I buy the Guardian with coupons at a reduced rate. Something went wrong, and I failed to receive them on time. I had to ring an 0845 number to sort things out, which eventually they were, and the subscription service agreed to compensate me for the unused coupons.

I pointed out, however that this had involved three calls to an 0845 number for which I required compensation too. After a little shilly shallying, I received this. It is a small victory, but hopefully if everyone demanded compensation it might dissuade them from using this mean trick. I suspect they are in a poor legal position to defend these charges anyway.

If I recall correctly, the Guardian has in the past drawn reader's attention to the savings that can be made from 'saynoto0870.com' without mentioning that they are one of the culprits. This I find a little hypocritical to put it mildly.

I do the same with the Daily Telegraph, however their help line number is an 0800 one ;)

This also goes against the apparent use of 0330 numbers for Guardian Offers, mentioned on here before.

Most of Guardian Media's radio stations 0845 numbers and one of its network has switched to 0844.

What is the legal position on these charges? Surely they cannot charge you for anything without making it clear how much and what for?

Or can they?

Excoriator wrote on Nov 18^th, 2010 at 9:29pm:

What is the legal position on these charges? Surely they cannot charge you for anything without making it clear how much and what for? Or can they?

This is the problem.

Telephone charges have traditionally only been expressed in the amount that telephone call providers (call retailers) charge.

The fact that there is support (subsidy) to the receiving party has never been made clear. I say that it should be apparent to callers that this happens.

In the past I have written old fashioned letters to companies which these days they really hate. They are setup for answereing emails or phone calls, but snailmail throws them completerly.

Perhaps letter writing should be the norm for companies using rip-off numbers. I'm sure it costs them a lot more to read one, and to write back and post than they make on their telephone numbers. I think if a lot of people just wrote letters, explaning why in the letter they would not use the phone, then the hint might be taken.

Excoriator wrote on Nov 18^th, 2010 at 10:50pm:

Perhaps letter writing should be the norm for companies using rip-off numbers. I'm sure it costs them a lot more to read one, and to write back and post than they make on their telephone numbers. I think if a lot of people just wrote letters, explaning why in the letter they would not use the phone, then the hint might be taken.

It would require a lot of people to do this and I don't think that enough people have the time to write letters.

In many cases, handwritten or typed letters will be scanned and put into the same queue as emails and website response form entries.

An Ofcom consultation, which is expected to address the issue of splitting the elements of the call charge for 084 and other numbers where a portion is paid on, will be launched shortly.

What is your legal position regarding a request for a refund of whatever charge was made to your account from the recipient of the call?

After all, you have no idea how much it is, gain nothing from it, and had no option of not paying it. I would have thought this a good case for getting it back.

Excoriator wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2010 at 12:54pm:

What is your legal position regarding a request for a refund of whatever charge was made to your account from the recipient of the call? After all, you have no idea how much it is, gain nothing from it, and had no option of not paying it. I would have thought this a good case for getting it back.

All of the charge which the caller pays is levied by their telephone company, even though the call recipient benefits indirectly. There is no proposal to change this arrangement, even though better cost declaration is proposed for these "Business Rate" calls. PhonePay Plus does have a refund scheme for those covered by its rules, however this does not apply to users of 084 numbers.

Unless the cost likely to be incurred was actively misrepresented (there is presently no requirement for any declaration of the "service fee"), or the service as offered was not delivered, I cannot see any solid basis for a demand for a refund. Any dissatisfied customer can always ask, in the hope of a goodwill gesture - it may not be wise to do so by calling a Business Rate number!