loddon wrote on Dec 13^th, 2013 at 8:45pm:

The assumption is false.

The actual definition of basic rate, for the purposes of the regulation, is contained in the guidance associated with the regulations. This covers the messy situation that will continue to exist until the Ofcom measures come into effect in June 2015. It confirms the key purpose declared in the body of the news release (rather than in the supplementary "notes to editors" from which the quoted extract is taken):

Quote:

The text of the regulations, the guidance (which will be considered by a regulator or court when assessing any case) and the "analysis of comments", which explains how BIS has balanced the various stakeholder interests, are covered by the policy detail statement, which was published yesterday afternoon. All those who engaged with BIS during the discussions over the provisions were advised of this publication at the time it was made.


There may be some who would wish to present the requirements in public as permitting continuing use of 084 and 087 numbers, by highly selective use of a quotation to support a false assumption. We see it as important that the objective of achieving cessation of improper use of 084/087 numbers is not undermined by publication of false and misleading statements.

We cannot deny the reality that calls to 0800 or 084/087 numbers are sometimes cheaper than calls to geographic rate numbers, and sometimes not, at present. BIS has had to address this, despite the fact that there is no equality in the incidence of such cases. Furthermore, media editors want to see actual numbers, even though these might be misleading, and BIS has responded to this demand. There is no need for reference to "typical" costs in the regulations or guidance - the assumption that there is such reference must be seen as ill-informed, at best.

For those who may be thinking back to a recent situation where the issue of perverse costs was deliberately misrepresented by interested parties, BIS makes it perfectly clear that the current perverse charges relate to the circumstances of a particular caller, not a particular number. It is also able to confirm that its commentary on what is "basic rate" may be revised once the Ofcom measures have been implemented.

CJT-80 wrote on Jan 14^th, 2014 at 4:27pm:

The fair telecoms campaign has produced a full explanation of the Consumer Rights Directive UK law, including exemptions.

Insurance companies come under "financial services". Government Departments are not public bodies and therefore not private companies so aren't affected by the Consumer Rights Directive.

However, the Government has published guidance on the use of phone numbers which should achieve the same outcome.

CJT-80 wrote on Jan 14^th, 2014 at 5:21pm:

It's a good question and one I'm not sure of the answer to.

National Rail Enquiries is provided by ATOC.

The Traveline website says "Traveline Information Ltd is a partnership of transport operators and local authorities formed to provide impartial and comprehensive information about public transport. It operates in Scotland, England and Wales."

CJT-80 wrote on Jan 14^th, 2014 at 6:01pm:

We're going off topic talking about Traveline, so if you think it'll be worthwhile to continue discussion, please start a new thread — I suppose that the Government and Public Sector section is the most appropriate place.

Think I'm posting this in the right thread but I've just noticed this on the BBC news website, they STILL don't get that there is no local rate!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27833551

How does this affect private individuals who obtained 0844 numbers to give to companies who only offered 0844 numbers?


.

I see there have been posts re compliance in a number of threads but I thought it best to use this one.  I have noticed that a number of NGN users are providing a mix of numbers, eg Eurotunnel where an 03 number is provided but buried fairly deep among a load of 084 numbers!  I find it significant that their "latest travel information" section only shows the 084 numbers, even earlier this week when they had major problems.   I have noticed that a free catalogue company give an 084 number for orders but, less prominently, an 03 number for queries.   A card protection company (not sure if this counts as financial services or is exempt but they are selling something) still only give an 084 number, except for overseas customers (it does work for the UK, have use it previously). 

To me, it seems that many organisations are paying lip service to the regulations in that, buried deep or on less relevant webpages, is an 03 number but the number(s) given greatest prominence are still the 084/087 numbers.   While great strides forward have been made with this directive, I do think OFCOM will have to keep a close eye on the situation & it might be a good idea if the regs could be slightly amended to state that 01, 02 & 03 numbers should be give equal prominence or, even better, that companies should have to use just 01, 02, 03 (or Freephone with geo alternatives for mobile users).  The current situation is going to cause further confusion to consumers and lead to them still being exploited by the unscrupulous.

(I know what will be said in reply about the unbundled tariff & also accept it is early days but it is something to watch.)

Barbara wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 12:16pm:

I agree with the points that are made, but would add the following comments.

Enforcement of these regulations has nothing to do with Ofcom. Those who incur additional cost in having to call a non-basic rate number are entitled to recover it, if necessary through the courts. The Citizens Advice Consumer Service will advise consumers and potentially pass cases through to the relevant Trading Standards department. Trading Standards offices have powers to intervene, although in the vast majority of cases they would do little more than speak with the organisation to make them aware of their responsibilities under the law. (Their resources are very limited and must be focussed on very serious cases.)

The BIS Guidance that accompanies the regulations states Quote:
(see point #8 at this link.)

No regulation will ever prevent exploitation by the unscrupulous. Limited enforcement resources must be focussed on the most serious cases. The fair telecoms campaign is doing all it can to clear up some areas of confusion around the fringes of the regulations. Once this has been done, we will seek greater publicity for the clarified terms of the regulations to both traders and consumers.