Quote:

No. Not legal.

IANAL

bbb_uk wrote on Aug 15^th, 2011 at 7:59pm:

I knew that making a call (of less than 1 hour) to a 0121 number within the period whilst calls to geographic numbers are "inclusive" would incur no proper charge. I asked the Tesco call centre agent about the matter and we got into a lengthy chat about telephone numbers.

I subsequently made a brief call dialled directly to the 0845 number, simply to confirm that this connected to the same call centre. I thought that a directly dialled 0845 call, charged at the distinct directly dialled rate, would sit well as part of the data. Having a chargeable call on my account would also let me know when charges for the day in question had been calculated to appear on my account.

The latter purpose was slightly frustrated as the earlier call (incorrectly charged) appeared on my account a day or more later.

---

As VM struggle to deal with this matter, it has been suggested to me by one of the call centre agents that the database of geo<->084 numbers could be that published by "SayNoTo0870".

I must therefore encourage everyone who calls otherwise unpublished geographic numbers from the SayNoTo0870 database through Virgin Media to check their bills very carefully.

It is possible that the scope of this exceptional billing exercise will be declared openly by VM, if they believe that it is justified. We cannot however rely on them taking this position.

---

It is quite interesting to be dealing with this matter on the day that Ofcom announces sizeable fines on Talk Talk and Tiscali for breaches of general conditions. The Ofcom statement points out that since 26 May 2011 a harsher penalty regime is in place for such breaches.

I believe that if the word "represents" in GC 11.1 may be fairly taken as a reference to GC 10.2 (d) (ii), as it surely must, then VM is shown to be in breach of the same General Condition as Talk Talk and Tiscali. (see General Conditions.)

UPDATE !!

My case, which addresses the general issue, not just the particular test call I made, is now registered with the proper team at VM Head Office.

If anyone has a case to raise with VM and wishes to refer to mine (as another example of the issue fully covered by my case), please contact me and I will be happy to provide the relevant reference number.

A single case should be sufficient to establish the principle, however "the more the merrier".

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 18^th, 2011 at 4:23pm:
I'd still be inclined to mention this to Watchdog as I'll be surprised if you get to the bottom of it and VM admit they are purposely ignoring the number actually dialled (ie geo) and instead charging their own tariff without their customers being informed.

but let us know how you get on.

Dave wrote on Aug 18^th, 2011 at 6:37pm:
I think I lost you 

What I meant to say is that VMs response is one of the normal the caller pays for any diverted call rather than the callee.

To the best of my knowledge, VM are not aware of any diversion taking place as they will only terminate the call in the local area so are unable to realise that in fact a call is being diverted.  This is why the person/company being called is charged for any calls they automatically divert and not the caller.

I'm edging towards whether VM do have a copy of SayNo's database.

If this is true then this could be tested by someone on VM doing another test call to a geographical that appears in SayNo's database (and has done at around the same time as Tesco's geo was added - in case VM have an old copy of the database).

Do we know if this happens to all Tesco alternative numbers or just this specific one or specific few?

UPDATE:

According to the database, 02086863313 for DirectLine switchboard was added prior to Tesco's alternative number.

Can I ask if one person with VM wishes to do a test call to this geographical and note the date/time and see if a "operator connected" appears

But these are listed as being Operator Connected calls. So where was the Operator in all this?

If you refer to Virgin Media Call Costs and download the Operator and reverse charge rates document, it gives these rates...under the heading "Direct Dialled Call Charges". 

In conversation with me, VM representatives have been stout in suggesting that there are circumstances in which it is proper for VM to charge for a directly dialled call to a geographic number as if it were an "operator connected" call to a non-geographic number.

Whether or not this is true, I have not yet heard any justification for withholding the relevant information from the published price guides.


There is little point in me making further test calls whilst my case is progressing. My case is, as I declared to VM before making the test call, intended to completely flush out the practice of charging for calls other than as dialled. My test call has been sufficient to show that the practice exists.


In looking for other cases, we may need to focus on a particular, and unusual, characteristic of the Tesco situation.

Commonly, calls to a non-geographic number will be routed over the PSTN (using a geographic number) to a local termination point. The geographic number, local to the point of termination, may be found and published on SayNoTo0870. Calls may however be routed by their destination by other means, e.g. VOIP or a private circuit.

In the Tesco case, calls to the 0121 number (and presumably others) are routed to a national call centre in Dundee. This could be through the intelligent switch on the 0845 number, thereby supporting the claim by VM that my call was "automatically redirected" to the 0845 number. I wonder if there is some particular process, which I will refer to as "automatic redirection", in play here.

The idea of "automatic redirection" also appears to fit with the fact that the 0121 number is still seen in some old telephone directory listings for the store - suggesting that Tesco changed over from local numbers to the 0845 numbers it currently publishes for its stores. This "automatic redirection" (something quite different from the routing that happens on non-geographic numbers) could be the method used by Tesco to collect calls dialled to the old numbers. It could be that this particular process feeds back to the VM billing system.

Whatever fancy technical routing arrangements are in place does nothing to provide any justification for a charge other than that advised in the published price guide. There must however be some logic somewhere behind this systemic mis-charging, or failure to openly declare terms of service. If there is some process such as that which I have described then it would provide a more satisfactory explanation than a deliberate attempt to undermine SayNoTo0870.


This is however pure speculation on my part and an explanation is not the same as a justification. Systemic failure to bill in accordance with the published Price Guide must be regarded as a breach of the Ofcom-imposed General Conditions, even if the future remedy is a revision to the Price Guide.


If we are keen to discover the extent of this practice, in advance of advice from VM, then these comments may be of assistance.

I repeat my offer for further complaints to VM about similar occurrences to be associated with the general complaint submitted by myself. It may be of benefit to link instances together with VM, before the issue is forwarded to Ofcom.

rfctabs wrote on Aug 19^th, 2011 at 9:36am:

I quote from the Virgin Media Price Guide - p3 of this document - with reference to the "Call Divert" Calling feature:-

Quote:


Whatever is happening in this case has nothing whatsoever to do with this Calling Feature.