Publishing cost of calling 0843

ashfor

Recent Ofcom rules require users of non-standard rate numbers to publish the "service charge" for calling these numbers wherever the numbers are promoted.

The pensions department of my former employer doesn't comply with these rules: their website publishes an expensive 0843 contact number, costing around £10 an hour to call, without mentioning anything about its cost. I've been trying to find out how the Ofcom regulations are enforced but without success. Ofcom itself seems to accept complaints only about telecoms companies and ISPs, not about users of telecom services.

Can anyone advise how to make a company comply with the rules about publishing call costs?

Despite legislation in 2013 making it illegal to use such numbers for post-contract consumer helplines and despite the FCA banning the use of these numbers for financial institutions from next week, it seems that employers' pensions departments have escaped being covered by these regulations. Or that's what they're saying...does anyone know any different?

Ian011

Ofcom's changes effective 1 July 2015 recognise that all 084, 087, 09 and 118 numbers are premium rate. The premium is the Service Charge. All users of 084, 087, 09 and 118 numbers must declare the Service Charge wherever their number is advertised. This must be in close proximity to the number. See ukcalling.info/industry for details.

Where users of 084, 087 and 09 numbers with a Service Charge of 7p per minute or per call or less fail to declare the Service Charge, callers can complain to ASA. All 084 numbers have a Service Charge of 7p per minute or per call or less. In recent months ASA has been sending out this letter to some offenders. See tiny_url.com/LetterASA

For 087 and 09 numbers with a Service Charge of more than 7p per minute or per call, callers can complain to PhonepayPlus. PhonepayPlus also has the ability to impose financial penalties. For egregious cases presented to ASA, they can pass them on to Trading Standards for further action. Trading Standards can take cases to court.

pmduk

Ian011 wrote: »

See tiny_url.com/ASALetter

This URL is incorrect

ETA
Experimentation finds it to be
!!!!!!.com/ASALetter

ashfor

Thanks for the useful reply.

ASA's website and their standard letter about failing to declare the service charge both refer to advertisements and advertisers. This particular use of an 0843 number is published on the website of a workplace pensions provider and in their literature, both of which are of interest only to members of this particular pension fund. It's not an advertisement in the usual sense of the word and I'm rather dubious about whether it falls into the ASA's remit.

However, since there seems to be no other enforcement agency, I'll try a complaint to the ASA and see whether they accept it.

Ian011

As far as ASA is concerned, a non-broadcast advertisement is something on a billboard, in print media including brochures etc, or on a website. Broadcast ads include radio and TV.

If you're a 'member'' then you're a customer and I would expect the rules to also apply in those cases. However, the final decision will rest with ASA.

Organisations that claim exemption from various rules clearly do not want to operate at the top-level of honesty, decency and transparency.

Some organisations are being fed duff information by their telecoms provider. Many providers have not updated their information to take into account the changes that came into effect on 1 July 2015. Just look at how many suppliers of 0845 numbers to businesses are still claiming these calls are 'local rate' even though this hasn't been true since 2004. Both Ofcom and ASA issued a note about this in 2005.

ashfor

Indeed - I've always been suspicious about companies who trumpet "local rate" as though the term means "inexpensive", when 0845 has long been more expensive than geographic rate.

Some try to circumvent this criticism by using the term "lo-call", which is even more dubious. Your comments about "honesty, decency and transparency" are apt.

Thanks again. I'll update the thread in due course about the ASA's response and I've also made a submission to the Pensions Regulator about the anomaly that personal pension providers will shortly be prohibited from using premium-rate numbers (because they're regulated by the FCA) but workplace pension providers can carry on using them (because they're regulated by the Pensions Regulator, which hasn't yet exercised its regulatory powers to ban them).