Memorandum submitted by Citizens Advice
(CABx)
SUMMARY
— The evidence received from CABx highlights
the fact that information provided about call charges to Quiz
TV and other TV shopping sites is not clear enough.
— CABx clients find themselves in large
amounts of debt because they were not adequately warned about:
— the cost of calling the TV Quiz/shopping
channel; and
— the fact that charges are incurred
even though calls are "unsuccessful".
— This lack of clarity about charges
leads to customer confusion and protracted disputes over the number
and costs of calls made.
— Evidence received from bureaux relating
to these three topics is given below, along with recommendations
for improving the information provided to consumers.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Citizens Advice is the national co-ordinating
body for Citizens Advice Bureaux in England and Wales. We co-ordinate
the largest independent network of free advice centres in Europe,
providing advice from over 3,000 outlets, ranging from GPs' surgeries,
hospitals, community centres, county courts and magistrates courts.
In 2005-06 the CAB service dealt with over five million new enquiries.
Of these enquiries, approximately 11,600 related to enquiries
about telephone and mobile phones, while 3,900 concerned enquiries
were made about TV issues.
1.2 The CAB service has two equal aims:
— to ensure that individuals do not
suffer through lack of knowledge of their rights and responsibilities
or of the services available to them, or through an inability
to express their needs effectively;
— and equally, to exercise a responsible
influence on the development of social policies and services,
both locally and nationally.
1.3 Citizens Advice welcomes the opportunity
to submit evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee's
inquiry into Call TV Quiz Shows. While issues relating to telecoms
form only a small percentage of the issues which we deal with,
their impact can be significant on CAB users who tend to be in
social grades DE or unemployed. [1]The
impact of high premium rate charges is demonstrated by the case
studies featured throughout this response.
2. DETAILED COMMENTS
Warnings about the cost of calls are not clear
enough
2.1 The 10th edition of the ICSTIS Code
of Practice states (at paragraph 4.4.1)
The service provider must state clearly in
all promotional material the likely charge for calls to each service.
Prices must be noted in the form of a numerical price per minute,
or the total maximum cost to the consumer of the complete message
or service, both of which must be inclusive of VAT. When applicable,
promotional material must make clear that calls from some networks
may cost more than the likely charge shown.
2.2 Recently, the 11th edition of the ICSTIS
Code of practice has been approved by Ofcom, and comes into force
on 4 January 2007. [2]This
does not appear to make any significant amendments to the text
quoted above, stating at Paragraphs 5.7.1 to 5.7.3 that:
Service providers must ensure that all users
of premium rate services are fully informed, clearly and straightforwardly,
of the cost of using a service prior to incurring any charge.
Written pricing information must be easily
legible, prominent, horizontal and presented in a way that does
not require close examination. Spoken pricing information must
be easily audible and discernible.
In cases where it is unlikely that a consumer
will have seen or heard any promotional material containing pricing
information, the service provider must place a short, distinct
pricing message at the beginning of the service.
2.3 In our experience, the warnings that
are mandated are not clear enough, particularly for vulnerable
groups who may have difficulty in seeing small textual warnings
or hearing hastily voiced warnings. The following cases demonstrate
the unfortunate results where customers are not adequately warned
beforehand about the costs of taking part in such quizzes or other
TV programmes which involve making premium rate calls to participate.
A Sussex CAB East Grinstead reported that
their client, a 78 year old widow, had used premium rate telephone
lines to take part in a TV game show without appreciating the
costs incurred for doing so. The client felt that there were no
real warnings about the costs involved on the screen, so she was
unaware of the costs of calling premium rate numbers and ended
up running up a huge bill of £600 before she realised what
had happened.
A Worcestershire CAB Wyre Forest helped
a client who had incurred a large telephone bill because she was
unaware of the costs of calls made to an auction-style TV programme.
The client, a 75 year old lady, usually receives a very small
telephone bill of about £12 per quarter and so benefits from
the Light User Scheme. She was therefore surprised to discover
that her latest bill came to £28.77. When the CAB adviser
looked into the cause of this dramatic rise, it was discovered
that calls amounting to £12.88 had been made to Price Drop
TV, which uses a premium rate number charged at £1.50 per
call. The client had ordered a number of items from this programme
but had not noticed the information about call charges which was
displayed in very small print at the bottom of the TV screen.
The client felt that such information should be provided verbally
as well as given more prominence on screen.
2.4 We recognise the strengthened rules
in ICSTIS' new Code of Practice with regard to spoken pricing
information and will monitor whether this proves to be sufficient.
2.5 Citizens Advice has been involved in
recent discussions of the Cash Machine Working Group (which includes
LINK, cash machine operators and consumer groups among its membership),
which has looked at improving the signs that are displayed on
and around charging cash machines. It seems to us that there are
some clear parallels to the consideration of warnings given to
consumers about participation in TV Quiz shows.
2.6 We recommend that warnings about call
charges are displayed more prominently and regularly on screen
and should conform to a minimum font size and style such as those
prescribed in Disability Discrimination Act guidelines or RNIB
Clear Print guidelines. [3]
2.7 In addition, consideration should be
given to obtaining the customer's consent to be charged for a
premium rate call prior to being put through to the Quiz TV show
and incurring a charge (in the same way that someone withdrawing
money from a charging cash machine is asked to confirm that they
wish to proceed with the transaction after being informed of the
cost of the service). [4]
Unsuccessful calls are charged at a premium rate
and this is not made clear
2.8 In our opinion the new ICSTIS Code fails
to adequately address the fact that consumers are not given sufficient
warning that failure to get through to the Quiz TV show will still
result in a premium rate charge being made.
2.9 ICSTIS itself appears to acknowledge
this is an area of some concern, given that it has recently launched
a review of the Quiz TV Sector[5]
which will cover issues of transparency, and specifically consider
"do consumers actually understand what's involved—the
cost of taking part, the element of chance and the fact that every
caller pays even if they fail to get through to the studio?"
2.10 Cases dealt with by CABx would suggest
that some consumers are certainly not aware of this fact, and
this misunderstanding can lead to the rapid accumulation of large
amount of call charges.
A CAB in Somerset helped a young mother
and her partner who are both unemployed and have two young children
who had received an extremely large telephone bill for £1,491.54.
Their previous phone bill was for £24.35. The large sum demanded
resulted from Premium Rate calls made almost entirely between
31 March and 2nd April. The client acknowledged that some calls
were made to the number mentioned, but found the quantity billed
hard to believe. There were for example 60 calls made between
22.11 hours and 22.19 hours on 2 April 2006, each charged at £0.919.
The calls were to Quiz Call—a digital TV programme with
a premium rate number (090 prefix). The majority of these calls
were not successful and resulted in a computer message stating
lines were busy. The TV programme mentioned that calls were charged
at 60p (or 65p) per minute. The client and her young family struggle
to keep their heads above water financially with a normal telephone
bill, and cannot possibly pay the sum demanded.
A London CAB reported that their client,
a disabled man aged 55, had tried to contact a TV sales channel
to buy some toys for his grandchildren. The client was never successful
in speaking to anyone at the television channel, since every time
he called the line went dead after three rings. The client has
now received a telephone bill for over £338, with the majority
of the call charges due to calls made to the TV sales channel's
premium rate telephone number.
2.11 Citizens Advice recommends that it
should be made crystal clear that even unsuccessful calls will
result in a premium rate charge being made for the call. This
information could form part of the information provided to a consumer
when seeking their consent to be charged for a premium rate call.
Making such information more explicit would also be in keeping
with the provisions of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive
which lay down the information which must be provided to consumers—including
price—so they can make an informed decision to buy or participate
in a service. [6]
2.12 In addition, we are uncertain as to
whether the type of game featured on the various Quiz TV channels
can legitimately be dubbed a quiz, or whether it should more accurately
be referred to as a lottery, and if so whether it should rightly
fall within the remit of the Gambling Commission. It appears to
us that section 14 of the Gambling Act, including the definitions
at Schedule 2, would allow these "TV quizzes" to fall
inside the definition of a simple lottery in relation to the ease
with which the question can be answered. We appreciate that Schedule
2 to the Act would exclude these "quizzes" if they can
be entered for the cost of an ordinary rate phone call or first
class letter but are not convinced from our evidence that this
option is always available and if it is available that it is presented
in a form where consumers would be likely to be aware of it. We
would welcome the Culture Media and Sport Committee giving consideration
to this matter.
The level of the charges incurred, and the speed
at which debts can be amassed, leads to prolonged disputes
2.13 The incredible speed at which large
debts can be amassed through repeated use of premium rate numbers
causes prolonged disputes over the number and cost of such calls.
A Sussex CAB reported that their client
admitted that she had called Quiz TV on a premium rate phone number,
but claimed that she had only done so approximately 15 times.
The client then received a phone bill from her land line provider
for £348.The client also maintains she did not make all the
calls listed on her bill because she was in bed when a number
of the calls were made and she would have had to have been dialling
the premium rate number six times within one minute. Despite this
the phone company has now cut off the client's phone and passed
the debt onto a debt recovery agency.
A Hertfordshire CAB helped a client who
had received a large telephone bill due to repeated calls to a
prize draw programme. The client, an elderly female living in
sheltered accommodation, had received a large bill from her phone
company which gave details of over 600 calls made to a prize draw
programme on satellite TV over three days. The client disputed
this bill and is in correspondence with her telephone supplier
about this matter.
A Yorkshire CAB reported that they dealt
with a case involving a disabled female client who had made some
calls to the TV Quiz show Quizmania. The client had received a
telephone bill of £152—more than three times her average
bill—and was disputing the amount of calls made from her
phone to the Quizmania number.
2.14 Citizens Advice recommends that there
should be a duty on the TV channel to regularly inform callers
that they have incurred costs amounting to eg £10 and asking
them if they are happy to continue. Such warnings should be repeated
at every increment of £10 calls incurred. Consideration should
also be given to imposing overall call or spend limits, so that
there is a maximum cost to consumers.
15 November 2006
1 Financial Overcommitment, research study conducted
for Citizens Advice by MORI, July 2003. Back
2
ICSTIS Press Release available at: http://www/icstis.org.uk/pdfs
code/11th PressRelease.pdf Back
3
http:www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/publicwebsite/public
printdesign.hcsp Back
4
LINK rules require all surcharging ATMs to confirm the customer's
acceptance of the specific charge and offer the customer the option
to cancel the transaction without incurring a penalty. Back
5
Details of the review are given at: http://www.icstis.org.uk/pdfs
news/review QuizTV pds Back
6
The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) was adopted on
11 May 2005. It must come into force on 12 December 2007. Article
7, Paragraph 4 of the UCPD relates to misleading omissions. The
text of the Directive is available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LEXUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/I
149/I 14920050611en00220039.pdf Back
|
