Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • sdpp98
    • By sdpp98 1st Oct 17, 3:40 PM
    • 2Posts
    • 0Thanks
    sdpp98
    ID mobile - extra charges -Watch out!!
    • #1
    • 1st Oct 17, 3:40 PM
    ID mobile - extra charges -Watch out!! 1st Oct 17 at 3:40 PM
    I've had a sim-only 1 month contract with ID mobile for 4 months.
    1.5Gb data, 250 min all for£5 - just what I wanted, no problems etc.

    Then got billed 40p extra for calling my daughter (she's on a payg Three mobile).

    ID are now claiming that her number 075378***** is 'Non-standard' so charged at 40p/min
    (this is listed on their website btw)

    This is bizarre, ID actually use the Three network. Also my other kid is on Three payg 07480****, which, so far, is a standard number.

    ID have a list of 50+ number prefixes that are non-standard, so I should check my contacts against them

    Anyone got any idea what's going on here ?
Page 1
    • Ian011
    • By Ian011 1st Oct 17, 8:13 PM
    • 1,833 Posts
    • 1,035 Thanks
    Ian011
    • #2
    • 1st Oct 17, 8:13 PM
    • #2
    • 1st Oct 17, 8:13 PM
    When a call is made to a landline or mobile number allocated to a different provider, the caller's phone provider has to pay a small termination fee (also known as a wholesale charge) to that other provider. This compensates them for conveying the call to the final destination. Ofcom caps these wholesale charges at 0.21p per minute for calls to UK landline numbers and 0.49p per minute for calls to UK mobile numbers.

    Some landline and mobile providers have lists of landline and mobile numbers which they omit from allowances. These comprise two main categories. One is "offshore" landline and mobile numbers allocated in CI and IoM. The other is the so-called "non-mobile" numbers, used for a variety of automated and interactive services including dial-though providers and such like. These are numbers where the termination charge was much higher than usual and so the numbers could not be included in allowances. In the case of "non-mobile" numbers, the additional fee paid for provision of the service.

    For many years, Ofcom has been steadily reducing on an annual basis the maximum allowed termination charges for calls to UK mobile numbers but this applied only to calls made to mobile numbers allocated to the main mobile providers. It did not apply to calls made to mobile numbers allocated to offshore providers in CI or IoM and it did not apply to calls made to mobile numbers allocated to smaller UK mobile providers.

    However, on 1 May 2015, the termination rate cap was extended to cover calls to all mobile numbers allocated to UK providers. The number range you mention used to belong to TTNC and was used for a specialised service with a very high termination charge. However, that service closed down and TTNC relinquished that number range many years ago. Several years later, the range was re-allocated to Three and a year or so later those numbers came into use as mobile numbers on the Three network. That was at least a year ago.

    Given that high termination charges for calls to all UK mobile numbers ended more than two years ago, various landline and mobile providers have been incredibly lax in removing additional retail charges for calls to these number ranges. They may say that they are still having to pay out high termination charges when calls are made to these numbers. That would be untrue . An Ofcom investigation opened in April 2017 and closed in August 2017 has found no provider in breach of the cap on mobile termination rates.

    Where additional retail charges are still being applied, the issue lies wholly with the caller's phone provider. They are overcharging for these calls. Whether this is deliberate or simple incompetence is hard to tell.



    iD Mobile's statement that they are charged higher rates to connect these calls is quite simply not true. Such charges would be in breach of Ofcom regulations in place since 1 May 2015. As of that date, this list: https://www.idmobile.co.uk/nonstandard07numbers should have quite simply ceased to exist.



    See also:
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5295051
    https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/bulletins/competition-bulletins/all-closed-cases/cw_01193
    Last edited by Ian011; 02-10-2017 at 11:31 AM.
    • sdpp98
    • By sdpp98 1st Oct 17, 9:04 PM
    • 2 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    sdpp98
    • #3
    • 1st Oct 17, 9:04 PM
    • #3
    • 1st Oct 17, 9:04 PM
    Thanks for the comprehensive reply.

    I discovered that ID mobile & giff gaff would charge more to call daughter's number.

    While chatting to Three to get info, they offered to change the number (waiving the fee).
    So I did that to resolve the problem.

    ID mobile haven't offered any explanation so far.

    Regards

    Steve
    • Ian011
    • By Ian011 1st Oct 17, 9:19 PM
    • 1,833 Posts
    • 1,035 Thanks
    Ian011
    • #4
    • 1st Oct 17, 9:19 PM
    • #4
    • 1st Oct 17, 9:19 PM
    Giffgaff say they have fixed the over-charging for calls made to numbers starting 075378 and 075379. It took them several months to acknowledge the problem and several more to fix it. It is unknown whether all overcharged customers have been refunded.

    Worryingly, giffgaff still continues to publish a very long list of other "non-mobile" prefixes. Giffgaff remains adamant that they pay out high rates for calls to these numbers despite an official Ofcom investigation finding no evidence of this.



    See also:
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5644440
    https://community.giffgaff.com/t5/Contribute/Exactly-Why-are-THESE-non-mobile-Numbers-Excluded/td-p/20290845
    https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/bulletins/competition-bulletins/all-closed-cases/cw_01193
    Last edited by Ian011; 04-10-2017 at 12:51 AM.
    • redux
    • By redux 2nd Oct 17, 11:39 AM
    • 17,216 Posts
    • 21,814 Thanks
    redux
    • #5
    • 2nd Oct 17, 11:39 AM
    • #5
    • 2nd Oct 17, 11:39 AM
    The number range 075378 is allocated to Three (so not too surprising that it's on one of their SIMs).

    A discussion on the O2 forum confirms what I an says above, that it used to be with a provider called TTNC.

    But there is a surprise, or clue that this may have changed recemtly. 075378 is on Three's own list of non-standard, costing 3 pence a minute from PAYG, so the same price anyway. Some Tnree contracts may have it excluded and costing 35 pence a minute, according to Three currently published but perhaps (let's hope) out of date material.

    This surely shows what a shambles firms are still conducting on this subject, if things were supposed to have changed 2 years ago, but sanctions persist until April or September this year, one of Three's mvno residents sanctions a Three number, and Three says it does

    I've previously seen T-Mobile and BT prefixes described as non-mobile. Now add Three.
    • Ian011
    • By Ian011 2nd Oct 17, 4:00 PM
    • 1,833 Posts
    • 1,035 Thanks
    Ian011
    • #6
    • 2nd Oct 17, 4:00 PM
    • #6
    • 2nd Oct 17, 4:00 PM
    Three lists 075378 and 075379 and many other prefixes as "non-mobile" numbers despite those two ranges having changed ownership from TTNC to Three several years ago and despite all other "non-mobile" number ranges supposedly ceasing to exist on 1 May 2015.

    Further research reveals the list of "non-mobile" prefixes published by Three has remained unaltered since before 2011. They have been lax in keeping both their pricing and their price lists up to date - as have most other landline and mobile providers for that matter.

    The 07 range has three distinct categories:
    - 070 - personal numbers charged at a premium rate
    - 071 to 075 and 07624 and 077 to 079 - mobile numbers
    - 076 (except 07624) - pager numbers
    and one further sub-division:
    - mobile numbers are either UK based or are "offshore" (e.g. CI or IoM).

    The "non-mobile" numbers category is unofficial. It was invented by phone providers to explain away various groups of ordinary mobile numbers with high termination rates that they were unwilling to include in call and message allowances. Ofcom's changes to the rules on mobile termination rates effective 1 May 2015 removed all basis for these exclusions to continue.

    "Offshore" mobile numbers allocated in CI and IoM continue to have higher termination charges than UK mobile numbers. For this reason, calls and messages to these numbers remain excluded from allowances. However, the "offshore" termination rate has fallen sharply in recent years and the next decrease will see it draw level with the UK rate. From that point on, there is an expectation that calls and messages to CI and IoM numbers will be included in allowances.

    Over the last few years, Ofcom's "simplifying non-geographic numbers" project has also tackled the 03, 0500, 08, 09, 116 and 118 ranges. Outstanding issues that remain to be dealt with include tackling the 055, 056, 070 and 076 ranges. There is some hope this may happen in 2018.
    Last edited by Ian011; 02-10-2017 at 5:15 PM.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

930Posts Today

6,780Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Well so far it seems there's one thing remainers and leavers agree on - the EU is getting the better of the negotia? https://t.co/70z5ffpG8S

  • Today's Twitter poll: If you had to pick one, who do you think is coming out best so far in the Brexit negotiations, UK or EU?

  • It isn't an article by me.I don't write for express. They just cunningly report my tv appearances as if I did. https://t.co/0DDfDU7Kbp

  • Follow Martin