Contents

Draft Direction

Explanatory document

Summary

Chapter 1 Introduction and background

Chapter 2 Summary of the responses to the investigation

Chapter 3 The Director’s initial views

Chapter 4 Consultation

Annex A Summary of International responses

Annex B Glossary

Draft Direction under Regulations 6(3) of the Telecommunications (Interconnection) Regulations 1997 reGARDING BT’s USE OF ‘CANCEL-OTHER’ ORDERS IN THE CARRIER PRE-SELECTION PROCESS

WHEREAS:

A. The Secretary of State granted to British Telecommunications on 22 June 1984 a licence (the "BT licence") under section 7 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 (the "Act") for the running of telecommunications systems specified in that Licence;

B. By virtue of section 109 of, and paragraph 20 of Schedule 5 of, the Act, the BT licence has effect as if granted to British Telecommunications plc ("BT");

C. BT, in accordance with Condition 45 of its licence, has entered into interconnection agreements with a number of other operators (the "Operators"). Those interconnection agreements include provisions concerning carrier pre-selection ("CPS") and require BT and the Operators, among other things, to provide CPS in accordance with the CPS Industry End-to-End Process Description (the "CPS Process Description").

D. On 1 January 1998, the European Parliament and Council Directive 97/33/EC (the "Interconnection Directive") came into force and was implemented into UK law through the Telecommunications (Interconnection) Regulations 1997 (the "Regulations") and conditions in the licences of operators;

E. Regulation 6(1) of the Regulations provides that the Director General of Telecommunications (the "Director") shall encourage and secure adequate interconnection in the interests of all users and shall exercise his functions in a way that provides maximum economic efficiency and gives maximum benefit to end-users having regard to the matters set out in Regulation 6(1)(a) to (g) of the Regulations;

F. Regulation 6(3) of the Regulations provides that the Director may in exceptional circumstances make a direction that changes be made to interconnection agreements already concluded where it is justified to ensure effective competition or interoperability of services for users or both;

G. On 23 January 2003, the Director opened an own-initiative investigation under Regulation 6(3) in relation to the use of Save Activity and Cancel Other orders in the CPS process. "Save Activity" refers to the situation where a CPS operator ("CPSO") attempts to persuade a customer not to migrate during the Switchover Period. "Cancel Other" is a functionality that allows BT to cancel a customer’s order for CPS during the Switchover Period. The "Switchover Period" is the minimum 10 day period between the confirmation of an order for CPS and the switch on/over date of this service. The purpose of the Director’s investigation was to consider whether it was necessary to make changes to the CPS Process Description in order to limit the use of Save Activity and Cancel Other orders.

H. In making this direction, the Director has considered, among other things, information provided by BT and CPSOs, together with the matters set out in Regulation 6(1) of the Regulations. The principal points are summarised in the explanatory memorandum which accompanies, and is published with, this direction.

NOW, THEREFORE:

PURSUANT TO REGULATION 6(3) OF THE INTERCONNECTION REGULATIONS, AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE VIEWS OF THE PARTIES AND THOSE MATTERS SET OUT IN REGULATION 6(1) OF THOSE REGULATIONS, THE DIRECTOR MAKES THE FOLLOWING DIRECTION:

1. BT shall draft the necessary amendments to the wording of the CPS Process Description to give effect to the changes to the CPS process outlined in the Schedule to this direction.

2. BT shall ensure that the amended wording of the CPS Process Description is put on the agenda of the next available meeting of the CPS Process Group after the date of this direction.

3. BT and all CPSOs who are present at such meeting of the CPS Process Group, shall revise the CPS Process Description to incorporate the amended wording.

4. BT shall ensure that the revised version of the CPS Process Description is put on the agenda of the next available meeting of the CPS Commercial Group after the date of the meeting referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 above.

5. BT and all CPSOs who are present at such meeting of the CPS Commercial Group, shall issue the revised version of the CPS Process Description.

6. BT shall ensure that its internal procedures are modified and that its staff are trained in the new procedures as soon as reasonably practicable after the date on which the revised version of the CPS Process Description has been issued by the CPS Commercial Group.

7. The words defined in this direction shall have the meaning so defined or described. All other words or expressions used in this direction shall have the same meaning as in the Regulations, the Act or the BT Licence as appropriate.

Chris Kenny

Director of Compliance

A person authorised under paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 of the Telecommunications Act 1984

[ ] 2003

SCHEDULE 1

CHANGES TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE CPS PROCESS DESCRIPTION

1. Subject to paragraphs 2 and 3 below, BT shall be permitted to use Cancel Other in the following circumstances only:

a. where a request for CPS has been made without the customer’s full knowledge or consent ("Slamming");

b. where a request for CPS has been made by a person other than the authorised decision-maker, which would be the person named on the BT account or, in the case of an organisation, the person within the organisation responsible for managing the account ("Internal Customer Miscommunication");

c. where the telephone line is ceased during the Switchover Period ("Line Cease").

2. Before using Cancel Other, BT shall ensure that the following conditions are fulfilled:

a. in the case of Slamming or Internal Customer Miscommunication, BT shall take reasonable steps to ensure that Slamming or Internal Customer Miscommunication has actually taken place;

b. BT shall take reasonable steps to ensure that BT is talking to the authorised decision-maker in the organisation or household;

3. After using Cancel Other, BT shall ensure that the following conditions are fulfilled:

a. BT shall confirm the cancellation of the CPS order in writing to the customer (except where, in the case of Line Cease, this is not possible or appropriate, including where the customer is deceased);

b. BT shall categorise the use of Cancel Other in one of the following categories: Slamming; Internal Customer Miscommunication; or Line Cease.

c. BT shall keep a record of all contact made with the customer during the Switchover Period for a period of at least 6 months after the use of Cancel Other and, on a reasonable request from a CPSO, shall provide an audit trail of events leading up to the use of Cancel Other.

4. BT shall not use Cancel Other where the customer has decided not to proceed with the CPS order following successful Save Activity by BT, except where, during the course of BT’s Save Activity, BT discovers that Slamming, Internal Customer Miscommunication or Line Cease has occurred and the other conditions in paragraphs 1 and 2 above are fulfilled.

S.1 The Director General of Telecommunications (the "Director") has issued a draft direction in accordance with Regulation 6(3) of the Telecommunications (Interconnection) Regulations 1997 (the "Interconnection Regulations") to ensure effective competition in relation to carrier pre-selection (CPS).

S.2 CPS (like indirect access) is designed to stimulate competition in retail call markets, by removing one of the major barriers to entry into such markets - the need for an access network. The relevant retail call markets include markets for local, national, international and fixed-to-mobile calls, among others. The Director has previously expressed the view that competition in the provision of fixed retail services (including most of these call markets) is not yet effective (Protecting consumers by promoting competition: Oftel's conclusions, June 2002, http://www.oftel.gov.uk/publications/pricing/2002/pcr0602.htm and in Review of Fixed Narrowband Retail markets, consultation - 17 March 2003

http://www.oftel.gov.uk/publications/eu_directives/2003/eu_retail/index.htm). The Director therefore sees timely and effective CPS processes as being important to the development of competition in these retail markets.

S.3 On 23 January 2003, the Director opened an own-initiative investigation on BT’s use of ‘save’ activity and ‘cancel other’ orders during the CPS customer transfer process and sought further information in respect of the issues involved. The customer transfer period is the 10-day period between BT receiving a customer’s CPS order from a CPS operator ("CPSO") and the customer’s switchover to CPS. ‘Save’ activity is undertaken by the losing service provider to try to persuade the customer not to switch to CPS during the 10-day customer transfer. ‘Cancel other’ is a functionality available only to BT which allows BT to immediately cancel a customer’s switch to CPS during the customer transfer period without the customer having to contact the erstwhile gaining CPSO.

S.4 In the course of this investigation, the Director has received information related to the use of CPS ‘save’ activity and ‘cancel other’ orders from BT Retail/ BT Wholesale and various CPSOs. The Director has also obtained information on the CPS customer transfer process in other countries from those countries’ national regulatory authorities.

S.5 CPSOs collectively believe that there should be a limitation of BT’s use of ‘cancel other’ orders to situations of slamming (where the customer is switched to CPS without his full knowledge and consent). This is because of concerns that BT is using ‘cancel other’ orders in an anti-competitive manner and without the CPSOs having visibility of why the cancellation has taken place. BT disagrees with this limitation and wants to be able to continue using ‘cancel other’ orders in situations where the customer has changed his mind about switching to CPS, including the situation where BT has successfully engaged in ‘save’ activity.

S.6 The Director notes that the CPS Industry End-to-End Process Description (the "CPS Process Description"), which sets out the industry-agreed CPS process, does not make it clear in what situations BT is permitted to use ‘cancel other’ and does not require BT to specify why ‘cancel other’ is being used in any particular case. This lack of transparency in the CPS process makes it difficult for CPSOs to gain a clear view as to why BT uses ‘cancel other’ and has led customers and CPSOs to assume that problems were due to abuse by BT.

S.7 In brief (more detail is set out in Chapter 3), the Director believes that BT’s use of ‘cancel other’ in conjunction with ‘save’ activity may give rise to the following problems for the CPS industry:

• the use of considerable effort and resources to investigate complaints by CPSOs about BT’s use of ‘cancel other’ orders;

• increased mistrust between BT and CPSOs;

• damage to the reputation of CPS, and increased reluctance of consumers to try alternative operators; and

• difficulty in identifying and remedying potential slamming problems.

S.8 The Director considers that the impact of the way BT currently uses ‘cancel other’ in conjunction with ‘save’ activity can slow down the uptake of CPS which therefore harms the development of competition to BT through the use of CPS.

S.9 Regulation 6(3) of the Interconnection Regulations grants the Director the power to direct that changes be made to existing interconnection agreements in exceptional circumstances, where this is justified to ensure effective competition or interoperability of services for users or both. The Director considers that the impact of BT’s use of ‘cancel other’ on the development of competition to BT through the use of CPS, as outlined above, represents such ‘exceptional circumstances’, thereby justifying the intervention of the Director to impose changes to the current CPS Process Description (which forms part of BT’s Standard Interconnect Agreement).

S.10 With the objective of ensuring effective competition in the CPS market, the Director therefore proposes changes to the current CPS Process Description that will increase transparency and limit the scope for the use of the CPS process in a way that can slow down the uptake of CPS. The Director’s proposals are set out in more detail in Chapter 3. The following outlines the Director’s proposals:

1. BT can use ‘cancel other’ orders in situations where the decision-maker in an organisation or household is not aware of the CPS order either because of slamming or because of ‘internal mis-communication’ (for example, BT speaks to the husband, the CPSO speaks to the wife, but the husband and wife have not spoken to each other about the CPS order before contact with BT). In these circumstances, when BT uses ‘cancel other’, the following must apply:

a. (subject to 2 below) the customer has initiated contact with BT and BT has used reasonable endeavours to establish that the customer appears to have been slammed, or that internal customer miscommunication has occurred;

b. BT has taken reasonable steps to ensure that BT is talking to the authorised decision maker in the organisation or household (at least by asking such questions as 'are you the authorised decision-maker?' and 'could anyone else in your organisation/household have requested that CPS be set up?'). If the customer expresses any doubt as to the answers to these two questions, BT must request that the customer call BT back when the customer has established whether or not there is actually a problem.

c.BT confirms the cancellation of the order in writing to the customer.

d. BT has auditable evidence that slamming or internal customer miscommunication appears to have occurred. BT shall keep a record of all contact made with the customer and shall keep copies of written communications and recordings of conversations with the customer during the 10-day transfer period for a period of at least 6 months after the use of ‘cancel other’. BT shall, on a reasonable request from a CPSO, provide an audit trail to the CPSO of events leading up to the use of ‘cancel other’.

2.BT must not use the 'cancel other' facility in connection with 'save' activity. Customers contacted by BT as a result of a 'save' call who wish to return to BT will have to contact the gaining supplier to cancel or by using a 'BT reselect' order in due course which includes a 10 day switchover period. In the case where BT is made aware during a ‘save’ call that a customer is not aware of the CPS order either because of slamming or because of internal miscommunication, BT may use ‘cancel other’ as in 1 above.

3. BT must not use the 'cancel other' facility in situations where a decision maker contacts BT and requests that BT cancel the CPS order because the decision maker has simply changed their mind. Customers who have changed their mind about CPS and who have contacted BT because they wish to return to BT will have to contact the gaining supplier to cancel the switchover or use a 'BT reselect' order after the switchover has taken place (i.e. after the 10 day switchover period).

4.BT may also use ‘cancel other’ in instances where a line is to be ceased during the CPS customer transfer period. Where appropriate, BT should confirm the cancellation of the CPS order in writing to the customer.

5. BT must categorise the cancel other order as ‘slamming’, ‘internal customer miscommunication’, or ‘line cease’.

S.11 The detailed processes required to support the Director’s proposals will need to be developed by the relevant Industry Process Groups.

S.12 The Director expects BT and the CPS Industry to agree the changes necessary to the CPS Process Description at the next available meeting of the CPS Process Group after the date of this direction.

The Director expects BT and the CPS Industry to issue the revised CPS Process Description at the next available meeting of the CPS Commercial Group after the date of the meeting of the CPS Process Group referred to above.

S.13 The Director considers that some retraining and systems development (for the categorisation of ‘cancel other’ orders in particular) may be required to implement the changes set out above and, therefore considers that BT should make the necessary changes to implement the proposed process as soon as reasonably practicable after the revised version of the CPS Process Description has been issued by the CPS Commercial Group.

Next steps

S.14 The Director invites comments on these proposals. Chapter 4 sets out the consultation arrangements for this document. The closing date for submitting comments is 20 May 2003.

Chapter 1

Introduction and background

1.1 CPS enables customers to choose in advance to route all their calls of a particular type (eg national calls) via an alternative operator without having to dial an access code or use any additional equipment on their premises.

1.2 EC Directive 98/61/EC (the "Numbering Directive"), which amended EC Directive 97/33/EC (the "Interconnection Directive") required National Regulatory Authorities (in the UK, Oftel) to impose an obligation to provide CPS on all operators with Significant Market Power (SMP) in fixed public telephony. By virtue of a determination dated 23 December 1997, BT has been determined as having SMP in the market for fixed public telephone networks and fixed public telephone services for these purposes.

1.3 CPS makes it more straightforward for customers directly connected to the BT network to choose alternative carriers for calls. CPS enables customers to select carriers in advance. All the calls they make of the class for which a carrier has been pre-selected will then be routed to the carrier of their choice without the need to dial an access code or use any special equipment on their premises. This enables alternative carriers to compete more effectively with calls made over the BT network and hence further enhances competition and choice in the UK market. Currently, over 1.1 million lines have CPS in the UK, and there are over 20 operators offering CPS services.

1.4 Prior to July 2002, the CPS transfer process required customers wishing to change to an alternative operator to send a paper reply slip to BT to request CPS. In July 2002, a new process was introduced, whereby customers requesting CPS receive notification letters from both BT and the gaining CPSO alerting them to the impending switch in their service, and providing contact details if they wish to cancel the change. There is a ten working-day transfer period between BT receiving the CPS order from the CPS operator and BT implementing the change in the customer’s service. This 10-day customer transfer period allows BT and the gaining CPSO to send Industry-agreed anti-slamming letters to the customer (‘Slamming’ is where the customer has been switched to CPS without his full knowledge or consent.) This gives customers a chance to cancel the switch to CPS if they wish.

1.5 However, the introduction of the new process coincided with an increase in expressions of concern about BT’s ‘save’ and ‘cancel other’ activity, from CPSOs, resellers and consumers. BT uses the customer transfer period to contact customers and to try to persuade them not to switch to CPS. This ‘save’ activity is not forbidden by the CPS Process Description, which forms part of BT’s Standard Interconnect Agreement, and all losing service providers can undertake such activity. However, BT alone is able to issue a ‘cancel other’ order which immediately cancels a customer’s switch to CPS during the transfer period, without the customer having to contact the erstwhile gaining CPSO.

1.6 The Director received numerous expressions of concern about BT’s ‘save’ and ‘cancel other’ activity from operators and resellers, as well as 3 formal complaints. He received reports from CPSOs and resellers claiming that BT was issuing ‘cancel other’ orders unfairly to prevent customers switching to CPS, even when the customer had not changed his mind and there was no evidence of slamming.

1.7 The Director identified that some of these were cases where confusion or lack of transparency about the CPS process had led customers or CPSOs to assume that problems were due to abuse by BT.

1.8 As a result of the magnitude of Industry concern, the Director published a position paper on carrier pre-selection ‘save’ and ‘cancel other’ on 8 November 2002. This paper set out changes to the CPS transfer process that in the Director’s view were necessary to address the problems that had arisen, and followed up on a debate started by and Oftel September 2002 discussion document covering the same issues.

1.9 In brief, the Director proposed the following changes to the CPS process:

• BT should only use ‘cancel other’ orders when it has auditable evidence of slamming (not when customers have simply changed their minds), and

• There should be improved information flow between CPS operators and BT when a CPS set-up order is sent, in particular, that the CPS operator should advise BT Wholesale of the name and number of the service provider contracting with the customer, and that this information should be made available to the customer on request.

1.10 The Industry was allowed 4 weeks to agree voluntarily to the changes to the CPS process identified in the position paper. Responses were received from BT, 13 CPSOs (who submitted a joint response) and one potential reseller. There appeared to be little consensus within the as to whether the major components of the Director’s proposals (such as restrictions on the use of ‘cancel other’ orders) should be implemented.

1.11 The Director considered that the responses to the informal consultation on ‘save’ and ‘cancel other’ confirmed the high level of Industry concern. Furthermore there have been protracted discussions at the CPS Process Group and the CPS Commercial Group about what adjustments should be made to the CPS process to manage BT’s use of ‘save’ and ‘cancel other’ activity in a fair and equitable manner. Unfortunately these discussions stalled due to the lack of agreement between BT and the CPS operators about proposed changes to the CPS process.

1.12 As a result, on 23 January 2003, the Director opened an own-initiative investigation on BT’s use of ‘save’ activity and ‘cancel other’ orders during the CPS customer transfer process and sought further information in respect of the issues involved. In the course of this investigation, the Director sought information from CPSOs and other countries on the CPS customer transfer process in relation to ‘save’ activity and ‘cancel other’ orders.

Chapter 2

Summary of the responses to the investigation

2.1 In their responses to the investigation opened on 23 January 2003, BT and CPSOs have, by and large, reiterated the views given in relation to the Director’s informal consultation on CPS save and cancel other in November 2002. A summary of these views follows:

BT

2.2

• BT continues to undertake voluntarily to make only one save attempt to the decision-maker during the transfer period, and asks whether other service providers will make a similar commitment.
• BT agrees with the continued use of ‘cancel other’ in cases where the customer complains of being slammed or erroneously transferred.
• BT disagrees with the limitation of ‘cancel other’ orders to cases of slamming. BT suggests that cancel other orders are sub-divided into different categories, to provide CPS operators with more information and clarity about why switchovers have been cancelled. Such categories could be ‘mis-sale’, ‘administrative mistake’, ‘resolution of customer confusion’, ‘change of mind’. BT suggests that ‘cancel other’ be made available to all CPSOs.
• BT suggests that the agreed process should be generic enough to deal with churn between service providers, and not just from BT to a CPSO.
• BT is concerned that customers appear to consider BT responsible for problems, even when the customer is moving from one CPSO to another, especially as customers continue to have a contract with BT (for the line rental) which the customer has not directly cancelled. BT considers itself to still be under a ‘duty of care’ to its customers in this situation.
• BT believes that the root cause of the problems is insufficient information being provided to customers and insufficient exchange of information between service providers.
• The customer’s wishes, once ascertained and clarified, should be the over-riding consideration, and the process should allow the customer to achieve the desired position rapidly and easily, regardless of the cause of the problem (customers are often embarrassed to explain the full position).
• BT agrees that ensuring that consumers are better-informed will reduce the incidence of ‘internal customer mis-communication’. BT considers that consumers should not have to make extra calls or enquiries to ascertain which service provider placed the CPS set-up order. Customers who have genuinely requested a transfer should have no objection to information passing between the parties involved in the transfer to ensure adequate protection. BT recommends that the name of the CPSO, the reseller (who contracted with the customer) and the customer contact name should pass between service providers and be included in both notification letters as part of the process. This avoids the need for BT Wholesale to act as the third party reference bureau, which it is not set up to be, and which would involve settling commercial problems between service providers. Notification letters and any ‘save’ calls will be addressed to BT’s named contractee.
• BT is prepared to maintain an audit trail via call recording, but wants service providers and resellers to maintain a ‘reciprocal audit capability’ and contends that this should be part of any Industry Code of Practice. For more information, see http://www.oftel.gov.uk/publications/eu_directives/2003/eu_narrow/index.htm.

Joint CPSO response:

2.3

• The signatories accept the Director’s 8 November 2002 proposals in principle ‘subject to acceptance of some additional proposals’ set out below.
• The CPSOs wholly support the limitation of the use of ‘cancel other’ orders to mis-selling/slamming situations. However, they are concerned that this functionality will be mis-used unless Oftel constantly monitors it.
• BT must not use ‘cancel other’ in conjunction with any outbound call, or any inbound call transferred to a dedicated ‘save’ team. ‘Cancel other’ can only be used as a result of an inbound call, e-mail or letter.
• There should be a ‘cooling-off’ period (eg 24 hours) between any outbound save call and an inbound request by the customer for a cancellation, otherwise BT could, during a save call, encourage the customer to call them back to request a cancellation and circumvent the restrictions on ‘cancel other’.
• It must be clearly defined when ‘cancel other’ can be used, and BT must notify both the customer and the gaining CPSO, giving the reason for the cancellation. ‘Cancel other’ orders should be categorised.
• The CPSOs suggest that ‘cancel other’ should only be available to BT Wholesale. This would mean it could be made available to all service providers including BT Retail through BT Wholesale.
• There must be monitoring of the process and penalties for sustained breach of the process.
• Ceasing BT’s use of ‘cancel other’ orders with save activity should be able to be implemented immediately.
• The respondents agree that the name and contact number of the gaining service provider should be included in the CPS set-up order. The use of reseller identity ("RID") codes (which are 3-letter codes allocated to resellers on request by Oftel for administrative purposes) may meet this requirement. Some CPSOs however have contractual relationships with resellers that prevent this information passing to BT, and would not be able to comply. In such circumstances, the CPSO’s details may have to be used, or the fields left blank. Therefore it may not be possible to implement this proposal universally in the short term. The Director should confirm arrangements to prevent BT Retail misusing this information.
• The Director should randomly audit BT’s use of ‘cancel other’ orders on a routine basis. All parties should be required to submit regular (eg monthly) reports on their experience of cancellations, including the reasons given, to allow the Director to determine whether further obligations are required. The Director should be able to investigate individual ‘informal’ complaints as part of the monitoring process.
• CPSOs are concerned by the use of ‘cancel other’ orders in situations either where the initial set-up order should have been rejected, or outbound call barring was implemented in the cooling off period. Processes should be developed to formalise these scenarios.

Other comments

2.4 Two of the CPSOs made the additional comments that until the CPS market is mature BT ‘save’ activity during the transfer period is inappropriate.

2.5 In addition to the above general comments, BT and CPSOs have also provided the following further information in the context of this investigation

Number of CPS orders and cancel other orders

2.6 According to data provided by BT Wholesale, about 9% of total (36 363 cancellations out of 416 085 CPS orders) CPS transfers taking place between November 2002 and January 2003 were cancelled using cancel other.

2.7 For individual CPSOs, the number of orders cancelled by ‘cancel other’ varied from 0% to 20% of the total number of orders placed with that CPSO.

Why cancel other occurred

2.8 Most CPSOs were unable to provide details about the reasons for orders being cancelled using ‘cancel other’. Many are unwilling to contact customers who have cancelled their order (as they consider this to be a nuisance and to generate confusion for consumers) or they are unable to do so (as it is too costly). However, of the 3 CPSOs who were able to survey their customers, between 50% and 96% of the total number of orders cancelled were cancelled because the customer changed his mind.

Sales channels/campaigns and cancellations by channel

2.9 The Director asked BT and CPSOs whether there were any significant changes in their sales campaigns over the period from November 2002 to January 2003, which might impact on the use of ‘cancel other’ orders during this period. From the responses received, it does not appear that there were any such significant changes.

2.10 The Director also asked BT and the CPSOs to identify the number of cancellations by sales channel, as this might provide a useful indicator as to the reason for the use of cancel-other. However, most CPSOs were unable to identify the number of cancellations by sales channel.

Number of complaints to BT about CPS

2.11 According to BT, 102 issues/complaints about CPS were submitted to BT Retail between 8 October 2002 and 18 February 2003 covering about 1100 lines. About 68% of the complaints/issues submitted to BT that were resolved at the time the information was requested were found not to be BT’s fault. A further 12% were unproven either way. For at least 82% of the 1100 or more lines covered by the CPSOs’ complaints, BT stated that it was incorrectly accused of cancelling CPS without the customer’s consent.

International Benchmarking – CPS Save/Cancel other

2.12 In addition to approaching BT and CPSOs for their comments on this investigation, the Director also approached various National Regulatory Authorities ("NRAs") in order to compare the current CPS transfer process in the UK with similar processes in other countries. The Director received responses from Canada, Denmark, France, Ireland, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the US.

2.13 The take-up of CPS services in the countries surveyed was considerable. France for example has over 4 million CPS subscribers and CPS accounts for 17.8% of the fixed line market in Norway.

‘Save’ activity

2.14 Each NRA was asked whether they allowed the losing or dominant provider to contact the customer during or shortly after the transfer process.

2.15 None of the countries surveyed specifically allowed the losing or dominant provider to carry out ‘save’ activity during the transfer process and several countries specifically prohibited it. In Canada and Spain the dominant operator is not allowed to contact the customer for at least three months after the switchover. To prevent ‘save’ activity in France and Norway, orders are processed without the commercial division (sales and marketing) of the incumbent being made aware of the transfer.

‘Cancel other’

2.16 In the countries surveyed the losing provider is only able to cancel an order under very specific circumstances. Some allowed the order to be cancelled in specific industry agreed situations but in general the order could only be cancelled if it had incorrect details or the gaining provider or customer had requested it.

Time to process

2.17 In the UK, when a customer orders CPS, there is a 10-day period between BT receiving an order for CPS on a particular line and BT activating CPS on that line. This allows letters to be sent to the customer to confirm that the customer does actually want CPS and has not been subject to slamming.

2.18 Among the countries surveyed it took between 2 and 4 days with most countries setting a minimum target of 5 days. They were able to work to a shorter time-scale as they do not apply the same anti-slamming procedures as in the UK.

Consumer Protection (Anti-slamming)

2.19 The ‘save’ and ‘cancel other’ functions are seen by some parties as acting in some instances as anti-slamming measures. In the other countries surveyed neither of these functions are used to prevent slamming. The Director therefore sought information on the forms of consumer protection used elsewhere. The Director sought specific information on the use of doorstep selling and any related restrictions, as the Director is aware that, as experienced in the energy sector, doorstep selling has the potential to act as a significant source of complaints about slamming.

2.20 The countries surveyed mainly rely on general consumer protection legislation to prevent slamming. Some of these countries do have CPS-specific anti-slamming procedures. In Switzerland, where there is a suspicion of slamming, the gaining provider must provide either a written contract or voice recording proving the customer has requested CPS.

2.21 In all of the countries surveyed doorstep selling of CPS services was allowed, with general consumer protection law for distance selling used to protect consumer rights.

Name of CPS Provider

2.22 The Director enquired as to whether other countries operate a special arrangement for the consumer to find out the name of their new CPS provider if they have forgotten or do not know. Ireland is currently working on an automated system that allows the customer to dial a code to find out the name of their CPS provider. This is similar to the system operated in Switzerland where each carrier is obliged to operate a CPS test number. This allows customers to check their CPS status in real time.

2.23 Norway uses a similar system to the one currently operated in the UK. When a consumer has switched to a new CPS provider he/she receives a letter from the former provider and the new provider. The difference between Norway and the UK is that the letter from the former provider includes the name of the new provider.

Chapter 3

The Director’s initial views

Impact of BT’s use of ‘save’ activity and ‘cancel other’ orders

3.1 In the Director’s view the responses collected during the course of this own-initiative investigation confirm the impact of BT’s use of ‘cancel other’ orders in connection with ‘save’ activity on the CPS industry and the harm this causes to the development of competition in CPS. The factors that can slow down the uptake in CPS and harm the development of competition to BT via CPS are described below.

Number of complaints

3.2 The Director considers that considerable effort and resources are expended on both sides to investigate complaints about the CPS transfer process. For example, BT Retail has set up a process whereby CPSOs who have concerns can raise them with a newly dedicated team within BT Retail Compliance. This team investigates every complaint, and during the period 8 October 2002 – 18 February 2003, 102 complaints/issues were submitted to this team.

3.3 The Director notes that in the information provided in this investigation by BT, overall about 9% of all CPS transfers were cancelled using ‘cancel other’ between November 2002 and January 2003. In this same period, information in the individual CPSO responses suggests that the number of ‘cancel other’ orders could comprise as much as 20% of a CPSOs confirmed monthly orders. The Director considers that the cost to CPSOs to investigate the complaints and concerns generated by this number of cancellations is material.

Mistrust between BT and CPSOs

3.4 The Director considers that the lack of transparency in the use of ‘cancel other’ in the CPS process has led to increased friction between BT and the CPSOs and has led CPSOs to assume that problems arise because of abuse by BT. The current process makes it difficult for CPSOs to gain a clear view as to the reasons why BT uses ‘cancel other’. This creates a lot of confusion among CPSOs and creates a lot of mistrust and belief that BT is acting anti-competitively. (This is shown by the number of complaints/issues submitted to BT – see paragraph 2.11). Although in many cases CPSOs’ concerns are unjustified, the overall effect is to minimise trust and expend resources inefficiently.

Difficult to identify slamming

3.5 The Director also considers that the lack of transparency in the process makes it difficult to identify and remedy any potential slamming problems as it is not clear in what circumstances BT uses ‘cancel other’ – i.e. whether it is because of slamming or because customers have simply changed their mind. However, the Director notes that during the course of this investigation, there was very little evidence (either presented to the Director by operators or from the Director’s own complaints records) of slamming taking place across the industry.

Reputation of the CPS Industry

3.6 The Director considers that the problems described above that are encountered by alternative suppliers and customers when attempting to use CPS can make the CPS market appear unattractive to alternative service providers. Alternative service providers (both existing and potential) may be deterred from competing in the market, and customers may be deterred from switching altogether.

BT’s use of ‘save activity and ‘cancel other’ orders

3.7 The following sections set out the Director’s views on BT’s use of ‘save’ activity and ‘cancel other’ orders during the CPS customer transfer process and related issues.

‘Save’ activity

3.8 The Director has carefully considered whether all BT ‘save’ activity should be banned. Indeed, this approach has been adopted in a number of countries surveyed, including the Republic of Ireland. The Director notes however that virtually all of the complaints he has received in this area relate to ‘cancel other’ orders made in connection with a successful ‘save’ and, as such, there is no clear evidence of the impact of ‘save’ activity alone on the CPS process. The Director further notes that ‘save’ activity does inform the consumer about CPS. The Director therefore considers that banning BT ‘save’ activity would not be a proportionate measure.

3.9 Therefore, the Director considers that all losing service providers can continue 'save' activity during the CPS transfer process.

3.10 The Director notes, as he has in his previous position paper, that customers must not be misled, nor must competition be denigrated during the ‘save’ activity. Accurate information about CPS must be given at all times. Any price comparisons must be factual, balanced and on a ‘like-for-like’ basis. The date at which the price information was accurate must be given. ‘Save’ calls must not be made to customers registered with the Telephone Preference Service(a service set up by the Direct Marketing Association (UK) Limited as a mechanism to enable consumers to opt-out of receiving unsolicited sales and marketing calls). To the extent that any issue is covered in the Oftel CPS Consumer Guide, this information should be given to the customer if this issue is discussed during the ‘save’ call. (The Guide will be updated as necessary to take account of the final outcome of this investigation.)

Use of ‘cancel other’ order

When decision maker has no knowledge of the CPS order

3.11 The Director has always considered the use of ‘cancel other’ orders to be acceptable in situations where the authorised decision-maker (the person named on the BT account or, in the case of an organisation, the person responsible for managing the account) has no knowledge of the CPS order and even encouraged BT’s use of ‘cancel other’ orders in these situations. Also, the Director notes all parties agree that BT can continue to use ‘cancel other’ when slamming has occurred.

3.12 Furthermore, the Director notes as he has in his previous position paper that situations can arise where there is ‘internal customer mis-communication’. These situations can arise for example if BT speaks to the husband, the CPS operator speaks to the wife but the husband and wife have not spoken to each other or (in the case of businesses) the finance director has not spoken to the telecoms manager. The Director notes that such situations may appear to BT as though the customer has been slammed or to the CPSO as a mis-use of ‘cancel other’ order, although in reality neither BT nor the CPSO is to blame (provided reasonable endeavours have been used to contact the authorised decision-maker.

The Director therefore considers that:

3.13 BT can use ‘cancel other’ orders in situations where the decision-maker is not aware of the CPS order either because of slamming or because of internal mis-communication. In these circumstances, when BT uses ‘cancel other’, the following must apply:

a. The customer has initiated contact with BT and BT has used reasonable endeavours to establish that the customer appears to have been slammed or that internal customer miscommunication has occurred;

b. BT has taken reasonable steps to ensure that BT is talking to the authorised decision maker in the organisation or household (at least by asking such questions as 'are you the authorised decision-maker?' and 'could anyone else in your organisation/household have requested that CPS be set up?'). If the customer expresses any doubt as to the answers to these two questions, BT must request that the customer call BT back when the customer has established whether or not there is actually a problem. This should help reduce situations where there is "internal customer mis-communication".

c. In the interest of increasing the transparency of the information process, BT must confirm the cancellation of the order in writing to the customer.

d. BT has auditable evidence that slamming or internal customer miscommunication appears to have occurred. BT shall keep a record of all contact made with the customer and shall keep copies of written communications and recordings of conversations with the customer during the 10-day transfer period for a period of at least 6 months after the use of ‘cancel other’. BT shall, on a reasonable request from a CPSO, provide an audit trail to the CPSO of events leading up to the use of ‘cancel other’. The Director believes that these measures are necessary as a safeguard mechanism to ensure that the ‘cancel other’ facility is not abused. It is envisaged that this will increase the confidence of CPSOs in the operation of the CPS process.

In conjunction with ‘save’ activity

3.14 As noted above, in the Director’s view the responses collected during the course of this own-initiative investigation confirm the impact of BT’s use of ‘cancel other’ orders in connection with ‘save’ activity on the CPS industry and the harm this causes to the development of competition by means of CPS.

3.15 The Director also notes that if a losing CPSO recruits a customer during the CPS customer transfer period (either because of successful ‘save’ activity by a losing CPSO or because the customer has changed his mind and wants to go back to the losing CPSO), the CPSO must place the order through the normal CPS process and the CPSO and the customer must wait ten working days before the transfer is complete. BT by comparison can use ‘cancel other’ order to immediately cancel a customer’s switch to CPS during the customer transfer period. The Director considers that BT’s use of ‘cancel other’ in conjunction with a ‘save’ activity or where the customer has changed his mind, creates an uneven playing field in BT’s favour.

3.16 In the light of this, the Director’s initial view is that BT must not use the 'cancel other' facility in connection with 'save' activity. Customers contacted by BT as a result of a 'save' call who wish to return to BT will have to contact the gaining supplier to cancel or by using a 'BT reselect' order in due course which includes a 10 day switchover period. Similarly, BT must not use the 'cancel other' facility in situations where a decision maker contacts BT and requests that BT cancel the CPS order because the decision maker has simply changed their mind. Customers who have changed their mind about CPS and who have contacted BT because they wish to return to BT will have to contact the gaining supplier to cancel the switchover or use a 'BT reselect' order after the switchover has taken place (i.e. after the 10 day switchover period), as they would in relation to a decision to switch to or return to any other operator.

3.17 The Director notes that a customer can of course make use of the ‘1280’ CPS over-ride code during this 10-day transfer period if they want their calls to be carried by BT.

3.18 The Director notes that there may be rare instances where during the course of ‘save’ activity, BT becomes aware that the customer (the decision-maker) has no knowledge of the CPS order either because of slamming or because of ‘internal miscommunication’. In this case, BT may use ‘cancel other’ orders as it would in the situation described in the previous section where the decision-maker has no knowledge of the CPS order. The Director notes that in this situation (as in the previous section) BT must ensure that the customer has in fact been slammed or there appears to have been ‘internal miscommunication’ and BT must keep auditable evidence to ensure there is no inappropriate use of ‘cancel other’ orders.

3.19 The Director considers that the proposed changes to BT’s use of ‘cancel other’ orders will create the conditions for more effective competition and will stimulate a competitive market for CPS by:

• increasing transparency, reducing the scope for disputes between operators and customer harm;
• reducing the opportunity for BT to engage in activity that that has the effect of undermining of the CPSOs’ confidence in the CPS processes, and undermining consumer confidence in CPSOs;
• limiting the scope for BT to use the CPS processes in a manner that has the effect of increasing the cost of customer acquisition by CPSOs; and
• creating a more even playing field in the CPS market by making the period in which a customer who has changed his mind is able to cancel the order the same for both CPSOs and BT.

3.20 Furthermore, the Director considers that his proposed changes are a proportionate means of addressing the existing problems with BT’s use of ‘cancel other’ for the following reasons:

• The status quo fails to prevent the damage to the development of competition in the CPS market as set out above;

• No party has been able to suggest less intrusive measures that would be effective in rebuilding trust between the CPSOs and BT and giving confidence that customers’ CPS orders are only cancelled when strictly necessary and on reasonable grounds, and not simply when BT claims that the customer has changed their mind;

• There have been protracted discussions at the CPS Process Group and the CPS Commercial Group about what appear to the Director to be reasonable adjustments to the CPS process to manage BT’s use of ‘save’ and ‘cancel other’ activity in a fair and equitable manner. These discussions have stalled due to the lack of agreement between BT and CPSOs about changes to the CPS process;

• The Director has proposed changes to the CPS process and has informally consulted CPSOs and BT on his proposals. There has been no voluntary agreement by BT to the Director’s proposals, nor has BT been willing to suggest effective alternatives to address the problems.

Line cease during the CPS customer transfer period

3.21 The Director is of the view that BT may also use cancel other in the rare instances where a line is to be ceased during the CPS customer transfer period. This proposal is made for practical reasons. If a line ceases to exist, then CPS on that line cannot exist. The Director considers that placing a CPS order for a ceased line through the CPS ordering process adds unnecessary additional expense for BT. Examples of circumstances that might cause BT to cease a customer’s line include: another access operator has recruited the customer (e.g. a cable company); the customer has requested a change to his installation that requires a final bill from BT; or, bereavement. Where appropriate, BT should confirm the cancellation of the CPS order in writing to the customer.

Categorisation for ‘cancel other’ orders

3.22 The Director notes that all parties suggested in their response to the Director’s 8 November 2002 position paper that ‘cancel other’ should be categorised. BT suggested the following categories: ‘mis-sale’, ‘administrative mistake’, ‘resolution of customer confusion’, ‘change of mind’.

3.23 The Director considers that categorising ‘cancel other’ orders will improve information flow available to CPSOs and increase transparency when ‘cancel other’ is activated. Therefore, and in view of the proposals made in relation to BT’s use of ‘cancel other’, the Director is of the view that BT should categorise the ‘cancel other’ order as: ‘slamming’, ‘internal customer miscommunication’, or ‘line cease’.

Other issues

Availability of cancel other

3.24 The Director notes that there is not a strong industry-wide demand to use ‘cancel other’ orders. Therefore the Director considers that ‘cancel other’ may remain available only to BT until such time as there is reasonable demand from other CPSOs to extend such functionality to them.

24-hour cooling off period

3.25 CPSOs suggested a 24 hour ‘cooling-off’ period between any outbound save call and an inbound request by the customer for a cancellation, otherwise BT could, during a save call, encourage the customer to call them back to request a cancellation and circumvent the restrictions on ‘cancel other’.

3.26 The Director does not consider it necessary to impose a 24 hour cooling-off period between any outbound call and an inbound request for cancellation, given the proposed limitations on the use of cancel-other outlined above. If is brought to the attention of the Director that BT is in future mis-using the ‘cancel other’ functionality in order to cancel CPS orders where BT is not permitted to do so (for example if BT has told customers to allege that they have been slammed), the Director will take this very seriously and deal with it as appropriate, regardless of the length of time between outbound and inbound calls.

Monitoring and penalties

3.27 The CPSOs suggested that the Director should randomly audit BT’s use of ‘cancel other’ orders on a routine basis and should impose penalties for sustained breach of the process. The Director however considers that these measures would represent a large administrative burden to the regulator and hence a financial burden to licence payers and would not be proportionate at present due to the current lack of evidence of systematic problems once the new arrangements for ‘cancel other’ are introduced. However, the Director expects BT to be able to provide him with auditable evidence of the effective implementation and operation of the new system if the presence of any problems is confirmed. Any complaints submitted to the Director on this issue will be taken very seriously and dealt with as appropriate.

Availability of name and contact number of gaining provider

3.28 The Director notes that it has been agreed in principle at the CPS Process Group that a mechanism to provide consumers with information on their CPSO or reseller should be made available. The exact nature of the mechanism to record/provide this information quickly and easily is currently under discussion.

Conclusion

3.29 Following these considerations, the Director invites comments on the following proposals:

1. BT can use ‘cancel other’ orders in situations where the decision maker is not aware of the CPS order either because of slamming or because of internal mis-communication. In these circumstances, when BT uses ‘cancel other’, the following must apply:

a. (subject to 2 below) the customer has initiated contact with BT and BT has used reasonable endeavours to establish that the customer appears to have been slammed, or that internal customer miscommunication has occurred;

b. BT has taken reasonable steps to ensure that BT is talking to the authorised decision maker in the organisation or household (at least by asking such questions as 'are you the authorised decision-maker?' and 'could anyone else in your organisation/household have requested that CPS be set up?'). If the customer expresses any doubt as to the answers to these two questions, BT must request that the customer call BT back when the customer has established whether or not there is actually a problem.

c.BT confirms the cancellation of the order in writing to the customer.

d. BT has auditable evidence that slamming of internal customer miscommunication appears to have occurred. BT shall keep a record of all contact made with the customer and shall keep copies of written communications and recordings of conversations with the customer during the 10-day transfer period for a period of at least 6 months after the use of ‘cancel other’. BT shall, on a reasonable request from a CPSO, provide an audit trail to the CPSO of events leading up to the use of ‘cancel other’

2. BT must not use the 'cancel other' facility in connection with 'save' activity. Customers contacted by BT as a result of a 'save' call who wish to return to BT will have to contact the gaining supplier to cancel or by using a 'BT reselect' order in due course which includes a 10 day switchover period. In the case where BT is made aware during a ‘save’ call that a customer is not aware of the CPS order either because of slamming or because of internal miscommunication, BT may use ‘cancel other’ as in 1 above.

3. BT must not use the 'cancel other' facility in situations where a decision maker contacts BT and requests that BT cancel the CPS order because the decision maker has simply changed their mind. Customers who have changed their mind about CPS and who have contacted BT because they wish to return to BT will have to contact the gaining supplier to cancel the switchover or use a 'BT reselect' order after the switchover has taken place (i.e. after the 10 day switchover period).

4, BT may also use cancel other in instances where a line is to be ceased during the CPS customer transfer period. Where appropriate, BT should confirm the cancellation of the CPS order in writing to the customer.

5.BT must categorise the cancel other order as ‘slamming’, ‘internal customer miscommunication’, or ‘line cease’.

Time Frames

3.30 Given the length of ongoing debate on this issue, the Director expects BT and the CPS Industry to agree the necessary changes to the CPS Process Description at the next available meeting of the CPS Process Group after the date of this direction.

3.31 The Director expects BT and the CPS Industry to issue the revised CPS Process Description at the next available meeting of the CPS Commercial Group after the date of the meeting of the CPS Process Group referred to above.

The Director considers that some limited retraining and systems development may be required to implement the changes set out above and considers that it is reasonable that BT should make the necessary changes to implement the proposed process as soon as reasonably practicable after the revised version of the CPS Process Description has been issued by the CPS Commercial Group.

Chapter 4

Consultation

How to make comments on the questions raised in this consultation document

Oftel is publishing this consultation document so that interested parties may comment on the issues which it addresses. The closing date for submitting comments is 20 May 2003.

Where possible, comments should be made in writing and sent by e-mail to tanya.rofani@Oftel.gov.uk . However, copies may also be posted or faxed to the address below. If any interested parties are unable to respond in one of these ways, they should contact

Tanya Rofani
Oftel
50 Ludgate Hill
London
EC4M 7JJ

Tel: 020 7634 8938
Fax: 020 7634 8949

e-mail: tanya.rofani@Oftel.gov.uk

Further copies of this document

This document can be viewed in the Publications section of Oftel’s website at www.oftel.gov.uk, under classification [Press Office to insert appropriate classification here]. Paper copies and alternative formats such as large print, Braille, disc and audio cassette can be made available on request. Please contact Oftel’s Research and Information Unit by phoning 020 7634 8761 or by sending an e-mail to infocent@oftel.gov.uk.

Publication of comments made by stakeholders

On this occasion, Oftel is not programming a formal period during which interested parties may comment on the responses made by others. Nevertheless, in the interests of transparency, comments will be published, except where respondents indicate that a response, or part of it, is confidential. Respondents are therefore asked to separate out any confidential material into a confidential annex which is clearly identified as containing confidential material. Oftel will take steps to protect the confidentiality of all such material from the moment that it is received at Oftel’s offices. However, in the interests of transparency, respondents should avoid applying confidential markings wherever possible.

Non confidential responses can be viewed on Oftel’s website in the Publications section under Responses to Oftel consultations. Comments can also be viewed at Oftel’s Research and Information Unit. Appointments must be made in advance (see contact details in paragraph three).

e-mail notifications

Oftel has a free e-mail based mailing list to help people stay informed about the work that Oftel is doing. Each time an Oftel document is published and placed on Oftel’s website at www.oftel.gov.uk, subscribers to the list receive an e-mail alert. To register, please go to the What’s New section of the website and access the electronic form.

The consultation criteria

Oftel considers that this document meets the Cabinet Office code of practice on written consultation documents. The code is reproduced below for convenience. If you have any comments or complaints about this consultation process please contact:

Oftel co-ordinator for the code of practice:

Robert Jex
Oftel
50 Ludgate Hill
London EC4M 7JJ.

e-mail: rob.jex@oftel.gov.uk

Tel: 020 7634 5350
Fax: 020 7634 8940

1. Timing of consultation should be built into the planning process for a policy (including legislation) or service from the start, so that it has the best prospect of improving the proposals concerned, and so that sufficient time is left for it at each stage.

2. It should be clear who is being consulted, about what questions, in what timescale and for what purpose.

3. A consultation document should be as simple and concise as possible. It should include a summary, in two main pages at most, of the main questions it seeks views on. It should make it as easy as possible for readers to respond, make contact or complain.

4. Documents should be made widely available, with the fullest use of electronic means (though not to the exclusion of others), and effectively drawn to the attention of all interested groups and individuals.

Sufficient time should be allowed for considered responses from all groups with an interest. 12 weeks should be the standard minimum period for consultation.

6. Responses should be carefully and open-mindedly analysed, and the results made widely available, with an account of the views expressed, and reasons for decisions finally taken.

7. Departments should monitor and evaluate consultations, designating a consultation co-ordinator who will ensure that all the lessons are disseminated.

Annex A

Summary of international responses

What follows is a summary of the responses to the Director’s questions by the various countries surveyed.

1. Do you allow the losing provider to perform a save activity i.e. is the losing provider able to contact the customer during or shortly after the transfer process and attempt to persuade the customer to cancel the transfer

Country	Allow ‘save’	Key points
Canada	No	‘Dominant’ carrier cannot contact the customer for 90 days
Denmark	No	Governed by general consumer legislation re marketing
France	No regulation	No restrictions are defined but orders are processed without commercial division being informed
Germany	No	Losing provider cannot perform a ‘save’ activity
Greece	No	The application is signed by the customer so CPS is activated
Ireland	No	Industry agreed anti-slamming letter can be sent
Norway	No	Small division deal with transfers, info not available to marketing/sales
Portugal	No	No additional info
Spain	No	No ‘save’ calls can be made for 4 months
Sweden	No regulation	Losing provider is not informed when a customer leaves the provider unless customer has cancelled the agreement
Switzerland	No	Customer notified of change to prevent slamming but no marketing content
U.S	No	Gaining carrier must follow FCC’s authorisation & verification rules

2. Is the dominant provider or losing provider able to cancel an order before it is activated, and if so under what circumstances?

Country	Allow ‘cancel’	Key points
Denmark	No	Can only be cancelled if Customer identification is invalid etc
France	No	Not defined in the interconnect contracts between Operators
Germany	No	Not an option
Greece	No	Not if the order details are correct
Ireland	No	Only the customer can cancel an order
Norway	No	Neither provider can cancel an order before activation
Portugal	No	But CPS can be denied in specific industry agreed situations
Spain	No	No additional information
Sweden	No regulation	Providers can cancel an order to quite a high price. Therefore providers rarely cancel orders.
Switzerland	No	The access provider can only reject an incorrect order
U.S	No	Not unless the carrier that sent the order rescinds it

3. Has the ‘cancel other ‘ (or equivalent) service caused problems when used between CPS operators? If so please provide details

None of the countries offered a service similar to that of ‘cancel other’. In Norway it is not practically possible to cancel within a 10-day period of the order being placed.

4. How long do CPS (or equivalent) orders take to process and specifically is there a minimum transfer period?

Country	Time to process (Minimum period)	Average time taken (working days)
Denmark	5 Days	3-5
France	None	3-5
Germany	3 Days	No info
Greece	7 Days	No info
Ireland	5 Days	24 hours
Norway	None	Within a day
Portugal	5 Days	No info
Spain	5 Days	3
Sweden	5 Days	5
Switzerland	5 Days	1-2 (3-4 if more complicated)
U.S	None	Carriers must act without unreasonable delay

5. What forms of consumer protection exist surrounding the provision of CPS (or equivalent), in particular to prevent slamming? Please could you answer in terms of:

• Specific CPS consumer protection
• General consumer protection legislation about (for example) distance selling, contracts etc

6. Please provide information (statistical or otherwise) on:

• the level of CPS (or equivalent) take-up;
• recorded evidence of slamming and;
• the use of ‘cancel other’ (or any equivalent)