Government to allow Ryanair to continue using unfair premium rate phone numbers
Options
NFH
Posts: 4,373 Forumite
It was widely anticipated that the Consumer Rights Directive would prevent Ryanair et al from using premium rate telephone numbers for customer services and complaints. However, it appears that the government plans to let the airlines to continue this unfair commercial practice.
Article 21 of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 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 states that the directive shall not apply to certain industries, e.g. healthcare, gambling, financial services and passenger transport services.
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) has published a Consultation on the implementation of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU. Paragraph 30 of BIS's impact assessment states "Costs remain the same per trader, although a slightly larger number of traders will be covered, namely regulated professionals providing healthcare services, providers of private social services (care homes etc.) package travel and timeshare traders". Although it is welcome that BIS will extend the legislation also to cover the excluded industries, it is worrying that it will include only package travel and not all passenger transport services. This means that Ryanair can continue to operate premium rate phone numbers for complaints and customer services, an existing unfair commercial practice that frustrates its customers.
The goods news is that you can make a difference by responding to the consultation. The contact details are here.
Article 21 of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 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 states that the directive shall not apply to certain industries, e.g. healthcare, gambling, financial services and passenger transport services.
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) has published a Consultation on the implementation of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU. Paragraph 30 of BIS's impact assessment states "Costs remain the same per trader, although a slightly larger number of traders will be covered, namely regulated professionals providing healthcare services, providers of private social services (care homes etc.) package travel and timeshare traders". Although it is welcome that BIS will extend the legislation also to cover the excluded industries, it is worrying that it will include only package travel and not all passenger transport services. This means that Ryanair can continue to operate premium rate phone numbers for complaints and customer services, an existing unfair commercial practice that frustrates its customers.
The goods news is that you can make a difference by responding to the consultation. The contact details are here.
0
Comments
-
There must be hundreds of companies across all kinds of different industries that offer premium rate phone support. Is there a reason for singling out Ryanair in particular that I'm missing?0
-
Yes, because passenger transport services are one of the few excluded industries and Ryanair is one of the few airlines which can be contacted for complaints and customer service issues only via a premium rate phone number.There must be hundreds of companies across all kinds of different industries that offer premium rate phone support. Is there a reason for singling out Ryanair in particular that I'm missing?0 -
So BIS are just pointing out that the exclusion re-inforces the transport industries' right (yes it will be a right once we enact this directive into a UK law/statute) to use premium rate telephone lines.
The time to question this would have been at the draft directive stage - it's too late now.0 -
No, it not too late, because BIS are extending the legislation to cover some industries excluded by the directive (e.g. healthcare) but only to cover part of the travel industry. There is no good reason for any industry to be excluded from Article 21, and we can make a difference by responding to the consultation.So BIS are just pointing out that the exclusion re-inforces the transport industries' right (yes it will be a right once we enact this directive into a UK law/statute) to use premium rate telephone lines.
The time to question this would have been at the draft directive stage - it's too late now.0 -
Yes, because passenger transport services are one of the few excluded industries and Ryanair is one of the few airlines which can be contacted for complaints and customer service issues only via a premium rate phone number.
BA are the same, and even if you find a geographic number for them you'll get a message telling you to call a non geo - I seem to have missed your mention of them, or are they not sufficiently newsworthy?0 -
BA doesn't operate on premium-rate prefixes governed by PhonepayPlus (e.g. 09 and 0871), unlike Ryanair. Although 0844 is bad as well, it costs a fraction of what Ryanair's 09 and 0871 numbers cost.pickpocketlocket wrote: »BA are the same, and even if you find a geographic number for them you'll get a message telling you to call a non geo - I seem to have missed your mention of them, or are they not sufficiently newsworthy?0 -
They are proposing to extend the basic call cost to include the package travel industry explicity (they are not part of the transport industry). The transport industry is already excluded from the basic call costs and this can not be changed. Ryanair is not a package travel companyNo, it not too late, because BIS are extending the legislation to cover some industries excluded by the directive (e.g. healthcare) but only to cover part of the travel industry. There is no good reason for any industry to be excluded from Article 21, and we can make a difference by responding to the consultation.
As I said, the ONLY way that the transport industry could be removed from the exclusion was either at the draft stage or now it would require an amendment to the directive. The government has a legal duty to implement the contents of the directive into UK law. They may extend its influence (as with the original directive and SOGA) but they can not ignore a provision already contained within the directive.0 -
When enacting the directive into UK law, the government can, if it wishes, extend the legislation to cover passenger transport services, as it is already proposing to do with healthcare. In other words, the directive is a minimum requirement and the government can go further.As I said, the ONLY way that the transport industry could be removed from the exclusion was either at the draft stage or now it would require an amendment to the directive. The government has a legal duty to implement the contents of the directive into UK law. They may extend its influence (as with the original directive and SOGA) but they can not ignore a provision already contained within the directive.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.9K Spending & Discounts
- 235.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.3K Life & Family
- 248.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards