Geographic number diverted to 0845 and caller is charged!

RikJ

Received another call from VM this week. This time it was a UK based person on the Manchester complaints team.

He told me it would appear that Tesco have started diverting their calls to 0845, quite possibly to generate revenue and it has happened to quite a few VM customers. He then stated there is nothing VM can do about it and I need to take it up with Tesco.

I responded that VM is my phone provider, I have a package with them that includes calls to geographic numbers etc., and if there is an issue with Tesco then I expect VM to challenge it with Tesco, not simply do nothing except pass on a charge to their customers.

I thanked him and asked that he send me a letter from VM stating their final position. At this point, he became rather exasperated that I would not take his response as an end to the matter and kept re-iterating that my complaint is with Tesco not VM. I continued to thank him for calling and asked him to put the response in writing and the conversation went round in circles a few times! At all times he remained polite but my insistence that VM write to me with their final response clearly agitated him (which was not my intention). He confirmed that VM would credit me to the value of the calls but he will put a note on the file to indicate I have been told that any further calls to my local Tesco may be chargeable if Tesco still have an active divert. I said stick that in the letter as well and questioned what would VM do if other businesses started doing the same thing as Tesco as this could make a total farce of having an inclusive call package.

I explained that I need the letter as I will be taking the complaint to CISAS and eventually had to ask to end the call as I was at work.

If I don't get the letter by the end of next week then I'll get back in touch with VM and also ask to see a copy of my customer file, as is my right under data protection.

victor2

Nice one.
I still can't believe that it is possible for someone to divert a call and change the billing in this way, without VM having some involvement. I freely admit I know nothing about how modern telephone providers systems work, but it looks like the person who called you is either ignorant of what is going on, or has been instructed as to what his response should be.
I would say these calls are showing up on the bill as operator connected when they haven't been and perhaps VM could explain that.
Good luck with it.

Heinz

victor2 wrote: »

I would say these calls are showing up on the bill as operator connected when they haven't been and perhaps VM could explain that.

RikJ

I think that is the aspect you will need to get a response about when you call VM back (as I suspect you will have to do).

Mark_In_Hampshire

Surely this is quite simple:

The bill is incorrect.

You have been charged for calls to a number that you did not call.

The company charging you is VM. It has nothing to do with Tesco nor is your complaint with them.

So the correct thing to do would be to strike through the calls on the bill which you did not actually make (these ones) and pay the bill minus those charges, because they are incorrect.

You could optionally offer to pay the amount it should have been but it doesn't alter the fact that 1. the bill is wrong and 2. VM's position is also wrong.

System

Mark_In_Hampshire wrote: »

The company charging you is VM. It has nothing to do with Tesco nor is your complaint with them.

Spot on. The OP could point out, preferably in writing, to Virgin that (a) Virgin must publish a transparent tariff (which could, but doesn't, state that calls to specified 01 numbers will be charged as if they were operator-connected calls to a 0845 number); (b) billing must be as stated in their published tariff; and (c) they are blathering in defiance of their obligations under para A3.4.8 of Ofcom's billing directive.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/telecoms/metering/ofcommb.pdf

victor2

YoungNick wrote: »

Spot on. The OP could point out, preferably in writing, to Virgin that (a) Virgin must publish a transparent tariff (which could, but doesn't, state that calls to specified 01 numbers will be charged as if they were operator-connected calls to a 0845 number); (b) billing must be as stated in their published tariff; and (c) they are blathering in defiance of their obligations under para A3.4.8 of Ofcom's billing directive.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/telecoms/metering/ofcommb.pdf

Some very interesting information there. Whilst I agree it is VM providing the service, billing for it and the ones who should be held responsible, I wouldn't mind betting Tesco initiated it. It could simply be that they requested call forwarding and the billing screw up is a side effect of that with VM's system, but Tesco seem to be featuring heavily in this problem, so must have had something done. It's only polite to let them know!
This needs nipping in the bud before it becomes commonplace. Give VM hell, OP!

System

According to Ofcom's numbering index
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/numbering/index.htm#ge!!!
the 1932 74 block is allocated to BT, and 8456 77 is allocated to Cable and Wireless. Tesco might (I think) have ported 1932 741400 to Cable and Wireless.
http://www.itpro.co.uk/201609/tesco-signs-cable-wireless-in-100-million-it-deal
If Tesco have arranged for calls to 1932 741400 to be forwarded to an 845 number, it is up to Tesco's telecom provider to bill Tesco for that redirection.
This is exactly analogous to the position when I call a UK mobile which (possibly unknown to me) is roaming in, say, France. Calls to this mobile will be forwarded to 0033 6XXXXXXXX, where 6XXXXXXXX is a temporary French mobile number. I pay my telecom provider their published tariff for a call to UK 07. The recipient of the call pays his provider for the cost of the forwarding (plus a rip-off profit which the EC is gradually beating down).

RikJ

victor2 wrote: »

I would say these calls are showing up on the bill as operator connected when they haven't been and perhaps VM could explain that.
Good luck with it.

Heinz wrote: »

RikJ

I think that is the aspect you will need to get a response about when you call VM back (as I suspect you will have to do).

I did actually raise the point about it showing as Operator Connected but the VM rep was unable to offer any explanation and just kept banging on about it being some kind of voodoo that Tesco are dabbling in......

It's not the call charge that bothers me it's more the fact that VM are not interested in addressing the main issue. I genuinely can't understand why VM are adopting this position and feel I have a cast iron case to take to CISAS who I am hopeful will put an end to this shady practice.

Silent_Calls_Victim

This thread is running in parallel with discussion of the same issues on SayNoTo0870.


There are unquestionably differences of view and tactics between various contributors on both threads. I invite Money Saving Experts to view my contributions to the discussion on SayNoTo0870 and am happy to extend the offer repeated in my latest contribution.

Buzby

Sorry, late in joining this - but it sounds as though the culprit here is C&W, not Virgin - but as Virgin are doing the billing, it is they who must carry the can for the problem, not the consumer.

Further, this is a Regulatory issue, and nothing to do with CISAS which is for non-specialised issues. As other posters have noted, the caller ONLY pays for the number he dials. C&W, however, as a major telco, can take the inbound call to Tesco, and re-route it, whilst at the same time generating a charge for the divert which would be billed to Virgin retrospectively, and they wopuld pass it on to their customer.

To get round the restrictions, C&W can only use 'Operator Assisted' to inflate the call cost, and OFCOM needs to be told of this sharp practice. The caller ONLY can be charged for the number dialled at the tariff stipulated by Virgin. If he didn't call the C&W operator then there's no liability. The only other way they could reverse bill is with a premium rated number, and as the caller is unlikely to dial that, the scheme would not work.