Guess what? They’re at it again. And this time, they really are scrapping it.

In May we kicked up a fuss about Vodafone and their treatment of customers concerning out-of-bundle data (data not explicitly covered in the customer’s contract) and their attempted scrapping of the Fair Usage Policy (FUP). the clauses allowed customers flexibility to exceed their contracted data allowance but meant Vodafone could charge customers as and when they deemed it necessary – examples given by Vodafone included customers who used their mobiles for P2P file sharing.

But mandatory charges for exceeding a data allowance would have meant Vodafone making a significant change to their own terms and allowing customers to cancel their contract, so when Bitterwallet and customers called shenanigans on the whole affair, Vodafone repeatedly changed their story until everyone went away.

Vodafone eventually defined their Fair Use Policy as three-strikes-and-you’re-out; use more than 500 MB of data for more than two consecutive months, and you had the choice of either upgrading your contract or paying up to £5 per additional 500 MB. Their handling of customers and communications was, in a word, dreadful.

In the past couple of weeks, it’s all kicked off again. Vodafone are now intending to charge a fixed fee if a customer uses more than their data allowance. The full details are in Vodafone’s announcement here:

On 1st October we are introducing out of bundle data charges. These charges will only affect the small proportion of customers who exceed their data allowance. These customers will be subject to the following charges:

• Customers without a data bundle will be charged 50p for every block of 25MB
• Customers with a data bundle (Value pack, flexi pack or as part of their tariff) will be charged £5 for every additional 500MB

There’s now no mention of the three-strikes rule, meaning that any and all usage beyond a customer’s data allowance will be charged for. If the charge is mandatory, then it’s no longer a Fair Use Policy, and that represents a significant change in the terms of contract – instigated by Vodafone.

However, what they’re arguing – and only Vodafone have the detail to support this argument – is that only 3% of customers ever use more than their bundled data. Their terms mean they only have to contact customers who may be affected by the changes (a point backed up by clause 9.3 of Ofcom’s General Conditions); in other words, a major change to the majority of customer contracts is about to be made by the back door, because they don’t currently make full use of their data allowance.

What about those who do? Vodafone are at least admitting this is a change in their terms, even if they never once use that phrase. They’re not going to make it easy, though – you have to do all the work yourself. We’ll run you through the stages you need to follow (and add our own notes in italics):

1) Vodafone state that in order to qualify for cancellation, you need to receive one of three text messages before 15th September (details here).

This isn’t true. Vodafone are attempting to manage their customers so everyone doesn’t expect to cancel. However, Ofcom’s General Conditions make no reference to requiring permission from a service provider to cancel. That’s why it’s called your right to cancel. Therefore, if you haven’t received a text but think you’re still eligible, check your usage for yourself.

2) You need to prove you’re likely to exceed your data allowance and incur additional costs after 1 October. These costs must be likely to increase your future bills by 10% or more. What proof do you have to provide?

- That you’ve received the notification advising you’ll be charged from October if you go over the bundled allowance
- How much data you used last month and how much over your allowance that would be
- How much you’d be charged and whether that would be a 10% increase on the overall total of your most recent bill

Vodafone have essentially withdrawn all customer service in dealing with this matter. Presumably they’re hoping you won’t go to the lengths needed to fight your corner.

First, as discussed, you don’t need to have received any text to cancel your contract. Secondly, nothing in Ofcom’s General Conditions states the comparison must be made solely against the previous month. Ofcom states only that the change must be of ‘material detriment’ and we know from talking to Ofcom in the past, they consider it acceptable to review three months of usage, not one. You may have been on holiday last month and so used no data – hardly a fair basis for comparison. So don’t just consider your previous bill; review the previous three.

When you work out whether your bill would increase by 10% because of the new charges, don’t include VAT (that’s not Vodafone’s revenue). If your monthly bills are usually lower than £50 per month and you usually exceed your data allowance, you have a case.

3) You need to include your proof along with written notification of cancellation and post it to Vodafone at the address given.

Welcome to 2010, Vodafone.

If you’d like us to, we’re happy to work on a letter template you can use; any previous letters er provided are now out-of-date. Let us know in the comments if that’d be useful.

You there. Are you living in Britain? Well then, you’re probably being dicked on your broadband speed. That’s what Ofcom are saying.

They’ve analysed the broadband speeds of Britain and as many as 97% of consumers don’t get the advertised speed. So will we get faster broadband as a result of this? Don’t hold your breath. Ofcom will initially ask the ISPs to start changing the way they sell their broadband services.

The BBC reports that Ed Richards, chief executive of Ofcom, said the survey revealed a “growing gap” between what people were sold and the reality of their broadband service.

“The gap between the average headline speed and actual speed has increased in this period even though the actual speed has risen,” he said.

One of the problems, clearly, is that ISPs advertise products with the get-out-of-jail-free card of “speeds up to…”.

Ed Richards from Ofcom again:  “We do want to see clearer advertising and we make no secret about that,” he said. “We want advertising that is more meaningful to the consumer.”

Better news is that, over at PCPro, they’re reporting on new rules that will allow broadband customers to break contract if they don’t get the speeds promised by their ISP. Ofcom have developed a code to work out if you’re getting what you paid for and, if you’re in the lowest 10% of expected speeds, you can demand to leave your ISP. However, the code to help you work out your speed is already being chastised for being stupidly complicated.

An angry consumer, yesterday

Plenty of mobile phone customers have grievances against their mobile provider – we should know, we’ve stirred up a few over the past year or so.

Now, Ofcom have insisted that communications (phone and broadband) customers are to be better informed about what their options are when they get the hump over charges, network coverage, service levels and all the other stuff that regularly pisses off phone users.

From next year, dispute resolution information will have to be included on all paper bills. Additionally, any customer who has not had their complaint resolved within eight weeks will be written to by their mobile provider and informed of their right to use a dispute resolution service.

Statistics show that last year, 77% of consumers who failed to resolve complaints with their phone and broadband provider after 12 weeks weren’t aware of a dispute resolution service.

Ofcom also say that when customers whose complaints weren’t resolved after 12 weeks turned to dispute resolution, 91% of complaints were resolved, compared to 51% when resolution wasn’t used.

One day, Ofcom will surely station an officer outside every home in the land, for us to moan and groan at when something goes wrong. That day cannot be far away now…

It’s been a major part of American TV for decades now, but it looks as though product placement is coming to the UK, with telly watchdog Ofcom publishing a series of proposals for its introduction over here.

Which, in a nutshell, means that we could soon see Simon Cowell on The X Factor and Britain’s Got Talent draped in more logos than your average Formula One driver. Perhaps.

Ofcom say that the guidelines are “designed to enable commercial broadcasters to access revenue streams where possible whilst protecting audiences”. But the whole thing will be carefully regulated, with the use of a symbol at the beginning and end of every programme that features product placement. Sort of like Channel Four’s old red triangle but with a different kind of money shot in the middle.

Among stuff that will be banned from being plugged under the proposed guidelines are tobacco, alcohol, gambling, medicine, baby milk and food or drink that is high in fat, salt or sugar.

Additionally, news, current affairs, consumer affairs and religious programming will not include any product placement. Oh, and children’s programmes. After all, they wouldn’t want to blur the message that a wide range of Bob The Builder merchandising is available by having him use a Black & Decker drill now would they…?

The Ofcom proposals for product placement can be found here.

"My mobile is pissing coins! SHUT UP!"

This week, the cost of calling a mobile phone will be slashed. However, it won’t be without penalty. While the big mobile companies bring costs down for many, there will most likely be a shake-up that will lead to the reintroduction of expiry dates on prepay top-ups.

O2 has apparently warned Ofcom that its proposals are “irresponsible” and could force millions of people on low incomes to abandon their phones with Orange adding that they think the plans are “a backward step”. Vodafone meanwhile has claimed that these proposals could see the end of mobile handset subsidies which effectively means that customers will need to pay for new handsets when they sign up or renew a contract.

The Guardian says that Ofcom hopes to save consumers £800m a year from 2015 by reducing mobile termination rates – the price networks charge each other and fixed-line companies such as BT to connect calls – from 4.3p a minute today to just 0.5p by 2015.

BT and 3 teamed up to fight the charges, arguing that mobile termination rates are an unjustifiable subsidy for the mobile phone industry. However, other mobile phone companies are saying that they use these charges to subsidise a service to lower-income customers.

With over half of UK’s mobile phone users having a pay-as-you-go phone, many with the sole intention of only having in case they need to get hold of someone in an emergency, the mobile companies say that these charges make them a viable source of income. Under Ofcom’s plans, they argue that it would be pointless providing infrequent callers with a phone.

When pre-pay services first appeared in the UK, most prepay vouchers had an expiry date. After complaints from consumers, these limits were scrapped. However, with this loss of revenue, many companies are looking to reintroduce these time-limits.

This will leave people who stuck a tenner on in case of an emergency required to top-up £10 per month or risk disconnection.

The Internet, yesterday

Ofcom have revealed their draft code of practice for dealing for illegal downloaders under the Digital Economy Act – and it’s a bit wacky to say the least.

Under the code, ISPs will collect the details of naughty downloaders, issuing them with warning letters every time they are caught doing a naughty download. Any user who receives three letters within a 12-month period will have their personal details handed over to the owners of the copyrighted material so that they can be sued.

But Ofcom’s code will initially only apply to ISPs with over 400,00 customers, namely BT, TalkTalk, Virgin Media, Sky, Orange, O2 and the Post Office – the big seven who have 96% of the UK’s internet customers.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if you want to secure yourself against a lawsuit, you’ll switch to one of the countless other smaller ISPs that aren’t on the list. Ofcom say they’ll review the situation on a quarterly basis and could extend their code to cover smaller ISPs if they feel they need to.

But the proposed code has been greeted with a wave of dissent. Jim Killock of the Open Rights Group said: “Letters being sent out could cause a lot of worry and fear. People may feel they are under surveillance,” adding, “This is another extremely rushed process, forced by the Digital Economy Act’s absurd timetables. There are huge unanswered questions, not least whether innocent people will have to pay to appeal.”

A group made up of the Communications Consumer Panel, Consumer Focus, Which?, Citizens Advice and the Open Rights Group has been formed to produce a set of principles that they believe will ensure that consumers are protected under the new code.

Their principles include that there should be sound evidence of wrongdoing before any action is taken against a consumer; that comprehensive and consistent information needs to be provided to all suspected repeat infringers and this should be written in plain English; that consumers must have the right to defend themselves; and that there is an independent and transparent appeals process is essential, at no cost to the customer.

[Guardian]

We’re going to go on record and say that Vodafone’s current treatment of customers is inconsistent, unfair, insulting and offensive. They’ve also breached Ofcom’s General Conditions, which is about the worst thing it’s possible for a mobile service provider to do. Vodafone staff keep contradicting one another and their own policies, they’re breaking more rules than we can count and they’ve now taking to trying to confuse the facts concerning data usage.

If you’re a Vodafone customer, then you need to read this; if you’re not, forward it to everyone who is.

This post will:

• quickly recap the issues

• update you on what’s happened since our post on Saturday

• highlight the levels of douchebaggery going on

• tell you what you can do about it, including a template for cancelling your contract

A quick recap

Last week Vodafone let slip they were ending the 500MB soft cap on data usage for customers; in the past, customers have been free to occasionally stray over the limit without paying additional charges, a point that have been clarifed in writing by Vodafone’s own staff on several occasions.

From 1 June, however, Vodafone will introduce “Out of Bundle” charges; customers will be charged for any and all data usage above 500MB – £5 for an additional 500MB or more, depending on the contract – thereby ending any notion of a Fair Use Policy.

This has significant consequences for all customers, especially over time as customers buy more apps and their average data usage rises.

What’s new?

Yesterday, Vodafone posted a new press release concerning the changes; we don’t think we’ve read a statement so full of horseshit in quite some time:

Vodafone UK to give customers total control of their mobile data spend

In June we’ll be introducing a free text service to tell our contract customers when they’re approaching the upper limit of their data bundle.  We’ll send them a text before they reach the limit and tell them how much it will cost them to use more data.  Customers can then make a decision on whether to continue, or limit their use, giving them total control of their spend.

500MB means you can read and reply to 10,000 emails, download 24 Google maps and read 8,000 BBC News stories. Today, a tiny fraction of our customers use their full allowance.

By removing a core benefit from you, Vodafone want you to think they’re doing you a favour. Spintastic. And insulting. As one person eloquently posted on Vodafone’s eForums:

It’s like evicting someone from their house and calling it ‘putting you in control of where you sleep’.

Another key development is Vodafone’s acknowledgment that they will have to allow some customers to cancel their contract without penalty (such as paying off the rest of their contract), but not all.

Exactly how much have Vodafone screwed up so far?

A lot. Here’s an exhaustive list for you: (more…)

The Digital Economy Act and all that goes with it is causing a fair ol’ stink with a lot of people. Everyone is exasperated and sighing about just how unfair it all is. Well, there may be a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free Card.

See, regulators are considering creating loopholes in the bill which will allow small, mobile and Wi-Fi ISPs to avoid its copyright enforcement regime, so report The Reg.

This suggested system would have to take into account, the size of an ISP before laying a smackdown against illegal filesharing. Effectively, if it’s a small ISP, then they won’t be considered to be large carriers of copyright infringement and the cost of sending out letters to those breaking the law would be deemed too high for a little company to deal with.

Many people have also been bemoaning the fact that, should you run a internet cafe (do people still use those?) or a public Wi-Fi hotspot of any kind, you’ll get stung by the controversial act. However, the regulators are implying that these people will not be considered to be a major source of copyright infringement as users typically use them for short periods. Well, that might not be the case for very long…

So people using BT, TalkTalk, Virgin Media, Sky, Orange and O2 (providers of more than 95 per cent of the home broadband connections) will be getting chased, prodded and poked by the powers that be, leaving the remaining 5 per cent to do as they please. Of course, no-one actually knows who these smaller ISPs are, but once people find out about them, then there’s a good chance that many will sign up with them in an attempt to sidestep the law on their downloads.

However, don’t get ahead of yourselves just yet. An Ofcom spokeswoman denied smaller ISPs had been excluded from discussions, which she said were ongoing: “We need to consider a number of different options before setting out some formal proposals in our consultation – nothing is decided before then.”

We realise that this fantastical story is the stuff of dreams and could be regarded as an elaborate April Fool’s hoax, but it really isn’t. We speak of course about the news that… calls to mobile phones from landlines could be cheaper from 2011.

No, no, don’t scoff and walk away – it’s really real and has come straight from the mouth of the horse with ‘Ofcom’ painted on its back. The telecoms regulator has caused an April 1^st stir by announcing that it has slashed, yes SLASHED the cost that mobile phone firms can charge for connecting a call from another network or landline. THIS IS NOT A PRANK.

Following speculation earlier in the week, Ofcom have decreed that the cost will be reduced from 4.3 pence per minute to 0.5p by as early as 2015. The charges are believed to make up as much as 14p in every pound that callers to mobiles are charged and come after some EU ruling about something or other. Amazing stuff – only five years for the full reduction! Feel free to go out and have sex in the street to celebrate… now… because THIS IS NOT A PRANK!

But wait… there’s more! Ofcom have also announced that, from 2011, mobile customers will be able to switch providers in one working day instead of two! No, we’re serious – THIS IS NOT A PRANK. What’s more, phone companies will have to issue users with their PAC code within a maximum of two hours. It’s a victory, but a hollow one – Bitterwallet have long been campaigning for a maximum PAC-issue time of one hour and fifty-three minutes. Ah well.

THIS IS NOT A PRANK.

It’s mobile phone mania at Ofcom, where they’re taking an axe to current policy in the next week. Aiieee! Off with the head of calling mobiles, as Ofcom is set to propose new caps on the price that operators can charge one other as well as fixed line companies. Arrgh! Guts and viscera pour everywhere as the regulator finally looks to shorten the length of time to port numbers between service providers. Of course there’s likely to be nothing but minor flesh wounds suffered by the operators – this is Ofcom after all.

According to the Guardian, cutting the cost of the termination rates – the charges levied by providers on one another – could mean the mobile phone industry losing out on up to £1 billion in revenue. While some of the larger service providers are likely to huff and puff, such a move is currently welcomed by both BT and 3.

As for switching networks with the same number, the EU has already decreed that the process should be hassle-free and take no more than a single working day. Ofcom had been pushing for the process to take no longer than two hours, but acquiesced when the operators got all grumpy with them.

[The Guardian]

Britain’s crappy broadband infrastructure could be heading for a major shake-up, with Ofcom exploring the possible use of firing broadband at us using what are known as ‘white spaces’ – namely the unoccupied radio waves used as buffers between TV broadcast channels.

Introduction of white space use could prove to be an enormous boon for those in rural areas with little or no broadband access (and we’re always on the look-out for enormous boons). Other uses for the white spaces could include the ability for digital cameras to immediately transmit photos back to a chosen computer and the ability to control domestic appliances from miles away.

So when last orders comes around, you’d be able to heat up your pizza before you left the pub and have it ready and waiting for you when you got in. That, or your house would burn down after you forgot about said pizza in order to have one last round or go on to a nite klub.

There’s already been a frantic debate over white spaces in the United States Of Americana – Google, Microsoft and Yahoo have joined forces to champion their use but met stern opposition in the shape of entertainment legends Neil Diamond, Guns n’ Roses and Dolly ‘Tits, Teeth & Tech’ Parton, who claim that the new technology would affect the use of radio microphones in their shows.

For Ofcom, the key is to ensure that white spaces can be used safely and effectively without upsetting the likes of Neil Diamond. And that, dear readers, is one hell of an ask.

[Telecoms]

Lies and intimidation are hardly the proper way to go about business, but that hasn’t stopped T-Mobile trying to prevent customers complaining about increases in call charges. Bitterwallet has proof that consumers were deliberately misinformed by T-Mobile staff concerning their right to independent arbitration by the Ofcom-approved adjudicators, CISAS.

T-Mobile recently increased the cost of international roaming for all customers, and have maintained from the beginning that roaming is an “additional service” and as such excluded from the clauses allowing a customer to cancel their agreement without penalty. We proved that the charges are an inclusive part of a customer’s agreement, and earlier this week Ofcom confirmed to Bitterwallet that “if the increased roaming charges are genuinely of material detriment to a consumer then under General Condition 9.3, T-Mobile should inform the Consumer of the ability to terminate the contract without penalty.”

From your comments and emails we hadn’t seen any evidence of this occurring, so we suggested how you could move your complaint forward. In situations where customers cannot resolve their complaint with T-Mobile, service providers are required to inform customers of their option to independent resolution through CISAS, an Ofcom-approved arbitration process. Except that wasn’t quite what was happening.

Customer correspondence sent by T-Mobile has been passed on to Bitterwallet, confirming attempts by T-Mobile to coerce the customer into not complaining to CISAS by:

• stating that other customers had already contacted CISAS about the increases in roaming charges, and that CISAS ruled in favour of T-Mobile 100 per cent of the time

• telling customers that any decision by CISAS was final, and as such any complaint could not then be contested in court

• in further conversations with two individual members of T-Mobile’s Complaints Investigations team, a customer was told that T-Moble had consulted with CISAS about the changes before they were announced

To summarise – T-Mobile told customers they had no chance of winning by going to CISAS, that they’d lose any right to take T-Mobile to court by going to CISAS, and that CISAS had rubber-stamped the changes anyway. The first statement is intimidation; we don’t think that’s what a service provider should be saying when looking to resolve a complaint through independent arbitration. The second statement is intimidation and a lie, since the CISAS website states “if you reject the decision, the company do not need to keep to it – you will still be able to take your complaint to court”. And CISAS are very clear that their role is to provide arbitration for resolving complaints independent of either party; not only would any prior consultation or agreement between the two contradict the role of CISAS as an independent adjudicator, but it would step well outside the remit agreed with Ofcom.

As an aside, one email from T-Mobile also stated that:

“I have also spoken with our legal department in relation to your previous email. They have confirmed OFCOM have advised that the forum you got the information from has misquoted OFCOM and they are looking at bitterwallet.com in relation to this.”

It was the first we’d heard of it so we contacted Ofcom about misquoting them, as well as the other statements T-Mobile made concerning CISAS. Ofcom have now told us that they contacted T-Mobile this morning to discuss our findings, and as a result have advised management that the statements made by their staff were not true, were not to be expected in these situations, and should not be repeated in the future.

As an aside, another email from T-Mobile has defined their interpretation of “material detriment” as the increased charges being likely to cause a 10 per cent increase in a customer’s overall payment. Our opinion would be that this should be contested by customers with CISAS. By including line rental, bolt-ons and VAT in the calculation, T-Mobile are making any increase appear less detrimental, since it will be a smaller percentage of the total. However, the changes in roaming charges are universal and so unaffected by a customer’s line rental plan or other additional costs. The point of material detriment is whether the increases will cause your call charges to increase, so as we pointed out, this calculation should be based on call charges alone, not the overall bill.

The ongoing saga concerning T-Mobile has taken a surprising twist today. For six weeks we’ve highlighted T-Mobile’s refusal to deal fairly with customers, with regards to the service provider’s massive increases in the cost of international roaming. The charges form a legitimate part of a customer’s contract, but T-Mobile deliberately excluded them from the clauses allowing the right to cancel without penalty – even if they caused material detriment.

Ofcom has today told Bitterwallet that T-Mobile is wrong to do so, in that customers who are likely to suffer material detriment as a result of these increases should be offered the right to cancel without penalty.

On Friday we published correspondence between T-Mobile and Ofcom, which indicated they supported the consumer’s right to cancel without charge in this matter. We contacted Ofcom for clarification concerning this and their ongoing investigation:

Bitterwallet: When is Ofcom likely to conclude their deliberations and determine whether an investigation is required?

Ofcom: Ofcom has been monitoring complaints and has discussed the issue with T-Mobile. T-Mobile have confirmed to Ofcom that if customers feel that they are genuinely affected, to their material detriment, by the increase in certain roaming charges then they should call T-Mobile to discuss their account. Customers should ask that their inquiry be escalated to a Customer Service Manager who will discuss the available options. If customers are not content with the outcome of those discussions they can use the Dispute Resolution Scheme. T-Mobile is a member of CISAS.

On this basis we do not intend to open an investigation into T-Mobile on this issue.

Bitterwallet: What is meant by the final line of the statement (published here)? It indicates that Ofcom believes if the changes cause will impact on a customer’s bill, then T-Mobile cannot hold them to the existing terms and conditions.

Ofcom: It is our view that if the increased roaming charges are genuinely of material detriment to a consumer then under General Condition 9.3, T-Mobile should inform the Consumer of the ability to terminate the contract without penalty. If T-Mobile and the customer are in dispute over whether or not the increase in charges is of material detriment, then the customer can use the Dispute Resolution Scheme.

So Ofcom have determined T-Mobile should have offered the right to cancel without penalty, but also decided there will be no investigation into the service provider’s actions. What does that mean?

First, Ofcom is saying that if you will suffer material detriment – if your bill will increase as a result of the new charges – then T-Mobile should have given you the right to cancel. How do we define material detriment? That’s a little trickier – Ofcom told us “there is no set percentage to determine “material detriment” – it is assessed on the particular circumstance of each case.”

That’s very unhelpful, but because it’s so ambiguous we’d suggest it allows two ways to prove the new charges affect you:

• have you been abroad in the past three months? Check your bills – if 10 per cent (or more) of the total call charges are as a resulting of roaming charges, it’s reasonable to assume you will suffer material detriment in the future (we’re suggesting 10 per cent because this is an unofficial figure that has been suggested by Ofcom and other service providers to customers in the past)

• have you made plans to travel abroad in the next three months, or for a significant amount of time while under contract? If so, it’s reasonable to assume the new charges will be of material detriment to you

Follow the procedure as stated by Ofcom above, since T-Mobile have told Ofcom they will follow it. If T-Mobile refuse to resolve the issue then contact CISAS for arbitration. Include copies of your bills or travel arrangements that prove the likelihood of material detriment in the future, and a copy of this post too. Therefore, you’re providing a) proof of likely material detriment and b) a statement from Ofcom stating that T-Mobile should have offered the right to cancel without penalty in this particular instance. We’re not sure how CISAS can rule against you in this situation since Ofcom has clarified its position concerning T-Mobile, but no doubt we’ll be surprised. Let us know the outcome – we’d be interested to know what To-Mobile or CISAS define material detriment.

The second point is fundamental to this whole affair: according to Ofcom, T-Mobile should have informed customers of their right to cancel without penalty. But did they? Since material detriment is wide-open to interpretation, how did T-Mobile interpret it? In other words, were there any customers informed of the increased charges and their right to cancel?

Our posts on this story has received several dozen emails and several hundred comments over the past two months, and we don’t recall anybody who mentioned this happening. Perhaps nobody at all had travelled or worked abroad recently, but that’s very unlikely. Ofcom refused to clarify whether T-Mobile had notified customers, stating “the substance of our discussions with T-Mobile is confidential”.

So it’s over to you – have you travelled abroad in recent months, and have roaming charges account for 10 per cent of your recent bills? If so, did T-Mobile contact you? At the moment, judging by all of your comments and emails, we can only conclude that nobody was informed of their rights by T-Mobile, that T-Mobile refused customers with valid reasons for cancellation of their right to do so, and that T-Mobile broke Ofcom’s General Conditions – in which case, the regulator should reconsider opening an investigation.

It may seem like the T-Mobile debacle is but a fading memory, with the mobile operator stonewalling any customer who pointed out their behaviour over increasing international roaming charges was, in a word, wrong. Their terms of service deliberately tied customers up in knots, and despite roaming charges clearly been included in a customer’s agreement with T-Mobile, they were excluded from critical termination clauses by clever penmanship.

But here’s something of interest – an official response from Ofcom sent just a few hours ago, to a Bitterwallet reader who used the letter templates we provided last month. Yes, it’s still rumbling on – especially at the top of the food chain:

“We are aware of these changes and are looking into the matter to determine whether any further action is appropriate.

“In relation to your specific individual complaint, if you believe that the changes will cause a substantial increase in your bill (and thus a ‘material detriment’); you should raise this directly with T-Mobile.

“T-Mobile should consider this complaint and, if they agree that it will result in material detriment, should allow you to leave the contract without penalty. If T-Mobile refuses to offer this and you still believe material detriment will occur, you should follow T-Mobile’s complaints procedure in their code of practice. This is available through T-Mobile’s website at: www.t-mobile.co.uk/help-and-advice/our-brochures/corporate-information/.

“If the changes will not impact on your bill i.e. you rarely travel abroad, T-Mobile can hold you to the existing terms and conditions.”

A couple of points to take from this:

- the regulator is still investigating the matter, even though it’s well over a month since T-Mobile announced the increases in roaming charges. Why so long, Ofcom?

- the inference in the final line is that if the new charges will cause material detriment, then in Ofcom’s opinion T-Mobile can’t hold you to the existing terms and conditions.

Does this mean the regulator is on the side of those who will be screwed into the floor by the changes? A decision over the possibility of further action would no doubt clarify matters. We’ll be in touch with Ofcom shortly and let you know.

There’s almost nothing as infuriating as some idiot ringing you up when you’re having your tea and trying to sell you tat. The only thing that grinds my gears more is when it’s some automated service – especially that one with the foghorn and the sea-captain.

Like all automated things, they often don’t work, and instead of hearing a badly recorded message, you get absolutely nothing, giving the impression that a robot has rung you up and forgotten that it isn’t able to do the whole heavy-breathing thing.

Concerning the latter, companies that pester us with these silent calls could be facing eye-watering fines of up to £2m under government proposals unveiled today.

So what causes these silent calls? Well, basically, call centres use machines to ring large numbers of people in one swoop. Numbers are dialled automatically and customers are meant to be connected with a human when they pick up. However, if all the lines are busy, the line is silent.

Ofcom gets around 400 complaints a month about this and, worryingly, it seems that these people are targeting pensioners, as Ofcom found that 35% of over-65s had received silent calls in the six months to June.

As it stands, Ofcom can fine companies up to £50,000 if they persistently make silent calls, but the government is proposing the maximum be increased to £2m.

A few years back, Carphone Warehouse got slapped with a fine of  £35,000 for irritating everyone and last September, Barclaycard got the maximum fine of £50,000 for the same thing. There is a solution too. To reduce silent calls, you can register your telephone number by ringing 0844 372 2325 while the Telephone Preference Service on 0845 070 0707 allows people to opt out of receiving unsolicited sales or marketing calls. I hope they don’t sell your information on to other companies…

[The Guardian]