Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
SAYNOTO0870.COM

<---- Back to main website

 
Home Help Search Login Register

Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print
Consumer Rights Directive: BIS consultation (Read 105,516 times)
Ian G
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 276
Gender: male
Re: Consumer Rights Directive: BIS consultation
Reply #15 - Jul 2nd, 2013 at 3:03pm
 
The new consumer regulations cover only a small number of business sectors and are likely, at least initially, to be ignored by many of those that should comply.

Is that a good reason to not proceed with change and to continue with the current unsatisfactory arrangements?

I think not.

Once the various regulations are in place for one sector of business, it will make things much easier to force change in other areas.

As I understand the current situation, finance is not covered by "consumer" regulation, but instead by a completely separate set of "financial" regulations. Likewise for several other sectors.

Compliance will likely be low to begin with, but I'll take every business that does make the change as a bonus.

There will never be 100% compliance, but I'll take any percentage above zero as a success.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 2nd, 2013 at 3:04pm by Ian G »  
 
IP Logged
 
bbb_uk
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 2,041
Re: Consumer Rights Directive: BIS consultation
Reply #16 - Aug 6th, 2013 at 5:40pm
 
Complaints call costs to be capped

The government is promising to limit the cost of calling telephone numbers for customer inquiries and complaints from next summer...


Quote:
Under new legislation, companies will be prevented from charging more than the rate for a call to a mobile or local landline number
Is this correct because the cost of calling mobiles, from a landline, costs around 15ppm isn't it at certain times which means 0844 numbers will be exempt so only really the regulated 09x premium rate numbers would come under this new directive.

Quote:
David Hickson, of the Fair Telecoms Campaign, welcomed the government's decision, telling the BBC: "We've seen the words in the draft legislation. There's no get-outs. There's no cop-outs."
Is this the same draft that is mentioned in an earlier post because when I read it, a lot of companies using 0844 numbers could potentially be exempt as there were a lot of exemptions.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 6th, 2013 at 5:41pm by bbb_uk »  
 
IP Logged
 
Ian G
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 276
Gender: male
Re: Consumer Rights Directive: BIS consultation
Reply #17 - Aug 6th, 2013 at 7:18pm
 
The "normal" cost of a call (the money billed for the call itself based both on the length of the call and on the time of day that it is made) to an 01 or 02 number, for the vast majority of callers, is ZERO.

The amount paid when calling an 0844 number, whether it be 5p/min from BT, 12p/min from Virgin Media, 25p/min from Orange or 41p/min from Virgin Mobile, is nearly always more than zero.

Similar comparisons apply with all other 084 and 087 numbers.

Another important point to note is that BT call prices for 084 and 087 numbers are NOT typical, nor are the call prices for 0870 numbers from other landline providers, as these are the only ones that are regulated.

What is important is the presence of the Service Charge when calling an 084 or 087 number and which Ofcom will shortly require to be declared.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 6th, 2013 at 7:49pm by Ian G »  
 
IP Logged
 
bbb_uk
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 2,041
Re: Consumer Rights Directive: BIS consultation
Reply #18 - Aug 6th, 2013 at 8:23pm
 
Ian G wrote on Aug 6th, 2013 at 7:18pm:
The "normal" cost of a call (the money billed for the call itself based both on the length of the call and on the time of day that it is made) to an 01 or 02 number, for the vast majority of callers, is ZERO.

The amount paid when calling an 0844 number, whether it be 5p/min from BT, 12p/min from Virgin Media, 25p/min from Orange or 41p/min from Virgin Mobile, is nearly always more than zero...
Although true, it's highly unlikely the government will agree.  They are likely to see it as the cost of an 01/02 call for those without an inclusive package.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: Consumer Rights Directive: BIS consultation
Reply #19 - Aug 7th, 2013 at 2:04am
 
bbb_uk wrote on Aug 6th, 2013 at 5:40pm:
Quote:
Under new legislation, companies will be prevented from charging more than the rate for a call to a mobile or local landline number
Is this correct because the cost of calling mobiles, from a landline, costs around 15ppm isn't it at certain times which means 0844 numbers will be exempt so only really the regulated 09x premium rate numbers would come under this new directive.

No this is not correct, the quoted comment is attempting to get the gist of the requirement, but it is not expressed in those terms.

bbb_uk wrote on Aug 6th, 2013 at 5:40pm:
Quote:
David Hickson, of the Fair Telecoms Campaign, welcomed the government's decision, telling the BBC: "We've seen the words in the draft legislation. There's no get-outs. There's no cop-outs."
Is this the same draft that is mentioned in an earlier post because when I read it, a lot of companies using 0844 numbers could potentially be exempt as there were a lot of exemptions.

There are two different points here.

The terms of the requirement are carefully drafted to explicitly prohibit use of 084 / 087 numbers. That was the (unusual) clarity being referred to by the quoted remark - taken from a live interview.

Whilst certain complexities of implementation mean that the present draft regulations do not include all businesses, they lay down a clear marker indicating the unsuitability of 084/087 numbers for customer enquiries - a position that the government takes and must defend against complaints from those to whom it applies. This then makes it very difficult for the government to justify its own use of 084/087 numbers and for those who are not covered to answer the charge that they are exploiting a loophole.

The enforcement of regulations is one way in which the behaviour of individuals and companies is determined - it is not the only way.

Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
sherbert
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2,011
Gender: male
Re: Consumer Rights Directive: BIS consultation
Reply #20 - Aug 7th, 2013 at 10:53am
 
Why are banks, train operators and airlines exempt from this latest ruling?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: Consumer Rights Directive: BIS consultation
Reply #21 - Aug 7th, 2013 at 12:21pm
 
sherbert wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 10:53am:
Why are banks, train operators and airlines exempt from this latest ruling?

This is a very good question.

We are seeking for it to be put to the Department for Transport and the Financial Conduct Authority in the following form:

Quote:
BIS has determined that vulnerable consumers need protection from "rogue traders". Why does this not apply to the consumers that you protect?


See Completing the removal of "rip-off" customer support telephone numbers.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
bbb_uk
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 2,041
Re: Consumer Rights Directive: BIS consultation
Reply #22 - Aug 7th, 2013 at 12:27pm
 
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 2:04am:
The terms of the requirement are carefully drafted to explicitly prohibit use of 084 / 087 numbers. That was the (unusual) clarity being referred to by the quoted remark - taken from a live interview.
I must have missed the bit where they clearly state 084/087 are prohibited when I scanned through it.

Quote:
Whilst certain complexities of implementation mean that the present draft regulations do not include all businesses, they lay down a clear marker indicating the unsuitability of 084/087 numbers for customer enquiries - a position that the government takes and must defend against complaints from those to whom it applies. This then makes it very difficult for the government to justify its own use of 084/087 numbers and for those who are not covered to answer the charge that they are exploiting a loophole.
So it's only a wish that the regulations will apply to all equally and us consumers have to hope the goodwill of the government will enforce this equally across the board rather than exempt themselves, financial instiutions (banks, insurance companies), airlines and other users who are generally the biggest users of these number ranges anyhow.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 7th, 2013 at 12:28pm by bbb_uk »  
 
IP Logged
 
bbb_uk
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 2,041
Re: Consumer Rights Directive: BIS consultation
Reply #23 - Aug 7th, 2013 at 12:34pm
 
sherbert wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 10:53am:
Why are banks, train operators and airlines exempt from this latest ruling?
Call me a cynic but maybe so the government can continue to allow the biggest users of these stealth premium rate numbers to continue as they are (including themselves).

It just doesn't make sense to exclude the largest users of these numbers, leaving only a small minority that this directive will eventually apply to.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: Consumer Rights Directive: BIS consultation
Reply #24 - Aug 7th, 2013 at 3:22pm
 
bbb_uk wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 12:27pm:
I must have missed the bit where they clearly state 084/087 are prohibited when I scanned through it.

None of the four categories of permitted number covers 084/087 - nor any other similar number range that may arise in future. If 0845 were to be re-designated to have the same characteristics as 03 (should Ofcom change its mind again!) then it would become permissible, however for now all 084/087 numbers are prohibited. (Note that the NTNP will be revised before these draft regulations come into force).

bbb_uk wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 12:27pm:
So it's only a wish that the regulations will apply to all equally and us consumers have to hope the goodwill of the government will enforce this equally across the board rather than exempt themselves, financial instiutions (banks, insurance companies), airlines and other users who are generally the biggest users of these number ranges anyhow.

There may be a serious prospect of removing the exemption for passenger transport from these particular regulations. I believe that the FCA is a better shot than the Treasury in respect of Banks etc., but this would be through a separate instrument. The Cabinet Office is currently addressing the situation with the government - which is not generally subjected to statutory regulation by the UK parliament. These particular regulations could never be expected to have universal application.

Happily there are some who engage in active campaigning and dialogue, rather than hoping that the goodwill of the government will make all things right. It is also possible for organisations to abandon 084/087 numbers without being compelled to do so.

bbb_uk wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 12:34pm:
It just doesn't make sense to exclude the largest users of these numbers, leaving only a small minority that this directive will eventually apply to.

I have not taken the trouble to explore just why the EU Directive offered member states the opportunity to exempt passenger transport, or how the balance of use of non-basic rate numbers between sectors falls across the EU, so as to make sense of the original Directive. I do not accept the suggestion that (for the sake of being sensible) BIS should have dropped the proposal because it failed to secure the support of the Department for Transport. Regulation of the financial services market is always undertaken separately, but I do not wish to debate the logic of that fact of life.

My personal view is that it is best to attempt to get a more sensible outcome by pressing for completion of the process, by whatever means this may be achieved. I am not given to assessing whether the glass is ½, ¼ or ¾ empty or full. I will celebrate any worthwhile content for what it is. If I see the possibility of adding more of the right material to the glass, then that is where I will direct my attention.

Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: Consumer Rights Directive: BIS consultation
Reply #25 - Dec 13th, 2013 at 3:33pm
 
The press release from the Government is here:

Government cuts off costly calls

Quote:
Whilst many firms already offer freephone or basic rate numbers, consumers can find that some traders provide an 0800 or free phone number for pre-contract calls to lure people in, but then only offer expensive premium rate numbers when the customer has paid for a product or service. Everyday examples, such as a security company offering a freephone number for new enquiries yet expecting existing customers to call an 0844 number to report a fault, would be stopped under the measures.

The government believes it is inappropriate for callers to pay high call charges for accessing vital public services and the Cabinet Office will be publishing guidance for departments’ use of number prefixes shortly.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
loddon
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 599
Reading  UK
Gender: male
Re: Consumer Rights Directive: BIS consultation
Reply #26 - Dec 13th, 2013 at 8:45pm
 
Dave wrote on Dec 13th, 2013 at 3:33pm:
The press release from the Government is here:

Government cuts off costly calls


This is very good news indeed.

It begins with this welcome statement :---
"Customers calling helplines to complain about their faulty microwaves or incorrect train tickets will no longer have to pay more than the basic rate, ...." 
And
" ...... the government will put an end to expensive premium, 084 and 087 numbers for customers calling airlines, train operators, and major high street and online retailers. "

This begs the question of what is the basic rate ?

Later it gives a short table showing comparative call costs.   This is an extract showing landline originated calls only :---

"Calling from a landline

0845 1 to 11p per minute, plus a set up fee of up to 14p 
0844 1 to 13p per minute 

Calls between landlines are typically charged up to 10p per minute
"

Presumable this last line is their answer to what is the basic rate .

Is it misleading and substantially inaccurate because it does not mention geographic numbers nor geographic rate numbers nor that for these numbers the rate is TYPICALLY zero pence per minute as they are pre-paid within packages?   Most customers will be using pre-paid packages because that is what industry statistics indicate.   The "up to 10p" rate is the exceptional rate for calls made outside the terms of a package.   

One wonders why the officials who drafted and authorised this press release presented the charges in this way?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 13th, 2013 at 8:52pm by loddon »  
Campaignagainstripofftelecoms  
IP Logged
 
Ian G
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 276
Gender: male
Re: Consumer Rights Directive: BIS consultation
Reply #27 - Dec 13th, 2013 at 9:01pm
 
The prices in the BIS press release probably come from Ofcom's "number crunching" document.

Ultimate clarity would be achieved if the information were presented in terms of Service Charge and Access Charge vs. geographic rate. However, Ofcom only published their documentation yesterday and it doesn't take effect for another 18 months. Life would be much simpler if Ofcom weren't a year behind schedule.


The "Basic Rate" has no specific price level. It is whatever YOU pay for calls to 01 and 02 numbers.

More importantly, the call price for a "Basic Rate" number does NOT include a fee (i.e. a Service Charge) paid to the benefit of the called party.

The regulations also allow "ordinary mobile numbers" as might be used by small traders.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 13th, 2013 at 9:05pm by Ian G »  
 
IP Logged
 
loddon
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 599
Reading  UK
Gender: male
Re: Consumer Rights Directive: BIS consultation
Reply #28 - Dec 13th, 2013 at 9:02pm
 
The Independent carried this story yesterday (Thursday 12 December) with the headline :---
Freephone will mean free - even for mobiles: Ofcom confirms change for 2015


http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/freephone-will-mea...

In its second sentence the Indy started reporting and quoting extensively from the Press release issued today !! :---

"Meanwhile expensive helpline numbers operated by airlines, train operators, and major high street and online retailers, will be banned.

Two major announcements yesterday heralded cheaper calls to businesses and easier to understand phone charges
."

The Independent seems to offer two stories for the price of one!    Huh Embarrassed
Back to top
 
Campaignagainstripofftelecoms  
IP Logged
 
Ian G
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 276
Gender: male
Re: Consumer Rights Directive: BIS consultation
Reply #29 - Dec 13th, 2013 at 9:08pm
 
The Independent published a short story about Ofcom's proposals yesterday morning.

Yesterday evening they added the stuff about BIS on the end of the original story.

Most other newspapers ran this as two separate stories on consecutive days.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print
(Moderators: DaveM, bbb_uk, Forum Admin, CJT-80, Dave)

Website and Content © 1999-2024 SAYNOTO0870.COM. All Rights Reserved. (DE)
Written permission is required to duplicate any of the content within this site.

WARNING: This is an open forum, posts are NOT endorsed by SAYNOTO0870.COM,
please exercise due caution when acting on any info from here.


SAYNOTO0870.COM » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.


Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge