Noting the cases of Bryboman and Barbara, it appears that the right to cancel a contract has to be threatened before a reasonable approach is ultimately taken. In the earlier example of extensive tariff changes, the right had to be invoked by many before an unreasonable variation was withdrawn. These are examples of consumerism at its worst.

Trading Standards and Consumer Focus are quite different bodies. The latter is the new name for the reconstituted National Consumer Council, which exists to protect consumers and operates an advice service called Consumer Direct. This can go no further than advising consumers on how to exercise their rights under civil law. The former is (or rather, are) operations within local authorities which aim to ensure a level playing field for traders, and hold enforcement powers in respect of breaches of regulation. (Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of legal matters will need to correct this.)

(P.S. I see that my first point echoes the comment added by Barbara.)

A little further research causes me to correct my previous statement.

Consumer Direct is not run by Consumer Focus, but by the Office of Fair Trading, a non-ministerial government department (separate from the DTI, now the DBIS).

To avoid every local authority having its own consumer advice call centre, enquiries are generally initially referred to Consumer Direct. Where necessary a case reported to Consumer Direct will be referred to the appropriate Trading Standards department.

I understand that calls to the national 08454 04 05 06 (or perhaps 03004 04 05 06, or something similar as it should be) are directed to the appropriate local centre according to the location of the caller. This is one example of where a non-geographic number may be properly used. It is unfortunate that it has been spoiled by using a revenue sharing number, so that callers, rather than taxpayers, pay for this useful facility.

For cases such as this, which is essentially about a free legal advice service concerning the terms of a contract, it could be argued that a reasonable contribution towards the costs of the advanced telephony used to support the service may be requested from callers. That may be a contentious point, and there is no excuse for Consumer Direct not presenting itself properly on that basis.

"Please check the rate with your phone service provider." is not adequate. "This is a revenue sharing number, proceeds from the cost of phone calls are only used to subsidise the cost of providing the telephone service" should be added.

Barbara wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2009 at 2:40pm:



Here are the rest of the geo numbers :-

"Consumer Direct is designed to operate from our 0845 number, so we cannot guarantee connectivity, but under many circumstances these landline numbers will work correctly.

East of England: 01438 737460
East Midlands: 01522 563000
London: 020 8799 9200
North-East: 01642 495600
North-West: 01229 842203   020 31035167
Scotland: 01851822401
South East: 01622 626520
South West: 01209 720333
Wales (English language): 02920 367800
Wales (Welsh language): 02920 367801
West Midlands: 02476 786610
Yorkshire and the Humber: 0113 201 3670

Consumers who call Consumer Direct from a mobile phone are handled personally. We will offer to text a landline number to consumers who call us from a mobile phone, and who live in an area that is served by Consumer Direct, because calls from mobile phones to 0845 numbers can be much more expensive."