Forgive me if someone has already pointed this out, but today I have just come across what I believe is the worst abuse yet of the supposed National Numbering Plan. Whatever was the point of having one at all, when such contraventions were to be allowed? I now begin to wonder whether the whole NNP thing was an intentional strategy to fool consumers into a sense of false security so that they could be ripped off afterwards, like lambs to the slaughter?

We have already seen the proliferating abuse of non-09 NGNs being used as Premium numbers WITH Queuing (when queuing was supposed to be prohibited with all Premium numbers). Now we have access codes being used as Premium numbers! This is quite unbelievable. The one I have just come across is clearly also deliberately chosen to ghost on another much used code, rather like ghost urls which are designed to catch any who mispell a well-used commercial url. This one is a so-called DQ number, 118866. It is clearly deliberately designed to catch anyone making an error in dialing the code 18866. It is apparently a premium rate DQ service run by Ring True Solutions. The rate is a £1.50 connection charge and thereafter calls cost 30p per minute. So if you dial it in error and then clear down immediately when you get an answer, it will still cost you £1.50p + the first 30 p.  

This is what happens when you have a corrupt regulator. These guys are cocking a snook at the whole regulatory system. I wonder how many other abuses like this there now are. Does anyone know of any others?

We really ought to complain in force about this, since this is clearly the beginning of even worse abuses.

Dorf.There is a thread running on this subject on the phone forum. on the
  www.moneysavingexpert.com      site
entitled(Take Care When Dialling 18866 Manually)started on the 18/6/2005 by Pricefighter.

Perhaps someone could link it ,i am having no luck.

wrote on Jun 20^th, 2005 at 6:55pm:

....Perhaps someone could link it ,i am having no luck.

As requested, click here.

As I posted on the MSE site, it is £1.50 connection charge so I believe it is obvious they are only in it to con those people who accidently dial 118866 as at £1.50 connection charge they must be the most expensive.

I believe OfCOM should be informed of this misuse.  I may give them a ring tomorrow to see if anything legally can be done.

Thanks BBB_uk.

In America they call it FAT FINGER DIALLING.Where companies register close versions of someone elses number,in the hope of picking up misdials.

See the FCC Site

www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/carelessdialing.html

Just rung OfCOM over this and mentioned just how much they've increased their prices which makes them very uncompetitive and how I think they've done it on purpose because people are misdialling Call18866.

His reply is that we have to be more careful but nothing can be done because its just as if we misdialled a geographical number.  I then mentioned that there was a major difference of misdialling a geographical that would cost 5p max to one that costs £1.50 minimum!

He said there was no difference except just be cautious when dialling Call18866!


wrote on Jun 20^th, 2005 at 8:37pm:

...In America they call it FAT FINGER DIALLING.Where companies register close versions of someone elses number,in the hope of picking up misdials....

BigJohn, I do believe that the DQ service 118866 was genuine as at first they only charged the average rate for DQ calls.  It looks they've been taken over by a company called RingTrue Solutions and since then increased their DQ calls to £1.50 connection charge.

Yes it was genuine at first.But these people appear to have taken it over, and upped the price solely to benefit from 18866 misdials.Even though the number was not originally allocated for this service,i suggest the term Fat finger Dialling/Number Squatting is appropriate.

Useless Ofcom,s initial response does not surprise me.I would imagine if this had happened in America  there regulator would have jumped upon it.

Perhaps Martin MSE could bring it to the attention of people in his newsletter.I have spoken to call.18866.co.uk  and asked them to add a warning to there site,they did not appear to be aware of this problem and asked me to e-mail them so they could do something about it.

wrote on Jun 21^st, 2005 at 10:02am:

...Perhaps Martin MSE could bring it to the attention of people in his newsletter.I have spoken to call.18866.co.uk  and asked them to add a warning to there site,they did not appear to be aware of this problem and asked me to e-mail them so they could do something about it...

Good idea as thats probably best that can be done because OfCOM can't/wont do anything.

wrote on Jun 21^st, 2005 at 10:02am:

I have spoken to call.18866.co.uk and asked them to add a warning to there site,they did not appear to be aware of this problem and asked me to e-mail them so they could do something about it.

I e-mailed them over the weekend to advise them of the problem and suggesting they might consider applying for an additional prefix (additional rather than replacement because of the number of people with diallers programmed).

wrote on Jun 21^st, 2005 at 10:02am:

I have spoken to call.18866.co.uk  and asked them to add a warning to there site,they did not appear to be aware of this problem and asked me to e-mail them so they could do something about it.

You called them?  Is there a contact number for them then? ???  

The point most people seem to be missing about this disgusting abuse is that 118866 is supposed to be an access code, allocated to a specific provider (just as 18866 is). With such codes it is supposed to be the provider that bills you direct for service. It is not supposed to be possible for any consumer who is not a registered customer of the access code provider to incur a charge or in fact to be connected to their service. Try dialing 18866 if you are not a registered customer on the particular number you are dialing from, for example.

However, it seems that these crooked providers have found a way of circumventing the system, so that they can charge your main provider (BT or CPS). This is what is the appalling abuse of this. It is an outrageous contravention of the fundemental system protocol for it to be possible to use a provider access code in this way. This is why this code which is supposed to an access code appears to be being used instead as a premium number! Quite outrageous!!

If Ofcom can sit by and watch these types of further abuses taking place without action to stamp them out, then the sky will be the limit for these types of crooks.

wrote on Jun 21^st, 2005 at 7:23pm:

The point most people seem to be missing about this disgusting abuse is that 118866 is supposed to be an access code, allocated to a specific provider (just as 18866 is). With such codes it is supposed to be the provider that bills you direct for service. It is not supposed to be possible for any consumer who is not a registered customer of the access code provider to incur a charge or in fact to be connected to their service. Try dialing 18866 if you are not a registered customer on the particular number you are dialing from, for example....

This is not true of a DQ service.  You can dial any DQ service (from a BT line anyhow) and you can use them without registering.  The likes of Call18866/1899 are call providers/carriers that we use to 'carry' our calls over their network and therefore benefit from cheaper calls. It is these (Call18866/1899) call providers that ask you to register.

DQ 118866 was a legit company charging an average price for DQ enquries and I believe it wasn't intentional that they had similar numbers but from my research it appears that when it was taken over by RingTrue Solutions they increased the DQ charge to £1.50 connection charge from the average charge (generally around 50p connection charge).  That to me, indicates, they are not trying to provide a DQ service to us as they are nowhere near competitive at that price, but instead have realised people must have been dialling them instead of Call18866 and therefore decided to take advantage of our mistake.

wrote on Jun 21^st, 2005 at 7:42pm:

This is not true of a DQ service.  You can dial any DQ service (from a BT line anyhow) and you can use them without registering.  The likes of Call18866/1899 are call providers/carriers that we use to 'carry' our calls over their network and therefore benefit from cheaper calls. It is these (Call18866/1899) call providers that ask you to register. DQ 118866 was a legit company charging an average price for DQ enquries and I believe it wasn't intentional that they had similar numbers but from my research it appears that when it was taken over by RingTrue Solutions they increased the DQ charge to £1.50 connection charge from the average charge (generally around 50p connection charge).  That to me, indicates, they are not trying to provide a DQ service to us as they are nowhere near competitive at that price, but instead have realised people must have been dialling them instead of Call18866 and therefore decided to take advantage of our mistake.

What an appalling abuse of the numbering system - taking advantage of those looking for discounted calls. This has to be the most obvious scam relating to telephone numbering ever yet Ofcom, according to bbb, does not appear to give a stuff. At least the regulator is consistent in this respect. Complaining to ICSTIS would also be pointless as that is yet another ineffectual and incompetent regulator. I always laugh when it imposes fines as it very rarely collects them and the scammers simply set up in another country using a different name. As I've said before, the UK numbering system is a target for scam merchants from Tuvalu to Sao Tome and the regulators are powerless to act.

I am sorry bbb_uk, but I feel you are confusing the issue. My point is that "DQ" services or any other services of this type should not be accessible via a code which can result in a charge via your existing main provider. This is a further contravention of the NNP and as such adds to all of the scams and deception which Ofcom continue to allow the proliferation of.

Any service of this type where a charge of any kind may be made on this basis should be on an 09 number according to the NNP.

wrote on Jun 21^st, 2005 at 8:25pm:

I am sorry bbb_uk, but I feel you are confusing the issue. My point is that "DQ" services or any other services of this type should not be accessible via a code which can result in a charge via your existing main provider. This is a further contravention of the NNP and as such adds to all of the scams and deception which Ofcom continue to allow the proliferation of. Any service of this type where a charge of any kind may be made on this basis should be on an 09 number according to the NNP.

I see where you're coming from dorf but this is neer ever going to happen.  It's a shame the eejits at OFCOM didn't think about the 4-5 digit access codes and 6 digit DQ codes being confused.  Or they did but some bigshot lined his pockets. >:(

I cannot understand why we have different length codes. Even the access codes 18866 and 1899 are different lengths!!! Has all this happened since privatisation? Is this the need to have more than 100 combinations?

It seems to me that it's a typical Ofcom bodge!

Not only that, the phone providers don't provide an option to bar calls to 118 DQ services. I read into this that the industry is now driven by its greed for profit, which has nothing to do with providing a telecommunications service. These DQ services are a complete rip-off, when you consider you can look up this sort of information online for free.

wrote on Jun 21^st, 2005 at 11:17pm:

It seems to me that it's a typical Ofcom bodge!

The National Audit Office produced a report critical of Ofcom/Oftel and its balls-up of DQ (http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/04-05/0405211.pdf). The report concluded (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4358513.stm):

*Residential consumers are paying more for directory enquiry services than under 192

*Consumers are confused by the array of numbers on offer and as a result use directory services with the most memorable numbers, which may not always offer the best prices

*Consumers are using directory enquiry services less frequently than they did prior to deregulation

*It is difficult to be certain whether service quality had changed as a result of deregulation as there were no accurate figures about the performance of the old 192 service.

Edward Leigh MP, chairman of the public accounts committee, was d4mning in his assessment of the role of Oftel, the forerunner of Ofcom, in deregulation.

"This is an instance where competition was not needed and is not helpful."

"Yet Oftel almost had a blind faith that competition was always good and jumped in feet first."

"The general public has lost out. Most of us are paying more and do not appear to be getting a better service."


Ofcom, which assumed control of telecoms regulation from Oftel at the end of 2003, said it recognised mistakes had been made.

"The information for consumers at the time of deregulation was not good enough," Matt Peacock (we've heard of him before), Ofcom director of communications, told BBC News.

As well as the inflated rates for calling DQs, how much has the regulator spent on its research? Is there a top limit on what 118 numbers can charge? Why are they allowed to charge £1.50 connection fee? As has already been mentioned, this is way above the going rate.

Exactly Dave and idb, I couldn't agree more.

All of this confusion appears to result from the complete incompetence of the people controlling Ofcom and/or their questionable motivation which seems to be ultimately at the base of everything which they decide. As you point out there should never have been this disparity in the length of codes. It is this complete failure to anticipate and plan properly for future needs in a realistic sense in all aspects which leads to many of these opportunities for scams of one kind or another. The standard code should have been longer to give more capacity for expansion and they all (as a category) should have had a defined single charging protocol. To avoid any conflict with the NNP that must have been on the basis of registered accounts only. Any other casual premium uses should have been within 09 (including DQ). The whole issue of so-called "connection charges" is another area which has never been properly addressed and for which no proper protocol or charging structure has ever been considered or defined. Equally there has never been any proper consideration or definition of what is really a "value-added service". The term is used glibly with no adequate definition nor any proper charging protocol.

However, at the end we come back to the same old consideration; this level of incompetence is just too great to be an accident. Even if you searched the streets to find the most dumb village idiot existing and put him or her in charge of Ofcom it would still not result in such structural chaos, confusion and lack of consistent protocol.

We are therefore forced back to the realisation that none of this is in fact an accident. It was all a very carefully thought-out strategy to produce telecoms structural confusion which would deliver the greatest number of opportunities for ripping off the British consumer, by means of smoke and mirrors, because someone or more likely a specific group of individuals concerned with making all of these decisions has their greedy snout in the trough somewhere and is profitting significantly out of this intentional structural chaos and confusion, by means of the plethorea of scams and rip-offs which may thus be applied within it.  

wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2005 at 12:44am:

....Is there a top limit on what 118 numbers can charge? Why are they allowed to charge £1.50 connection fee? As has already been mentioned, this is way above the going rate.

I'm just guessing that £1.50 is the maximum connection charge otherwise I could imagine DQ118866 would charge more.

Now what doesn't make sense is that Oftel thought they'd be helping us by increasing competition so therefore prices would reduce, etc.  This is where it goes balls up.  The old 192 had a connection charge of around 50p (cant remember the exact figure) so to increase competition why did Oftel, when thinking of these access numbers, set a maximum connection charge of £1.50 (assuming it is the maximum)?  Would someone with a brain not say that to increase competition and therefore decrease costs would a maximum connection charge of 50p (matching the old 192 cost) not be better to ensure we didn't get ripped-off!?


wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2005 at 12:23am:

....Ofcom, which assumed control of telecoms regulation from Oftel at the end of 2003, said it recognised mistakes had been made...

....And who is going to recongise the mistakes that OfCOM are making/have made?

Absolutely bb_uk. It would be commonsense, unless as I have suggested there is in fact a hidden agenda in this?

Don't forget that prior to privatisation (to supposedly introduce competition, and reduce the costs to consumers as you mention) directory enquiry calls were FREE! The 192 charge (of 50 p as you rightly state) was introduced as a precursor to privatisation. Now put this together with all of the other apparently senseless decisions; can you begin to see this deliberate strategy through the mist of it all?

wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2005 at 10:44am:

Don't forget that prior to privatisation (to supposedly introduce competition, and reduce the costs to consumers as you mention) directory enquiry calls were FREE! The 192 charge (of 50 p as you rightly state) was introduced as a precursor to privatisation. ...

Exactly. I pay line rental for such services, or at least I did before privatisation. Line rental has not gone down to account for this fact!

This whole mess leaves me with no faith in the industry. These companies are just money making machines and will use any confusion marketing techniques they can dream up.

What concerns me is that with spiralling costs for these things, the telcos are not forced to spend more money on the network/systems. I refer to what I, as the ordinary man in the street can see, that be BT's overhead network which it has been allowed to build up like a patchwork quilt. When someone wants another line the cheapest solution at that time seems to be what gets results. In many places it's a complete eyesore!

wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2005 at 11:16am:

Exactly. I pay line rental for such services, or at least I did before privatisation. Line rental has not gone down to account for this fact!

I have an idea that BT actually reduced the rental when they introduced 142 and 192 charges. Or do the rose-tinteds need cleaning?

Does this company when you misdial actually provide the service that people pay through the nose to call.  They must surely do.

Also, how can they justify such high and uncompetitive charges.

Also, the customer base for 18866 is very low, and they probably don't get that many misdialled calls, and certainly not enough to alienate their current customers who obviously won't call them again, just for the sake of ripping off about 10-20 customers a day who accidently call them.

There's also other 118 numbers so, not only do they get miscalls from 18866 customers, but from customers intending to call a competitor with a similair number, but charging a much lower rate.

Another explaination is it might be a DQ service giving overseas numbers, in which case all of them do charge more.

Of course the best (i.e. cheapest) DQ service is 08000 192 190.

To the person who was looking for the contact details of RingTrue, a WHOIS Search brought up:

Ringtrue Solutions
Monreith House
Dumfries
DG1 4BP
GB

Regd Co. No.: 4019094

Searching that co no on Companies House brings up the following details:

RINGTRUE SOLUTIONS LTD
PEMBROKE HOUSE
11 NORTHLANDS PAVEMENT PITSEA
BASILDON
ESSEX SS13 3DX

HtH Rich

richyrich wrote on Jun 16^th, 2006 at 9:59pm:

Of course the best (i.e. cheapest) DQ service is 08000 192 190.

That number is now dead

RingTrue's main DQ service is 118355 at a very reasonable 30p flat rate per call and they also run 188440 at 20p per minute with no connection charge.  See www.ringtrue.co.uk

But they also have 118866 and 118001 charge at £1.50 connection and 30p per minute.   One wonders who the 118001 scam number is aimed at other than that I suppose people who have remembered that 118 is for DQ services might call it in error thinking it is for BT?

To my mind this whole scam relies on the biggest underlying problem which is Ofcom's refusal to enforce compulsory price announcements for all non standardly priced uk numbers.

If dialling 118866 caused a message to be played saying that the call cost is £1.50 connection and 30p per minute and that this 30p per minute will continue to be charged  if you use their "we can connect you to that number" service then nobody would be ripped off either on this confusion with 18866 or in general by people using the "we can connect you" service without realising the outrageous per minute call cost.

The fact that Ofcom have persistently claimed it is too difficult to play an announcement saying how much any uk phone call costs says to me that there is high level collusion to keep all the telecoms scammers in business.

All of these scams on 084/7 numbers rely on people not knowing what they are paying for the goods.  If people knew that the goods were being charged at a premium ripoff price in advance they would not buy them.  It is really that simple.  Imagine the fuss if at Tesco a can that looked like Tesco Value beans turned out to have cost £2.00 on your shopping bill when you got it home.

Unfortunately all of the normal duties of the Office of Fair Trading on telecoms matters are passed over to Ofcom and this is how and why normal Fair Trading standards on price disclosure and price transparency to telecoms consumers are completely bypassed.

Also basically a phone line is like an open bank account with no security and no PIN number or signature needed where anyone with access to your home can steal from you at a rate of £90 per hour on the highest priced calls.  And there is no feature to have PIN protection against those calls being made.  You can only have them barred out completely, which is highly inconvenient.

The reason that so much scammer activity is focused on telephone calls is because security and consumer protection is so low that it is very easy to do.

One can only hope that the totally useless and telco profitability loving Stephen Carter is replaced by someone who does have the best interests of all uk citizen consumers at heart. :-/