Third meeting held 08/04/02 at Oftel

Present: Frank Phillips (Convenor), Rob Borthwick, Vivienne Pozo, Tony Shipley, Steve Tyler, Nick Young, Betty Willett (Palantypist)

Apologies: Caroline Jacobs

The agreed actions arising from the second meeting were:

• CJ to rearrange the list of requirements to reflect market segments.

• All to comment on the draft CoP table of contents and identifying omissions

• RB/NY to draft some sections of the CoP, depending on input received

• RB/NY to confirm that the industry was willing to accept ownership of the CoP

• FP to address concerns over enforcement issues by inviting Chris Rowsell (Oftel) to sit in at the next meeting for a Q&A session on how CoPs fit into the new regulatory framework.

Amendments to draft CoP’s Table of Contents

An amended list of contents of the CoP had been circulated to WG members. It was introduced it as a continuation of the previous draft but with small pieces of actual content inserted, prompted by feedback from the WG.

RB identified the main changes. Firstly, identifying the business case for the CoP, establishing the size, variety and complexity of the customer segments that could be said to constitute elderly and disabled customers and recognising that not only are these segments growing but that existing mobile customers are also involved in the ageing process.

It was also explained that the CoP is not attempting to replicate wider source material or key publications, but rather something that is designed to be used by mobile market participants concerned to meet DDA requirements and also to identify best practice in serving elderly and disabled customers. It will summarise the salient points but will not be a full or stand-alone guide.

Another change is separate headings on the need for a variety of equipment for elderly and disabled customers to be able to choose from and making this kind of equipment and associated accessories available at all touch points. It is a concern for the mobile industry generally, and not only with regard to elderly and disabled customers, to ensure that the mobile service is set up so that it is possible to derive benefit from it.

The other substantial change is the identification of three key segments where effort needs to be placed: hard of hearing or deaf customers, customers who have poor sight or are blind and customers who have poor grip or poor manual dexterity.

Following guidance from the last meeting there is a top level section on good practice in marketing in communicating and publicising quality services and how they should be applied to elderly and disabled customers.

Finally, there will be an additional section about commitment and monitoring the performance of companies in relation to this CoP some things industry would like to see included.

It was noted that the DDA CoP on Rights of Access to Services and Premises recommends that all those involved in providing services, from the most senior director or manager to the most junior employee, whether full time or part-time, permanent or temporary, should have some disability awareness training and that at there was at least one mobile provider where disability awareness training was going to be provided across the board.

It was also noted that the CoP’s contents did not make reference to SMS-access to the emergency services. FP explained that enhanced access to the emergency services was being focussed on at European level in the context of the new directives and the Commission’s E112 programme. However the key area for development lay at the terminating end of emergency calls which was outside the control of operators and hence beyond the scope of the CoP.

A further point made about the nature of the CoP was that the rapidly changing nature of the technological and legal environment required it to be pitched at a fairly general level otherwise there would have to be endless chopping and changing with every new development. The RNIB had developed some broad measures to identify key developments – was a new service culturally significant (ie had it reached, say, 80% take-up) and did it impact positively or negatively on existing forms of access. It was agreed that such measures could usefully be included in the CoP or influence its drafting.

Codes of Practice and the new regulatory framework

FP introduced Chris Rowsell who leads Oftel’s work on Codes of Practice which are expected to occupy a pivotal role in the new regulatory framework.

CR explained that this work was a direct response to the Government White Paper on Communications – the section on CoPs was lifted from the Consumer White Paper of three to four years ago. The White Paper on Communications in chapter 7 on protecting consumers rights called for CoPs to be established by the industry prior to legislation being brought about.

Oftel had encouraged the industry to start thinking about this and held a workshop in October last year, one output of which was for Oftel to carry out some research. That research is now essentially complete and will lead to the drafting of some Guidelines and a Workshop, most probably to be held in May.

One of the broad principles that should be applied to CoPs (with the exception of a few areas) is that there should be a code of codes. This would be a framework for a code with general principles, general headings and guidelines. A company’s CoP must contain X Y and Z and the framework will also cover things such as dissemination, publicity, enforcement etc. It is likely that if the industry does not come up with CoPs or some framework for this in advance of legislation then the legislation will give OFCOM the power to establish and enforce CoPs.

A self-regulatory approach is preferred because if the industry comes up with good solid codes of practice, codifying what they pretty much do at the moment in a lot of areas, making sure the consumers are exactly clear what their rights are and what they are entitled to, that will not constitute an excessive burden on industry. But it has to be understood that self-regulation means just that. If the industry fails to respond, OFCOM will produce its own Codes once the legislation is in place.

CR was asked about the future of the advisory committees under the new framework. The existing committees will go, to be replaced by a Consumer Panel. This may be part of OFCOM, or independent. It will have to cater for a similar range of areas as the advisory committees already do, and may have a number of sub-committees, some of which may be statutory.

FP sought clarification that the code of codes represented a generic code of practice dealing with those issues that apply horizontally to all codes – such as enforcement, monitoring and dissemination – but will be supported by subordinate codes dealing with matters such as disconnections.

CR confirmed that the code of codes would have the provisions for the practical issues such as how consumers can contact OFCOM, how it is enforced, how it is publicised. His current idea was that there will be a skeleton of a code saying that if each company has a code, it must have a code for marketing and sales which must have provisions in it for X Y and Z; it must have a code or a section of its CoP that deals with disconnections but must cover issues such as informing the consumer and letting the consumer know what happens if they don't pay their bill, and sections on repairs, complaints, dispute resolution, etc. It will be a tool for informing consumers and making sure consumers are aware of their rights.

It was asked whether OFCOM would recognise codes and have machinery for enforcing compliance. The expectation is that for Codes to be effective there needs to be a realistic means of enforcement which the Communications Bill will provide. Additionally there needs to be some review process so that Codes do not become anachronistic. It was also noted that there were several areas where a Code would sit next to existing legislation – most obviously the DDA in the case of a Code for disabled and elderly customers but equally a Code on tele-marketing will need to take account of the Sale of Goods and Services Act.

FP pointed out that one advantage of a Code to service providers was that although it might not provide an absolute level of legal certainty, endorsement by the DRC offers an indication that compliant providers are meeting their DDA obligations.

General discussion

There was some debate about networks providing terminal equipment through their own retail outlets and whether they acquired some legal responsibility for the accessibility of those products. The area of responsibility becomes even less clear where products are made available through general retail outlets such as supermarkets. Here it is not entirely obvious with whom the customer has a contractual relationship, which might turn on whether what is being provided is an object or a service. (As an aside the interesting point was made that the DDA imposes accessibility provisions on shops but not on the merchandise they sell).

However it was recognised that whatever the legal niceties, a common sense and customer-friendly approach would involve providing products that were usable by different customer segments, ie by providing auxiliary aids such as an induction loop where necessary. The Code of Practice would have a best practice element, even where an activity is not mandated by the DDA.

Next meeting

The fourth meeting of the Working Group will be held in Conference Room 113a at Oftel, from 10.30 on Tuesday, 28 May.