In the present case, the client confused the so-called business numbers with the 0848 prefix with the value-added numbers with the 0900 prefix. Value-added services are used by a provider to collect the prices charged for a service via a telephone provider. He suspected that the bank was generating income with this telephone number and was therefore profiting in some way when clients had to contact the bank by telephone because the services were not working properly. He was also very upset that fees were charged for the unpleasant waiting times in the queue. The client then submitted the case to the Ombudsman.

The bank informed the Ombudsman that it did not generate any income with the business number. This system, which she had been using for 10 years, offered her the advantage of being able to appear under a single, easily remembered number. It was a number where the costs of the telephone calls between the bank and the caller were shared. The costs for calls from Switzerland to this number were always the same for the caller, CHF 0.08 per minute. This tariff was set by the telephone service provider. If a client incurred higher costs for such a call, the difference from CHF 0.08 per minute would be covered by the bank. The bank could be contacted free of charge via chat in E-Finance or in its branches. In addition, free telephone numbers were available for special client concerns, such as card blocking. It was currently also being examined whether it could offer its clients a free telephone number.

According to the Ombudsman’s research, the maximum rate for so-called business numbers is actually set by the authorities at CHF 0.08 per minute. The holder of such a number would not be forced to use this maximum rate and could prevent the telephone charges from also applying for the waiting time before the actual receipt of the client’s call by taking appropriate measures. The Ombudsman also considered the bank’s stated advantage of the uniform tariff for calls from Switzerland to be somewhat outdated, since today many subscriptions for consumers cover calls in Switzerland with flat-rate fees and no longer charge individually per call, both in the fixed-line and mobile areas. The business numbers, however, should be distinguished from the value-added numbers. The latter do in fact generate income for the holder which is collected by the telephone company. This is not the case with business numbers. The tariffs for value-added numbers are usually also significantly higher than those for business numbers.

In the Ombudsman’s view, the telephone costs incurred by the client are in fact fees which, although not directly charged by the bank, are incurred by the client due to the bank’s decision to use a business number in connection with banking services. The Ombudsman assesses such fees according to his own principles. The fact that the bank charges a client for its services and the amount of those charges is something the Ombudsman is generally not mandated to verify as it is a business policy decision that is beyond the Ombudsman’s assessment under his rules of procedure. However, the Ombudsman assesses whether the disputed fees were validly agreed with the client. A valid agreement was in place in the present case. Details of these fee principles can be found on pages 13 et seqq. of the 2016 annual report.

Whether or not the decision of a bank to communicate with its clients via a business number with a chargeable rate is particularly client-friendly is debatable. However, the decision is permissible as long as it is communicated in a sufficiently transparent manner, which was the case here. If a client is not in agreement with such a decision, he is free to switch to an institution that follows a different approach. This is likely also the reason why the bank in question is now considering a more client-friendly solution for its telephone operations.