Just a note to indicate my complete and utter dismay that the Squire Furneaux Volvo dealerships (six different sites - see www.squirefurneaux.co.uk) have changed their previous entirely geographic range of phone contact numbers to ripoff 0844 treat your customer like a cash cow numbers within the last few months.

This is a totally unacceptable way for a motor dealer for a major car brand that already charges well over £100 an hour labour to treat customers who ring up for a chat that will usually lead either to lots of service work at over £100 an hour or the sale of a new vehicle costing tens of thousands of pounds.

I have further registered my protest by extending the list of geographic alternative numbers already on this website for three Squire Furneaux dealers (kindly provided by another site member) to now cover all six of their dealership.  Both the head office Volvo dealer contact pages and Squire Furneaux's own Club 6 leaflet at www.squirefurneaux.co.uk/pdfs/volvo-club6-260110.pdf have been useful friends in this regard.

One of my relative's has had their cars serviced by one of Squire Furneaux's dealerships for 40 years now and I think using 0844 number is a particularly disgusting and inappropriate way to treat customers who have been loyal over such a long time period.

Hopefully the MD or whatever other person at Squire Furneaux who took this ridicuous decision may read this post and come to realise the folly and total lack of wisdom of their actions, especially for their many customers needing to call them from a mobile phone.  :o >:( :'(

I have promoted to the verified listings the entries for the six Greedy Squire Furneaux branches.

In my previous experience it is quite common for dealerships to use 084x numbers.

I wonder when Squires will be declaring the Service Charge it imposes on customers who ring up.

I don't know whether or not it's useful but when I purchased my car from a dealer who advertises 0844 numbers, I complained to the salesman. He said that he thought that the system allowed the company to record all calls. He accepted that it was expensive to call 0844 numbers. I was always under the impression that  where calls were recorded, the caller had to be informed.  As for my dealer, calls from them always come up with the GN (they've been entered on your database) and and I never call the 0844 number.

Dave wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 3:38pm:

I have promoted to the verified listings the entries for the six Greedy Squire Furneaux branches.

Thank you Dave.


Quote:

In my previous experience it is quite common for dealerships to use 084x numbers.

But the relationship between a car owner and their nearest dealer for that brand of car (there is usually only one such dealer anywhere close to the majority of people's homes, especially in the countryside) is in many respects like that with a GP.  Namely a crucial professional that they rely on over a long period to keep an important part of their life going.

So it is just as wrong to abuse that existing trust by making longstanding customers pay a fortune to contact them as it for a doctor to do it.  But then this is where I, derrick, Barbara, loddon, idb and other long term members here have always been in unison but where you and SilentCallsVictim have sadly allowed the strength of our views on this matter to be diluted .  This is because we believe, just as I see the EU also believes, that forcing customers to pay premium rates to speak to a company in connection with customer service issues on any product they own is wholly unacceptable.

If a customer does not know how to drive their car properly then clearly that is not the problem of the car dealer that sold the car and not something he is obliged to resolve and something a customer should go to a driving instructor about.  However when a car does not work properly any more due to what are frequently aspects of very poor design by the manufacturer or due to maintenance operations that will bring the dealer more business if the customers uses them (something a dealer should have to compete for in a healthy marketplace) why should a customer pay more than a normal 01/02/03 number rate to make the call?  For instance if they walked in at the dealer off the street and asked the dealer the same questions would they have to pay any fee at all for having that same discussion.  Answer no they would not.  Only if they booked their car would they pay anything.

I have been driving a car for 33 years now and some dealers have only been persuaded to switch to 084/7 numbers in no more than the last three years or so.  There are still however many of them who do not use such numbers (for instance my own local Toyota dealer adopted them when there was a change of ownership but many other Toyota dealers have not) and in my view customers should vote with their feet by avoiding these anti customer dealers where they can or using our alternatives to the ripoff 084 numbers where they cannot.


Quote:

I wonder when Squires will be declaring the Service Charge it imposes on customers who ring up.

I don't really care because unlike you and SCV I don't believe the move to Service Charges and/or all that further confusing subdivision will change the situation at all.  Only a ban on the use of these numbers for customer service matters by customers of organisations will make the difference.   Also I personally would ban the use of a telephone call as a means for paying for any service at all as part of the phone charge.  This is because telephone call method of paying for something usually encourages a charter for a caller to steal from someone else when using these numbers.  This is because of the complete lack of PIN protection and other such controls on accessing 084/7 covert premium rate services.

I remain shocked Dave that you seem to think that just because some motor dealers have already begun to act reprehensibly in respect of contact by their customers that this makes it perfectly all right for the Squire Furneaux motor dealership to join their ranks.  Unless of course you perhaps have the same commercial interest as the owner of this website?  I am sure the owner of this website (www.saynoto0870.com) is actually happy with more and more 084/7 use as it then means more visits to his website to avoid them and hence more revenue from clicks thru to the various advertisers listed on it from which he clearly receives an income of some kind.


Kiwi_g wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 4:25pm:

He said that he thought that the system allowed the company to record all calls. He accepted that it was expensive to call 0844 numbers.

Kiwi_g,

I am reminded by this nonsense you have been told by your dealer of certain ancient nursery rhymes about people being told that the moon is made of Swiss Cheese or also of this and various other scenes from "The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy:-

Just as the Earth is about to be blasted to smithereens to make way for a major new hyperspace bypass Arthur Dent protests to the captain of the Vogon ship about their actions but receives this reply:-

"But Mr Dent the plans have been available in the local planning office" (which just happened to be on Alpha Centurai several light years away) for the last nine months". See http://goo.gl/q6kPP5

Indeed the above analogy reminds me of a typical Ofcom helpline person's likely response to any form of likely complaint from ordinary consumers about the continued misuse in the UK of 084/7 numbers. :o >:( :'(

This why I now rarely trouble myself with visiting or participating in this website and its discussion forum other than when I am cross about a new individual 084/7 number's introduction

I am interested to note this forum's very latest member.  A member who seems to have joined only yesterday evening at 8.25pm

A certain MikeSquires who has not yet posted here.

See http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?action=viewprofile;username=MikeSquires

Now is this really just a coincidence or have Squire Furneaux already heard about this discussion thread and are they therefore already in the process of preparing some form of defence for their actions or perhaps even about to protest about the inconvenience of their customers calling them on their old geographic numbers?

They were bought by the the Hildenborough Group  http://www.am-online.com/news/2012/3/5/hildenborough-buys-squire-furneaux/30616/ and according to Mr Squires entry on Linked In he no longer runs the company.

The Hildenborough Group don't appear to use non graphical numbers at there branches. http://www.hildenboroughgroup.co.uk/

bigjohn wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 4:07am:

They were bought by the the Hildenborough Group  http://www.am-online.com/news/2012/3/5/hildenborough-buys-squire-furneaux/30616/ and according to Mr Squires entry on Linked In he no longer runs the company. The Hildenborough Group don't appear to use non graphical numbers at there branches. http://www.hildenboroughgroup.co.uk/

bigjohn,

Firstly its good to hear from you again.  Its been a while since we were last in contact - including of course the long period of your own self enforced exile from this website (when you described yourself as an ex member or similar and did not post). ;)

Returning to the topic I am expecting that MikeSquires will be a Mike who actually works for Squire Furneaux in some PR or marketing role (with a different surname) and not the Mr Squire who originally created the business and who in any case has a different first name - Mark

See http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/mark-squire/23/476/860

If however Squire Furneax have already become aware of this matter in such a short time it appears to be a sign that discussions on this website may after all perhaps have some impact (except of course with Ofcom where their overpaid and complacent civil servants make no effort whatsoever to serve anyone other than the large corporations who provide the fee income that pays the excessive wages of their staff).

I wonder if anyone has checked whether this company is aware that the cost of its new telephone system is being subsidised by callers, through the Service Charge.

Many adopt new systems using 084 numbers, and thereby at a more competitive cost, in the false belief that callers pay no more than to call an ordinary number. They also commonly fail to recognise that the modest benefit which they derive is generally exceeded by the additional cost to callers. They may even genuinely fail to recognise that they derive any benefit at all.

When the draft regulations implementing the Consumer Rights Directive provisions are published, in a few days time, it will be clear that this use of a 084 number will have to cease by the middle of 2014. It is very likely that the company is not yet aware of this.

There are undoubtedly many cases where users of 084 numbers know exactly what they are doing. I am however inclined, from experience, to expect matters like this to arise from "c*ck-up" rather than "conspiracy". I always avoid expressing a view based on either assumption in a particular case without making some effort to discover what is going on.


More will follow later on points raised above, in particular, the disagreement over the acceptability of alternative numbers. I recognise that some (allegedly a united group) are very strongly in favour of this, but I cannot accept that I have a responsibility not to allow them to dilute their views (however I may achieve this!) should they wish to do so.

For clarification of the difference of view, the named advocates of use of alternatives (and others) may wish to review the fair telecoms campaign response to the consultation on implementation of the provisions of the CRD.

They will see that we do not propose a dilution of the provisions to only prohibit "forcing customers to pay premium rates". We propose that the prohibition covers cases where the Service Charge may be included in a Call Plan fee, and thereby paid by all subscribers, and also those where alternative numbers or contact options are available.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 11:10am:

I wonder if anyone has checked whether this company is aware that the cost of its new telephone system is being subsidised by callers, through the Service Charge. Many adopt new systems using 084 numbers, and thereby at a more competitive cost, in the false belief that callers pay no more than to call an ordinary number. They also commonly fail to recognise that the modest benefit which they derive is generally exceeded by the additional cost to callers. They may even genuinely fail to recognise that they derive any benefit at all.

Oh come on SCV.  Pull the other one.  You really could work as the marketing director of one of these ripoff NGN selling telcos or one of the businesses who have signed up to using them couldn't you.  Your apology/excuse on their behalf for using revenue sharing NGN represents the standard crib sheet that given to their COO by the telecoms company selling the numbers to fend off the angry customer complaints they know perfectly well will be coming their way.

Squire Furneaux switched to 0844s in pretty recent times (so recent the geographic numbers are still listed for the dealers on the Volvo website) at which point all use of 0844s was long discredited amongst the public at large.  Anyone switching to more recent 0844s in particular could therefore surely have been under no illusion at all about their ripoff nature and adverse effect on customers.

I find it quite incredible that someone who claims to campaign publicly and actively against the misuse of these numbers by GPs can really still be saying that people who have them were just hoodwinked in to it and it isn't their fault.  We all know perfectly well that the places that have them knew damn well what they were getting in to but went ahead anyway because they were told it was now the norm for customer contact, loads of their competitors were doing it and they got a shiny new free phone system with free maintenance and possibly free outgoing calls out of the deal to boot.

I have never understood your lack of clarity of mind in not putting the blame for the existence of these numbers where it primarily lies.  Namely with the firms that have them who are stupid and cynical enough about their customers to think they can get away with it.  They only do so because they think their customers are captive and can be taken for granted.

If understanding the problem with these numbers is so difficult to comprehend then can you explain to me why none of the people who rely on direct support by the public for their existence, namely MPs, seem to be using revenue sharing NGNs of any kind for contacting them?  Surely you would have thought that amongst 650 of them some of them would have fallen for the ruse if it was really so difficult to understand this con and so very easy to be misled by the telecoms businesses selling the misuse of these numbers.

Be honest the only people actually using these numbers are organisations and businesses who seem to think their customers are captive and have to call them anyway.  As people only change their cars every three or four years they are a prime example of a business type that just thinks they can get away with it because people won't change their whole car immediately to avoid being ripped off on phone call costs.

I have often thought since the outset of your appearance here that you might be a plant from the telecoms industry put here to dilute our efforts.  Your statement above and your support for ludicrous Ofcom concepts like Service Charges instead of just shifting the whole lot on to the 09 premium number code (subject to premium number barring) where they belong further suggests to me that you may be a plant working on behalf of the telecoms industry.  Your past commercial background also strongly suggests that possibility to me.

NGMsGhost wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 11:50am:

I find it quite incredible that someone who claims to campaign publicly and actively against the misuse of these numbers by GPs can really still be saying that people who have them were just hoodwinked in to it and it isn't their fault.  We all know perfectly well … I have never understood your lack of clarity of mind in not putting the blame for the existence of these numbers where it primarily lies.  Namely with the firms that have them who are stupid and cynical enough about their customers to think they can get away with it.  They only do so because they think their customers are captive and can be taken for granted.

I do not share the belief in the competence and dishonesty of businesses required to accept the analysis which appears to have been made without any engagement with them. What explanation has Squire Furneaux offered?

Because I am primarily focussed on achieving a better future, rather than whingeing about the past, I am concerned with responsibility, rather than blame. Responsibility for the current use of an inappropriate number rests squarely with the user, who can take action to get it changed. The continuing malpractice of the telcos can be addressed in some cases, but drying up their market also has an effect.

I believe that the latter is what has finally happened with Daisy and Surgery Line - but we have more work to do with the GPs who have failed to change their numbers. It is obvious that (at least some) fault lies with the former NEG, but I am not interested in a witch-hunt amongst (possibly former) practice and PCT personnel, I just want whoever is now responsible to take up the offer of penalty-free migration as soon as possible.


I recall that there was a case of an MP who got conned into using a 0845 number for her constituency office - but it was swiftly changed. (This was perhaps 3 or 4 years ago and I cannot recall the detail.) This is rare, because generally an MP would want a visibly local number for their constituency office. They are provided with (usually 020 7219) DDI numbers on the Westminster system for their parliamentary offices.

This answers the point made, although it does not resolve anything - one has to look at each case on its merits. I struggle to accept the argument that there is a fundamental moral difference between a GP (or indeed any business) that has adopted, or actively chosen to retain, a 084 number in the last 10 or more years, and one which has not. Have those who have switched away undergone a total moral transformation, or are they now subject to pressure which does not apply to others and did not apply to them previously?


Responding to some minor points made in reply #3.

I am pleased to agree that this ad-carrying site does not provide an adequate vehicle for campaigning on this issue. It does indeed have an implicit interest in the continuation of the misuse of numbers and could be said to promote inequity by enabling those who are unhappy about this to evade the problem for themselves, rather than press for change for all. (There is nothing wrong, or immoral in evading the problem or aiding evasion, it simply makes no contribution to campaigning. I would be happy to revise the latter view, if anyone could offer evidence of a case where repeated use of alternatives was proved to have caused someone to abandon an expensive number. )


Use of the split charge for telephone calls is a highly questionable practice in principle. It is however well established, stoutly defended and supported by current legislation. I am not aware of any active serious proposal for its abolition. In the light of this current reality, the fair telecoms campaign holds the clear view that it is only acceptable where the Service Charge levied is clearly declared and justified; where the Service Charge cannot be justified, it must be removed. This principle applies regardless of the number range - 084/087/09.

Similarly, we believe that the Access Charge added by the telephone company should be clearly declared. This is obviously essential if the Service Charge is to be declared, but it has a merit of its own.


We agree that there are serious issues regarding security and authorisation, especially in relation to extending the limits of the Service Charges that can be imposed on users of landlines. As "smart" mobiles are used for a variety of other financial transactions, there are wider related issues already raised in that context. As a landline is generally under control of a household, whereas a mobile is generally a personal device, the issues are separate.

We do not agree that this point is restricted only to "084/7 covert premium rate services", it is far more serious when the levels of Service Charge are greater.

(I will address the issue of the disagreement over alternative numbers and compulsion, and the bizarre suggestion about not allowing people to dilute their views, in a separate posting.)

NGMsGhost wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 3:01am:

… it is just as wrong to abuse that existing trust by making longstanding customers pay a fortune to contact them as it for a doctor to do it.  But then this is where I, derrick, Barbara, loddon, idb and other long term members here have always been in unison but where you and SilentCallsVictim have sadly allowed the strength of our views on this matter to be diluted.  This is because we believe, just as I see the EU also believes, that forcing customers to pay premium rates to speak to a company in connection with customer service issues on any product they own is wholly unacceptable.

I do indeed disagree with the strongly held position stated above. I am ready to accept that this united group believe that a Service Charge is only improper if incurred by longstanding customers, causes an excessive cost and is not avoidable. I cannot accept any specific responsibility for allowing those who hold this view to dilute it in any way as they campaign. I am happy for anyone to campaign in whatever way they choose; it cannot be for me to allow or disallow dilution of a view that I do not share.


I fully accept that this site has long promoted, implicitly perhaps, the idea that alternative number options are the answer to the problem. Obviously they provide a wonderful opportunity, in some cases, for some callers to avoid the Service Charge, and therefore cannot be dismissed. They are however not "the answer".

The 'unofficial' and 'unapproved' status of the database of alternatives is regrettably overlooked sometimes, and I feel a tinge of regret that the ability to avoid the problem may distract some who could put energy into pressing for change. I sometimes see comments in response to newspaper articles which dismiss my concern over improper use of 084 numbers on the basis that SayNoTo0870.com resolves the problem completely. I know that some see such "graffiti" as a valuable and representative expression of public opinion, however I see that particular comment as unwise and unhelpful.


I do not believe that the existence of alternative numbers, or alternative means of contact, so that callers are not "forced" to incur a Service Charge, provides a justification for the imposition of the charge. The fact that any number of contributors to this forum are united in opposition to my view does nothing to change it. Similarly, I do not believe that the duration of a customer relationship or the level of the total call cost incurred are of any relevance whatsoever. For a Service Charge to be valid, it must be justified across all cases. I do not accept these qualifications.

It may be believed that that EU accepts these qualifications, however I have seen no evidence of it. When the draft regulations are published shortly, we will see whether the UK government has accepted our proposal of a total prohibition on use of numbers including a Service Charge for "post contract" enquiries. If the alternative "SayNoTo0870.com" forum proposal which applies qualifications, as referred to above and possibly even extending to permit use of 084 numbers where no revenue sharing can be shown to take place, is adopted, then we will oppose this with all vigour.


I most strongly oppose the adoption of alternative numbers by NHS GPs. The idea, promoted by SayNoTo0870, that 'alternatives are OK' has been used to apply "two tier" access to the NHS - with a 0844 number being used to provide superior options to a geographic alternative. If forum contributors perhaps favour choice based on price as a general principle for all things, and support the application of this principle to the NHS, then they are entitled to their views and to campaign for the changes to the NHS Constitution and GP contracts which would be required to permit this.


If the view quoted above represents some form of consensus within the forum, which has to be respected and protected against dilution, then meaningful discussion is at an end and we can only engage in personal abuse. The suggestion that I should (somehow) not allow others to dilute their strongly held views, as well as a number of very silly personal remarks, leads me to think that I should not be wasting my time communicating with a handful of people who apparently choose to firmly oppose the principles on which I stand and campaign.

So do we deduce from the previous rambling post, is that everybody's opinion is wrong unless it agrees with SCV?

No wonder there seems to be very little discussion on this site these days, I would guess folk daren't post in case they incur the wrath of SCV.

I always thought this was an open forum where people are allowed to voice their opinions.

Why is it that SCV is always right and everyone else is wrong,?

sherbert wrote on Aug 1^st, 2013 at 3:19pm:

Why is it that SCV is always right and everyone else is wrong,?

Oh come on, who has said that? Certainly not SCV, who has always been open to reasonable debate. I would not be at all surprised if he stops posting here altogether after all the abuse he gets, including the ridiculous suggestion from NGMsGhost that he might be a plant from the telecoms industry. That would be a great loss to this forum.

Obviously I believe in the opinions that I express and in the rectitude of my arguments. Wherever there is disagreement, surely each party will believe themselves to be right and the other wrong.

Personal opinion, as opposed to claimed objective fact, can however never be "right or "wrong", unless some standard of "acceptable" opinions were to be applied to this forum - as proposed by some.

I accept that I may be strong in countering arguments advanced by other contributors, but this is never in "wrath", and I hope that my comments are seen as being focussed on the arguments, not on the individuals who advance them.

Some may see discussion as a very personal matter, even when conducted in a public forum. I am happy to put my name (or nickname) to my comments and to defend and justify them where necessary. I cannot however see why this has to get so personal - either pro or con, when every contribution is published for the whole world to read.


On the specific current point of contention.

I can see nothing "wrong" in holding the opinion that it is acceptable for a 084 number to be used by someone who is not "making longstanding customers pay a fortune to contact them". I do not share that alleged consensual view of many contributors to this forum, it is not the position of NHS England in relation to GPs, I have seen no evidence to show that it is the view of the EU and I do not expect it to be reflected in the terms of the draft regulations to be published shortly by BIS. I believe anyone who applies that opinion to NHS England, the EU or BIS to be wrong, and invite them to provide evidence that may cause me to revise my understanding of the position of these bodies.

I recognise that the use of alternative geographic numbers in parallel is implicitly supported by SayNoTo0870.com and that many see this as a complete remedy for the problem. However many there may be who hold this view, and whoever they may be, I disagree with them - on this specific point I believe that they are "wrong".

I do however also expect them to think that I am wrong, and to oppose the current state of the NHS GP contract and (what I expect to be) the terms of the BIS regulations. I am perfectly happy to engage in sensible dialogue in this forum on this point, although it is not for me to somehow permit or prevent other contributors choosing to dilute their views in any way.



sherbert wrote on Aug 1^st, 2013 at 3:19pm:

I always thought this was an open forum where people are allowed to voice their opinions.

There is perhaps a valid point being made here, although maybe "… without fear of challenge" should be added.

From my first postings in this forum, I had understood that it was an open discussion forum where opinions expressed should be expected to be challenged by other contributors. We will each have different views on what should be considered to be a "fair" challenge, and I am happy to accept that my challenges are not necessarily the least robust, although I avoid personal abuse. I believe it would help if a less personal tone were applied to this public discussion forum, so that issues could be discussed more clearly, however this is perhaps not what many members are looking for.

The quoted comment could be taken as a suggestion that protection against challenge is only offered to contributions that fit within a defined set of "orthodox" SayNoTo0870 opinions - e.g. the acceptability of alternative numbers. An open forum for unchallenged opinions could however be offered by allowing contributors to indicate that a contribution is nothing more than a personal view, which should not be considered as part of a general discussion.

These ideas are however OT, although they may warrant discussion in the appropriate place in the forum.

I always get the impression you talk down to people SCV,  and less people appear to contribute since you started posting your ramblings here. Perhaps it would help if you  went on a Plain English Course. ;)

bigjohn wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2013 at 10:23am:

I always get the impression you talk down to people SCV,  and less people appear to contribute since you started posting your ramblings here. Perhaps it would help if you  went on a Plain English Course. ;)

This personal comment is a further indication that some see this public forum as a vehicle for direct conversation between a particular group of people. (I use other means for such exchanges.) My contributions here are aimed at those who are interested in serious open public discussion of the issues and are ready to engage with them fully. That is my "intended audience". If any reader feels that they are not part of this group, then they should simply disregard my contributions to these discussions, as they are not directed at them.

In making that remark, I recognise that perhaps I should be disregarding many of the contributions made as, even though they may address me by name, they are not truly directed at me, but at other readers.


If other members wish to engage with the points I make, but find them unclear, it is perfectly proper to politely request clarification or invite confirmation of an understanding gained. As the forum covers many specific and detailed matters it is inevitable that shorthand abbreviations or brief references are made to them in the course of a specific contribution. To the new reader this will inevitably appear to be gobbledygook.

The Plain English Campaign is a most noble cause for the areas that it addresses. I endeavour to have regard to its principles when these are relevant to my communications (e.g. on TV and radio). If every contribution to this forum were to be written in Plain English, then I am sure that the sense of being talked down to would be much greater.


Perhaps the point I made about contributions being challenged was worth picking up on, when a further reference to a fall off in contributions was made. I am naturally disappointed that the conversation is not moving forward.


I personally believe that the reduction in contributions is largely due to the fact that Ofcom has now SAID NO TO 0870 (as it was) and that general public and official awareness of this issue has achieved a significant breakthrough. There are many points left to discuss, including the acceptability of alternatives, although these are increasingly coming down to narrow points of detail. I accept that some contributors hold the view that the underlying issues are so nasty (e.g. Ofcom being essentially corrupt) that nothing will ever change and they are thereby forced to even question my motives, in order to support this view.

Some may wish for a return to the situation as it was several years ago; I am pleased to wish to consolidate the progress we have made and take it further. If this forum cannot find a place for itself in this changed situation, then so be it.

I used to be accused of being verbose.

Now I have allowed pedantry to take the fore.

I wish to put it on the record that one of the main reasons I contribute much less often to this discussion forum is because instead of having a satisfying discussion about the nature of these ripoff numbers and the companies who run them with a like minded group of people it nearly always now provokes a long and impenetrable discourse from SilentCallsVictim.

He clearly does not care that his long impenetrable and thoroughly equivocal ramblings disrupt the ethos of this once harmonious discussion community as he clearly has the support of Dave and Daniel for behaving in this manner.  Also as it is well known he has nothing else to do with his free time he sadly seems unable to free himself of his addiction to making long rambling and equivocal posts in the forum as he seems to derive some kind of emotional satisfaction from proving (in his mind) that he is much more intellectually clever than the simple minded folk who previously gathered here who simply had a passion to avoid calling these ripoff numbers and to try and have them closed down if at all possible.

If SCV thinks the problem is now fixed I am sure he is naive since I am sure that many companies will run an 03 customer service line on which the range of matters they are willing to discuss is incredibly limited.  However they will then also continue to run premium rate technical support phone lines using the same old ripoff system as they will define the assistance provided on these lines as not being customer service.

Also many companies will address the issue of not being able to run 084/7 numbers for customer service by simply eliminating phone call contact altogether for customer service matters and requiring that the customers submits their issue in writing on a web form where their complaint will probably be limited to between 200 and 500 characters.

These complaints will then be met by cut and paste responses from the companies in question that do not either fully or satisfactorily address the issues that the customer is raising (Aviva's Quotemehappy.com represents a model of the lousy customer service likely to be fielded by such web contact only product brands).

So far as I am aware the EU Directive does not make it compulsory to offer customer service by telephone but merely requires that where telephone support is offered overt and covert premium rate numbers cannot be used.  This website is therefore likely to remain a resource for listing phone numbers for companies who do not choose to publish any means at all of contacting them other than by online web complaint or comment form.