I called my Husbands mobile and it cost me £45!

[#1]

As I said before a complaint to the ASA is also justified as what they are advertising is not what they provide.

[#2]

Based on the very gogent info provided by @MisterW on charge bands and the additional information from the OP @Ann-on-a-Moose giving an update from SKY, it does seem that there is potentially an error in the Plusnet billing engine.  Easily made and easy to correct, just needs a check and then confirmation either way.

[#3]

The calls show as chargeable and WiFi calls before they hit our billing engine, that is the data on the raw call records.

[#4]

@Chris, of course they SHOW as wifi calls they're classed fw10. As we've explained though, they can't possibly be wifi calls because SKY don't support wifi calling! Have you asked your supplier (BTw) HOW they determine it's a wifi call ? because I don't believe they have any way of being informed by the mobile network, They are purely basing it on the call prefix.

As to showing as chargeable, surely that's down to PlusNet deciding whether a particular call is included in a call plan or not ? BTw don't manage the call plan do they ? Say for instance PlusNet to PlusNet calls, surely BTw will think they are chargeable ? , but PN detect they are another PlusNet subscriber and don't charge .

[#5]

---

@Chris wrote:

The calls show as chargeable and WiFi calls before they hit our billing engine, that is the data on the raw call records.

---

That is not satisfactory. You advertise that the packages include calls to mobiles and the website does not specify any exclusions. That is a lie. Seems like a complaint to the ASA is the only way this is going to be moved forward.

[#6]

@MisterW

I think we are on a hiding to nothing here as CS will play the company line. Assuming the OP does not follow through on our advice.

So I think this topic would make a perfect test of the super user program (should it get off the ground). They are supposed to have access to senior staff , bypassing CS staff, so this is an ideal first test of the new open Plusnet.

so dear hidden super users please take this up once you are publicly known.

[#7]

Hi Everyone,

Sorry it's taken me so long to wade in here, I've been out of the office for a few days, but I have been having conversations with the wider business about this case and this issue.

Firstly I'd like to apologise to the OP for the unexpected call charges, the problems they've had to deal with getting a resolution and the inconvenience that this has caused.

SpendLessTime Wrote:

Getting the money back was only right and fair but Plusnet have to sort themselves out. But without pressure from people like you that will not happen .

I can understand why you feel this way but from the moment this case was brought to our attention @Chris has taken the decision to immediately refund the charges to the customer whilst we investigate. He's raised it with our billing teams and our suppliers to find out why we are and if we should be charging for these calls. We just didn't want to post that information here until we had an answer.

Here's what I can tell you so far, It looks like some Sky Mobile numbers are appearing to us in the fw1-fw12 group for charging purposes in the data we receive from our suppliers. That range is defined as the WiFi calling range so they're not considered as inclusive calls for those who have UK Mobiles included in their call packages. 

The customer has no way of knowing prior to making the call that this number is going to be chargeable and so its impossible for the customer to make an informed decision. We're currently investigating what's happened here at a senior level and once we have a solid answer and the reasoning behind it I'll share it here.

Jelv Wrote:

That is not satisfactory. You advertise that the packages include calls to mobiles and the website does not specify any exclusions. That is a lie. Seems like a complaint to the ASA is the only way this is going to be moved forward.

It's absolutely your right to raise a complaint to the ASA if that's your wish but as I've said we've started a review of this issue on our own after we were made aware by the OP.

MisterW Wrote:

I think this topic would make a perfect test of the super user program (should it get off the ground). They are supposed to have access to senior staff, bypassing CS staff, so this is an ideal first test of the new open Plusnet.

Superusers will absolutely be able to help in issues like this, however on this occasion this issue is already escalated past CS staff and to senior people.

I know that this post isn't the answer you all want but at the moment I am unable to give you any further information until we've had a chance to review this fully. To manage expectations I do not expect it to be resolved over night and I'm not avoiding your questions just seeking to provide you with the correct answer and the rationale behind it.

Thanks

[#8]

@JonoH

Thank you for this measured response and we will all await the final outcome with interest.

While I appreciate you will not be solving it overnight, I hope that it is managed quickly as this forum could be in for a lot more posts as people read their bills and find their Sky Mobile calls have been charged for when they weren't expecting it.

Again thank you for your involvement.

[#9]

Hi @SpendLessTime

No need to thank me, I just want to be open and honest with our customers especially about potential charges that they may incur.

It's with the right people and conversations are being had, that being said this is the first time I've come across and issue like this and I imagine it's more complicated than it sounds so I honestly have no eta on this. I will however keep nudging this if the conversations seem to slow down.

[#10]

@JonoH

It's a shame that a post like yours was not made much earlier in the topic!

[#11]

@JonoH,

I think that is very much the response we've all hoped for. Understandably you will not have instant answers to what appears to be a muddle somewhere outside of PN impacting all CPs.

I think that some hint earlier of "Yes this needs review and I've requested one" might have been more reassuring than the "BTOR raw data says it's chargeable, so we bill it" sentiment.

If you keep up the good work like this, there'll be nothing for the SUs to do around here.

As others have said THANK YOU - if only for being refreshingly different.

[#12]

@JonoH I'm glad to see this is being looked into seriously. I'll await your further response

[#13]

Just a quick update to advise where we're at.

We are still awaiting a response from our suppliers who have advised us that we should have a response by the end of this week.

Once we have that information it will take us a little time to digest it and respond.

[#14]

We've still not heard from our suppliers, and now don't expect to until sometime next week. We haven't forgot about the issue and it still is absolutely a priority to get this issue resolved and the rationale communicated and clarified as soon as possible.

[#15]

@JonoH

Is there any further news on this?

Also, I assume this affects many customers, not just the OP - what action has/will Plusnet take to ensure no customers are disadvantaged financially by this situation, or to clarify which calls are inclusive and which will result in a charge?