I emailed CPW a while ago. I don't want to post the email here I sent them, but I did point out that callers are being charged a premium to call. I specifically asked why they charge for this and, as you can see, they haven't bothered to answer.

I also requested a list of geographical numbers. With a reply like the following I sometimes wonder what is point of trying to do something about this whole rip-off when there are so many companies who so arrogantly just ignore the facts.


Quote:

Dear Mr xxxx Thank you for your email to Charles Dunstone that has been passed to my attention. I do apologise for the delay in responding to your enquiry. Unfortunately there is not a list showing the geographical numbers our 087 and 084 numbers translate to. I am sorry that we can not be of more help on this occasion. Thank you for taking the time to write to us and I hope we can be of assistance to you again in the future. Kind regards Garthlyn Waldron Customer Liaison Executive From the Office of Charles Dunstone

Well at least you got a reply. We ended up moving my wife's mobile from CPW/O2 - to Virgin/T-mobile. Excellent so far; friendly and helpful customer service and good coverage.

However I was able to illustrate the CPW approach at the last conference that I chaired - an international telecoms one, such a shame had I wasted the opportunity :)

If you look up my response to the Ofcom consultation, you'll find the following, one of the results of challenging 0870 number users:

=======

Case 6. Carphone Warehouse, Colchester

After purchasing a mobile phone, the salesman tried to sell me a landline contract. I noted that the receipt gave 08701-62297 (note where the dash comes) for subsequent contacts. Pointing to this, I asked him how much a call to this number would cost on this contract. He said it was “a local rate call”. I asked, “how much in pence per minute?” He replied, “I don’t know.” In spite of repeated questioning, this man, at the sharp end of telecommunications marketing, maintained the lie.

=========

I regret I didn't follow this up at the time with an e-mail to Charles Dunston.

I've just emailed the exec's office at CPW and pointed out the new rules set by ASA with regards to 0870 being classed as 'national' or being 'silent' on call costs.  I included a link to the ASA's new findings and had mentioned a few times that they dont mention the cost of calls to this number and that they actually earned money from us calling them, this is their reply:-


Quote:

Thank you for your email regarding O84 and 087 telephone numbers. I must apologise for the delay in responding. I certainly appreciate you bringing this information to our attention. I have forwarded a copy of your email to the team that deals with our Press advertising for their information.

As you can see they've just passed the buck onto another department.  It may interesting to see if they change their magazines to mention the true cost of this call but I don't expect them to start using geographical numbers though.

Are you talking about the 0870 Talk Talk Customer Service no in particular. Or there general promo  of NGN no,s.

I Was talking about their general customer services and every one of their stores.  In fact I believe every number they use is an 0870 except sales calls.

In fact I was at my local store 2 weeks ago enquiring about the new 6230i and they said it wasn't available on any network contract yet (just handset only) and asked if I wanted to ring back in about a week and he then started to write down their 0870 number.  I quickly stopped him and said I had no intention of calling a 7ppm line to find out they are busy and it get re-routed to their h/o customer services and I would take my business elsewhere.  He then gave me their geographical number.

Needless to say, I bought it elsewhere instead!  lol

Thanks all is clear.

The Financial Services Authority  has today fined The Carphone Warehouse Ltd £245,000 for not treating its customers fairly following telephone sales of general insurance and for failing to inform the regulator in a timely manner of significant systems failures within its telesales distribution channel.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/carphone_warehouse.pdf

I'm made up they got fined!

Even though they knew they didn't comply with relevant FSA rules, they still carried on selling insurance.  What does that tell you about them?

I've actually witnessed how low their CPW staff can go with regard to lying, etc.  I witnessed a CPW staff tell an existing customer that they couldn't port the number over so the customer could take advantage of the 'new' customer deals - instead informing the customer that they would have to just settle with an upgrade (and pay the relevant fee).  A blatant lie

bbb_uk wrote on Sep 7^th, 2006 at 8:47pm:

Even though they knew they didn't comply with relevant FSA rules, they still carried on selling insurance.  What does that tell you about them? I've actually witnessed how low their CPW staff can go with regard to lying, etc.  I witnessed a CPW staff tell an existing customer that they couldn't port the number over so the customer could take advantage of the 'new' customer deals - instead informing the customer that they would have to just settle with an upgrade (and pay the relevant fee).  A blatant lie

Yes bbb but what it does tell you about the FSA actually being a serious regulator that instead of simply taking this constantly lieing deliberately trickery and bullshit from one of the most regularly close to the wind sailing uk companies (remember broadband for life etc) that they just slap a nice big fine on them.  Of course I doubt that £245,000 is going to hurt CPW much and probably it would need to have been at least £5 million to make CPW sit up and take notice.  But at least something serious has happened which is a damn site better than Ofcom where I tried complaining about calls I was making as a TalkTalk customer that were dialled but not ever answered and still billed to me with the minimum call charge where all I got was the usual big brush off from OfCoN.

The FSA is a serious regulator that realises big business only takes things seriously if it costs them money.  However both OfCoN, Otelo, and the Office of the Information Commissioner are joke token regulators who basically exist for the benefit of commercial companies.  Even when commercial companies have committed the most unspeakable acts of trickery completely disregarding the spirit and the letter of the regulations these useless bodies simply ask them to come in for a chat and send them a polite letter suggesting perhaps they might not do it next time.  But usually they do not have to repay any of the money they have gained through their trickery, they are not fined and the whole thing is a complete disgrace.  By contrast compare this with a little old lady who refuses to pay her Council Tax on the grounds that she does not use any of the services charged for where local authorities will show no compunction at all in taking her to court and having her thrown in jail if she still does not pay up.

Unfortunately in ripoff Britian the  regulators are stacked with cronies from the industries they are supposed to control and the only purpose of their existence seems to be token regulation against the odd rogue small company without friends in high places while the commercial big boys simply have the law changed to make their previously illegal actions legal.