SCV: I don't quite follow why you think the Tesco anomaly has 'nothing to do' with the ad hoc call diversion which most TPs offer to retail consumers. It seems to me that the principle is the same: if I make a call to 0SAB... which my OP's tariff says will cost me x pence plus y pence a minute (where x and y may be 0), my OP can only charge x and y. If the recipient of the call has arranged with its TP for this call to go to a call centre in Dundee or Calcutta, the cost of that termination is a matter between the recipient of the call and its TP.
What is really weird about VM's stance, and I do hope you get to the bottom of, is their claim that an arrangement between Tesco and Tesco's telecoms provider can hijack VM's billing system. If I call, from a landline, an 0800 number (for example) that in practice terminates in Calcutta, as far as I know my telecom provider does not know (or care) where the call terminates. It is simply entitled to collect from  the TP the agreed cost of its delivering the call to the TP's switch.
All this seems to me different from the explicit tariff provision some (all?) OPs make, to the effect that calls to specified geographic numbers used by dial-up internet providers (if any still exist?)  are excluded from deals at £z a month for 'all' calls to geographic numbers.

To address the well made points by nicolas43 and Barbara.

I am now inclined to agree with VM in its suggestion that there is something fundamentally different about what is happening with these numbers. I see it as unrelated to the "Call Divert" calling feature, mobile roaming, or the termination of a non-geographic call via a geographic number. Each of these cases involves the call ending up somewhere other than what may be expected from the number dialled, however this is about exceptional charging.

Barbara's suggestion of tests using other providers is a sound one. I am prepared to wait a few days for VM to come back with a coherent explanation of what is happening here before I engage in further testing myself. If VM defends the practice, then the fact that others do the same will doubtless form part of its defence.

I have kept the idea of the special billing for ISPs on geographic numbers in my mind throughout this. I am still waiting for BT to come back to me with details of where their list of such numbers is published. As suggested, it could be that there are no longer any such cases. VM makes no reference to this in its Price Guides.

---

The bottom line is as follows.

VM can charge whatever it likes for any telephone call. If VM wants to charge for calls to certain geographic numbers at the rates applicable for operator connected calls to 0845 numbers, it is perfectly entitled to do so. It must however declare this arrangement in its pricing literature. Failing to do so, and failing to bill in accordance with the advised prices is a serious breach of General Conditions (10 and 11).

If calls are to be itemised on bills other than as they were dialled, then there must be appropriate information to tally the billing information to what happened in practice. Failure to do this is also a breach of General Conditions (12).


If calls to some geographic (01/02) numbers are billed in an unexpected manner (i.e. not as "Geographic Rate"), there should be an obligation on whoever advertises these numbers to declare the fact. If these are effectively "Business Rate" or "Premium Rate" numbers then I would expect the forthcoming Ofcom regulations to make these numbers subject to the conditions appropriate to how they are billed.

The consultation on the Ofcom proposals failed to address numbers that are treated differently for billing purposes from the range in which they are seen to reside - I cannot find any reference to the ISPs on geographic numbers. This matter may need to be addressed!


As stated previously, I am speculating about what may be happening in this case. I look forward to hearing, fairly shortly, about the full truth of the matter. A systemic billing error by VM is beyond question - the whys and the wherefores are to come.

For what it is worth, I called the Tesco number from an AT&T landline through a discount provider. The call was charged at the same rate as that applicable for any other UK geographic or 03 number, ie 2c/minute. Before the call connects, the provider indicates the number of minutes available, thus giving an indication of the applied call charge.

Date/Time/Calling from/Calling to/Rate/Minutes/Total cost ($)

8/20/2011 14:49 561xxxxxxx 441212537500 0.020 1 0.020

A test call I made via Finarea (18185) shows up, correctly, as
Quote:

My hypotheses are that
(a) Tesco has arranged, innocently and legitimately, with its telecoms provider (Cable & Wireless?) that calls to the historic geographic store numbers are routed to the call centre. Possibly C&W pays Tesco 0.5 p a minute (or whatever) for all calls to the call centre; possibly C&W pays Tesco only for calls where the customer actually keyed 0845; possibly Tesco pays C&W for calls re-routed from the geographic numbers.
(b) Noticing this, a bored geek at VM bet his mates that he'd add a tweak to VM's billing system so that calls to Tesco's historic geographic store numbers would get charged at an arbitrary price and listed as operator calls to the 0845 number of Tesco's call centre, and that no-one would notice  for at least three months (or whatever).
(c) Meanwhile VM pays C&W the agreed (tiny) termination rate for all calls to all geographic numbers owned by C&W, including the historic Tesco store numbers (unless the geek has also tweaked that).

Okay a further development.

I managed to ask someone who works in the telecom industry.  I asked this: Quote:


The reply: Quote:

Perhaps what is going on here is not unconnected with what clive.davison says happened to him when he called Admiral Insurance from his O2 mobile. 

nicholas43 wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2011 at 8:34pm:

I share the belief expressed at the beginning of these remarks.

I intend to see the answers to points 1, 2 and 4 addressed, although in a more comprehensive form, covering all cases where VM charges other than in accordance with its published tariffs.

If VM and / or Tesco, or others, wish to comment on point 3 that is up to them - any such arrangement is private between them.

On point 5, when Ofcom addresses the case of the breach of General Conditions, it will need to rule on the adequacy of whatever remedial action has, by then, been taken by VM.

It will be for the media and Ofcom to judge how far VM has "fudged" its answers. I have already rebutted one inadequate attempt at resolution.

A little more information on a related point.


I have just heard from BT that the only exclusions from the principle that numbers beginning 01/02 are treated as "geographic rate" calls are:

· Indirect Access Numbers

· Numbers used by Internet Service Providers for dial-up internet access

Indirect Access Numbers are those where the caller may access another number that they select.
This does NOT include numbers which are simply subject to a set diversion to another number.


It is acknowledged by BT that the published list of ISP numbers referred to in the full price list no longer exists.

I have been assured that the statement quoted below, which appears repeatedly in the large formal BT Price List (not in the pdf Tariff Guide), will be corrected as shown.

Quote:


I am content that those calling an ISP or an Indirect Access Number will be aware of the fact. Call cost information could always be more clearly presented, by all parties, however I see no issue with BT here (once the misleading references to a non-existent list have been removed).