Reverse Charge Calls To USA

[ploppy]

I had reason to call a bank in the USA this week.  It took about 5 calls overall and about 3 hours in total.  The bank gave me what they said was a (can't say the words here but) free international number of the format 1-234-567-8910 (not the actual number).  So I simply called that preceded by 00.

Turns out I've racked up £120 worth of calls.

The only thing I can offer as a clue to something going wrong is that after dialling the number an operator's voice said something about reverse charges and then the bank's phone number would ring.

What have I done wrong?

[truCido]

International freephone numbers normally start with 00800. If you dialled 001xxxx unfortunately I dont believe that was a freephone number. If you share the actual first few digits of the number, someone can probably advise

[ploppy]

A number that starts 00800 is called a Universal International Freephone Number (UIFN).  I'm aware of those numbers and use one to contact a different financial institution in the USA.  My US bank, unfortunately, does not offer such a number.  I did in fact dial 001-205-XXX-XXXX - the bank gave me the 1-205-XXX-XXXX.

The voice that answered me before the bank's phone rang - some words to the effect "operator, this number accepts reverse charges" - which I took to mean that I was calling "collect", was maybe telling me that I should have gone through the international operator and requested the reverse charge call.  But that was not at all clear to me.

[truCido]

I'm afraid you dialled an international USA 001 number, these will not be free rated and normal international rates will apply. This is all detailed in the call charges for your line. 

[Manatarms84]

That number may be a free phone number but that is likely if you are calling from within the US and not internationally.

If the bank has miss advised they may be inclined to reimburse some charges however that would between yourself and them.  If you are looking to call international from your landline then BT do various packages which would cover different types of numbers but it is not likely they would do anything about these specific call charges

[ploppy]

I think the crux of the matter is that, while the number they gave me (1-205-XXXXXXX) is a number that will accept reverse charges, that's only the case if you go through the international operator.  Dialling it directly incurs charges, as some of you have pointed out.  I should have realised this because it happened to me many years ago.  Trouble is, when a bank gives you an "international freephone number", that suggests that you can dial it direct - for free.  And you can't.

I've been in touch with the bank to see what they say.

[NigelB72]

If you booked the International Reverse Charge call via BT's operator services, you should be able to contact them and they'll investigate it. It's possible that the advisor didn't prepare the call correctly resulting in charges. This should be foot printed and the call would have been recorded. If it turns out they set the call up incorrectly, they should be able to arrange a refund. 

[ploppy]

Therein lies the problem I think.  I didn't go via the International Operator.  When the bank tells you their number is a t*ll free international number you take their word for it and don't involve the operator.

BTW, am I correct in thinking the Int Ops number is 155?

[NigelB72]

@ploppy it was when I worked there but that was many moons ago now 

[ploppy]

Thanks. So being "in the know" maybe I could run this past you. When I call the given number (001-XXX-XXX-XXXX) an automated voice at their end says something like "operator, this number accepts reverse charge calls", or words to that effect. Now, when I'm calling that number directly myself there's not much I can do other than continue to navigate the automated menus. However, when you go through an international operator who's trying to connect a reverse charge (call collect) call, and the voice says "...." as above, the operator can then do something so that the charge goes to the receiver not the caller. I'm no expert here so I'm just trying to think through it logically. So, long story short, I'm now convinced that dialling the number direct results in the caller being charged, wheres going through the international operator results in the receiver being charged. Am I right? If so, that's where I went wrong. I still blame the other end though for giving me duff info.