We've known for over two years that the legislation was on its way and we've even seen drafts of it. The final version has just been published which takes effect from 13th June 2014:

Regulation 41 of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Payments) Regulations 2013

This is the UK's enactment of Article 21 of Directive 2011/83/EU on Consumer Rights. However, the UK legislation contains a fantastic new additional clause which is not in the directive:

If in those circumstances a consumer who contacts a trader in relation to a contract is bound to pay more than the basic rate, the contract is to be treated as providing for the trader to pay to the consumer any amount by which the charge paid by the consumer for the call is more than the basic rate.

Based on this wording, you can claim back any unlawful surcharge for calls made after 13th June 2014, if necessary via the Small Claims track of the County Court. If you have a fixed-price package of unlimited calls to basic rate (01/02/03) numbers, you can claim back from the trader the full cost of unlawfully surcharged calls. The "basic rate" would be the basic rate of the caller's tariff, not of a specific tariff of a specific provider such as BT.

Note that Regulation 6 contains a list of excluded industry sectors, most notably financial services.

NFH wrote on Dec 20^th, 2013 at 10:50am:

Note that Regulation 6 contains a list of excluded industry sectors, most notably financial services.

This basically covers ALL banks and building societies.. and also Insurance providers (who just love the use of 084 numbers for ALL of their contacts... sometimes including the sales call...)

How typical...

CJT-80 wrote on Dec 20^th, 2013 at 12:09pm:

NFH wrote on Dec 20th, 2013 at 10:50am: Note that Regulation 6 contains a list of excluded industry sectors, most notably financial services. This basically covers ALL banks and building societies.. and also Insurance providers (who just love the use of 084 numbers for ALL of their contacts... sometimes including the sales call...) How typical...

According to Which, "As for financial companies, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has committed to considering whether it could introduce similar measures if you’re calling your bank or insurer. Barclays, Barclaycard and RBS have already backed our Costly Calls campaign by promising to scrap expensive customer lines, but we want to see them banned across the board". It was largely down to Which's successful campaign that the exemption was removed for passenger transport services, and I have no doubt that they will likewise persuade the FCA to impose a regulatory (non-statutory) ban on financial services using surcharged numbers.

Regulation 6 exists because the regulations in general are inappropriate (due to the nature of the type of transaction), because the equivalent effects are achieved by other regulations deriving from another Directive or, as in the case of Financial Services, the issues covered are dealt with quite differently - potentially more strictly - both by EU Directives and by national legislation.

HM Treasury was invited to consider bringing in parallel regulations for the Financial Services sector to cover the single issue of contact telephone numbers. Fear of being seen to be "gold-plate" a EU Directive was probably one of the primary reasons for this invitation being declined.

Attention has been turned towards getting the FCA to add identical requirements to its regulations, as it is perfectly competent to do, without specific legislation. It has so far committed to consider this. Given that two banking groups and one insurance company have already committed to drop 084/087 numbers, it must be likely that the actual change we seek will be seen across the board.

NFH wrote on Dec 20^th, 2013 at 12:49pm:

It was largely down to Which's successful campaign that the exemption was removed for passenger transport services.

Can anybody offer any evidence to support this ridiculous assertion?

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 20^th, 2013 at 1:08pm:

NFH wrote on Dec 20th, 2013 at 12:49pm: It was largely down to Which's successful campaign that the exemption was removed for passenger transport services. Can anybody offer any evidence to support this ridiculous assertion?

I might have been wrong, but Which did have a massive campaign on this specific exemption with tens of thousands of signatures on their petition. They claimed victory for themselves, although I have no doubt that other pressure groups, including this one, made a large contribution too.

Which? didn't respond to Ofcom's "simpifying non-geographic numbers" consultations in 2010, 2011, 2012 or 2013, nor to the BIS consultation on "Implementing the EU Consumer Rights Directive" in 2012.

As is their way, Which? was late to the campaign, initially made some quite ridiculous assertions and requests and now, amazingly, seems to be credited with making it all happen.

I'll credit Which? for making a lot of noise about the specific transport and finance exemption, but only after the draft regulations were published. One might imagine that many other interested parties such as the Office of Fair Trading, even some from within the transport industry itself, made representations about the scope of the regulations. We'll not hear about those.

Which? also allegedly spent several years collecting evidence on GPs using 084 telephone numbers in breach of their GMS contract. However, there's no evidence to suggest they actually did anything with whatever it was they found out.

NFH wrote on Dec 20^th, 2013 at 1:59pm:

I might have been wrong, but Which did have a massive campaign on this specific exemption with tens of thousands of signatures on their petition. They claimed victory for themselves, although I have no doubt that other pressure groups, including this one, made a large contribution too.

Which? did indeed collect many email addresses to add to their database, mailing out a message with an implicit invitation to subscribe (direct marketing without consent, under the terms of PECR #20). The actual terms of the petition were not directly specified - it was about "putting a stop to costly customer helplines".

I imagine that nobody in government would be surprised to learn that people would prefer helplines to be less, rather than more, costly for them to call. It is an open question as to whether people want businesses to be stopped from offering helplines, because they are costly to the business and therefore lead to higher prices. (I can assure readers that no business offering a helpline on a 084/087 number makes a net profit from the activity, in isolation from other activities.)


I understand that the actual submission to BIS by Which? (in response to sight of the draft regulations) was a list of passenger transport companies. This may may have duplicated the content of a number of other submitted lists (at least one of which had been published twelve months earlier), as no effort was made to co-ordinate research or submissions with other parties.

Many others engaged in the BIS round-table session, at which the issues were thrashed out, shared information in advance and demonstrated an understanding of the issues, participating in group discussion. Richard Lloyd claims to have had a private meeting with the Minister (or should that be, boasts about having privileged access denied to others).

As many of the relevant exchanges were private it is not possible to detail the representatives of the passenger transport industry who argued for its inclusion, or the precise role taken by various parties in helping the officials and the Minister to make the right decision.



Just for the record, "this forum" is not a pressure group - it is an open public forum where issues are discussed. It is part of a website that is supported by advertising and cannot therefore offer any formal view on any issue without suffering a conflict of interest, regardless of the difficulty of reflecting a common position that that encompasses the views of all contributors. I represent "the fair telecoms campaign" and engage in work on this issue in that role.


As the campaigning efforts of Which? are now conducted under the brand of a commercial publication and membership organisation, I believe that it should be a little more careful about what interests it may claim to represent. The libertarian, or even anarchistic, nature of its statement of purpose, quoted below, may cause those with different political philosophies to treat some of its declared objectives with extreme suspicion.


Quote:

to make individuals as powerful as the organisations they deal with in their daily lives

Given the continued widespread flouting of Article 19 of the same directive, which has been in force in the UK since 6th April 2013 under the Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012, I wonder how many businesses will continue operating 084 and 087 numbers after 13th June 2014 in breach of Article 21 and Regulation 41.

Fortunately breaches of Article 21 will be much easier to prove than breaches of Article 19, which should make enforcement much easier. Nevertheless I anticipate that many businesses, even large ones, will flout the ban.

NFH wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 12:37pm:

Given the continued widespread flouting of Article 19 of the same directive, which has been in force in the UK since 6th April 2013 under the Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012, I wonder how many businesses will continue operating 084 and 087 numbers after 13th June 2014 in breach of Article 21 and Regulation 41. Fortunately breaches of Article 21 will be much easier to prove than breaches of Article 19, which should make enforcement much easier. Nevertheless I anticipate that many businesses, even large ones, will flout the ban.

Out of interest how can "we" the consumer prove this point: A trader must not charge consumers, in respect of the use of a given means of payment, fees that exceed the cost borne by the trader for the use of that means.


How would we know their costs? That is something that would need to be investigated...

NFH wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 12:37pm:

… I anticipate that many businesses, even large ones, will flout the ban.

Please be assured that for the fair telecoms campaign the battle is not over until compliance with the regulations is achieved. Depending on the resources available to us (we are always looking to gain more supporters), we will be monitoring the move to compliance over the coming months, using the media to draw attention to any notable positive and negative developments.


If a consumer wishes to report an alleged breach of any of the Consumer Rights regulations, they should call the Citizens Advice Consumer Helpline - 08454 04 05 06. I am told that Citizens Advice sees this service itself as being totally different from those covered by the regulations. It sees it as being wrong to have to pay again to complain about something one has paid for, but acceptable to pay to access a service funded out of taxation.

It is understood that when the Cabinet Office guidance is published, it will show more regard for the interests of citizens than that shown by Citizens Advice.

It may be noted that Citizens Advice blocked attempts to encourage HMRC to move to 03 numbers some years ago. Its position appears not to have changed, so we may expect it to oppose the Cabinet Office guidance, as it also opposed the Ofcom proposal for the "unbundled tariff".

Surely now that CAB is a Dept. of Government however thin the link, it should abide by the rules that include government depts that have funding by Taxpayers however small, they are not a sole charity now although not paying volunteers, and a % of running costs are funded by Taxpayers.

They should be persued and made to toe the line, in the media.

CJT-80 wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 1:42pm:

Out of interest how can "we" the consumer prove this point: A trader must not charge consumers, in respect of the use of a given means of payment, fees that exceed the cost borne by the trader for the use of that means. How would we know their costs? That is something that would need to be investigated...

This is precisely my point. Unlike Article 19 which is harder to prove as it concerns the trader's costs, Article 21 is easier to prove as it concerns the consumer's costs.

NFH wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 8:34pm:

… This is precisely my point. …

All three of us are in agreement.

This is not my territory, so I am reluctant to go into detail. I would however expect that those interested in the topic will find some reference to the level of surcharges that may be expected amongst the Guidance issued to enforcement bodies, in the appropriate consultation document, or even in the associated impact analysis.

Whilst specific detail would be necessary in the case of an enforcement action, there should be some information to guide a consumer on what sort of case would be worth reporting, or pursuing directly. It may take a little trouble to dig it out, but one might hope that consumer representatives bodies would have done so to assist their clients.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 3:13pm:

NFH wrote on Dec 21st, 2013 at 12:37pm: … I anticipate that many businesses, even large ones, will flout the ban. Please be assured that for the fair telecoms campaign the battle is not over until compliance with the regulations is achieved. Depending on the resources available to us (we are always looking to gain more supporters), we will be monitoring the move to compliance over the coming months, using the media to draw attention to any notable positive and negative developments. If a consumer wishes to report an alleged breach of any of the Consumer Rights regulations, they should call the Citizens Advice Consumer Helpline - 08454 04 05 06. I am told that Citizens Advice sees this service itself as being totally different from those covered by the regulations. It sees it as being wrong to have to pay again to complain about something one has paid for, but acceptable to pay to access a service funded out of taxation. It is understood that when the Cabinet Office guidance is published, it will show more regard for the interests of citizens than that shown by Citizens Advice. It may be noted that Citizens Advice blocked attempts to encourage HMRC to move to 03 numbers some years ago. Its position appears not to have changed, so we may expect it to oppose the Cabinet Office guidance, as it also opposed the Ofcom proposal for the "unbundled tariff".

There is a list of geo numbers,(post #12),  in this thread: - http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1145444613/0/

Also numbers, including 0808 1566032 in the database.

.

Or click the "unhelpful" Call Charges link to get this:

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/consumer_w/consumer_protection_for_the_consumer_e/consumer_citizens_advice_consumer_service_e/call_charges.htm

The alternatives are listed there..

Despite being a member of a forum that only exists because of the money made by the site by providing alternative numbers, I have to say that I am generally not in favour of them.

I do accept that some people may be subscribed to the wrong tariff and can therefore benefit from perverse circumstances which enable them to call 084, and some 087, numbers more cheaply than geographic rate numbers. There is even a case where calls to 0845 numbers are deliberately offered at a cheaper rate than geographic rate calls - but that is wholly perverse.

A money-saving site to offer alternative 084 and 087 numbers to cover this short-term situation would be of some value. Likewise, service providers could offer these short-term alternatives to their proper numbers, given that they clearly identified the particular minority groups for whom these were of value. The legislation being discussed has been adapted to allow for the latter situation, however there is no requirement for the particular circumstances under which the alternatives are to be used to be declared - (perhaps that would be asking for too much).

I believe that we are now approaching the point where this website will have to change its function. Once the Ofcom regulations come into effect, its present function will be to enable callers to avoid paying an openly declared Service Charge - just like any other money-saving site that offers discounted access to services. Where numbers referred to on the site are in breach of regulations (illegal) I would have some doubt about whether it is acceptable to encourage a potential complainant to simply avoid the illegality, rather than reporting it and seeking to force a move to compliance for the good of all.

Please understand that these comments are not to decry the enormous benefit which this site has provided (and continues to provide) to many people, and the role performed by this forum in enabling campaigners to make contact with each other and engage in open discussion. Times are however changing; the name of the site became a little meaningless over 3 years ago and efforts that would ultimately put it out of business are now achieving considerable success.

CJT-80 wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 2:45pm:

Or click the "unhelpful" Call Charges link to get this: http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/consumer_w/consumer_protection_for_the_consumer_e/consumer_citizens_advice_consumer_service_e/call_charges.htm The alternatives are listed there..

And still using the illegal term "local rate":-

You may wish to use these alternative numbers, which are charged at your local rate:

    020 8185 0710 English language
    020 8185 0717 Welsh language

SCV, perhaps as it's nearing Christmas and the weather is a bit bad I can be forgiven for having no idea what on earth that last post meant..

I am sorry to say it. I know you and other have put a lot of work into campaigning for the mess that is NGN's to be improved.. and indeed with both the Ofcom Consultation and the EU Directive we are almost there...

However ALL 084 and 087 numbers are likely if not surely to become non-inclusive for calls, and therefore alternatives that do NOT cost consumers, with inclusive call plans, is still in my opinion the way forward..

As these calls are not being "banned" for all circumstances  then companies will continue to use them, and as has been discussed on this page I am sure companies will take as long as they can before they change over to geographically charged and inclusive calls. Perhaps even some companies will flout the regulations even after they are imposed..

I have perhaps misunderstood your comments, and if I have I apologise.. however it can be hard to establish them when there is a lot to go through in a post.

CJT-80 wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 1:15pm:

SCV, perhaps as it's nearing Christmas and the weather is a bit bad I can be forgiven for having no idea what on earth that last post meant..

A number of quite deep points were being made in a relatively short piece (relative to the depth of the points that is), so there need be no shame in failing to under the totality (or even to understand, if there are typos)- I was not making a single simple point. I was musing on the concept of alternative numbers and the role of SayNoTo0870.com.

It will now be 084 numbers that will become the alternatives to 03 numbers (e.g. for DWP). These will be retained for the benefit of those who enjoy perverse call pricing i.e. 084 cheaper than 03.

There will be law-breakers and those who validly impose a Service Charge that some may wish to avoid. The basic reality may therefore appear not to have changed, however the principle will have changed dramatically.

Over the next 18 months, we will be entering quite a different world. There will still be many issues to occupy the fair telecoms campaign, but a lot of the raison d'etre for this website and forum will have passed, or changed its nature.

I hope this helps. If my contributions are wholly incomprehensible, then it is best to ignore them. If particular points demand challenge or explanation, then please do so, or ask.

I am now a lot clearer..

so thank you..

and Merry Christmas to Everyone!

:)

CJT-80 wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 1:15pm:

However ALL 084 and 087 numbers are likely if not surely to become non-inclusive for calls, and therefore alternatives that do NOT cost consumers, with inclusive call plans, is still in my opinion the way forward.. As these calls are not being "banned" for all circumstances  then companies will continue to use them, and as has been discussed on this page I am sure companies will take as long as they can before they change over to geographically charged and inclusive calls. Perhaps even some companies will flout the regulations even after they are imposed..

The point is that it is important to distinguish between how it is now and how it will be soon.

At the present time users of 084 and 087 non-geographic numbers use them without declaring their Service Charge. As a result, they are often used in places where such a Service Charge could not be justified - this being "misuse".

The alternative numbers listings allow empowered individuals to look them up to avoid such unjust charges. The process is therefore one which does not offer equality for all phone users.

The enactment of the Consumer Rights Directive into UK law means that many organisations that currently use 084 and 087 numbers will have to cease doing so by 15th June 2014. Those who don't will be breaking the law. Looking up alternatives for these allows individuals to avoid paying illegal charges and does nothing to make those organisations mend their ways for the benefit of all.

To understand the point, emphasis must be put on the fact that alternative numbers listings only benefit individual users rather than everyone as a whole (which is why I said they don't offer equality).

Dave wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 2:10pm:

The point is that it is important to distinguish between how it is now and how it will be soon. At the present time users of 084 and 087 non-geographic numbers use them without declaring their Service Charge. As a result, they are often used in places where such a Service Charge could not be justified - this being "misuse". The alternative numbers listings allow empowered individuals to look them up to avoid such unjust charges. The process is therefore one which does not offer equality for all phone users. The enactment of the Consumer Rights Directive into UK law means that many organisations that currently use 084 and 087 numbers will have to cease doing so by 15th June 2014. Those who don't will be breaking the law. Looking up alternatives for these allows individuals to avoid paying illegal charges and does nothing to make those organisations mend their ways for the benefit of all. To understand the point, emphasis must be put on the fact that alternative numbers listings only benefit individual users rather than everyone as a whole (which is why I said they don't offer equality).

I agree with you.. having the alternative when the Directive is put into place will enable the more empowered to find the numbers deal with the issue, and then, one would hope, report the offending company to the relevant department/organisation.

This is one part that ideally needs to be emphasised, what WE do if a company who should abide by this legislation decides to flout it... I would have no idea who to report it to.. and I am sure Joe Public wouldn't either..

CJT-80 wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 2:17pm:

I agree with you.. having the alternative when the Directive is put into place will enable the more empowered to find the numbers deal with the issue, and then, one would hope, report the offending company to the relevant department/organisation.

CJT,

I think that most normal people like you and I who realise by now just how many hours can be wasted in one's life trying to stop evil big business ripping people off will simply continue to dial the alternative non premium rate numbers.

However I can imagine certain individuals who are regulars in the forum and who seem to have insufficient things to do to to fill their days and who are also eager to define themselves as martyrs for this cause will now cheerfully pay the illegal service charge so that they then have the best formal basis for making a statutory complaint with the appropriate regulator to have the company still breaking the law fined and reprimanded.

Personally I feel that it would have been far better if the whole process of hidden additional charges when making phone calls had been brought to an end and that anyone wanting to charge for a service does so overtly by demanding payment for it up front through a credit or debit card before the call is connected.  Of course those behind this whole scam industry know that this would bring about its true downfall which is why they will fight tooth and nail to avoid the imposition of such overt charging systems.

Those who also think this battle is now over are being extremely naive as for instance the Citizens Advice Consumer Service have already told me with some glee that their ripoff 0845 numbers will be considered as exempt from the EU Directive on the basis that they are a charity and not a profit making company........................

Quote:

I think that most normal people like you and I

By the very nature of the discussion topics, anyone posting in this forum is, by definition, not like "normal people" - to the tune of one-in-several-million or more.   ;)

Ian G wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 4:43pm:

By the very nature of the discussion topics, anyone posting in this forum is, by definition, not like "normal people" - to the tune of one-in-several-million or more.   ;)

And there was i thinking that you were the one self defined balanced and normal person amongst all the rest of us fanatical and fervent forum zealots. ;)

What I was getting at however is that most of us who object to the ripoff NGB call charges prefer to take the simple route of denying the revenue stream to the ripoff artists completely.  However some more complicated thinkers in the forum, in particular Silent Calls Victim, see this as unfair to people who are so unaware they are paying the charge and so unconcened about doing so that they never visit this website to look for alternative numbers.

Personally I have always felt SCV may actually be a fifth column for the non geographic number vendors given his suggestion on more than one occasion that the numbers on this site should no longer be published in the interests of fairness and a level playing field to uninformed and ignorant telecoms consumers.

I on the other hand believe that circumventing use of these covert premium numbers completely is the best we can do for now and that it is better that as many of us as possible avoid being ripped of by calling these numbers than that none of us can avoid calling them at all in the name of social equity.

SCV appears to suggest that the non existence of the alternatives published on this website would actually bring more pressure to bear on the NGN misusers not to go on using them.  However I personally believe they would still go on using them just the same but that the telecoms companies and any agents they may employ to tout their propaganda on their behalf would simply become even richer than they have already become through the use of NGNs.

Of course I may be being unfair to SCV and it may be that his thought processes are so "Advanced" compared to the rest of us simple peasant folk that he is able to see aspects of this whole situation that the rest of us simple straight line thinkers are sadly unable to perceive?  :-? :-/ :(

What I cannot understand is the continuing level of negativity expressed by some in this forum.

The battle is won. The principle that using 084 and 087 numbers for customer service lines is wrong, has been accepted and is enshrined in law.

As with all laws there will be some that flout it. That's human nature.


As for government, HMRC no longer uses any 0845 or 0870 numbers. That's a major step forward compared with the position only one year ago.

DWP has recently agreed to scrap their 0845 numbers. New Cabinet Office policy is due to be published shortly and will reach into very many corners of government and further promote change.


Watch this: http://tinyurl.com/PACslcBBC from 1h36m onwards (for 7 minutes). Could you imagine such an exchange taking place even this time last year? Me neither.

Read this: http://tinyurl.com/LAN300REP in full. Could you even think that such a forthright and clear policy could have been advanced even six months ago? Again, no.


Things are rapidly moving forward. There's no time to look back or to worry about all those evil corporations that are just out to get you.

Ian G wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 6:24pm:

There's no time to look back or to worry about all those evil corporations that are just out to get you.

They remain out to get you.  They will just move on to new areas where their scamming has not yet been exposed and they know they can continue to get away with it for now.  Take for instance the supposed victory on unreasonable card charges by low cost airlines.  They have just replaced the unreasonable card charge you could avoid by getting another card with even more unreasonable charges for hold baggage you cannot avoid unless you travel like a vagrant or have a penchant for jackets that make you look like a Sumo Wrestler.

Same thing with phone line charges.  What you will find what will happen is that many private businesses will just withdraw the option to contact them on the phone altogether and provide only a Contact Us form to which they generally do not respond either at all or for many weeks.  Also the fact that some call centres like the Citizens Advice Consumer Service are already proudly trumpeting they are exempt from the rules and have no intention of changing to an 03 number (to set a good example and for the good of their callers even though they are not legally compelled to change) is a very bad sign.

All that has happened for now is that some of the scamming of the major telcos has been exposed and they have been embarrassed out of it.  However the basic problem of most of business now being run by people with MBAs who are motivated only by financial greed and short term selfishness remains.  The same problem is seen in the Health Service with the fiddling of targets so that greedy executives in charge can earn their massive bonuses.

Believe if you want that this is all a huge success but it has taken 10 years to force a useless regulator to make rule changes it should have done in Year 1 and the rule changes made clearly do not go anywhere near far enough.

CAB will reap all that is coming to them. They may or may not be covered by BIS rules but they'll likely not be able to sidestep what is about to come down the pipe from the Cabinet Office.


Ten years to take action? Rubbish! BIS has been involved with this for only a couple of years. If you're taking another pop at Ofcom, the new regulation is nothing to do with them. Ofcom regulate the suppliers of telecoms services, not the users.

Ian G wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 9:21pm:

Ten years to take action? Rubbish! BIS has been involved with this for only a couple of years.

Isn't BIS just another of the many useless government departments and agencies who have spent 10 years allowing these numbers to spread like a plague throughout the entire UK economy?  At one stage a certain Mr Hickson here also claimed to have the Cabinet Office was involved in the issue but then they also ducked out of the matter.

Let us face it the only reason the government has tasked BIS with acting now is due to the EU directive but like all the most cynical forms of political action they have decided if this is going to cost them money they had better try and take credit for it and look like the good guys when in fact the government and its regulatory creature OfCon has been content to sit on its backside and let the problem spread far and wide for years and years.


Quote:

If you're taking another pop at Ofcom, the new regulation is nothing to do with them. Ofcom regulate the suppliers of telecoms services, not the users.

It was a matter for Ofcom to deal with but they ducked it due to New Labour connections with the main companies running these call centres.  As Ofcom long ago became completely corrupted as a creature of telecoms businesses (despite its principal remit under Section 3 (i) of the Communications Act 2003) the government has clearly decided to take a new tack in making sure the EU directive gets implemented.

You continue to preach at us in this forum as a self introduced guru and expert who clearly thinks he knows better on all these matters than us but you fail to say what are your credentials and qualifications for placing yourself in this lofty position.

I and most (SCV excepted of course) other members of this forum by the way are just passionate consumers who hate being ripped off.  We are bored with all the technicalities explaining why we were ripped off for so many years despite trying to expose the scam early on as soon as it began to roll out nationwide and we just want it to now be brought to and end as soon as possible.

People like yourself however now seem to be determined to use smoke and mirrors to claim this as all being a great triumph of executive action by a government department.

You claim you are on the same side as other campaigners here but I repeatedly get the feeling that you may in fact just be another telco back covering assistant of SilentCallsVictim.

Why are you still looking back at the past? Things are different now. The arguments are won and action is being taken.

This was never directly a matter for Ofcom, but their recent work is useful in many ways.

BIS rules ban customer service lines from 084, 087 and 09 numbers. That immediately fixes much of the problem. Ofcom rules force users of 084, 087 and 09 numbers to state their Service Charge. This will highlight the reality of the situation and make many other users think again.

We're now in a very different place compared to even a few months ago.

As usual you throw unfounded accusations around. Why can't you celebrate success?

Ian G wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 8:27am:

Why are you still looking back at the past? Things are different now. The arguments are won and action is being taken.

How remarkably naive you seem to be.

There is still enormous scope for companies to run telephone lines that are not defined as being customer service lines and thus to continue to use 084/7 numbers to do so.

One of the largest, most relentless and unashamed users of 0844 numbers (even when acting for public bodies like London 2012 or Glasgow 2014) is Ticketmaster.  There is nothing to stop Ticketmaster continuing to run ticket sales lines on 0844 numbers and I am quite sure they will continue to do so.  Only after sales queries would have to be covered by an 03 line.  Ticketmaster's tactic here will be to have a customer service line with an enormous 30 minute+ queue with a totally inadequate number of staff so that most customers hang up before they ever get through to customer services.  Or they may only take customer service enquiries through an online form that they do not turn around either at all or for three weeks.

I see no reason for your unbridled optimism when several years after the NHS imposed clear rules on GPs preventing them using 0844 numbers for normal phone lines to make surgery appointments a large number of them still continue to do soin flagrant defiance of the new regulations.  And is making a GP appointment "customer service" or is it a "sales" activity generating new business?

So some rules are changing.  So What.  The big business interests that have made a fortune out of 084/7 numbers are still out there and will simply be seeking a new method to circumvent the new rules.  An appeal to the Competition Appeals Tribunal and thence on to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court could take many years while several of the larger companies continue to abuse the spirit of the new regulations.................

They have always gone to the ends of the earth before to avoid dismantling their telephone robbery lines up to now.  So what exactly makes you thinks the large call centre operators will continue to deploy precisely the same tactics going forwards?  The fact that even John Lewis recently tried to use 084 numbers for calling them suggests to me that ethical standards in most of big business continue to get worse rather than better.

Once DWP have made the change, joining HMRC in their use of 03 numbers, more than 90% of all calls to government departments will be on 03 numbers. A year ago, it was probably less than 2%. Numerous other departments will be making the switch in the coming months. The figure may not ever reach 100%, but it won't be far off.

No doubt you'll be scouring government websites just so you can come on here in a couple of years time to rant that the "Hindi language version of the sheep-dip advice line for Welsh hill farmers" is obviously run by evil, corrupt people on the take from the telecoms industry because they are the only government phone line still using 0844 telephone numbers. In your mind, they'll obviously have a clear and corrupt motive for not making the change and you'll bang on and on about it as usual.

John Lewis obviously made a mistake. However, in the end, the result looks like not just the John Lewis stores dropping 084 numbers but the whole group including their telecoms business, their insurance arm and Waitrose stores. That will be a strong signal to others in those sectors. Large scale promotion of the change to 03 is still months away. Once that gets going the snowball is going to be unstoppable.

However, now you have moved to Spain, I don't see why any of this should be of interest to you any more. Shouldn't you be tackling all those evil Spanish corporations that are out to get you? We've got the situation covered over here.

We all have differing view's on what can and should be done with regards to the use and "banning" of 084/087/09 numbers...

However I really do think that rather than bickering between each other we need to acknowledge and accept that those views differ..

Clearly we ALL feel strongly about this, or we would not be here commenting...

Lets all just take a moment to relax and enjoy the Festive Season which is about to commence..

:)

Ian G wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 11:33am:

Once DWP have made the change, joining HMRC in their use of 03 numbers, more than 90% of all calls to government departments will be on 03 numbers. A year ago, it was probably less than 2%.

Where do you get your figures from.  I don't believe any of the figures above. Please quote your sources and please provide an encyclopaedic data set.

Where were you in the many previous years that we were responding to Ofcom and ICSTIS and other consulations and being ignored.  Probably working in some cosy well paid governmental job not worrying at all about telecoms costs I would suspect.

You strongly sound to me like some government civil servant tasked with working on this project to change to 03 who are now afraid that we may rain on your parade in claiming near 100% success by government in sweeping aside this menace to the public whilst ignoring the fact that it was the government and its cronies that introduced the whole rotten system of 084/7 call centres to begin with.  Your assertion this was not Ofcom's issue to deal with is also ridiculous in view of the numerous previous consultations they launched on the issue and then failed to act on.

Why do you not expect me to be cynical when Ofcom firmly announced the 070 number range would move to 06 and then changed their minds at the last minute when a few powerful govrnment interested connected with expensive hospital bedside telephone services got at them.

Why do you have so much faith in BIS when all that is happening is that government is trying to take credit for being forced in to doing something it should have done 10 years ago that it is only bothering to act on now due to an EU Directive.

03 numbers were more or less my personal suggestion to Ofcom and the only personal success I have had with this body.  But they destroyed the purity of the idea by allowing underlying wholesale charges to 03 numbers that were different from geographic numbers making most of the industry reluctant to take them up.


Quote:

Numerous other departments will be making the switch in the coming months. The figure not ever reach 100%, but it won't be far off.

How do you know?  Are you a senior government civil servant tasked with dealing with the matter?  Either way goverment and its regulatory agencies OFTEL and then Ofcom should never have allowed 084/7 numbers to exist and spread like a cancer in the first place.  And the lousy British Government would never have done anything about this European wide plague (also at work everywhere in Spain) had it not been forced on them by the EU.

And why do you think the problem is now at an end?  Surely you must realise  that an already disturbing tendency for many organisations to only offer contact via online web forms that are not responded to for days or weeks will now simply spread ever wider, with no restriction on it doing so.  And surely you must realise that there are numerous activities the public need to call organisations for not deemed as customer services that will still have 084/7 numbers.

But you seem desperate to force us to declare that the war has been won and so to take our eye off the many dodgy conscience less people in positions of power in large organisations who all agreed to these numbers in the first place.


Quote:

John Lewis obviously made a mistake

Please don't give me the old "poor old John Lewis" must not have realised what they were doing baloney when the adverse consequences of using 0844 numbers were known perfectly well and had already received massive and extensive publicity at the time they chose to move to them (they had also already had many years of customers writing to them complaining about the 084 numbers used for johnlewis.com).  The truth is that they just thought it would be profitable to change to 0844 and that their poor old customers would not have a choice as they were already captive.  These things happen time and again because people without a conscience, who only care about their own bonuses, are now in charge of most organisations.  The authority on which I was a councillor were never able to bring in 084/7 numbers as I passed a resolution preventing them doing so back in 2004.  Subsequently they introduced a large and extremely faceless centralised customer services department with long call queues but they had to keep it on the original geograpic number due to my proactive resolution before I left the Council.


Quote:

the snowball is going to be unstoppable.

What planet do you live on exactly?  The BBC and several Police forces and councils changed to 03 numbers several years ago but other organisations and government agencies simply ignored this.


Quote:

However, now you have moved to Spain, I don't see why any of this should be of interest to you any more.

I haven't moved to Spain.  I merely spend a number of weeks a year there.  However the Europe wide telco ripoff movement in the form of 902 numbers is very much alive and well in that country.

At least people know who I am as I have been posting on this forum for nearly 10 years.  You on the other have just sprung up from nowhere, have not explained who you are or what you do and yet constantly declare yourself an expert with your own unique insight in to what the future holds.  Tell us who you are + why you see yourself as qualified to lecture on this subject and we might take you a little more seriously.

CJT-80 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 11:36am:

We all have differing view's on what can and should be done with regards to the use and "banning" of 084/087/09 numbers... However I really do think that rather than bickering between each other we need to acknowledge and accept that those views differ.. Clearly we ALL feel strongly about this, or we would not be here commenting... Lets all just take a moment to relax and enjoy the Festive Season which is about to commence.. :)

I agree with CJT-80.

Everyone will have their own opinions which may (or may not) be to others' liking.

This is starting to turn into a bickering match or much worse. Can we therefore keep thread on topic.

Thank you.

Oh and Merry Christmas  :)

bbb_uk wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

This is starting to turn into a bickering match or much worse. Can we therefore keep thread on topic.

I think you will find the bickering is actually mainly OnTopic and relates to IanG's contentions that our worries are now at end regarding the misuse of 084/7 or other Non Geographic numbers and my contention that the current legislation will most definitely not succeed in fully achieving that goal.

The other main problem stems from the fact that IanG has only very recently joined the forum and has none of our history in this struggle (he has not explained why he has not participated in any of these discussions over the previous nearly 10 years) and yet seems to declare himself as unequivocally an expert on this matter whom nobody else is entitled to challenge (rather reminding me in style and approach of another more recent forum joinee known as SilentCallsVictim)

He also seems to go out of his way to be confrontational with longstanding forum members e.g. in his mistaken comments that I now live in Spain so he does not think I am any longer entitled to express a view on these matters.

IanG strongly smacks to me of possibly being a government civil servant tasked with declaring all public worries about 084/7 misuse by the government now at an end.  If however that is not who he is and he has joined the forum for some other reason then perhaps he can set out the basis on which he now has such a strong interest in these matters having never previously participated in any of the relevant discussions over the large number of preceding years.

Quote:

He also seems to go out of his way to be confrontational

That's rich, given the number of accusations you have hurled at me over the last few months. Where was I before? Reading the forum, but not joining in, mainly because looking from the outside it is a very unwelcoming place.


Whether things should "never have been allowed" or not is irrelevant. What we have to deal with now is the situation as it exists today, and how to put it right as best as can be achieved. There will never be 100% compliance. That's life. However, the current work makes huge advances compared to all that has gone before.

Ofcom have made huge blunders in the past, especially their decision on 0870 in 2009. Their current work puts that right and deals with many other problems. Likewise the new law from BIS addresses much of the core issue. They are steps forward. That's what we need. No point in dreaming about what might have been, deal with what we have.

Oh dear.  As others have said, we all have our own views about particular aspects but this is the season of goodwill & we are all supposed to be on the same side I thought with (at least) some shared aims?   Some recent posts do no credit to our campaigns & may even give satisfaction to "the enemy".

So.........Happy Christmas everyone & may 2014 bring us success in ending the exploitation of callers to all organisations which use other than 01,02 & 03 numbers for all contact (& 080 for those who can benefit from them) - hope I've included everything!

Ian G wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 2:46pm:

Where was I before? Reading the forum, but not joining in, mainly because looking from the outside it is a very unwelcoming place.

It never seemed the least bit unwelcoming as a place to all true haters of big business profiteering via sinister undisclosed charges for several years until the appearance of a member known as SilentCallsVictim.  Indeed up to that point there was always one of the highest levels of commonality of mind amongst established forum members that I have ever encountered almost anywhere on the internet.

The fact you only observed the forum in the past and did not participate only goes to strengthen my suspicions that you are someone who works in a management position at an organisation that is or was a large scale user of 084/7 numbers.   Your reasons for observation were presumably to decide how much longer you could get away with misusing these number until such time as the public clamour for action against them became overwhelming.

You clearly, in my humble opinion, only perceived the forum as an unfriendly place because had you disclosed your real involvement in the operation of 084/7 lines you knew the level of public oprobrium here you would suffered.


Quote:

Whether things should "never have been allowed" or not is irrelevant.

No it isn't.  It is highly relevant as to whether we can trust those who operate these lines to probably only pay lip service to the new regulations before then inventing a new way to circumvent them.


Quote:

Ofcom have made huge blunders in the past, especially their decision on 0870 in 2009. Their current work puts that right and deals with many other problems.

They are only acting now becuase the EU Directive forces them to.  Without it they would have continued to sit on their hands Ad Inifinitum.


Quote:

Likewise the new law from BIS addresses much of the core issue. They are steps forward. That's what we need. No point in dreaming about what might have been, deal with what we have.

You still sound to me like someone involved in running these call centres for a long time who has grudgingly accepted the inevitable and who is now seeking to earn some form of cudos from being forced to take an action that you know will cost you quite a lot of money.

There you go again. More accusations. Pathetic.

Ian G wrote on Dec 25^th, 2013 at 11:07pm:

There you go again. More accusations. Pathetic.

Yet you fail to counteract my accusations with any hard facts about yourself to prove that they are not true.

Everything about the way you have behaved since you came on the forum suggests to me that you are not a passionate campaigner against the misuse of these numbers but that you are someone with a lot at stake financially now that gravy train is in danger of being somewhat curtailed.

After all what would suddenly have prompted you to break your silence after so many years of only occasional contemptuous observation of us disorganised and also previously ineffective "whingers".

You have no idea where I have been campaigning nor the many successes I have had, but I certainly won't be sharing any of my history with you.

Those that need to know; they know.

Ian G wrote on Dec 25^th, 2013 at 11:30pm:

You have no idea where I have been campaigning nor the many successes I have had, but I certainly won't be sharing any of my history with you.

All that we do know is that you began using the handle Ian G to make posts on this topic in various different places only within the last 6 months.

See the following:-

http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/ian-g/28713.publicprofile

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/user/?u=32715


Quote:

Those that need to know; they know.

As to why you either weren't making posts on the subject as Ian G before 6 month ago or weren't making any posts at all clearly only you can tell us.

From your general love of obstruse discussions on the technical minutiae of the ripoff apparatus I would however imagine that you and a certain SilentCallsVictim would tend to have a great deal in common.

The regulation does not ban any use of 084 etc numbers. It says that if a company only offers an 084 etc number for after-sales service, a consumer can claim from the company the additional cost to that consumer of calling 084 etc, compared with that consumer's "basic rate". The regulation does not define "basic rate". The government's announcement of the regulation
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-cuts-off-costly-calls
explained that

Quote:

From next year (2014), if something goes wrong with a cooker, or commuters want a refund on their season ticket, they will now pay the same to phone a helpline as they do to call friends or family.

For many people, the marginal cost of phoning a friend is zero.
Therefore, from June 2014, if you have to phone an 084 etc number for after-sales service, and you have unlimited calls to geographic numbers, you will be able to demand that the company reimburses you for the cost of your phone call. If a lot of people do this, most companies will stop using 084 etc numbers for after-sales enquiries.
There will, alas, be no redress for the use of 084 etc numbers as a means of charging (for example) an additional "booking fee" for the purchase of a theatre ticket.

Nicholas43,

Thank you for your thorough and detailed explanation of the practical implications of the new law once it takes effect.

Unfortunately I would strongly suspect that 99.9% of consumers will actually still not be aware of their right to reclaim the extra cost and even if they are aware will not have the time to do so.  There may of course be a few members of this forum (for some reason the name of Derrick in particular springs to mind) who do choose to take some test cases and one can only hope that in the end this will gradually bring pressure to bear on companies still using 084 numbers for customer service to switch to 03 numbers.

The difficulty however is that many companies (especially smaller companies) only have one phone number to contact them that is then filtered by an IVR system at the next level.  But if you have already called in on an 084 number the call cannot be converted to 03 charging status at the time the company ascertains your call is about a customer service matter.

This is why I believe Ian G is completely incorrect in thinking that the battle is now completely won and in effectively suggesting that those of us who do not now roll on our back waving a Thank You flag to the call centres are behaving in a cumudgeonly manner.

nicholas43 wrote on Dec 26^th, 2013 at 6:10pm:

There will, alas, be no redress for the use of 084 etc numbers as a means of charging (for example) an additional "booking fee" for the purchase of a theatre ticket

There is indeed no prohibition on use of premium rate telephone numbers (including the 084 range) as a means of securing a "micro-payment". There is a well-argued position against this as a point of principle, which I respect. This argument has not however been accepted by Ofcom, which has moved to validate this system, by making it clearer and more transparent. The Service Charge imposed by the Service Provider will have to be clearly declared and separated from the Access Charge imposed by the caller's telephone company.

This move is obviously seen as a defeat for those who oppose the concept in principle, albeit a success for those who objected to it on the basis of the lack of clarity. I see the exposure of the existence, and level, of the Service Charge as having made a significant contribution. This has made it easy to set the definition of "basic rate" (which is now contained in Guidance that may be amended to reflect the forthcoming new position) at the point where no Service Charge applies.


The outcome of legal actions can be one factor affecting decisions made by businesses in choosing their telephone numbers, as can the precise terms of relevant regulations. The move away from 084/087 numbers will however happen long before any case for recovery of additional cost reaches a court - indeed it has started even for banks and insurance companies before the legislation, from which they were known to be exempted, was announced.

Whilst some companies may retain telephone booking fees - for first contact only - and charges for (added value) technical support lines, it is my belief that the overwhelming majority will, over a period of time, cease using 084/087  numbers for customer contact altogether. The recent series of announcements (including that made today) have set a clear tone, which undermines that previously set by the telcos (the real villains of the piece)./

The common message, from three sources, showing 084/087 numbers to contain a charge to the benefit of the person called, and thereby unacceptable in many situations, is the extent of the victory worthy of celebration. It will however require much repetition and further effort to ensure that it is heard and followed by all. I hope that those who played a major part in bringing this about, albeit wanting for much more, will have the grace to acknowledge their contribution to an outcome that they must surely welcome.

In time we may be able to work out which organisations are the participants in an alleged conspiracy and which are those who were simply performing their duty of maximising the return to shareholders or minimising the cost to taxpayers. That duty has, in many cases, been performed unfairly, stupidly and deceitfully. A failure to correct such errors will expose cases where it was no error, but a deliberate rip-off.

Good to see it is considered good public sector practice to use messaging at the beginning of a call to alert the caller to the possible cost impact.

It's been a long time since I've posted here, but today I discover this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10538449/Government-must-stop-using-premium-rate-phone-lines-new-guidance-says.html

Well isn't that something.

Rather a long time coming, I should think. But I think the campaign deserves a welcome note of congratulation. I thank all those who have toiled so long and hard and am only sorry I wasn't more involved in it myself. Shouldn't have been so pessimistic.

I'm only too aware that the government has not yet been seen to do what it says it will, and it ain't over till the fat lady sings, as it were, but I really think this is surely quite a landmark in the process of change we desired. "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win".

I wonder what it was that really swung things in the campaign's favour?

I wrote the above before reading the forum's latest. Now that I have I realize it is probably this "EU directive" whatever that is. Now I wonder whether the campaign made any difference at all, although there is still the question of what influence lay behind the EU Directive. Perhaps we'll never know.

BTW: Lately I've been using an app on my smartphone that effectively makes these 0845 numbers free, or at least part of my bundle, as far as I can see. Perhaps the industry felt that with revenues falling as a result of apps like this the writing was on the wall for 084 and 087 numbers anyway?

longusername wrote on Dec 27^th, 2013 at 5:04am:

I wonder what it was that really swung things in the campaign's favour?

We must understand that the diverse voices heard in this open public forum cannot be part of a co-ordinated campaign, indeed many assert that they share nothing with some others. Indeed, I expect to read extensive disagreement with the following view, from one who has been very closely involved in the relevant decision-making processes.

My personal view is that the change occurred as people came to recognise the truth about 084 numbers - the existence of the Service Charge, and the impact of an unregulated undeclared Access Charge. Only with this understanding could people move away from being hopelessly confused and misled by the reality of a highly complex set of retail call charges. A key factor in the confusion is that published rates for calls to geographic rate numbers are generally "penalty charges" for breaching the terms of a Call Plan or exceeding a bundle, rather than a standard tariff rate.

It is this understanding, sadly absent as a means of clarifying the terms of the NHS Directives and contract revisions, which has enabled the revised NHS England instructions, the definition of "basic rate" chosen for the implementation of the Consumer Rights Directive and the terms of the Cabinet Office Guidance to be set as they are.

I believe that everyone who has been involved in campaigning around this issue should join in the sense of victory (at whatever scale they may see it) and take credit for their contribution. We will each have our own view about how the cake of credit should be divided, but I see the only important point as being to identify successful efforts so that they may be repeated in future.


longusername wrote on Dec 27^th, 2013 at 5:04am:

BTW: Lately I've been using an app on my smartphone that effectively makes these 0845 numbers free, or at least part of my bundle, as far as I can see. Perhaps the industry felt that with revenues falling as a result of apps like this the writing was on the wall for 084 and 087 numbers anyway?

I fear that any arrangement which conceals the payment of the Service Charge from the user (e.g. the BT inclusion of 0845 calls in Call Plans) serves to protect the scam. There is no loss of revenue for anyone; it is simply collected less directly - sanitised. This means that those who never call 0845 numbers are paying the premium that is passed on to the users of 0845 numbers just as much as those who do call them. Obviously there are ups and downs with any bundling arrangement, but I see it as essentially unfair to collect specific charges passed on to particular called parties, quite independent of the actual cost of connecting the call, from all subscribers.

In this respect, we have suffered a modest setback, as Ofcom has modified the draft regulations so as to enable BT (and some others) to continue to include 0845 calls in packages. This cannot however be used as an excuse for not declaring the Service Charge whenever the 0845 number is published, nor for circumventing any of the regulations. Our hope is that when June 2015 arrives there will be so few users of 0845 numbers that this feature will be of little significance.

longusername wrote on Dec 27^th, 2013 at 5:04am:

I wonder what it was that really swung things in the campaign's favour? I wrote the above before reading the forum's latest. Now that I have I realize it is probably this "EU directive" whatever that is. Now I wonder whether the campaign made any difference at all, although there is still the question of what influence lay behind the EU Directive. Perhaps we'll never know.

Its good to hear from you again "longusername" and pleased you are still taking an interest in this subject.    In response to your point I have to say I wouldn't dream of claiming any credit for bringing this scam to the attention of the EU but I do remember writing to all the MEPs representing Southern England in July 2010.  Part of my letter said :---

"Thursday 1 July 2010
 
  Dear James Elles MEP, Sharon Bowles MEP, Nigel Farage MEP, Catherine BearderMEP, Peter SkinnerMEP and Marta Andreasen MEP,
 
  EU limits Mobile Phone Roaming Charges.
  1st July 2010
 
I see the EU has today introduced limits on phone tariffs for calls while abroad within the EU. As the EU is concerned about excessive phone charges I raise another case of excessive call charges which affects us in the UK apparently more than other countries but is a growing problem all over Europe.
 
  I ask you if the EU should look at placing limits on the use of so called "revenue sharing" numbers also known as NTS (Number Translation Services) and "non-geographic calls services". Ofcom, the UK regulator, held a public consultation "Review of non-geographic calls services" :--

  http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/ngnservices/
 
for one month only in May 2010, and received a mere 42 responses most of these being from companies in the telephone services industry and very few from citizens/consumers. In my response I raised the fundamental issue that "revenue sharing" is a flawed concept and is unfair and even harmful to consumers ....."

" ........  To add insult to injury callers also must pay a premium to call these numbers, part of which pays the "revenue share" and part pays extra to the phone companies. In effect this is a massive scam upon the citizens/consumers. This scam, frequently referred to in Parliament as a "rip-off", is perpetrated by the phone service industry, taken advantage of by many user companies/organisations and is entirely presided over and encouraged by Ofcom. It is particularly inappropriate that public bodies make use of such numbers. It should be stopped. ......."

" ........ this does affect other European countries and not only the UK.   I am aware that it is a growing issue in Germany, Spain and Ireland for example, so it is not primarily a national issue. ..... "

I expect many others wrote similarly to their MEPs and other EU entities which has happily resulted in the EU CRD.
 

I wonder if ther is there any hope that telecoms consumers charged an additional 15p flat rate charge outside their inclusive call bundles for calling the Police on their 101 Non Emergency number will also be able to demand that the Police refund them the extra cost they have incurred due to the use of this non standard revenue sharing type number arrangement? 

By contrast calls to the new 111 number are completely free of charge.

If not why not as I find the range of calls the Police are now willing to exempt on free of charge 999/112 is now extremely narrow creating a difficult situation if you need to speak to the Police but have run out of credit on your mobile or do not have the relevant 60p to stick in a BT Payphone.

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 27^th, 2013 at 12:10pm:

I wonder if ther is there any hope that telecoms consumers charged an additional 15p flat rate charge outside their inclusive call bundles for calling the Police on their 101 Non Emergency number will also be able to demand that the Police refund them the extra cost they have incurred due to the use of this non standard revenue sharing type number arrangement?

Each Police Service is required to offer a geographic rate number as an alternative to 101, for those who object to participating in a cost sharing scheme with other callers. The 15p flat rate per call charge for all was adopted when the Home Office refused to fund the cost of network connection to the 101 service. All revenue from 1111 calls is retained by the telcos - there is no revenue sharing. The DH requires CCGS to pay for all calls to 111.

Calls to the Police are outside the scope of the CRD, although not that of the Cabinet Office Guidance.

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.

This OT comment re-posted at http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1388600971/10#10

To get free access to 101 (on principle) I searched my local police, 'Norfolk telephone', phoned the local-ish landline number there and then got them to put me through to the same service I had got to previously with 101.  You may be able to do the same.

mountainbiker1 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2014 at 10:07am:

To get free access to 101 (on principle) I searched my local police, 'Norfolk telephone', phoned the local-ish landline number there and then got them to put me through to the same service I had got to previously with 101.  You may be able to do the same.

Yes as mentioned by Silent Calls Victim on 28/12/13 in this thread.
" Each Police Service is required to offer a geographic rate number as an alternative to 101, for those who object to participating in a cost sharing scheme with other callers. "