HC Deb 22 March 1994 vol 240 cc202-3W
Mr. Madden

To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) under what provision Oftel may(a) regulate international call charges levied by United Kingdom telephone companies and (b) make representations to overseas telephone companies about false-answer defects; and if he will make a statement;

(2) what plans he has to ensure that the level of international telephone call charges and related matters are subject to regular scrutiny;

(3) what discussions he has had with United Kingdom telephone companies about appropriate action to warn their customers making calls to certain Asian and African countries of the charges arising from false-answer defects; and if he will encourage United Kingdom telephone companies to tell customers how to claim refunds when they are charged for international calls not made;

(4) which Asian and African countries have telephone systems which result in United Kingdom telephone companies charging customers for international calls not made because of false-answer defects; and with which Ministers of which of these countries he has held or proposes to hold talks about the problem.

Mr. McLoughlin

My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has had no representations on this matter. The resolution of inaccurate billing resulting from calls that are not completed but that accrue charges because of a defect in equipment at the far end is a commercial matter for BT and Mercury. Customers should contact BT and Mercury in the first instance. Where customers are not satisfied with the redress they receive from companies they contact Oftel.

Oftel received less than a dozen complaints on this matter between October 1992 and June 1993, including calls to Nigeria and Pakistan. The problem does not affect more than a small proportion of the calls to the countries concerned. In the normal course of events United Kingdom telephone operators cannot detect the problem until alerted by customers, who are able to do so because of itemised billing. They have, however, made representations to telecommunications operators in the countries concerned.

Both companies have been quick to rectify genuine mistakes in bills resulting from these faults and have made good-will payments to customers. Oftel and my Department have not become involved in these commercial matters. In cases where customers have been refunded as a result of billing errors, BT and Mercury have nevertheless had to stand the loss resulting from having to make call delivery payments to operators at the far end.

Under condition 24 of its licence, BT is subject to restriction of prices for a range of services which includes international telephone calls. At present this restriction stands at retail prices index minus 7.5 per cent. This formula is next due for review in 1997. BT demonstrates to Oftel that it is complying with price restriction on the basis of a methodology agreed with Oftel.