And another strange thing, does anyone know why the directory enquiry range is so closely allied to the Reading Area Code (118 and 0118) so as to cause confusion to certain people and serious financial harm.   This is not a trivial point as I know of at least one dear elderly person who tried frequently to call certain Reading numbers and somehow mistakenly got connected to various expensive DQ destinations and thereby running up large costs that they could ill afford.

Why haven't Ofcom done something about stupidities in the structure of the national numbering scheme such as this???       And how come it was ever allowed to exist in the first place??? 

Ian G wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 9:47pm:


Given that situation the regulator should have ruled that 0118 could never be used as an area code so as to ensure that risk of confusion with dangerously expensive numbers was minimised.

Remember that 118 numbers are pushed at the public constantly and some elderly and others might come to think that it doesn't matter whether you dial the zero or not without realising the danger.

Ian, this European-wide scheme is a good point.   Wouldn't common sense indicate that the 011x range be better totally avoided?   Instead we have Leeds 0113 and other potential confusion points.   Begins to look like negligence?

Well Reading has already gone through 0734, 01734 to 0118.   People didn't like these changes but they were given no choice  Better would be to go to 022 or 025 in a similar structure to Portsmouth and Coventry well away from possible confusion with 11x numbers.

Ian G wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 8:45am:

As 0118 had already been decided for Reading and the decision about DQ came later then surely it was DQ that should have gone to 119?

I am not quite sure why this discussion has been allowed to drift off to address a wholly OT subject from more than ten years ago.

If there is a need for Ofcom to dedicate significant resource to reminding people that they do need to dial a leading zero when it is part of a telephone number, then some significant evidence of what is alleged to be a common misconception will need to be produced.

There are three misconceptions, which I allege to be far more common, that we are pressing Ofcom to address in 2014.

• The failure to recognise that "local rate" and "national rate" are now the same (in general).
   
• The mistaken assumption that landline callers need to make "a lot" of daytime calls to justify choice of an "Anytime" calling plan.
   
• Doubt about the 03 range, as invariably offering calls on the same terms as those to 01/02 numbers.

We believe that anyone who accesses a Premium Rate Service in error and incurs a significant cost is entitled to a refund, either from their own OCP or from the PRS provider. This should provide sufficient disincentive for choosing a 118 number that coincides with a valid 0118 xxx range, if the problem identified here occurs to any meaningful degree.

If necessary, a perfectly adequate remedy would be blocking such 118 numbers and 0118 ranges. It is also worth noting that those who listen on the line whilst dialling may be protected by hearing ring tone whilst dialling the last four digits of the 0118 number. Premature ring tone, or the absence of ring tone, commonly provides an indication of misdialling as a result of dialling the wrong number of digits.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 11:02am:

Do you think the aged, infirm or unwell, or even 99% of all phone users, would have a clue what is meant by all this?   The problem is that there has been a totally inappropriate selection of codes.

loddon wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 11:17pm:


I confess that I am struggling to understand what relevance a questionable decision by Oftel some 20 years ago has to the topic "Re:Legislation banning the use of 084/087/09 numbers". It may be that the aged, inform or unwell, or 99% of all phone users would understand.

I also fail to understand just how many actual 0118 numbers would connect with a live 118 number if the leading zero was omitted, as nobody has provided this crucial information. I am also unaware of the percentage of telephone callers who would deliberately omit the leading zero of a telephone number, thinking it to be unnecessary. I suspect that many callers, including the aged infirm or unwell, would recognise that they had mis-dialled if they heard the ringing tone before they had finished dialling.


As for this response to a proposed remedy for a situation, I also fail to understand the point being made. If the possibility of connecting to a 118 number by omitting the leading zero of a 0118 number were to be eliminated, then surely that would stand as a remedy to the problem as presented. There would no need for anyone, other than those proposing and implementing the solution, and those directly affected, to understand exactly how the effect was achieved.

Maybe we are not interested in discussing remedies to real problems.

kasg wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 5:51pm:

OK, I will do the job myself. (The tedium is in presenting the information through this grossly out-dated means of communication. The source information is readily available from a proper source.)
A little bit of cross-referencing, using the Ofcom lists - 118 and 0118 - reveals the following information.


This shows that nothing has been done to address the risk of callers incurring premium rate charges as a consequence of omitting the leading zero when dialling a 0118 number and failing to recognise the error on hearing ring tone before completing the dialling.


I must repeat the suggestion that anyone who finds themselves connected to a Premium Rate Service in error should request a refund of the call charge. I have no reason to believe that such a request would be refused. Those who followed the arguments about Access Charges in the process that led to the newly announced Ofcom regulations will be aware that OCPs make extensive provision for what they (misleadingly) call "bad debt".


A numbering plan which separates codes based on the leading digits of the number requires callers to take particular care with the first few digits. One hopes that limitations to the numbering plan to accommodate the danger of mis-dialling is based on a realistic assessment of the competence of callers in dialling correctly. If there is evidence to show that current assessments are wrong, then this must be presented to Ofcom to inform future decisions.

As billing commences when a call is answered, any wrong number accessed by mis-dialling may incur an unwanted charge. The example given is clear to see, however it is thereby less likely to occur. One could construct many potential examples of single digit error, omission, inclusion or transposition that may result in unintended access to a Premium Rate Service, or the wrong Premium Rate Service - the impact of which is no different. The only remedy which occurs to me is the inclusion of one or more check digits in every published telephone number.


If, as suggested, there is a serious specific problem with callers to 0118 numbers believing that the leading zero is not required, then there may be a case for a public information exercise to correct this false assumption. Those inviting calls to 0118 numbers may need to make it clear that their number must be dialling as presented, and ensure that it is presented correctly.

I would need some evidence to convince me that this issue in general has a place alongside other important public information exercises on Ofcom's agenda for 2014. Ofcom is currently consulting on its Annual Plan for 2014/5 - see http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/draft-annual-plan-2014-15/. If relevant proposals were not submitted in response to the earlier "invitation to comment", then a response to the consultation is an obvious way to raise the issue.

(I must assume that the issue was raised as a point for serious discussion in the forum, rather than simply as a tardy and unconsidered criticism of a decision made by Oftel many years ago. To facilitate proper discussion, the OP (in this constructed thread) could have searched for, quoted and commented on any relevant remarks, or the absence thereof, made by Oftel, or respondents, in the public consultations undertaken at the time.)

Thank you SCV for your helpful and thoughtful post #12.

Thanks also for drawing our attention to this Ofcom consultation which I note closes on 14 February:---

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:01am:


If I have time to respond to this consultation I would also endeavour to raise other points about anomalies and misleading number ranges and number organisation in the national numbering System.   I am thinking of the fundamental matter that now the industry has decided to sell its services principally in packaged form it is important that Ofcom give attention to the matter of packages and what they include and what they exclude so as to ensure that the public are not deceived.   At present we are being deceived by bold claims that all your calls are included whereas they clearly are NOT.  I guess that most callers are aware that most 084/7 numbers are excluded, but what about those 01 numbers that are excluded (Channel Islands) and whole ranges of 07 numbers that are excluded from mobile packages as well as the 070 range.   It would be helpful if members contribute here with their knowledge of other anomalies such as these.   Perhaps we should starta new thread for this?

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:01am:


Yes it is indeed intended as a serious point.   Although reference has been made in other posts about the possibility of misdialling numbers my point is that the potential confusion between 118 and 0118 stands out as, in my view, the one with most potential of occurring (mainly due to very extensive and heavy advertising of 118 numbers continually omitting the zero, and as having the worst cost penalties associated with a misdial due to 118 being among the most expensive premium rate numbers.   I am glad to see that others have seen this matter as serious enough to warrant discussion on this thread.