Coop Bank Switch To Expensive 0844 Numbers.

MoneySaverLog

pqrdef wrote: »

I've also got an 0844 number down for Barclaycard. Is that right?

01604 234 234 will almost certainly be cheaper from a mobile

prowla

JohalaReewi wrote: »

True but the devil is in the ppm bit. The longer you are on the phone (in a queue etc.) the more you pay. It soon mounts up. With real phone numbers and 03x, the call is very likely going to be part of ones inclusive minutes (so free).

It's a good game for them - the less efficient they are the more money thay make!

Fred_Bear_2

prowla wrote: »

It's a good game for them - the less efficient they are the more money thay make!

No, that's what I thought until I complained to the Co-op. This is the reply I got (my emphasis):

Hello Mr Bear

Thanks for your message regarding our telephone number.

We believe the move from 0845 number to 0844 is both fairer and offers more transparency for our customers, call charges will be consistent and clear whatever time of the day you call.

Calls to 0844 numbers cost no more than 5.105p per minute from a BT Unlimited Anytime package. Other packages and network charges may vary. Calls from a mobile vary depending on your network provider but will be considerably more. Please refer to your network provider for further tariff information.

We welcome all feedback on our changes which you can provide on our online feedback box. This is located on
smile.co.uk/talktous.

Regards

So you see, the Co-op is changing to 0844 numbers for fairness. As an ethical organisation they put the interests of their customers first of course. (They also treat their customers like intelligent people.)

MoneySaverLog

Fred_Bear wrote: »

They also treat their customers like intelligent people.

You mean idiots

NFH

The issue of customer service lines using 084 and 087 prefixes should be resolved by June 2014. Article 21 of Directive 2011/83/EU on Consumer Rights states:

Member States shall ensure that where the trader operates a telephone line for the purpose of contacting him by telephone in relation to the contract concluded, the consumer, when contacting the trader is not bound to pay more than the basic rate.

However, Article 3 of the directive states that this shall not apply to certain industries, e.g. healthcare, gambling, financial services and passenger transport services.

The government is implementing Article 19 (concerning card surcharges) by the end of this year. Why can't it also implement Article 21 early and omit the exclusion of certain industries?

System

On the phone, someone who said she was a 'manager' at the Skelmersdale call centre read out to me a claim that a 'market research survey' had shown that "70%" of Co-op Bank customers would benefit from the switch to 0844.
The Co-op presumably paid good money for this 'market research survey', which was complete rubbish. Admittedly, all telcos make it quite difficult to check the price of calling 0844CDE (and it depends on what C D and E are). But any work-experience schoolgirl could have found out in half an hour that BT, Talktalk, and Virgin (for example) all always charge more to call 0844844 than 0845 (to say nothing of the 0161 that wise people use).
Talktalk Business (who appear to be the purveyors of the 0844 numbers the Co-op is using) appear to have conned the Co-op, bigtime.

System

NFH wrote: »

Why can't it also implement Article 21 early and omit the exclusion of [financial services]?

Because no UK government ever does anything to offend bankers, except the (rapidly rising) minority that are 200% proved to be crooks.
If sane competition applied to banks, they would offer small but real interest on current account balances, and make transparent charges, related to costs, for transactions - as opposed to arbitrary stealth charges on the uninitiated who call them on scam numbers.

username

No customer should ever have to pay a premium to speak to someone at a company.

Unfortunately the majority of the public will just ring the 08 number printed on the statement (and the 'normal' landline phone number is disguised as the international one) and clock up charges on their phone bill, it's only the savvy bunch that will hunt out the normal phone number.

The fact that companies offer a normal rate landline phone number disguised as one for calling in from abroad means that the 08 number is certainly just a revenue generating exercise.
In ye olde days companies would use the excuse that 08s had fancy call routing technology that the normal landlines didn't have.

The way I see it is that I already pay for your service (either directly by taking it our and paying a subscription, or buying an item, or depositing my money with you) so why should I pay extra on top to call you?

huw01

pqrdef wrote: »

They're struggling to raise the money to take over 1/3 of Lloyds TSB. I suppose every little helps.

And the apparent overdraft the labour party has with them. They're not asking them to pay up I take it

Boromoor1

Co-op customer services told me it was "So that customers can see what the call costs and to make it "fairer" to everyone". I told him that was B*** S*** because it now makes it "unfair" to those who have paid for a BT call package that includes 0845 numbers; he couldn't answer that.
I think all companies should be OBLIGED to publish a geographical number beside their "08" number and thought I'd start a Government e-petition. When I looked someone had beaten me to it, at present it has 52 signatures but it needs 100,000 by August next year. Here's the web address:
epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/13439"]

Sorry you'll have to "cut& paste" it as I couldn't post the link properly, apparently I'm not allowed to as I've only just registered