How odd ! Budget Air claim it cost 10 p a minute to call their 0843 number which is  G6 band 5.11p a minute from a BT line with a 15p service charge,

http://www.budgetair.co.uk/customerservice

Note: Strangely enough just after posting this i noticed that http://www.humbersideairport.com/about-us/contact-us/ also claimed their 0844 number was charged at 10p a minute.

Ian G wrote on Dec 1^st, 2013 at 8:08pm:


Looks like  your  teaching me to suck eggs !   

Good Morning,

I actually think it's better to put a Minimum call cost PLUS the fact a "connection" fee will be charged on top...

It didn't take me 2 mins to find this guide to call costs from Ofcom...  Companies should be pro-active in putting clearer call charges based on the Ofcom info... it's a start at least...

Ok,

I am not sure where you read the info from but I found this:

Chargeable 08 Business Rate numbers
These are used by large and small businesses for sales, enquiry and
customer service lines and for some pay-as-you go internet access
services.
0843 and 0844
How much do calls cost? Calls are charged between 1p and 13p per
minute for landline customers. Calls from mobile phones are typically
charged between 20p and 41p per minute, depending on the provider and the number
called.  It's a LOT less misleading than 10p per minute!

I didn't say it was a definitive guide, I just said it may help...

Yes when the unbundled tariff finally arrives I live in hope it will resolve this giant mess regarding call charges, but frankly I doubt it will... why.. because it's Ofcom...

Rant over!

CJT-80 wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2013 at 1:30pm:

For the case of Budget Air, our hopes are focussed more immediately on the implementation of the regulations arising from the Consumer Rights Directive. There is no serious justification for applying the exemption of Passenger Transport in the UK - let us hope that this point has been accepted by Jo Swinson.

The BIS measure, along with what is about to be announced for the public sector and the voluntary action by the Banks are closely related to the work that Ofcom has done on this issue. It has provided us with the term "Service Charge", and dispelled the myth that 084 numbers are in some way different from those classified as being used for the provision of "Premium Rate Services".

For the unbundled tariff to work, Ofcom has to secure the compliance of the telephone companies. They must take on the administration of the Service Charge levels / termination fee rates (currently undertaken by BT), apply the separated billing and set a single Access Charge rate per tariff. Given the perceived damage that some claim that this will do to their (allegedly legitimate) businesses, this has been found not to be easy.

CJT-80 wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2013 at 1:30pm:

We can see the struggles that all statutory regulators have with the private businesses in the sectors that they regulate. This provides a strong argument to support the view that re-nationalisation is the only answer, as regulated competition may not provide sufficient protection for the consumer interest.

There are many issues on which Ofcom continues to fail us badly. I am however convinced that the unbundled tariff is the right approach to this issue (having proposed something of this nature when responding to the initial "Call for Inputs" at the beginning of the Simplifying Non-Geographic Numbers project). I therefore support its efforts to compel compliance with its proposals and am committed to help them succeed.

It is obviously disappointing to find that many contributors to this forum oppose those efforts or believe them to be a waste of energy.

---

In fact, it will not be Ofcom that will be directly responsible for enforcing compliance with the requirements to declare call charges (before the call is made). For PRS numbers that specific duty is held by PhonePay Plus. In general, and exclusively for 084 numbers, it is the powers of the ASA, the OFT and Trading Standards offices that will be used to enforce compliance with the requirement to state the Service Charge and refer to the Access Charge added by the caller's telephone company.

Ofcom will state, and stand firmly behind, the requirement, but it has no statutory powers covering the terms of call cost statements made by users of the telephone network. It will be generally understood that this is "an Ofcom regulation", however, as with many other cases, Ofcom's actual powers are not as wide as many are led to believe (often by Ofcom itself).

The "unbundled tariff" is a most welcome and proper measure. It is however my hope that by the time it comes into effect, it will have little significance in respect of 084 numbers - because, by then, most improper use of such numbers will have ceased.

… and Good Evening CJT-80

I do not wish to belittle the enormous frustration felt over these battles over 084 numbers, their misuse and the misrepresentation of call costs, continuing. Ofcom has been far from hasty in getting to grips with the issues and the limits of its powers constrain its effectiveness, even when it is set on the right course.

This discussion forum is here for us to exchange views. It is rightly said that the fiercest arguments are often between those who are essentially in agreement. My personal view is that the only fair and accurate way to present call costs for 084 numbers, is that which will be required under the "unbundled tariff". Many of those who are presently using 084 numbers simply should not be doing so. This makes any discussion of how they should present their call costs largely an academic issue, as the costs being described should simply not be incurred by those who call them.

Any general statement of call costs, no matter how precise or meaningful, is of little value to the reader, who is only interested in what cost they will incur. All we can do for now is to attack any misrepresentation or direct falsehood, even though it is difficult to suggest a worthwhile alternative at the present time.

This forum has long provided a vehicle for expressions of annoyance and frustration, and is also used for (sometimes unintended, and sometimes wrongly inferred) personal attacks by one member on another. The simple fact is that in the real world, "we" (I can only speak for the fair telecoms campaign) are winning. There is lots of work still to do, and I am not so foolish as to believe that 100% success is attainable.

There will be always be plenty to occupy those who are seen as "regular" members of this forum. (I mean "regular" with reference to their views, not the current frequency of postings, i.e. excluding myself and some others.) I am always happy to engage in serious discussion of topics, but find it difficult to address simple blind negativity.