SAYNOTO0870.COM - Consumer Rights Directive: BIS consultation

Barbara

Supreme Member

Offline

Posts: 598

Re: Consumer Rights Directive: BIS consultation
Reply #45 - Aug 4^th, 2014 at 8:40am

Could someone give me some advice/information please? I have mentioned in a couple of posts that Eurotunnel are showing mainly 0844 numbers (with an 03 number hidden deep in the Contact us page). Are they compliant with the CRD by doing this or would it be considered inadequate? I am thinking of emailing their CEO about this (and their declining service!) but need to be certain of the facts first. Is what they are doing adequate and is it satisfactory to provide only an 0844 number on their Latest Travel Update page as a number to call when the service is disrupted? Thanks for the help.

Back to top

IP Logged

bigjohn

Supreme Member

Offline

Posts: 2,316
Gender: male

Re: Consumer Rights Directive: BIS consultation
Reply #46 - Aug 4^th, 2014 at 7:04pm

Barbara wrote on Aug 4^th, 2014 at 8:40am:

Could someone give me some advice/information please? I have mentioned in a couple of posts that Eurotunnel are showing mainly 0844 numbers (with an 03 number hidden deep in the Contact us page). Are they compliant with the CRD by doing this or would it be considered inadequate? I am thinking of emailing their CEO about this (and their declining service!) but need to be certain of the facts first. Is what they are doing adequate and is it satisfactory to provide only an 0844 number on their Latest Travel Update page as a number to call when the service is disrupted? Thanks for the help.

Unless its to do with package travel they should publish a basic customer service number .

The Govt Guidelines cover your points.

Do the regulations say that I have to provide a telephone helpline?

J 7. No. Regulation 41 on charges for customer helplines only applies if you offer a telephone line on which consumers can contact you about something they have bought.

8. Nor does the Regulation require that all numbers operated by a business are at a basic rate. Only that where the trader provides a telephone line so that the consumer can contact them about a contract concluded, there should
be a number available on which the consumer can call for this purpose at no more than the basic rate. For example, as there are times when consumers
may prefer 0845 numbers to geographic numbers it may be desirable in some circumstances to maintain both access numbers. If traders take this approach the ‘basic rate’ compliant telephone number should be communicated as
prominently as one that is not.
9. Sales lines, and those offering services paid for through a phone bill (e.g. a
weatherline) are unaffected.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 4^th, 2014 at 7:17pm by bigjohn »

BJ.

IP Logged

Barbara

Supreme Member

Offline

Posts: 598

Re: Consumer Rights Directive: BIS consultation
Reply #47 - Aug 5^th, 2014 at 1:19pm

Thanks bigjohn. It seems that they are sort of compliant in that there is an 03 number for post sales etc buried in the contact us page among a load of 0844 number so they do have a compliant number but it is not as prominent nor displayed on the page people who need information when there is disruption are going to use. I doubt if this is enough of a failure to comply to bring about action either by Eurotunnel or any regulatory authority - would you agree? Or do you think I should pursue this with their CEO as they are not complying with the spirit of the CRD? Or is there a better person/organisation to contact this who might pursue it?

Back to top

IP Logged

derrick

Supreme Member

Offline

Posts: 1,124

Re: Consumer Rights Directive: BIS consultation
Reply #48 - Aug 6^th, 2014 at 11:34am

Barbara wrote on Aug 5^th, 2014 at 1:19pm:

Thanks bigjohn. It seems that they are sort of compliant in that there is an 03 number for post sales etc buried in the contact us page among a load of 0844 number so they do have a compliant number but it is not as prominent nor displayed on the page people who need information when there is disruption are going to use. I doubt if this is enough of a failure to comply to bring about action either by Eurotunnel or any regulatory authority - would you agree? Or do you think I should pursue this with their CEO as they are not complying with the spirit of the CRD? Or is there a better person/organisation to contact this who might pursue it?

You could try Consumer Direct who will pass it to the local Trading Standards department, but don't hold your breath waiting for TS to do anything.

.

Back to top

IP Logged

SilentCallsVictim

Supreme Member

Offline

aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494

Re: Consumer Rights Directive: BIS consultation
Reply #49 - Aug 6^th, 2014 at 3:02pm

derrick wrote on Aug 6^th, 2014 at 11:34am:

You could try Consumer Direct who will pass it to the local Trading Standards department, but don't hold your breath waiting for TS to do anything.

Consumer Direct has now become the Citizens Advice Consumer Service on 0345 4 04 05 06.

Their role is to give advice about your rights as a consumer. They will also pass cases to the relevant "home authority" Trading Standards department for investigation and possible action. Trading Standards departments are not well resourced these days and have to deal with cases according to priority. Given the amount of harm caused by other breaches of consumer regulation, it is unlikely that any enforcement action would be taken in a case such as this, although trading standards officers may make contact with the business to explain their duties under the law.

The fair telecoms campaign is currently working on a few prominent cases, in conjunction with Trading Standards departments. A media briefing will be issued shortly and we will be grateful to receive any information about cases such as this.

Back to top

@fairtelecoms (tweets)

IP Logged

bigjohn

Supreme Member

Offline

Posts: 2,316
Gender: male

Re: Consumer Rights Directive: BIS consultation
Reply #50 - Aug 7^th, 2014 at 3:53am

Barbara wrote on Aug 5^th, 2014 at 1:19pm:

Thanks bigjohn. It seems that they are sort of compliant in that there is an 03 number for post sales etc buried in the contact us page among a load of 0844 number so they do have a compliant number but it is not as prominent nor displayed on the page people who need information when there is disruption are going to use. I doubt if this is enough of a failure to comply to bring about action either by Eurotunnel or any regulatory authority - would you agree? Or do you think I should pursue this with their CEO as they are not complying with the spirit of the CRD? Or is there a better person/organisation to contact this who might pursue it?

Hi Barbara. If it was me i would write to the CEO to see what his response is first. You never know it might do the trick.Plus i would pass on any useful info i might have to SCV to assist him with his media briefing .

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 7^th, 2014 at 3:56am by bigjohn »

BJ.

IP Logged

derrick

Supreme Member

Offline

Posts: 1,124

Re: Consumer Rights Directive: BIS consultation
Reply #51 - Aug 8^th, 2014 at 12:36pm

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 6^th, 2014 at 3:02pm:

derrick wrote on Aug 6^th, 2014 at 11:34am:

You could try Consumer Direct who will pass it to the local Trading Standards department, but don't hold your breath waiting for TS to do anything.

Consumer Direct has now become the Citizens Advice Consumer Service on 0345 4 04 05 06.

Their role is to give advice about your rights as a consumer. They will also pass cases to the relevant "home authority" Trading Standards department for investigation and possible action. Trading Standards departments are not well resourced these days and have to deal with cases according to priority. Given the amount of harm caused by other breaches of consumer regulation, it is unlikely that any enforcement action would be taken in a case such as this, although trading standards officers may make contact with the business to explain their duties under the law.

The fair telecoms campaign is currently working on a few prominent cases, in conjunction with Trading Standards departments. A media briefing will be issued shortly and we will be grateful to receive any information about cases such as this.

Yes I know, but old habits die hard, it is actually answered as "Welcome to the Consumer Helpline", I use the 0808 number as it is free from my landline.

I do have a case "in progress" re CPC, http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1403515755/15#15 The Consumer Helpline told on me 09-07-14 me they would report to TS and if I wanted an update to call back at a later date, I did this on Wednesday 05th August, (4 weeks later), and was advised that they had no feed back and to email LCC TS with an FOI to find out what, if anything, they have done, I did this on 06-08-14, the reply stated:

"I write further to your email of 6 August, in which you request the disclosure of information regarding complaint to Trading Standards. Your request has been passed to this team to process under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
The deadline date for issuing you with a full response is 4 September. We will endeavour to provide a response well in advance of this date, however, should we envisage any delays, or require more details from you, we will contact you immediately."

So another month to wait!

.

Back to top

IP Logged

SilentCallsVictim

Supreme Member

Offline

aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494

Re: Consumer Rights Directive: BIS consultation
Reply #52 - Aug 8^th, 2014 at 2:45pm

derrick wrote on Aug 8^th, 2014 at 12:36pm:

I … was advised … to email LCC TS with an FOI

I see this as an abuse of the FOI request process. A request for information, under the formal terms of the Act, should never be a routine matter. The purpose of the FOIA is to ensure that information is always provided whenever it is appropriate; formal requests, which must always go through a complex process, are to deal with exceptional circumstances.

As suggested in my previous post, I suspect the best that can be expected is a Trading Standards officer having contacted the company to explain its duties. It is, of course, possible that this may do the trick and I would be delighted to be proved to have been too pessimistic about the level of generosity shown in use of the Council Taxes paid by the people of Lancashire.

It is also possible that the advised switch to a geographic number for customer enquiries is indeed in hand!

Back to top

@fairtelecoms (tweets)

IP Logged

derrick

Supreme Member

Offline

Posts: 1,124

Re: Consumer Rights Directive: BIS consultation
Reply #53 - Aug 9^th, 2014 at 10:23am

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 8^th, 2014 at 2:45pm:

derrick wrote on Aug 8^th, 2014 at 12:36pm:

I … was advised … to email LCC TS with an FOI

I see this as an abuse of the FOI request process. A request for information, under the formal terms of the Act, should never be a routine matter. The purpose of the FOIA is to ensure that information is always provided whenever it is appropriate; formal requests, which must always go through a complex process, are to deal with exceptional circumstances.

As suggested in my previous post, I suspect the best that can be expected is a Trading Standards officer having contacted the company to explain its duties. It is, of course, possible that this may do the trick and I would be delighted to be proved to have been too pessimistic about the level of generosity shown in use of the Council Taxes paid by the people of Lancashire.

It is also possible that the advised switch to a geographic number for customer enquiries is indeed in hand!

It is not something I would have done normally, but as Consumer Advice suggested it, I thought I would give it a try, after all I had waited nearly 4 weeks without any response and CA also had no feedback!

The problem is LCC TS are not proactive at feedback, I know from previous experience that you have to push at every point, and even then it is usually something on the lines of "we have no resources", these are criminal offences but they don't seem bothered, maybe if some of the TS got together and actually prosecuted a couple of these law breakers as high profile cases, the rest might come into line with the law! You suggest that "a Trading Standards officer having contacted the company to explain its duties." Well I very much doubt that.

From replies I have received from CPC, (posted in the thread linked to in post #51 above), they will get one "in due course", due course is meaningless, they have been breaking the law for nearly 2 months and despite my informing them and providing links and quotes to the legislation they continue along in their own sweet way, like a lot of other companies until they are prosecuted!

.

Back to top

IP Logged

SilentCallsVictim

Supreme Member

Offline

aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494

Re: Consumer Rights Directive: BIS consultation
Reply #54 - Aug 9^th, 2014 at 2:38pm

derrick wrote on Aug 9^th, 2014 at 10:23am:

It is not something I would have done normally … The problem is LCC TS are not proactive at feedback

My reference to "an abuse of the FOI request process" was to the behaviour of Trading Standards departments, as advised by CA. If the FOIA requires them to provide updates on the progress of cases that have been reported through CA, then they should be providing this information as a matter of routine - not awaiting specific requests.

derrick wrote on Aug 9^th, 2014 at 10:23am:

these are criminal offences … maybe if some of the TS got together and actually prosecuted a couple of these law breakers as high profile cases, the rest might come into line with the law!

The Consumer Contract Regulations do not establish use of an expensive number for contact by customers as a criminal offence. They provide for customers recovering the excess cost incurred, if necessary through the civil courts. It is open to Trading Standards departments to impose requirements on specific companies to cease using expensive numbers, with the possibility of a breach of such a requirement potentially becoming a criminal contempt of court, but that could only happen in a very extreme case.

Back to top

@fairtelecoms (tweets)

IP Logged

SilentCallsVictim

Supreme Member

Offline

aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494

Re: Consumer Rights Directive: BIS consultation
Reply #55 - Aug 9^th, 2014 at 8:19pm

Barbara wrote on Aug 5^th, 2014 at 1:19pm:

… there is an 03 number for post sales etc buried in the contact us page among a load of 0844 number so they do have a compliant number but it is not as prominent nor displayed on the page people who need information when there is disruption are going to use.

I have had a look at the Eurotunnel (le shuttle) "Contact us" web page.

The number for "postsale and any other queries" - 0345 7 35 35 35 - appears to be shown with due prominence, although existing "Flexiplus" customers could be misled into not using this number for their enquiries.

I agree that the premium recorded information service on 0844 463 0000 is most likely to used by existing customers (of both Eurotunnel and its agents) and should therefore never be promoted without the basic rate query number being shown with equal prominence. The page for "Latest Travel Information" is therefore an example of a breach.

I would hope that Eurotunnel could be readily persuaded to correct this error, by simply adding the alternative number that exists to this page. (Unlike others, I do not share the detail of private exchanges or specific campaigning tactics on this public site.)

Back to top

@fairtelecoms (tweets)

IP Logged

Barbara

Supreme Member

Offline

Posts: 598

Re: Consumer Rights Directive: BIS consultation
Reply #56 - Aug 11^th, 2014 at 3:14pm

bigjohn & SCV, I have just sent an email to the CEO of Eurotunnel politely asking if they intend to change the 0844 number, if so when. I also asked if they do not intend to do this why not & why do they think they do not need to make the change. I will post details of any reply. Thank you again for your advice.

Back to top

IP Logged

Barbara

Supreme Member

Offline

Posts: 598

Re: Consumer Rights Directive: BIS consultation
Reply #57 - Sep 11^th, 2014 at 10:19am

At long last, I've a "reply" from Eurotunnel, the CEO didn't bother to deal with it himself, passed to Customer Relations which in itself does not impress me. I quote:

"I note your comments regarding our Travel Information telephone number. The Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013 require that businesses make an 03 number available to all its customers for post contract enquiries. Eurotunnel complies with this obligation. The 03 number is free and available for use for by customers for all enquiries including travel updates.

It should also be noted that travel update information is provided on our web page. The information on the web page is information is free to users. The message on that page states 'This information is also available via our 24 hour (recorded) service information...' followed by the 0844 number. There is no difference in the message available via the 0844 number or on our website. It is also important to note that the 0844 number is not dedicated for the use of commercial passengers - it is a service which is also used by our freight business customers. The Consumer Contracts Regulations do not apply to business customers."

I don't know if what they say is correct or not, it certainly does not seem in the spirit of the regulations and since when weren't freight business customers also "customers" under the Regs? I'd be interested to hear from anyone on the accuracy of their statement.

Interestingly, I made a further complaint about waiting time problems on our return this year & have been offered a discount voucher BUT I am expected to ring an 0844 number to use it!!!! I shall reply asking for an alternative means of contact to use the voucher and point out that I can't use it at the moment as they have, yet again, delayed opening their bookings for next year beyond May (one always used to be able to book 12 months ahead).

Back to top

IP Logged

SilentCallsVictim

Supreme Member

Offline

aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494

Re: Consumer Rights Directive: BIS consultation
Reply #58 - Sep 11^th, 2014 at 11:33am

Barbara wrote on Sep 11^th, 2014 at 10:19am:

At long last, I've a "reply" from Eurotunnel, the CEO didn't bother to deal with it himself, passed to Customer Relations which in itself does not impress me.
…

I disagree with the interpretation of the regulations presented.

When calling a number …
"in relation to contracts entered into with trader, a consumer contacting the trader must not be bound to pay more than the basic rate".

It is of no relevance that some uses of a "non-basic rate" number are not covered by the regulation and that other contact numbers are available for other purposes.

Appearance of a number on a website is only indicative of a breach - the regulation covers contact by telephone, not use of the internet. If it is of any relevance that the same information as offered by a telephone number is also available on the website, then one must question why it is shown there!
The answer is surely - for customers to note the number so as to be able to get an update when they do not have internet access. Huh

Looking at the webpage - http://www.eurotunnel.com/uk/contact-us/ - my personal view is that a simple change to the text to reflect the comments in the "reply" would do the job - i.e.

Quote:

For postsale and any other queries (including the latest travel information) please call +44 (0) 3457 35 35 35

This would remove the invitation for consumers to pay more than the basic rate in order to obtain travel information relevant to their contract.

With effect from 26 June 2015, all references to the 0844 numbers will have to include the statement "Calls to this number cost
x
per minute plus your phone company's access charge".

In the case of the recorded information number - 0844 463 0000 - 'x
' is currently 2p (it is 7p for the Reservations and Insurance queries number - 0844 335 3535). Given that the "Access Charge" for the recorded information number can currently be as high as 39p per minute, one wonders why Eurotunnel is happy to damage its reputation and the pockets of its current and intended customers, when the major beneficiaries are the telephone companies.

Back to top

@fairtelecoms (tweets)

IP Logged