See:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1973/cukpga_19730035_en_1#pb3-...

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=4&Brows...

pcjint wrote on Jun 1^st, 2008 at 7:25pm:

Please provide a link to the page(s) you refer to.

I don't mean to ask a stupid question, but is there any reason not to email BERR and ask them straight up whether this is against the law and what powers they have to stop it if it is, referring them to this thread, and asking for their advice?

Their main email address appears to be: enquiries@berr.gsi.gov.uk

I don't know anything about this and I'm all for pursuing it, but why not start with the easiest options first and escalate from there. 

Thanks pcjint,

I take it this is the link you are referring to: http://www.berr.gov.uk/employment/employment-agencies/index.html

I can't find anything here about 0870 specifically, at least not on that page, though they do say agencies can't charge a fee for job searching. Do you happen to have any independently verifiable documentary evidence for your claim that they have already deemed 0870 numbers illegal? It would be interesting to have so that we could quote it in correspondence with them.

Best Wishes,
longusername

longusername wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2008 at 4:56pm:


What about the usual slime ball answer of the call centre industry that the revenue share is less than the cost of their staff time in handling the call and paying for switchboard equipment etc.

Of course that seems garbage when if you walk in the door of such an agency they cannot levy any fee on you for using their service or taking up staff time, even though you may not then take any job or even go to an interview.

Also are Job Centres an Employment Agency under the terms of these rules?  Or are we saying they can use 0845 numbers and not contravene the rules but not 0870?  If so why are 0870 deemed as banned numbers for this purpose but 0845 are not?

longusername wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 1:52pm:


The law says:-

Quote:


So in relation to the above:-

1. What is it about 0870 numbers that would make them subject to this law and 0845 not subject to it?  Surely they both involve a revenue share payment not involved in calling an 01, 02, 03 or regular 07 mobile number?

2. What is to stop the Secretary of State exempting all Job Centre Pluses from these regulations?

Thanks for your patience NGMs Ghost,

It now looks to me as that, just as you suggest, the law does indeed apply to revenue sharing 0845 numbers (and therefore jobcentre plus) as well as 0870 numbers, but that it remains unclear whether BERR intends to enforce the law for 0845 numbers, though it will do so for 0870.

It's possible that jobcentre plus will deny receiving any revenue share with regard to 0845 numbers. It may be that they have some kind of deal with the telecoms providers as we have seen with other government agencies where the revenue share is hidden in the form of the provision of some other service by the telecoms provider. We'll have to cross that bridge when and if we come to it.

I am not sure what is the best way to proceed, but would suggest first contacting BERR to ask them to confirm that they do indeed take action on 0870 numbers, and whether they would consider taking action on 0845 numbers, and posting the reply here. If that is unsuccessful, we could then write to our MPs to see whether they will help and perhaps even to the Secretary of State himself. At some point we should probably try to get journalists interested in what looks like a case of a branch of the executive breaking the law. (Nick Cohen comes to mind).

Maybe the best thing is to start by putting in an FOI request to JobCentre Plus to ask whether they are gaining a revenue share of the 0845 numbers. Have there been any previous FOI requests regarding JobCentre Plus?

Would it be a bad idea to at the same time email BERR for clarification of their position?

In the meantime we should certainly go ahead and report any 0870 numbers being used by commercial job agencies that we know of. It might help if we were to post the names of those we have reported already so we don't double our efforts?

Best, LUN