(PENDING)Phonesafe, Beware!!!!!
Discussion
KFC said:
Because it makes it seem more dishonest/sleazy if the person being deceptive about pricing, is someone who's personally gaining from it. If Pistonheads weren't actually making anything from it then perhaps it was a mistake.
I generally enter the classifieds assuming PH is making a profit. The cost to the users should be clearer, but I don't think PH is under any obligation to state they make money from the service.Vaud said:
KFC said:
Because it makes it seem more dishonest/sleazy if the person being deceptive about pricing, is someone who's personally gaining from it. If Pistonheads weren't actually making anything from it then perhaps it was a mistake.
I generally enter the classifieds assuming PH is making a profit. The cost to the users should be clearer, but I don't think PH is under any obligation to state they make money from the service.However to deliberately mislead people - and lets not make any bones about it that is the intent (a mistake would have been corrected after this first reared its head) - is not a very nice way to do things and monies made from those practices are, in my view, open to questioning.
If you went into a shop and they had a sign saying debit & credit cards accepted in massive letters then a tiny little star which referenced another sign that stated all credit cards carried a £100 levy people would be rightly angry as there is no reason the main sign did not make that apparent other than to hope people don't notice.
I'm always careful on these things and never call anything that doesn't "feel" right to me without checking it out further but should you really need to be so cautious on a large trusted site like this?
Credit where credit is due, refunding the earlier gent was a good start & hopefully they will sort this in a couple of days and we can regain the trust.
This subject rang a bell as part of an old project (utterly nothing todo with pistonheads but a UK service etc) I was given some figures - which were correct as of 2005 (!)
For that 2005 data it was 4 calls per ad, 1.5mins per call, 15p rev share on a 38p per min call. Then it was a case of multiple up per number of ads placed, with this data showing 98% of ads placed took a 'secure' number ie. forwarded on via premium rate call.
The figs in question added up to chunky 5 - 6 figs as those with a calculator can work out
As a general observation it works really well to cut out crap callers (spammers, corps and the like) , protects the seller...and makes rev for the site!
IMHO it could be presented better on here but I prefer to have that than full site wraps, invasive 'pre roll' ads, advertorial forum posts and such s
te.
Nothing wrong with websites making money!
For that 2005 data it was 4 calls per ad, 1.5mins per call, 15p rev share on a 38p per min call. Then it was a case of multiple up per number of ads placed, with this data showing 98% of ads placed took a 'secure' number ie. forwarded on via premium rate call.
The figs in question added up to chunky 5 - 6 figs as those with a calculator can work out
As a general observation it works really well to cut out crap callers (spammers, corps and the like) , protects the seller...and makes rev for the site!
IMHO it could be presented better on here but I prefer to have that than full site wraps, invasive 'pre roll' ads, advertorial forum posts and such s
te.Nothing wrong with websites making money!
iwantagta said:
If you went into a shop and they had a sign saying debit & credit cards accepted in massive letters then a tiny little star which referenced another sign that stated all credit cards carried a £100 levy people would be rightly angry as there is no reason the main sign did not make that apparent other than to hope people don't notice.
If you went in a shop and they accepted cards as per normal, but also their own 'PaySafe' card (that you'd never heard of), only a small percentage would take the plunge without a little investigation. Vaud said:
KFC said:
Because it makes it seem more dishonest/sleazy if the person being deceptive about pricing, is someone who's personally gaining from it. If Pistonheads weren't actually making anything from it then perhaps it was a mistake.
I generally enter the classifieds assuming PH is making a profit. The cost to the users should be clearer, but I don't think PH is under any obligation to state they make money from the service.I don't buy/sell cars in the UK so don't use the PH classifieds... but my assumption would just have been those were mobile numbers and the profit came from the sellers paying listing fees.
TRB said:
iwantagta said:
If you went into a shop and they had a sign saying debit & credit cards accepted in massive letters then a tiny little star which referenced another sign that stated all credit cards carried a £100 levy people would be rightly angry as there is no reason the main sign did not make that apparent other than to hope people don't notice.
If you went in a shop and they accepted cards as per normal, but also their own 'PaySafe' card (that you'd never heard of), only a small percentage would take the plunge without a little investigation. Either way do you think that the people calling the phonesafe numbers understand that they will be paying for this in the vast majority of cases? Should profit be made from a service where the "buyer" does not understand the costs?
iwantagta said:
TRB said:
iwantagta said:
If you went into a shop and they had a sign saying debit & credit cards accepted in massive letters then a tiny little star which referenced another sign that stated all credit cards carried a £100 levy people would be rightly angry as there is no reason the main sign did not make that apparent other than to hope people don't notice.
If you went in a shop and they accepted cards as per normal, but also their own 'PaySafe' card (that you'd never heard of), only a small percentage would take the plunge without a little investigation. Either way do you think that the people calling the phonesafe numbers understand that they will be paying for this in the vast majority of cases? Should profit be made from a service where the "buyer" does not understand the costs?
It would be better if Phonesafe numbers were 09 then you'd know it was going to cost you outside of your bundle. The whole 07 thing is a mess.
rpguk said:
Exactly, tuppence! They probably haven't even bothered cashing the cheque yet.
85,000 cars advertised. What shall we assume, 5% with phonesafe? At an average of one call every two Days? We know it's a 2 minute average call at around 55p per minute, so that gives. ..... 2000 calls a day sharing the cost of £1.10?Of course my assumptions may be way Out? The call above shows an income of about £2000 per day, so if out by a factor of 30 that's still £2k a Month?
Big deal for me is that I will never use the service when selling as I don't want to put buyers off contacting me. It's hard enough to get regular enquiries !
It doesn't matter your opinion of premium rate phone services. If it is such a service, it looks to have been operating outside of the legal requirements for what could be a considerable amount of time.
I can imagine why the costs would be hidden, as it's asking prospective buyers to fund the protection of the seller's phone number. If those buyers were made properly aware of this, I doubt they'd be too happy about paying for it.
I can imagine why the costs would be hidden, as it's asking prospective buyers to fund the protection of the seller's phone number. If those buyers were made properly aware of this, I doubt they'd be too happy about paying for it.
10 Pence Short said:
It doesn't matter your opinion of premium rate phone services. If it is such a service, it looks to have been operating outside of the legal requirements for what could be a considerable amount of time.
I can imagine why the costs would be hidden, as it's asking prospective buyers to fund the protection of the seller's phone number. If those buyers were made properly aware of this, I doubt they'd be too happy about paying for it.
How have they been operating outside of the legal requirements? I can't find anything in Ofcom's statement on acceptable use of personal numbers which says the cost has to be displayed. In 2007 Ofcom even removed the mandatory announcement from personal numbers which informed the caller of the cost.I can imagine why the costs would be hidden, as it's asking prospective buyers to fund the protection of the seller's phone number. If those buyers were made properly aware of this, I doubt they'd be too happy about paying for it.
Phonesafe numbers aren't personal numbers. They're commercial ones offering a premium rate service.
I'm not even sure whether any contract with a consumer is valid, as no costs are displayed and there is no service over and above the phone call provided to the person paying for it (the potential buyer), as the beneficiary is the seller.
I'm not even sure whether any contract with a consumer is valid, as no costs are displayed and there is no service over and above the phone call provided to the person paying for it (the potential buyer), as the beneficiary is the seller.
Worth reading:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/numberin...
This use of 070 numbers is almost exactly what Ofcom intends these numbers to be used for and as such it does not define them as 'Premium Rate'.
Both the Phonesafe company and Haymarket are entitled to make revenue from the calls to these numbers so long as revenue share is not passed onto the call recipient (which was a change to the regulations for 070 numbers in 2009). Since they're not 'Premium Rate' there's no requirement to show pricing information; further since the calls are routed to individuals trying to sell their cars these would not be considered 'Premium Rate Style Services' by PayPhonePlus, so there's really no point complaining there.
None of this is ideal, as there are clearly lots of people who feel they've been misled by these numbers. The only solution, other than to petition Haymarket to do something voluntarily, is to complain to Ofcom & ask them to change the regulations. Unfortunately they've already been through a 070 consultation for these reasons some years ago, and other than the banning of revenue sharing to end users little changed; there was a plan to migrate these 'Personal Numbering Services' to 060 where they'd not be confused with mobile numbers, but this was abandoned.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/numberin...
This use of 070 numbers is almost exactly what Ofcom intends these numbers to be used for and as such it does not define them as 'Premium Rate'.
Both the Phonesafe company and Haymarket are entitled to make revenue from the calls to these numbers so long as revenue share is not passed onto the call recipient (which was a change to the regulations for 070 numbers in 2009). Since they're not 'Premium Rate' there's no requirement to show pricing information; further since the calls are routed to individuals trying to sell their cars these would not be considered 'Premium Rate Style Services' by PayPhonePlus, so there's really no point complaining there.
None of this is ideal, as there are clearly lots of people who feel they've been misled by these numbers. The only solution, other than to petition Haymarket to do something voluntarily, is to complain to Ofcom & ask them to change the regulations. Unfortunately they've already been through a 070 consultation for these reasons some years ago, and other than the banning of revenue sharing to end users little changed; there was a plan to migrate these 'Personal Numbering Services' to 060 where they'd not be confused with mobile numbers, but this was abandoned.
10 Pence Short said:
Phonesafe numbers aren't personal numbers. They're commercial ones offering a premium rate service.
It's Ofcom's definition that matters here, since they're the regulator (albeit one who has delegated the regulation of PRS to PayPhonePlus). According to Ofcom these numbers are NOT Premium Rate, but Personal Numbers. The service could pretty much be the poster child of how Ofcom intends 070 numbers to be used, and is very similar to the many examples that they do give (for better of worse).http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/numberin...
10 Pence Short said:
I'm not even sure whether any contract with a consumer is valid, as no costs are displayed and there is no service over and above the phone call provided to the person paying for it (the potential buyer), as the beneficiary is the seller.
These are not premium rate numbers so there is no obligation to display pricing. You statement that 'the beneficiary is the seller', however this is statement is misleading. The seller is not a beneficiary of the price of the phonecall (such revenue share was banned by Ofcom in 2009) - whether the benefit from the sale of their car is completely irrelevant - indeed Ofcom's examples of expected uses of 070 numbers are generally for tradespeople who will obviously benefit by doing more business as a result of receiving the call (but just won't benefit from the price of the call).If the service herr matches the statutory definition of a premium rate service, which ut does, then the question is whether the legislation is being circumvented by OFCOM. That is not PH's problem, other than it is a less than decent way to do business.
If they advertised the service to potential car purchasers as something they pay for for the benefit of the seller, I doubt they'd get much take up. This perhaps explains why this fact and the charges are hidden.
If people felt an enquiry about a vehicle for sale would add £10 to their phone bill, I doubt many would bother. I wouldn't.
If they advertised the service to potential car purchasers as something they pay for for the benefit of the seller, I doubt they'd get much take up. This perhaps explains why this fact and the charges are hidden.
If people felt an enquiry about a vehicle for sale would add £10 to their phone bill, I doubt many would bother. I wouldn't.
This thread is a corker.
In any other field it'd be "caveat emptor" or "you clicked on a random link and gave your bank details, you plank" or "it's clearly a Nigerian scam" - how come dialing a number without checking it is going to cost you is creating such a stink?
Ooh, look a payday loan, that sounds like a good idea!
In any other field it'd be "caveat emptor" or "you clicked on a random link and gave your bank details, you plank" or "it's clearly a Nigerian scam" - how come dialing a number without checking it is going to cost you is creating such a stink?
Ooh, look a payday loan, that sounds like a good idea!
Podie said:
This thread is a corker.
In any other field it'd be "caveat emptor" or "you clicked on a random link and gave your bank details, you plank" or "it's clearly a Nigerian scam" - how come dialing a number without checking it is going to cost you is creating such a stink?
Ooh, look a payday loan, that sounds like a good idea!
Except this is PH, a website that we all feel we are part of as a community, so we trust it. In any other field it'd be "caveat emptor" or "you clicked on a random link and gave your bank details, you plank" or "it's clearly a Nigerian scam" - how come dialing a number without checking it is going to cost you is creating such a stink?
Ooh, look a payday loan, that sounds like a good idea!
Gassing Station | Website Feedback | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff