Forthcoming ban on expensive 084 & 087 numbers - please help

NFH

It is a well-known problem that many organisations use 084 and 087 numbers for customer service lines. Although many fixed line packages now include calls to 0845 and 0870 numbers, inclusive minutes from mobile phones usually do not. The result is that calls to these numbers from mobiles can be very expensive, often more than an international call, and the organisation operating the number usually receives revenue or other benefits funded by the inflated call charge.

The good news is that Article 21 of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU will soon oblige governments throughout the EU to ban organisations from using such higher rate numbers for customer service lines. Article 21 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.

The Directive will finally put an end to this widespread unfair commercial practice, although there remains one significant problem. Article 3 of the Directive exempts certain industries from complying with Article 21, specifically social services, healthcare, gambling, financial services, construction, package travel, timeshare, regular food/drink deliveries and passenger transport services. When enacting Article 21 in the UK, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) proposes to extend the scope to cover social services, healthcare, package travel and timeshare, but has chosen to preserve the exemption for the other industries, most worryingly for financial services and passenger transport services. BIS takes the view that other legislation covers these industries; however no other legislation contains similar provisions to Article 21.

There is no good reason for any industry to be exempt but fortunately we can change this. BIS has published a Consultation on the implementation of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU and you can give your views by e-mailing [EMAIL="implementingthecrd@bis.gsi.gov.uk"]implementingthecrd@bis.gsi.gov.uk[/EMAIL]. If responses to the consultation provide evidence that there is a problem in these industries regarding Article 21, BIS will be prepared to reconsider the scope. Please make it clear that you are writing specifically regarding Article 21 and give examples of abuse of 084 and 087 numbers by organisations in the exempt industries, particularly passenger transport services and financial services. Examples of the former would include budget airlines (e.g. Ryanair's 0871 & 09 numbers) and of the latter would include Co-op Bank (0844 numbers) and Santander (who block their geographic number to UK callers). Please in particular cite problems with organisations of which you are a customer so that BIS receives a comprehensive list of the worst offenders.

Earthworm

Good stuff. I do have one question though. Does this legislation refer to contacting a company via a telephone as both contact via landline and mobile or merely just landline? In theory an 0800 number would be free from a landline but chargeable, at times at quite high rates, on a mobile.

Where in the legislation does it state this must be a universal rule regardless of the method of contact?

I also feel that companies who offer the cheapest services but use a costly number as a method of recouping revenue may as a result increase their prices.

With some services, ie bottom level cheap services, I don't mind having to pay for a call as this goes partly towards funding the cost of providing your service and affects those who make use of a call centre more than others who may not. As someone who does not tend to ring a company often if this did result in an increase for all consumers I in monthly rental charges I could easily see a downside.

NFH

Earthworm wrote: »

Good stuff. I do have one question though. Does this legislation refer to contacting a company via a telephone as both contact via landline and mobile or merely just landline? In theory an 0800 number would be free from a landline but chargeable, at times at quite high rates, on a mobile.

Where in the legislation does it state this must be a universal rule regardless of the method of contact?

It needs to be the "basic rate", in practice the same as it costs to call an 01/02/03 number, regardless of the type of line you're calling from. No doubt the term "basic rate" will also require a future-proof definition without referring to number ranges which could change over the years.

Earthworm wrote: »

With some services, ie bottom level cheap services, I don't mind having to pay for a call as this goes partly towards funding the cost of providing your service and affects those who make use of a call centre more than others who may not.

You will still have to pay for the call (either for each call or via a bundle) but you will no longer have to pay more than the cost of the call to fund revenue or other benefits received by the called party.

Earthworm

Then I can't disagree with this. I do however feel that this could have went a little further than just the cost of the call. The length of time it takes to get through a companies options when calling seems to delay a call massively with some companies. I'm normally quick and consice when it comes to pressing which options are more suited to my issue but I find myself about 50% of the time spending 3 or 4 minutes listening to automated voices telling me about online services, offers and advice before I'm even put in a queue.

Even basic rate through a mobile via pay as you go could cost you 30p a minute. That is £1.20 before a connection.

The most recent was cancelling my subscription to Xbox live.

NFH

Earthworm wrote: »

Even basic rate through a mobile via pay as you go could cost you 30p a minute. That is £1.20 before a connection.

The directive does not attempt to regulate the cost of normal phone calls; that is definitely a matter, if at all, for other legislation. The directive tackles the problem of businesses using prefixes that cost more than a normal phone call in order to receive revenue or other benefits. Goods or services should be funded only by transparent charges paid by customers, and not disguised through higher rate telephone calls. It is also inappropriate for businesses to profit when a customer phones them to make a complaint. We need to ensure that airlines and banks cannot continue this unfair commercial practice.

diamonds

WHOOP ! Normal rates are kind of regulated, by Dec 2012 the EU wants member states charging 1.5 to 3 cents a minute wholesale between telcos or else it will be enforced, now given networks constant refusal to do things to milk every last bit of milk out the cash cow no doubt the EU will enforce it & cap the retail cost when it does so as it has in the past.

We have the arrogance of the networks wanting massive profits to thank for the EU enforcing things by not following EU recommendations as a industry, communication is a right & financial background should not be a barrier to communication, quite frankly the EU has done some amazing things for us mere mortals where your own national government & qango subsidies have done nothing, Ofcom is no exception with its recent cap on termination charges between telcos - it was brought in to adhere to the EU request, it would never have done it otherwise.

Ofcom should steal the Bank of Scotland old slogan - a friend for life (to those we licence)

NFH

diamonds wrote: »

your own national government & qango subsidies have done nothing, Ofcom is no exception with its recent cap on termination charges between telcos

Absolutely right about Ofcom. Staying on topic, they banned revenue sharing on 0870 numbers, so lots of companies simply switched from 0870 to 0844. When Ofcom published the consultation about this, I warned them this would happen, but they ignored my prediction and went ahead with their flawed plan. Ofcom's latest plan on 084 and 087 numbers sounds more sensible, but even that should be redundant once Article 21 becomes law.

Buzby

I did exactly the same thing, so they cannot say the issue was not predicted. I recall a phone call from them attributing the change as recommended by Ovum (consultants) adding that if this would have been an issue, they would have taken it into account.

What a surprise! (Not!).

diamonds

Buzby wrote: »

I did exactly the same thing, so they cannot say the issue was not predicted. I recall a phone call from them attributing the change as recommended by Ovum (consultants) adding that if this would have been an issue, they would have taken it into account.

What a surprise! (Not!).

When a government regulator/dept/quango needs to pay consultants from our money when they are employed to do such in the first instance we need not wonder why the state of the UK & its procedures & systems exists.

robbies_gal

so when is this happening

NFH

gabbyevs wrote: »

so when is this happening

The closing date of the consultation is 1st November 2012. The legislation will take effect from mid-2014.