I have promoted to the verified listings the entries for the six Greedy Squire Furneaux branches.

In my previous experience it is quite common for dealerships to use 084x numbers.

I wonder when Squires will be declaring the Service Charge it imposes on customers who ring up.

Dave wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 2:38pm:


Thank you Dave.

Quote:


But the relationship between a car owner and their nearest dealer for that brand of car (there is usually only one such dealer anywhere close to the majority of people's homes, especially in the countryside) is in many respects like that with a GP.  Namely a crucial professional that they rely on over a long period to keep an important part of their life going.

So it is just as wrong to abuse that existing trust by making longstanding customers pay a fortune to contact them as it for a doctor to do it.  But then this is where I, derrick, Barbara, loddon, idb and other long term members here have always been in unison but where you and SilentCallsVictim have sadly allowed the strength of our views on this matter to be diluted .  This is because we believe, just as I see the EU also believes, that forcing customers to pay premium rates to speak to a company in connection with customer service issues on any product they own is wholly unacceptable.

If a customer does not know how to drive their car properly then clearly that is not the problem of the car dealer that sold the car and not something he is obliged to resolve and something a customer should go to a driving instructor about.  However when a car does not work properly any more due to what are frequently aspects of very poor design by the manufacturer or due to maintenance operations that will bring the dealer more business if the customers uses them (something a dealer should have to compete for in a healthy marketplace) why should a customer pay more than a normal 01/02/03 number rate to make the call?  For instance if they walked in at the dealer off the street and asked the dealer the same questions would they have to pay any fee at all for having that same discussion.  Answer no they would not.  Only if they booked their car would they pay anything.

I have been driving a car for 33 years now and some dealers have only been persuaded to switch to 084/7 numbers in no more than the last three years or so.  There are still however many of them who do not use such numbers (for instance my own local Toyota dealer adopted them when there was a change of ownership but many other Toyota dealers have not) and in my view customers should vote with their feet by avoiding these anti customer dealers where they can or using our alternatives to the ripoff 084 numbers where they cannot.

Quote:


I don't really care because unlike you and SCV I don't believe the move to Service Charges and/or all that further confusing subdivision will change the situation at all.  Only a ban on the use of these numbers for customer service matters by customers of organisations will make the difference.   Also I personally would ban the use of a telephone call as a means for paying for any service at all as part of the phone charge.  This is because telephone call method of paying for something usually encourages a charter for a caller to steal from someone else when using these numbers.  This is because of the complete lack of PIN protection and other such controls on accessing 084/7 covert premium rate services.

I remain shocked Dave that you seem to think that just because some motor dealers have already begun to act reprehensibly in respect of contact by their customers that this makes it perfectly all right for the Squire Furneaux motor dealership to join their ranks.  Unless of course you perhaps have the same commercial interest as the owner of this website?  I am sure the owner of this website (www.saynoto0870.com) is actually happy with more and more 084/7 use as it then means more visits to his website to avoid them and hence more revenue from clicks thru to the various advertisers listed on it from which he clearly receives an income of some kind.

Kiwi_g wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 3:25pm:

Kiwi_g,

I am reminded by this nonsense you have been told by your dealer of certain ancient nursery rhymes about people being told that the moon is made of Swiss Cheese or also of this and various other scenes from "The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy:-

Just as the Earth is about to be blasted to smithereens to make way for a major new hyperspace bypass Arthur Dent protests to the captain of the Vogon ship about their actions but receives this reply:-

"But Mr Dent the plans have been available in the local planning office" (which just happened to be on Alpha Centurai several light years away) for the last nine months". See http://goo.gl/q6kPP5

Indeed the above analogy reminds me of a typical Ofcom helpline person's likely response to any form of likely complaint from ordinary consumers about the continued misuse in the UK of 084/7 numbers.

This why I now rarely trouble myself with visiting or participating in this website and its discussion forum other than when I am cross about a new individual 084/7 number's introduction

They were bought by the the Hildenborough Group  http://www.am-online.com/news/2012/3/5/hildenborough-buys-squire-furneaux/30616/ and according to Mr Squires entry on Linked In he no longer runs the company.

The Hildenborough Group don't appear to use non graphical numbers at there branches. http://www.hildenboroughgroup.co.uk/

I wonder if anyone has checked whether this company is aware that the cost of its new telephone system is being subsidised by callers, through the Service Charge.

Many adopt new systems using 084 numbers, and thereby at a more competitive cost, in the false belief that callers pay no more than to call an ordinary number. They also commonly fail to recognise that the modest benefit which they derive is generally exceeded by the additional cost to callers. They may even genuinely fail to recognise that they derive any benefit at all.

When the draft regulations implementing the Consumer Rights Directive provisions are published, in a few days time, it will be clear that this use of a 084 number will have to cease by the middle of 2014. It is very likely that the company is not yet aware of this.

There are undoubtedly many cases where users of 084 numbers know exactly what they are doing. I am however inclined, from experience, to expect matters like this to arise from "c*ck-up" rather than "conspiracy". I always avoid expressing a view based on either assumption in a particular case without making some effort to discover what is going on.


More will follow later on points raised above, in particular, the disagreement over the acceptability of alternative numbers. I recognise that some (allegedly a united group) are very strongly in favour of this, but I cannot accept that I have a responsibility not to allow them to dilute their views (however I may achieve this!) should they wish to do so.

For clarification of the difference of view, the named advocates of use of alternatives (and others) may wish to review the fair telecoms campaign response to the consultation on implementation of the provisions of the CRD.

They will see that we do not propose a dilution of the provisions to only prohibit "forcing customers to pay premium rates". We propose that the prohibition covers cases where the Service Charge may be included in a Call Plan fee, and thereby paid by all subscribers, and also those where alternative numbers or contact options are available.

NGMsGhost wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 10:50am:

I do not share the belief in the competence and dishonesty of businesses required to accept the analysis which appears to have been made without any engagement with them. What explanation has Squire Furneaux offered?

Because I am primarily focussed on achieving a better future, rather than whingeing about the past, I am concerned with responsibility, rather than blame. Responsibility for the current use of an inappropriate number rests squarely with the user, who can take action to get it changed. The continuing malpractice of the telcos can be addressed in some cases, but drying up their market also has an effect.

I believe that the latter is what has finally happened with Daisy and Surgery Line - but we have more work to do with the GPs who have failed to change their numbers. It is obvious that (at least some) fault lies with the former NEG, but I am not interested in a witch-hunt amongst (possibly former) practice and PCT personnel, I just want whoever is now responsible to take up the offer of penalty-free migration as soon as possible.


I recall that there was a case of an MP who got conned into using a 0845 number for her constituency office - but it was swiftly changed. (This was perhaps 3 or 4 years ago and I cannot recall the detail.) This is rare, because generally an MP would want a visibly local number for their constituency office. They are provided with (usually 020 7219) DDI numbers on the Westminster system for their parliamentary offices.

This answers the point made, although it does not resolve anything - one has to look at each case on its merits. I struggle to accept the argument that there is a fundamental moral difference between a GP (or indeed any business) that has adopted, or actively chosen to retain, a 084 number in the last 10 or more years, and one which has not. Have those who have switched away undergone a total moral transformation, or are they now subject to pressure which does not apply to others and did not apply to them previously?


Responding to some minor points made in reply #3.

I am pleased to agree that this ad-carrying site does not provide an adequate vehicle for campaigning on this issue. It does indeed have an implicit interest in the continuation of the misuse of numbers and could be said to promote inequity by enabling those who are unhappy about this to evade the problem for themselves, rather than press for change for all. (There is nothing wrong, or immoral in evading the problem or aiding evasion, it simply makes no contribution to campaigning. I would be happy to revise the latter view, if anyone could offer evidence of a case where repeated use of alternatives was proved to have caused someone to abandon an expensive number. )


Use of the split charge for telephone calls is a highly questionable practice in principle. It is however well established, stoutly defended and supported by current legislation. I am not aware of any active serious proposal for its abolition. In the light of this current reality, the fair telecoms campaign holds the clear view that it is only acceptable where the Service Charge levied is clearly declared and justified; where the Service Charge cannot be justified, it must be removed. This principle applies regardless of the number range - 084/087/09.

Similarly, we believe that the Access Charge added by the telephone company should be clearly declared. This is obviously essential if the Service Charge is to be declared, but it has a merit of its own.


We agree that there are serious issues regarding security and authorisation, especially in relation to extending the limits of the Service Charges that can be imposed on users of landlines. As "smart" mobiles are used for a variety of other financial transactions, there are wider related issues already raised in that context. As a landline is generally under control of a household, whereas a mobile is generally a personal device, the issues are separate.

We do not agree that this point is restricted only to "084/7 covert premium rate services", it is far more serious when the levels of Service Charge are greater.

(I will address the issue of the disagreement over alternative numbers and compulsion, and the bizarre suggestion about not allowing people to dilute their views, in a separate posting.)

So do we deduce from the previous rambling post, is that everybody's opinion is wrong unless it agrees with SCV?

No wonder there seems to be very little discussion on this site these days, I would guess folk daren't post in case they incur the wrath of SCV.

I always thought this was an open forum where people are allowed to voice their opinions.

Why is it that SCV is always right and everyone else is wrong,?

Obviously I believe in the opinions that I express and in the rectitude of my arguments. Wherever there is disagreement, surely each party will believe themselves to be right and the other wrong.

Personal opinion, as opposed to claimed objective fact, can however never be "right or "wrong", unless some standard of "acceptable" opinions were to be applied to this forum - as proposed by some.

I accept that I may be strong in countering arguments advanced by other contributors, but this is never in "wrath", and I hope that my comments are seen as being focussed on the arguments, not on the individuals who advance them.

Some may see discussion as a very personal matter, even when conducted in a public forum. I am happy to put my name (or nickname) to my comments and to defend and justify them where necessary. I cannot however see why this has to get so personal - either pro or con, when every contribution is published for the whole world to read.


On the specific current point of contention.

I can see nothing "wrong" in holding the opinion that it is acceptable for a 084 number to be used by someone who is not "making longstanding customers pay a fortune to contact them". I do not share that alleged consensual view of many contributors to this forum, it is not the position of NHS England in relation to GPs, I have seen no evidence to show that it is the view of the EU and I do not expect it to be reflected in the terms of the draft regulations to be published shortly by BIS. I believe anyone who applies that opinion to NHS England, the EU or BIS to be wrong, and invite them to provide evidence that may cause me to revise my understanding of the position of these bodies.

I recognise that the use of alternative geographic numbers in parallel is implicitly supported by SayNoTo0870.com and that many see this as a complete remedy for the problem. However many there may be who hold this view, and whoever they may be, I disagree with them - on this specific point I believe that they are "wrong".

I do however also expect them to think that I am wrong, and to oppose the current state of the NHS GP contract and (what I expect to be) the terms of the BIS regulations. I am perfectly happy to engage in sensible dialogue in this forum on this point, although it is not for me to somehow permit or prevent other contributors choosing to dilute their views in any way.


sherbert wrote on Aug 1^st, 2013 at 2:19pm:

There is perhaps a valid point being made here, although maybe "… without fear of challenge" should be added.

From my first postings in this forum, I had understood that it was an open discussion forum where opinions expressed should be expected to be challenged by other contributors. We will each have different views on what should be considered to be a "fair" challenge, and I am happy to accept that my challenges are not necessarily the least robust, although I avoid personal abuse. I believe it would help if a less personal tone were applied to this public discussion forum, so that issues could be discussed more clearly, however this is perhaps not what many members are looking for.

The quoted comment could be taken as a suggestion that protection against challenge is only offered to contributions that fit within a defined set of "orthodox" SayNoTo0870 opinions - e.g. the acceptability of alternative numbers. An open forum for unchallenged opinions could however be offered by allowing contributors to indicate that a contribution is nothing more than a personal view, which should not be considered as part of a general discussion.

These ideas are however OT, although they may warrant discussion in the appropriate place in the forum.