"A new law - the Consumer Rights Directive - is putting a stop to pricey 0844, 0845 and 0871 customer helplines. But some companies will be let off the hook. We’re calling on the government to extend the ban to the travel industry and public sector. We also want the financial regulator to bring the finance industry into line. There shouldn’t be any exceptions - all costly customer helplines should be banned."


See and vote here: http://www.which.co.uk/campaigns/premium-rate-phone-numbers/know-the-issue/

Which say "A new law - the Consumer Rights Directive - is putting a stop to pricey 0844, 0845 and 0871 customer helplines. But some companies will be let off the hook. We’re calling on the government to extend the ban to the travel industry and public sector. We also want the financial regulator to bring the finance industry into line. There shouldn’t be any exceptions - all costly customer helplines should be banned."

We agree with this but wonder why Which? are limiting their comments to helplines; why not campaign for a ban on all revenue sharing on all 084 and 087 phone numbers??? After all these numbers provide no benefit at all to the callers, they only benefit the companies and organisations who use them, so the companies should pay any extra charges NOT the callers.

Ofcom need to revise their proposals for non-geographic numbers and start acting in the interests of consumers and callers -- OFCOM PLEASE THINK AGAIN !!!

Ofcom need to act now to show that they are competent to carry out their mission, and stop being ineffective and negligent as they have been up to now !!!

Whilst the launch of this petition by Which? is welcome we wonder why Which? are so inconsistent on this issue.    Why did Which? fail to respond to all three of Ofcom's consultations on "Simplifying Non-geo Numbers" even though I wrote and implored them to???  :( :'(

Its a bit rich of Which? to now very belatedly claim that they are campaigning against rip-off phone numbers and to recommend people to use this site to find geographic alternatives after Which? has failed to take even the most basic actions in the interests of callers and consumers.   >:( :'(

loddon wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 10:16am:

… why not campaign for a ban on all revenue sharing on all 084 and 087 phone numbers??? After all these numbers provide no benefit at all to the callers, they only benefit the companies and organisations who use them, so the companies should pay any extra charges NOT the callers.

If the companies pay the "extra" charges then they will only be passed back to customers through charges elsewhere. How might this be prevented?

Dave wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 10:40am:

If the companies pay the "extra" charges then they will only (only?) be passed back to customers through charges elsewhere. How might this be prevented?

Not necessarily.   These costs would then be charged to the companies incurring them along with all their other telecoms costs..  They will be faced with the question of what to do about these costs.   Normally businesses manage and control their costs in order to achieve profitability.   Yes they could just add these costs onto their retail prices but that would risk making them uncompetitive.  They would naturally be reluctant to pass on the full charge at cost.  Normally businesses look at how they can minimise unavoidable costs and ensure that they get value for money before they push up their prices within a competitive market.   They would negotiate with their supplier and seek competitive offers from other suppliers to secure the optimum facility for their business.

Most of the businesses using these non-geo numbers are large and powerful and could negotiate with telecoms suppliers from a position of strength.   This is something which individual consumers cannot do hence the growth of this non-geo rip-off industry.   This is the flaw in the current design of the phone numbering and charging regime in this country.

If the companies and organisations receiving the benefits of non-geo numbers had to pay for the benefits, instead of the callers, then we might see the effects of true competitive pressure at long last applied to this market.

In the Public Accounts Committee enquiry on September 2nd, the witness from DWP stated that using an 03 number would cost them half a pence per minute.

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=13737&player=windowsmedia
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/public-accounts/PAC%2002%2009%202013.pdf

Contrast that with the up-to-41p/min that callers currently pay to make calls to 0845 numbers.

How sad that someone in such a position can be so ill-educated that he/she used the plural 'pence' when the singular 'penny' should have been used (or even the coloquial abbreviation 'ha'penny').

Heinz wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 4:11pm:

How sad that someone in such a position can be so ill-educated that he/she used the plural 'pence' when the singular 'penny' should have been used (or even the coloquial abbreviation 'ha'penny').

One former chancellor, can't remember which one, probably Gordon Brown, kept talking about cutting income tax by "one pence" in his budget speech, it really grated.

Just for the record, the fair telcoms campaign has added a comment to the Which? conversation related to its "Costly Calls Campaign".

http://conversation.which.co.uk/money/costly-calls-campaign-customer-helplines-premium-rate-numbers-0845-0870/comment-page-1/#comment-1335279

We are not campaigning for costly calls, but the "asks" of the Which? campaign are fully aligned with specific fair telecoms campaign proposals. The comment seeks to clarify some issues for the sake of those who are concerned with actually making progress rather than simply voicing consumer dissatisfaction.

---

Whislt the Which? conversation comment linked to above is stuck awaiting approval, there is a pagedump of it here.

Dave wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 10:40am:

If the companies pay the "extra" charges then they will only be passed back to customers through charges elsewhere. How might this be prevented?

Although this may sometimes be true, it's not all the time, or in my opinion, it's rarely the reason why an 08 is chosen.

Companies use these numbers in this country because it's pretty much become the norm whereas in some other countries they don't/wouldn't try such a thing.

One example comes to mind as I saw flyer today and it was a gym membership.  Now this gym charges the highest monthly charges of most, if not all, other gyms.  This gym charges so much that they don't mention the cost on their website and even if you go in to ask they try their best to convince you how good they are before they will even divulge the cost.  Now it came as no surprise to me that this gym uses an 0844 number.

I doubt this 0844 number is used to reduce the gyms' overall costs so they can then reduce their membership fees because there are so many other gyms that charge less and provide same/similar facilities but don't have an 0844 number.

Pure and simple (imho) they use this 0844 to make money without being subject to any regulatory conditions.

My take is that vast numbers of non-geographic numbers are simply mis-sold. Take a few minutes to check out the various companies selling them. Their explanations are muddled and confused and often lacking key details.

They often highlight the business will earn several pence per minute while the caller pays a "low rate" of 5p/min. Most fail to mention that some landline users will be paying more than double that amount per-minute or that mobile users will be paying up to 41p/min. Connection fees significantly push up the call price, especially on short calls, but they are rarely, if ever, mentioned. None of these companies mention that most callers have inclusive minutes that will not cover calls to the non-geographic number under consideration.

More than a thousand GPs were taken in by something very similar to this. I see no reason to doubt that tens of thousands of small businesses have also fallen for deals that seem to offer something for nothing and to be too good to be true.