0845 service charges, Do we think "penalty exceeds" if a service charge is > 0? |
0845 service charges, Do we think "penalty exceeds" if a service charge is > 0? |
Mon, 2 Jul 2018 - 16:39
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
As is common knowledge, Ofcom changed the rules a while back so that you can no longer advertise an 0845 number and just say "national calling charges apply" or similar BS. The official guidance published at https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-telecoms-an...all-really-cost says:
"The cost of calling 0843, 0844 and 0845 numbers is made up of two parts: an access charge going to your phone company, and a service charge set by the organisation you are calling. The service charge for calls to 084 numbers is between 0p and 7p per minute." https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-telecoms-an...-for-businesses says: “What you need to do Review all your materials and advertising. If your business or organisation is contacted on a number beginning 084, 087, 09 or 118, you must ensure that your service charge is clearly displayed wherever you advertise or promote that number. The service charge should be prominent and in close proximity to the number itself. The recommended form of wording is: “Calls cost xp [or xp per minute] plus your phone company's access charge.” Let's ignore for now the fact that councils are in likely breach of regulations made under section 59 of Communications Act 2003 because they don't publish the charges anywhere, as that wouldn't have a direct impact on the validity of a PCN (fear not I've raised the matter separately with Ofcom). I've been collecting data via FOI on what the service charges are, these are the results to date: And here arises the difficulty: If the council runs the 0845 number themselves, it's all clear cut: The service charge money goes to the council, therefore a penalty exceeds case is very easy to make. But what about a service charge that goes to the pocket of a third party? Is that lawful or not? There are two possible interpretations I can see: A) The service charge is an unlawful charge that the council is demanding is paid to a third party, the fact that the council doesn't pocket the money is irrelevant. It's a bit as if they said you can pay online using a third party payment processor, who will charge you a "checkout fee", the fact that it's the third party that pockets the money makes no difference. The service charge cannot be compared to the cost of a stamp that would be incurred in a postal payment, because that would be the equivalent to the access charge for an 0845 number (i.e. the cost incurred by the payer to get his payment to the council). Therefore the council should use a different telephone number (be it 0345 or 020 or whatever) or an 0845 number with a zero service charge. By using a third party provider that charges a service charge the council is likely gaining a financial benefit (as it stands to reason that it's cheaper for the council to use a payment provider that also makes money off the 0845 service charge), but even if it isn't, the service charge is unlawful. B) The service charge is not going to the council, it's going to a third party and the cost of the service charge is equivalent to the cost of a stamp on a postal payment. Therefore the penalty exceeds grounds do not apply. So, what do we all think? -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Advertisement |
Mon, 2 Jul 2018 - 16:39
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 2 Jul 2018 - 20:02
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Think you know my feeling the councils cannot ascribe a service charge to the payer. It is no different from them expecting that the credit card fee they have to pay be passed to the payer the high court have ruled that illegal
The service is provided to them and they are responsible for its cost -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 2 Jul 2018 - 20:41
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
As far as I am concerned, any service charge is within the control of the council and therefore additional to the access charge and thus an excess charge.
That you have found councils that have a zero service charge means it is possible to avoid. Doesn't matter if the council have subcontracted call handling, they need to get the terms right. |
|
|
Tue, 3 Jul 2018 - 20:55
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,570 Joined: 13 May 2010 Member No.: 37,524 |
Most councils now charge between 20p and 40p when you pay by phone. Is that illegal especially where in places like Barnet, you cant pay by cash?
|
|
|
Tue, 3 Jul 2018 - 21:06
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Most councils now charge between 20p and 40p when you pay by phone. Is that illegal especially where in places like Barnet, you cant pay by cash? see here http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?d...)+AND+(parking) -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Tue, 3 Jul 2018 - 21:20
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Most councils now charge between 20p and 40p when you pay by phone. Is that illegal especially where in places like Barnet, you cant pay by cash? Can you share evidence of that at all? Most councils now charge between 20p and 40p when you pay by phone. Is that illegal especially where in places like Barnet, you cant pay by cash? see here http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?d...)+AND+(parking) without highlighting: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/295.html -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 4 Jul 2018 - 11:07
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Most councils now charge between 20p and 40p when you pay by phone. Is that illegal especially where in places like Barnet, you cant pay by cash? In my opinion, while its not illegal per se, (like the Camden 1.3% card charge) it means they are asking (making, requiring, take your pick) the keeper to pay more than the statutory amount which renders the PCN invalid under TMA 2004 and provides what should then be a successful appeal point. Noting that the council get a cut of that fee. -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Wed, 4 Jul 2018 - 15:05
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,397 Joined: 12 Jun 2008 From: West Sussex Member No.: 20,304 |
Most councils now charge between 20p and 40p when you pay by phone. Is that illegal especially where in places like Barnet, you cant pay by cash? In my opinion, while its not illegal per se, (like the Camden 1.3% card charge) it means they are asking (making, requiring, take your pick) the keeper to pay more than the statutory amount which renders the PCN invalid under TMA 2004 and provides what should then be a successful appeal point. Noting that the council get a cut of that fee. Was post #4 not referring to payment for parking rather than paying a PCN? Slightly different! |
|
|
Wed, 4 Jul 2018 - 15:19
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Not as far as I'm aware, the whole thread is about paying the PCN's.
-------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 15:41
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
For future reference: Ofcom has a power to make rules under section 59 of the Communications Act 2003 that apply to someone other than a telecoms provider, they have only made 1 rule which is found on page 341 of https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_...753/annexes.pdf
"Condition 1 – Advertising requirements in relation to the use of a telephone number 1.1 This condition applies where a Service Provider advertises, promotes or procures the advertisement or promotion of any Unbundled Tariff Number in connection with the provision by the Service Provider of a Relevant Service to Consumers by means of that Unbundled Tariff Number. 1.2 The Service Provider shall include or procure the inclusion in any advertising and promotion of the Unbundled Tariff Number the Service Charge which applies in respect of a call by a Consumer to that number. 1.3 The Service Provider shall ensure that the Service Charge is displayed in a prominent position and in close proximity to the Unbundled Tariff Number in any such advertising or promotion of the Unbundled Tariff Number." -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 14:01
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Been going through my backlog of emails, useful service charge data:
London Borough of Hillingdon: 5p per minute https://www.scribd.com/document/384939127/G...e-2018-Response City of London Corporation: 5p per per minute https://www.scribd.com/document/384939554/G...e-2018-Response Coventry City Council: 5p per minute https://www.scribd.com/document/384940196/Req-04320 Trafford Council: 3p per minute https://www.scribd.com/document/384941994/G...for-0845-Number Northamptonshire County Council: 4 p per minute https://www3.northamptonshire.gov.uk/counci...g-waivers-.aspx Bristol City Council: 2p per minute https://imgur.com/NksBoo3 So charge exceeds can be used against any and all PCNs from the above authorities that include the 0845 number. This post has been edited by cp8759: Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 16:47 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 09:43
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
So credit to Mad Mick V for prompting me to check EE's website, it turns out a few telecoms operators publish a table to match number prefixes to service charges, such as:
https://ee.co.uk/content/dam/everything-eve...august-2018.pdf https://sales.talktalk.co.uk/images/pdf/010...fix_mapping.pdf and http://www.virginmedia.com/content/dam/vir...ial_Code_V3.pdf From this we can work out the following: Seems like we're going to have a bit of a turkey shoot here. This post has been edited by cp8759: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 10:47 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 09:46
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Just need to get some through to adjudication and see what happens.
|
|
|
Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 11:08
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Unless someone where to appeal on the '0845' matter only I suspect adjudicators would look for other reasons to uphold so as not to upset the proverbial round and green fruit carrying horse drawn vehicle.
-------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 11:31
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Unless someone where to appeal on the '0845' matter only I suspect adjudicators would look for other reasons to uphold so as not to upset the proverbial round and green fruit carrying horse drawn vehicle. Suspect that you are right, assuming they can find something else to cancel on. I also suspect a few councils may cave in at formal or even appeal stage when faced with it, though will be for other reasons, not phone surcharge. Have a nasty feeling that London Tribunals will push this into the direction of a panel hearing a la Miller and Others, where they will decide it is acceptable, probably for some arcane reason. Unless of course an adjudicator does decide in favour of it and a council takes it to JR. I'm confident there is plenty of merit and a JR will follow Camden ruling but won't know until it gets there. |
|
|
Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 11:40
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Well this thread http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...121432&st=0 has no solid basis of appeal other than the surcharge, so it might be a bit of a test case. If it goes to the tribunal I'll offer to attend.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 11:55
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Well this thread http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...121432&st=0 has no solid basis of appeal other than the surcharge, so it might be a bit of a test case. If it goes to the tribunal I'll offer to attend. TPT so won't be a hearing to attend as such. They have moved to telephone hearings only (or on papers) unless you can persuade them that a personal hearing is needed. |
|
|
Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 12:44
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Well this thread http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...121432&st=0 has no solid basis of appeal other than the surcharge, so it might be a bit of a test case. If it goes to the tribunal I'll offer to attend. TPT so won't be a hearing to attend as such. They have moved to telephone hearings only (or on papers) unless you can persuade them that a personal hearing is needed. They might have made it hard to ask for a hearing, but under the regulations they have to offer one if you insist. But it's very much down to the OP. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 14:50
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Well this thread http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...121432&st=0 has no solid basis of appeal other than the surcharge, so it might be a bit of a test case. If it goes to the tribunal I'll offer to attend. TPT so won't be a hearing to attend as such. They have moved to telephone hearings only (or on papers) unless you can persuade them that a personal hearing is needed. They might have made it hard to ask for a hearing, but under the regulations they have to offer one if you insist. But it's very much down to the OP. would be good to kill the two birds of surcharge and on personal hearing. I would want to attend as a member of the public, so what would happen to your right to a hearing in public if denied -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 13:35
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Edinburgh council seem to have caught on and have dropped the 0845 number from their PCNs, see http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=122048
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 09:20 |