mjh0

I challenged BA on Twitter about this after they gave out the 0844 number to an industry colleague I follow on Twitter, regarding flight disruption/misconnection and in relation to a journey already in progress.

(As he was travelling F and outside the UK, I tweeted the You First 0161 number back at him!)

Giving BA credit, they did respond to me, but as far as BA are concerned they consider that they comply by having that single 03xx number published, despite it being buried in a list of 0844s.

Of course, it's of little consequence to me personally as they give Silvers an 0800 number, but it feels a bit mealy-mouthed on BA's part.

It's a sad state of affairs where we have to beat suppliers up with legislation just to get them to do the "right thing"... we've EU261, now this.

NFH

This approach does not comply with paragraph J8 of BIS's implementation guidance, which states "the �basic rate� compliant telephone number should be communicated as prominently as one that is not". Of course this is only guidance and one can only be 100% sure if it goes to court, but it is nevertheless significant that BIS was the author of both the UK legislation and the guidance.

Tobias-UK

Guidance is not law, it is guidance. The court may consider the guidance, but it is not bound by it and may attach little weight, if any, to it. The drafting of Para 41 is poor in my opinion and is rather wide from an interpretational point of view.

I think it may be quite some time before the proper intent of the legislation is clarified.

stifle

I agree with Tobias-UK. The law states that a consumer must not be "bound to" pay more than the basic rate. If a basic rate number is available and provided, then I would find it very hard to conclude that the consumer was "bound to" pay more than the basic rate only because a more expensive number was more prominent.

Additionally, "basic rate" isn't even defined anywhere.

layz

I've never known why BA bother with 0800 numbers for status passengers (which they have to pay for) and then 0844 for others (where they may earn a small income on).

I get free 0800 calls on mobile, but many people do not, before I switched to an operator with free 0800 calls I used to actively avoid calling 0800 numbers on my mobile. So a number which is meant to be customer friendly (as it's free to call) is as big an annoyance as 0844 is for many!

01/02/03 numbers would satisfy most people. Many people have these numbers included in their calling plans (landline and mobile) so they're effectively free for many, and cheap for the rest.

If BA scrapped the 0800 numbers now (along with the 0844 ones) they could even market it as an enhancement while most people still have to pay to call it on their mobile. If they wait until more providers give free 0800 (eventually they'll have to) then it'll be harder to call it an enhancement.

Tobias-UK

I'm not sure they could; wouldn't that constitute a misleading term on the basis that it would actually be an improvement?

Flexible preferences

But if I consult the contacts list for 'tracing delayed baggage' for instance, only one number is provided - an 084 number - and despite this not having anything to do with sales I would be bound to use it.

Tobias-UK

You wouldn't be bound to use it, there is a hyperlink to the baggage tracing website.

NFH

The legislation doesn't say anything about being bound to use a number. It says "Where a trader operates a telephone line for the purpose of consumers contacting the trader by telephone in relation to contracts entered into with the trader, a consumer contacting the trader must not be bound to pay more than the basic rate".

I'll simplify things a little with an example. A company provides five telephone numbers for after-sales enquiries:

• Enquiry type A - 0844 xxxxxx1
• Enquiry type B - 0844 xxxxxx2
• Enquiry type C - 0844 xxxxxx3
• Enquiry type D - 0844 xxxxxx4
• Enquiry type E - 0344 xxxxxxx

The fact that it offers a basic rate 0344 number for enquiry type E does not prevent the consumer from being bound to pay more than the basic rate when contacting the company with enquiry types A, B, C and D.

This is exactly what BA had been doing. It was providing a basic rate number for one type of enquiry (complaints aka "customer relations") but surcharged numbers for all other types of enquiries. This clearly breached the legislation.

The good news is that someone at British Airways has got the message and in the last few hours has published +44 191 numbers underneath the surcharged 0844 numbers, albeit with misleading suffix text stating "(outside the UK)". This suffix text should be removed.

Tobias-UK

There's no need to simplify it for my benefit. I respectfully refer you to my earlier posts on this matter. No need for me to repeat ad nauseam.

NFH

Anyway the remaining question now is whether the suffix text "(outside the UK)" on the 0191 numbers causes the consumer to be bound to pay more than the basic rate. Although many UK consumers are aware that 0844 numbers are surcharged, many consumers visiting from outside the UK (of which there are many BA customers) would not know this. Therefore this misleading suffix text could cause many consumers to be bound to pay more than the basic rate. I maintain that the text should be removed.

Tobias-UK

Remaining question? There are lots of unanswered questions regarding these new Regs! It has not yet been adequately established that BA are in contravention of the Regs or that their use of those 0844 numbers is unlawful. These Regs need more clarity, as far as para 41 is concerned it is poorly drafted and too broad/wide.

Silver Fox

It's rather simple, if Ryanair can manage it then BA bloody well ought to !

nickerss

+1

0800 numbers are not free from my mobile, and I'm young enough that I don't have a landline at home, so my only free way of calling the Gold line is from work. Not so useful on a weekend or at night!

layz

Don't forget payphones!

I technically have a landline but never plugged a phone into it or know the number. It's due to the fact phone line rental is tied to most broadband packages.