Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • is the home in joint names but this is solely your debt? need far more history to be able to comment if it's paid off and was not just written of by one partly on their books and sold to anther, thus the cra file says £0. dx
    • So, Sunak has managed to get someone to 'volunteer to go to Rwanda hasn't he? .. for just £3000 payment to the person plus 5 years free board and lodging isnt it? - cost to UK taxpayer over £300M+ (300 million quid+) isnt it? - Bargain says Rwanda, especially with all the profit we made privately selling those luxury chalets Bravermann advertised for us   I wonder how many brits would jump at that offer? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Lets see, up to 5 years free board and lodging and £3k in my pocket .. I'd go - and like that person - just come back if/when I get bored. First job - off to Botswana for a week to see the elephants.   Of course the paid volunteers going to Botswana are meaningless - Rwanda have REPEATEDLY said they wont take any forcibly trafficked people in breach of international law eh? Have the poops actually got any civil servants to agree to go yet - probably end up as more massive payments to VIPal contractors to go and sit there doing nowt shortly eh?    
    • Hi Wondered if I could get a little advise please. I entered into a commercial lease (3 years) and within a few months I had to leave as the business I was trading with collapsed. I returned the keys to the landlord and explained the situation and no money, also likely to go on benefits but the landlord stuck to their guns. They have now instructed solicitors to send letter before action claiming just over £4000. The lease was mine and so the debt. I know this. I have emailed the solicitors twice to explain I am out of work and that with help from family I could offer a full and final settlement figure of £1500 or £10pw. This was countered by them with an offer to reduce the debt by £400, or pay off the amount over 12 months. I went back with an improved full and final offer of £2500 or £20pw. This has been rejected with the comment 'papers ready to go to court'. I have no hope of paying the £4000 and so it will have to go to court. Pity as I have no debts otherwise but not working is a killer. I wondered if they take me to court, could I ask for mediation? I also think that taking me to court will result in a pretty much nothing per week payment from my benefits. Are companies just pushing ahead with action even if a better offer is on the table? Thanks for your help.
    • Hi all, Many thanks for the advice! Unfortunately, the reply to the email was as expected…   Starbucks UK Customer Care <[email protected]> Hi xxxxxx, We are sorry to read you received a parking charge after using our Stansted Airport - A120 DT store. Unfortunately, the car park here is managed by MET parking. Both Starbucks and EuroGarages who own and operate this site are not able to help and have no authority to overturn any parking charges received. If you have followed the below terms then you would need to send all correspondence to [email protected], who will be able to assist you further. Several signs around the car park clarify the below terms and conditions: • Maximum stay 60 minutes, whilst the store is open. If the store is closed, pay to park applies. • The car park is for Starbucks customers only who make a purchase in our store, a charge will be issued if you left the site. • If you had made a purchase and required additional time, you must have inputted your registration number into the in store iPad which would have extended your stay up to 3 hours • To park in a disabled bay, you must have displayed a valid disabled badge. • If Starbucks was closed, you must have paid for parking as charges still apply, following signage located on site. • If you didn’t use the store, you must have paid for parking, following signage located on site Please ensure all further correspondence is directed to MET parking at the above email address, and accept our apologies that we cannot help you further on this matter.  Kind Regards,  Lora K  Customer Care Team Leader Starbucks Coffee Company, Building 4 Chiswick Park, London, W4 5YE
    • Thanks HB edited and re-uploaded. Thanks for the heads up 👍
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

End to premium rate helplines and changes to online shopping


MaxxPower
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3745 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

It's been announced that from June 2014, companies will no longer be allowed to use expensive 084 and 087 numbers when customers call them. Instead, consumers will only pay the same rate they would to call a standard landline number.

 

Other changes announced are also good news for consumers. The DSR are being 'upgraded' to allow 14 days instead of 7 for you to inspect and return goods. And to top it all off, online stores will no longer be allowed to pre-tick boxes for additional products such as insurance or 'add-on' goods.

 

On the flipside, there are changes to refunds under the DSR. Retailers now no longer have to provide a refund until they receive the goods back. The exception to this though is if the consumer provides proof of postage, at which point the retailer must process the refund regardless of them receiving the goods back or not.

A slightly 'dangerous' addition is also that retailers can deduct from a refund if they deem that a returned product has been used.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25355758

 

 

Overall, a good benefit to consumers, but there are some things to watch out for when returning goods under the DSRs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some very welcome changes there - though I wish they'd take it one step further and simply end 084 and 087 numbers except for the original intended purposes (pay-as-you-go Internet and telephone services like the "Australia and Canada for 1p/min by dialling 0844..."). After a long time on the bank's 084 number trying to sort out an error on their part (they admitted it and provided three figure compensation, but the irritation of having the phone bill ticking up while explaining the problem to an Indian call centre didn't help) I'm disappointed to see this doesn't (yet) apply to financial companies, though: thumbs up to Barclays and RBS for apparently fixing this voluntarily, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this mean an end to hanging on while they play music and recorded messages at you, claiming to be busy, but all the while racking up their 'cut' from the number?

 

Yes - at the very least, it'll mean they aren't making a penny while they keep you waiting, just tying up one of their phone lines. They'll still have queues of course, but now everyone waiting in the queue will be costing them a tiny bit of money (by tying up lines they pay for) rather than being a source of income, they will feel very differently about having long queues!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - at the very least, it'll mean they aren't making a penny while they keep you waiting, just tying up one of their phone lines. They'll still have queues of course, but now everyone waiting in the queue will be costing them a tiny bit of money (by tying up lines they pay for) rather than being a source of income, they will feel very differently about having long queues!

 

That's wrong. Companies who use 0845/0870 numbers do not earn anything from those numbers... revenue sharing on those numbers was stopped in April 2012. However, companies who use 0844/0871/090/etc still revenue share.

 

Due to Ofcom changes expected on all 0845 numbers which means 0845 will soon become chargeable to the company owning it when they receive calls; many companies are now looking at moving to a new number range. So instead of customers paying 3-4p per min, they'll probably pay 5-10p per min as they'll have to call 0844, etc. Customer loses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no objection to paying the normal rate when phoning, but I object to paying Sky when I am changing a subscription as I have to use an 0844 number. The same applies when raising a complaint about a company. The annoying part is that if you email the company, it is seldom that they read the email properly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's wrong. Companies who use 0845/0870 numbers do not earn anything from those numbers... revenue sharing on those numbers was stopped in April 2012. However, companies who use 0844/0871/090/etc still revenue share.

 

Due to Ofcom changes expected on all 0845 numbers which means 0845 will soon become chargeable to the company owning it when they receive calls; many companies are now looking at moving to a new number range. So instead of customers paying 3-4p per min, they'll probably pay 5-10p per min as they'll have to call 0844, etc. Customer loses.

 

No, you're a step behind there. Many of the greedier companies already made the change you describe, when 0845 and 0870 were fixed as you mention: this is the next step, prohibiting all 084 and 087 numbers for this purpose. Companies will have to provide proper 01/02/03 numbers (or, presumably, 0800 if they wish): 0843, 0844 etc will no longer be permitted. Long overdue and very welcome, IMO. (Mobile networks also sometimes misuse 07 numbers for helpline purposes - as the terminating operator, of course, they keep all the termination fee, although technically this breaches current Ofcom regulations; I noticed today Three are using an 0843 number instead, perhaps because of that.)

 

Remember, 0845 was supposed to be cheaper than standard geographic calls when introduced as 0345 and 0645, not to impose a surcharge which would be passed to the called party! I know companies have enjoyed the extra backdoor revenue from charging people to call them, but it's high time that stopped - and the government now seems to agree there. Customer wins, greedy company loses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I can agree with some of that. However 084 and 087 numbers will NOT be prohibited Instead of being compared with the price of a local/national call it'll no longer work like that. Instead it'll act like any other 084, 087 or 09 number except the cost of calling the number will be made clearer, as it'll be split into two parts: an access charge by your phone provider and service charge payable to the company you're calling (therefore greedy company wins as they can now get a cut again). I have links to reference this on Ofcom's site but I can't post links as haven't made enough posts... pain in the bum!

 

If calling a company to make enquiries or complaints is such a big deal why do people not complain about the cost of a stamp when writing in to complain, etc? If they have to take something back to a store why do they not complain about extra petrol money or bus fares? They don't, so why should call charges be any different. You have to pay when calling to find a job (Jobcentreplus), get medical advice (NHS24), etc yet I don't hear many people grumbling about those, but they grumble about bank/credit card call centres, councils, companies, etc.

 

Maybe I'm just in the minority of people who think there are worse things in the world to worry about than a pound or three to companies most individuals don't phone often. *shrug* lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've already read the Ofcom material on changing the pricing - changes I recall proposing myself years ago, as it happens (to industry contacts, I don't think any Ofcom staff were present at the time) - to something akin to "normal price plus 5p/min" - but those are totally different changes to the ones this thread concerns. Yes, Ofcom are changing the pricing structure - but this thread is about new consumer protection rules prohibiting companies from using 084 and 087 numbers for this purpose in the first place, whatever Ofcom may do with pricing.

 

You seem to me to be missing the point about the difference between paying somebody for the privilege of talking to them and paying someone else for a service. If I take a taxi round to visit my GP, it might cost me £5. That's fine: I'm paying the taxi driver £5 to transport me there. Now imagine the GP charging me a £2 booking fee for making the appointment - or requiring all patients to get there by taxi, with the GP getting a cut of the taxi fares. Do you really think that would be accepted as readily, even though it's cheaper? I'd expect anyone suggesting it to be burned in effigy, if not in person!

 

NHS24 is on an 0845 number - which as you pointed out, is not a revenue share number and is charged at standard call rates by BT anyway, meaning BT residential customers don't have to pay anything for the call at all, let alone pay the NHS for calling it. Moreover, government policy is to "actively encourage public bodies to use 03 numbers" - and the NHS Direct 0845 4647 number terminates by February next year, to be replaced by 111 - which is free to call, even from mobiles. Plenty of people have indeed complained at length about GPs using revenue-share numbers - to the extent the NHS prohibited GPs from using them as of the 2010/11 contract renewal, and is now cracking down on the remaining c 8% of GPs still using those numbers in breach of their NHS contracts. (My latest credit card gives both 0800 and geographic numbers, and I'm pretty sure the previous one did too; I'd probably have second thoughts about remaining with a bank which didn't.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Companies who use 0845/0870 numbers do not earn anything from those numbers... revenue sharing on those numbers was stopped in April 2012. However, companies who use 0844/0871/090/etc still revenue share.

 

Due to Ofcom changes expected on all 0845 numbers which means 0845 will soon become chargeable to the company owning it when they receive calls; many companies are now looking at moving to a new number range. So instead of customers paying 3-4p per min, they'll probably pay 5-10p per min as they'll have to call 0844, etc. Customer loses.

Ofcom did not proceed with removing revenue sharing from 0845 numbers in 2009. Calls to 0845 numbers continue to incur a 2p/min Service Charge to the benefit of the called party. This fee is hidden within the call price. They use this revenue to cover the call handling and call routing costs incurred at their end of the call. This means they usually do not pay anything for the use of the number if calls are forwarded to a standard geographic number. They will usually incur fees if the call is routed to a mobile phone or to an international destination.

 

Very large users of 0845 numbers may receive a revenue share payment approaching half a penny per minute. Revenue sharing has not been stopped on 0845 numbers, nor will it.

 

BT controls most of the 0845 numbers used by businesses. BT gives callers using a BT line to make the call a discount in the form of making these calls inclusive within their call plans. 0845 calls are not inclusive from most other landlines and are almost never inclusive calls from mobiles.

 

Under Ofcom's "unbundled tariffs" system users of 0845 numbers will be required to declare the 2p/min Service Charge. BT will be free to continue giving 0845 as inclusive calls within their call plans, but it will be clear this is BT giving their own customers a discount, not the normal price of these calls.

 

Calls to 0870 numbers are inclusive in many landline call plans. Since 2009 there has been no Service Charge and revenue sharing has been banned. This has not brought down the cost of calling 0870 numbers from a mobile phone. Users of 0870 numbers currently have to pay the running costs for the non-geographic number and the call handling fees. In many cases these fees are similar to those that would be incurred if they had instead used an 03 number.

 

On 26 June 2015, revenue sharing returns to 0870 numbers and the Service Charge is likely to be around 10p/min. After this time, these calls will no longer be inclusive in call plans.

 

Calls to 0843 and 0844 numbers incur a Service Charge that varies from 1p to 7p/min depending on the number called. Calls to 0871, 0872 and 0873 numbers incur a Service Charge that varies from 1p to 13p/min depending on the number called. The first couple of pence per minute covers the call handling and call routing costs incurred by the call recipient and the remainder can be paid out as revenue share.

 

Under Ofcom's new "unbundled tariffs" system, all users of 084, 087 and 09 numbers will be required to declare the Service Charge wherever their number is advertised. It will be clear that the call recipient is financially benefitting from the call.

 

Before all that, another major change will occur. From 13 June 2014, new legislation bans 084, 087 and 09 numbers for use as customer service lines in many business sectors. The Cabinet Office has also published guidance effectively banning these numbers from government departments and public services. The Financial Conduct Authority is also expected to produce similar regulation for the financial sector. In order to comply, users must move to new 01, 02, 03 or 080 numbers. Users of 084 and 087 numbers can move to the matching 034 or 037 number.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...