In this news item about card charges: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15260748 there is:

Quote:


Whatever that means. The cynic in me says it will be handled as well as GPs using 08xx numbers.

Further to my previous post,there is also a link (blue - new European rules) to this from another BBC news story "Excessive card surcharges will be banned" says Treasury" which reports "an end to customer service lines being charged at a premium rate, although it remains unclear whether technical support services will be able to do so".   If this is correct, it would be a huge move forward.

I had drafted my comments before reading Barbara's questions.

Whilst the principle of paid-for services by telephone remains, I cannot see how this could not be used by those who wish to provide the additional benefit of technical support services. Users of some products and services may find this to be helpful in connection with their use of a product or service.

The problem arises when it is arguable about whether the issue being addressed is about the service itself or some related matter. If I cannot get online because of a problem with my computer, I may appreciate the assistance of my ISP in resolving that problem even though it is not its responsibility. I cannot however be expected to pay to report the fact that its network has gone down.

This new Directive may prompt the appropriate industry regulators to define how far the provider of a product or service must go in conducting diagnosis of a problem, before offering me a paid-for service. I do not see this as necessarily being an issue for Ofcom, which is only responsible for regulating the properly paid-for service. The scope of the service for which one cannot be charged a premium must ultimately be a matter for general consumer legislation and regulation as it is a vital issue of consumer rights.

That is however not to say that PhonePay Plus, in setting standards for the industry which it represents, cannot lay out guidelines about the point where paid for services should start. The key issue is however that the ultimate remedy must be through the consumer rights channel with reference to the original contract, not in relation simply to the charge for a telephone service.

It may sound too good to be true, but I believe that we are very close to a resolution of this.

As always, it will be complicated, it will come through various channels and there will be ugly exceptions.

On seeing this report of the Directive, I am inclined more strongly now to think that Ofcom will be seen to have changed its mind about 0845. Twelve months ago it said that demand for the revenue share on 0845 was strong and so it should be retained as a "Business Rate" range, rather than treated as another 03. This had the advantage of being very tidy.

I always had my doubts about whether demand for revenue share from existing 0845 users would be sustained in the context of unbundled tariffs - would they want to impose a service charge if they had to declare it. The essence of the Directive is that a very large number of current 0845 users would be forced to migrate if revenue sharing was retained. For this reason, amongst others, I now expect that Ofcom will now declare that (from some long future date) revenue sharing will be prohibited on 0845 and regulations will be imposed so that call charges may not be any greater than those for calls to geographic numbers.

This makes the possibility of 0844/3 being defined as PRS and handed over to PP+ (joining 0871 etc.) more likely. The unbundled tariff regulations would apply to this along with other PRS ranges. The question of whether or not there is adequate valid demand for use of such a range, in the context of the Directive, remains open.

Treating 0845 differently from 0844/3 is much less tidy, but it has many advantages. Most notably, it would recognise that the majority of current 0845 users cannot continue as they are and would avoid them having to go through number changes as a result of the Directive. There may be some who would migrate to 0844/3 or 0871, but to do so in the light of the Directive and with the reason clearly understood, they would be readily open to criticism from customers. Those seen to be making the change quickly, ahead of legislative enactment of the terms of the Directive, would be open to particular criticism.


The fundamental purpose of the Ofcom project is clarity. The Directive effectively compels it to leave no doubt about which number ranges are charged at the "basic rate" (i.e. without revenue sharing or a "Service Charge"). Ofcom has clearly laid out its proposals to do this, by removing the confusion that has remained around the 084 range, since it was largely dealt with for 087.

The anomalous messy situation of 0870 will have to be resolved. If 0845 is to be (properly now) set back to be "geographic rate" then 0870 could go the same way, completing the journey on which it started in 2009. Ofcom's preferred approach of withdrawing the range altogether would be much tidier.


The issue of "who is covered" is addressed in two ways. If a number is clearly known to be a "Business Rate" number and subject to a declared "Service Charge", then it would not be easy to offer such a number in a context where it was clearly inappropriate. So long as the potential for misrepresentation was removed then most organisations would cease doing this, without the need for enforcement action.

There will always be those at the margin who step over the line drawn by regulations and there is also the danger that the necessary regulations will not be adequately drafted or enforced. For now, I am concerned that the general position is clearly defined and understood. It is illegal to break into someone's home and steal their belongings - most of us understand this and comply - however that does not mean that it never happens.

To continue the analogy, it is right that burglary is covered by our right to own property and not have our homes entered unvited. This is much better than it being seen as a breach of regulations covering the use of locks and other means by which the integrity of our homes is secured.


There is one small point on which I will take issue. Any form of contact with an organisation may cause one to incur costs. We pay for our telephone lines, computers, internet connections, postage stamps and travelling costs when visiting in person. There may be particular circumstances in which it is right for one to be reimbursed for these expenses. These are however not the same as those in which it is improper for the organisation to itself levy a charge (perhaps indirectly) for making contact.

I believe that it is dangerous to oppose the improper use of Business and Premium rate telephone numbers by suggesting that contact should be at no cost to oneself. This is so easily countered that one can end up in a silly argument about pennies here and there. It is the principle of the "Service Charge", indirectly imposed by the person one is contacting and to their financial benefit, which I see as being the point at issue.

I recognise that there may be some particular cases where it is appropriate for the person contacted to meet all of the costs of the person making contact. I would however always take care to keep these separate from the general argument. I would also suggest that in such circumstances it is generally appropriate for this arrangement to apply to all those who make contact and all of the potential means by which they may do so. Offering a 080 number for the benefit of landline telephone callers does not fully address the issue.

I agree that the coverage of the point relating to phone costs is very well hidden.  I do hope that any action will be better organised than it seems that part relating to card costs will be; I know this is off topic but, from the report on the BBC 1pm News, it seems that this will be yet another example of a regulation being made than turns out to be totally meaningless in its effect, in other words a "fudge" or sop in the direction of consumers.  It seems that a "small charge" will still be allowed (anything over 20p/1-2% would be clear profiteering) although no sum is mentioned (typically).  To me it is perfectly clear that NO charge can be justified when one considers that cheques are no longer accepted & use of cards is business-generating, also, can you imagine what would happen if you tried to turn up at BA's offices with a pocketful of cash to pay for a flight??  There is very little, if any, choice of payment method in most cases and therefore card charges are just a rip off in all circumstances.

However, back to the point at issue & SCV's paragagraph taking issue with a small point!   I do not say that calls should be "free" to the caller, I do not see any need for the use of 0800 numbers for either Sales or Customer Service BUT I do not believe the customer should never have to pay a "premium", that is, a fee over and above the cost of a normal call, whether that is paying for a geo call or using a call package.  I know this is a point on which we have regularly disagreed but I couldn't let it pass.

Happy Christmas to all forum members & users!

Whilst there is a differential between the handling costs imposed for debit card vs. credit card transactions, there is a fair question as to who should pay that difference - assuming that any charge is limited to that alone.

Perhaps it would be better if there was no differential for the retailer, but the credit card user saw a transaction charge on their statement.

This would also get around the problem over whether or not such a charge is exempt from VAT. If raised on a credit statement it would be exempt. If passed on (to all customers) in the price for a VAT-able product or service it would not. We can guess which the Treasury would prefer.

sherbert wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2011 at 4:32pm:

I am sure that handling debit card transactions is very much cheaper than handling cheques for the vast majority of retailers. The same is true for the banks.

I think that it is perhaps too late to go back and demand that all of those who used cheques reimburse users of debit cards for the value of the discount which they could have received had retailers reflected their costs more accurately in their pricing.

On the same basis, credit card users who have not suffered a surcharge owe an enormous amount to those who have paid in other ways.


The key question for me, in relation to these banking transaction charges (not the hotline charges being discussed in this thread), is whether we believe that all customers should pay the same price, or if we should pay a little less or a little more according to our chosen method of payment. I fear that some may be tempted to answer that those who use a method which is less costly should benefit from a discount, and nobody should be penalised for using a more costly method.

All the proposed regulation does is ensure that any charge said to be due to payment handling costs is that and that alone. It neither requires nor prohibits any distinction in charging.

NGMsGhost wrote on Jan 11^th, 2012 at 4:59pm:

That is not, and has never been, my battle.

I only engage in battles where there is some realistic hope of victory, and have been fiercely criticised for doing so. I treat criticism for choosing an "easy target" as a compliment to my judgement.

I have always said that it is for each of us to commit as much, or as little, time and energy to the matters on which we share concerns as we wish, and are able.

We have achievements and set-backs. I urge NGM's Ghost to take the congratulations and thanks of fellow campaigners for what has been achieved as a result of his efforts with the grace that the genuine nature of such expressions deserves.

By definition, ultimate objectives are unachievable, as we should allow our eyes to look to the stars, even though we must keep our feet on the ground. Those which I have are very different from those outlined above, although we may share some common paths.

I would not wish to be churlish by appearing to disregard some well meant advice from a duly esteemed senior to me in this world of campaigning on telecoms matters - I am grateful. There will however remain many points on which we will have to agree to differ.