spanish law.

If a UK telco was over charging to call a standard rated number in another EU country Ofcom could in principle take action against them.  It is that kind of action in reverse which we need to see by the Spanish telecoms regulators.

Ofcom also has tremendous unofficial power to influence things behind the scenes as with persuading BT to change its ripoff new minimum fee for using a credit/debit card from a BT PayPhone of £6.50 compared to the former £1.20 and only a still current 60p for cash.  It only took a friendly call from Ofcom to BT after Radio 4 You and Yours began investigating the matter for BT to revert its pricing to the old £1.20 amount and agree to refund all the customers who had paid the extortion £6.50 rate in the interim.

Orange is a very big brand and I am quite sure Ofcom can apply pressure to them to persuade them they are being silly by charging much more to call UK 03 numbers than UK 01 and 02 numbers.  Alternatively perhaps I need to persuade You and Yours to run another editorial piece on this ripoff to warn anyone who is going to be on holiday in Europe this summer and needs to call a UK 03 customer service number of the potential scam that is still going on post the EU Consumer Rights Directive becoming live.

I suspect this practice of over chargng to UK 03 numbers compared to 01 and 02 from other EU countries will in fact unfortunately turn out to be widespread.

By the way I proposed the concept of the 03 number range to Ofcom at a meeting with them in the mid 2000s.  I told them that the call centres and not consumers should pay the extra for the benefits on call routing and call statistics they derive from these numbers (shortly afterwards they came up with their 03 number proposals).  What I didn't expect was that it would also cost the originating telco more to connect a call to an 03 number than to an 01 and 02 number and for them to have to swallow the difference in price.

That is why Orange Spain for instance is behaving in the way that it is behaving in still wanting to charge more for a call to an 03 rather than to a UK 01 and 02 number.

NGMsGhost wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 2:59am:

Come, come let us not get carried away CJT-80.  The European Consumer Rights Directive is required to be transposed in to law in the Member States from June 13th 2014.  See http://ec.europa.eu/justice/consumer-marketing/rights-contracts/directive/index_en.htm   According to lawyers http://www.eversheds.com/global/en/what/articles/index.page?ArticleID=en/tmt/consumerrightsdirective_april2014 this has been transposed in to UK law by various pieces of legislation all of which require compliance only by the last possible day on June 13th 2014.  According to Eversheds website "Businesses who provide consumers with a telephone line for the purposes of contacting them in connection with their contracts will not be able to charge the consumer more than the applicable basic rate for that call.  For those businesses who operate one telephone line for all enquiries (whether pre-contract or post-contract), steps will need to be taken to ensure that the number being used complies with these requirements." So this is the only reason John Lewis is changing away from the ripoff numbers their idiot Managing Director Andy Street so stupidly allowed against the whole ethos under which the John Lewis partnership was founded and not because they are good guys or wanting to do the right thing.  They are only changing at the last possible minute to avoid being prosecuted for breaking a UK law as a result of a new EU Directive's implementation. :o >:( :'(

I was not getting carried away, but I am sorry if I gave that impression...

Personally I feel that ALL companies/organisations that operate in the UK/sell a product that's used in the UK should use a standard rate 01/02 number, but the UK numbering market has been allowed to run itself for far too long... however that's another post for another thread..

With regards to JLP they have changed ALL their store numbers back to the alternatives we have listed already, and their "central" contact number has been moved to the 03 equivalent of their expensive 08 NGN.

They also have an 01 number to be used for calls from outside the UK.

I personally find it a better feeling to acknowledge when a company has accepted it's mistakes and corrected them rather then calling their management "idiots" but that's just me..

With regards to the charging methods of non UK telco's I suggest these comments are moved to a more appropriate general thread..

Thanks.

CJT-80 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 8:36am:

I personally find it a better feeling to acknowledge when a company has accepted it's mistakes and corrected them rather then calling their management "idiots" but that's just me.

But John Lewis and Nationwide are too mutually owned type organisations (ok with John Lewis the mutuality is with their own staff but most of them only earn modest wages so realise the importance of not having to ring a ripoff 084/7 number at premium rates compared to greedy main board PLC fatcats who normally have a company provided mobile that they also use for all their personal calls) whom it was unthinkable would ever use non 01/02 numbers to begin with.  Yet incredibly they both did so great was the greedy and forceful salesmanship and the bribes offered by the telcos to switch to using the devil's own spawn.

Why should we congratulate either body for changing to 03 numbers only at the very last possible moment.

By contrast Tesco, who are a normal commercial PLC with shareholders, deserve some credit for having changed all their numbers to 03 several months early.

HMRC deserve very little credit indeed as they were also another body who it was unthinkable would ever use 084/7 numbers and they resisted changing to 03 for many years despite longstanding public pressure for them to do so.

John Lewis have only done the minimum at the last moment (given that it would be impossible for them to distinguish between a sales and support or a customer service call the way they tend to operate) so we should note the change but not applaud them on it.

NGMsGhost wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 9:05am:

But John Lewis and Nationwide are too mutually owned type organisations (ok with John Lewis the mutuality is with their own staff but most of them only earn modest wages so realise the importance of not having to ring a ripoff 084/7 number at premium rates compared to greedy main board PLC fatcats who normally have a company provided mobile that they also use for all their personal calls) whom it was unthinkable would ever use non 01/02 numbers to begin with.  Yet incredibly they both did so great was the greedy and forceful salesmanship and the bribes offered by the telcos to switch to using the devil's own spawn.

You appear to be taking a very harsh line against two organisations you have singled out, why just pick these two? Center Parcs appear to have "only recently" made the changes, as do Boots, and I don't seem to remember Tesco having made them back in say January..

As far as I can tell from your stance on this you have a grievance against any company using an 03 number...


Quote:

Why should we congratulate either body for changing to 03 numbers only at the very last possible moment. By contrast Tesco, who are a normal commercial PLC with shareholders, deserve some credit for having changed all their numbers to 03 several months early. HMRC deserve very little credit indeed as they were also another body who it was unthinkable would ever use 084/7 numbers and they resisted changing to 03 for many years despite longstanding public pressure for them to do so. John Lewis have only done the minimum at the last moment (given that it would be impossible for them to distinguish between a sales and support or a customer service call the way they tend to operate) so we should note the change but not applaud them on it.

I didn't ask you or anyone else to "congratulate" anyone.. I was the person who "congratulated" them.. why.. because the cut off date is the middle of June and we are still at the start.. but what does that matter it's only a few day's away...

There are still numerous companies and organisations who need to change their numbers over, and I for one would rather expel my energies reminding them of their responsibilities rather than partaking in a "tit for tit" conversation like this...

I would also add that the "status" of a company being mutual or otherwise appears to have no difference into how the company operates any longer.. regardless of whether it should or not... You only have to look at Co-Op or Nationwide to see this!

I do not wish to take sides in an argument, but I will offer some relevant personal comments.

I am very disappointed at the pace of change by the John Lewis Partnership and the failure to apply it to their financial services operations. I was led to expect more.

I try never to apply moral attributes to corporate institutions - they are not people. Individuals who own and manage them are people, but their personal characteristics are inevitably generally lost in combination with those of others. When one is pleased by something happening it is natural to offer congratulations to whoever may be seen as being responsible. This may however be taken as being ironic when the action is nothing more than complying with a legal duty. When applied to a corporation it is essentially meaningless.

The fair telecoms campaign is seeking to influence media coverage of the forthcoming (13 June) deadline and the action being taken by very many traders in order to comply. We will highlight those who have not complied. This is to represent the many individuals who have pressed for this over many years - whether invited to represent them or not.

I am not unduly concerned about the way in which telephone companies shuffle money between themselves; I am only concerned about any effect this has on either end. There is a genuine problem with Orange Spain and +443 numbers, and I am interested to know if the same effect is seen elsewhere. Campaigning resources are very limited and heavily committed to high priority matters at present. I will however be delighted to work with anyone in pressing this matter through whichever channel is best able to offer a potential resolution. This could be matter for the Commission - we are looking at national implementations of the relevant provisions of the CRD across the EU and there could be an international angle to this as well.

As a campaigner it can sometimes be frustrating to find that one has been placed in the wrong, because one's target has been taken away. Comments in this thread perhaps demonstrate two different reactions to that situation. The value of this website is being seriously undermined by the successes that are being achieved. Those who saw the misuse of expensive telephone numbers as a vehicle for an attack on particular businesses and politicians, or business and politicians in general, will perhaps have to look elsewhere. Those who sought only to address this issue may prepare to retire satisfied. The fair telecoms campaign will see this one through to the end, notably through and beyond implementation of the "unbundled tariff", but has many other issues on its agenda.

(Readers are free to judge the above as meaningless waffle or thoughtful comments!)

NGMsGhost wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 2:59am:

[quote author=CJT-80 link=1378325470/48#48 date=1402000912] Moreover John Lewis are not switching back to their nice memorable previous 01 and 02 numbers but are using devious and sneaky 03 numbers.   The bad thing about 03 numbers is that their charging structure is completely different from 01 and 02 numbers and basically they are considerably more expensive for the originating telco and the only reason UK telcos include them in call plans and charge them at 01/02 rates is because an Ofcom General Condition says they have to.

Nothing wrong with 03 numbers.

isdoo wrote on Jun 8^th, 2014 at 5:11pm:

Nothing wrong with 03 numbers.

Only from a UK consumer point of view calling only other UK 03 numbers and only because an Ofcom General Condition says they must be charged the same as calls to 01/02 numbers, even though they still involve higher costs for the Originating telecoms supplier than calls to an 01/02 number.

Due to these higher costs most discounting overseas call carriers will not connect calls to UK 03 numbers at the same price as to UK geographic (01/02) meaning that most major call centre users of 03 numbers are forced to also offer an 01/02 number for calling from abroad.  They don't want to have to do this because the 01/02 call cannot be monitored and routed in call handing terms and included in their call origination statistics as easily as an 03 NGN can be.

There didn't need to be anything wrong with 03 numbers but Ofcom unfortunately permitted it because the NGN industry complained it couldn't possibly have any kind of NGN where it did not manage to take some extra revenue on the call compared to boring old cheap 01/02 numbers.  So 03 numbers were allowed to have a different charging structure on the origination side compared to 01/02 even though all the extra costs should have fallen only on the receiving party (call centre).

We all pay for this via for instance the ever higher monthly line rental.  This keeps going up way above inflation for various reasons including BT Wholesales's naked greed and Ofcom's unfitness for purposes as a regulator in keeping prices down for consumers.  However one of the main reasons line rental has to keep going up is due to the greater cost for telecoms companies in connecting calls to 03 numbers compared to 01/02, traffic growing fast to these 03 numbers every single month and yet them always being covered by the so called "free" evening/weekend inclusive calling plans offered by many telcos as justification for the ever higher ripoff monthly line rental charge.

I'd love to know what happened to the clown who decided, less than a year ago, that changing to 0844 numbers was a good idea!

A complete about-turn (to geographic numbers) has now been completed.

http://www.johnlewis.com/our-shops

But at what cost?

At what financial cost? ...or cost to their reputation?

Ian G wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 5:01pm:

At what financial cost? ...or cost to their reputation?

I very much doubt their reputation will have been overly damaged by a bad telephony decision...

The cost of swapping to NGN's and then scrapping them will have cost them money... how much is anyone's guess..

Heinz wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 10:56am:

I'd love to know what happened to the clown who decided, less than a year ago, that changing to 0844 numbers was a good idea!

Sadly I believe that the current UK CEO and the other members of the Board of Directors who agreed to the ludicrous move to 0844 numbers all still hold their positions.

More interesting will be to focus on well known organisations (especially those which claim to be member owned or to be mutuals) who still continue to use 0845 numbers for customer service functions despite the implementation of the requirements of the EU Consumer Rights Directive in respect of phone number use in to UK law.

Top of my hit list in that regard is going to be BUPA.  In a recent phone conversation with their UK CEO (Dr Damien Marmion), he continued to assure me that their own particular 0845 numbers were different, were definitely "local rate" and did not cost extra to use and did not involve a revenue share.  He was also patronising, supercilious and dismissive on the phone number issue in the way that doctors all too often tend to be when dealing with patients.

See www.bupa.co.uk/contact

Health assessments           0845 600 3458

GP services                           0845 600 3458

Musculoskeletal services    0845 600 4778

Dental services                 0845 600 4779

BUPA must surely be at the top of our hit list for enforcement action against their continued phone number misuse :o >:( >:( >:(.

I agree and suggest you submit a complaint to Trading Standards.    Not a member of BUPA myself.