Back in December 06, the Chancellor asked Sir David Varney to advise him on the opportunities for transforming the delivery of public services.

I have to admit I've not read most of it however, Sir David Varney in the review (available here) recommended the use of 0300x numbers by public services as it admits the owning departments make money from 0845/0870 numbers.



The paragraph of interest is 7.27 as follows:-


Quote:

7.27 Public sector access numbers have confusing charging tariffs. For example, calls to 0800 numbers are free if made from a landline phone but incur a charge if made from a mobile phone. 0845 is a local tariff number but 0870 is a national rate number from which the owning departments receive a proportion of the call revenue. The launch by Ofcom of the new 0300 number range in 2007 presents government with a unique opportunity to implement a single number range to simplify access to government services. Reducing the number of published numbers and implementing a clear numbering and tariffing strategy across government would make access to public sector services less confusing to citizens and businesses and would be more cost effective for the taxpayer.

With the exception that he also believes the local/national lie, it's a report that is helpful in our fight for government departments at least to take advantage of 03x (when finally available).

I actually noticed that Ofcom mentions this in their latest 03x consultation.

In any letters I do to government authorities, I'm going to mention this in a hope to convince them to migrate over to 03x when it finally becomes available.



Updated link as old link was no longer valid.

What a shame that Ofcom refuses to follow up the Oftel proposals of using 055 for "corporate numbering", which would have covered all these requirements, with 055 being treated like 01 and 02 numbers. As 056 should be, but is not. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.  :'(

Tanllan wrote on Mar 20^th, 2007 at 7:45pm:

What a shame that Ofcom refuses to follow up the Oftel proposals of using 055 for "corporate numbering", which would have covered all these requirements, with 055 being treated like 01 and 02 numbers. As 056 should be, but is not. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.  :'(

Whilst we shouldn't rejoice just yet, the recent consultation on telephone numbering did mention that Ofcom will be looking at introducing rules on how CPs charge for numbers other than 03.  :-/

Dave wrote on Mar 20^th, 2007 at 7:54pm:

Whilst we shouldn't rejoice just yet, the recent consultation on telephone numbering did mention that Ofcom will be looking at introducing rules on how CPs charge for numbers other than 03.  :-/

I get the impression that Ed Richards is far less inclined to just legalise every single scamas Stephen Carter seemed to spend his entire time at Ofcom doing.  However it is going to take quite a while for a major cultural shift at Ofcom to take place.

I did hear Colette Bowe, Chairman of the Ofcom Consumer Panel, interviewed on Radio 4 the other day, although I forget now whether it was about the Virgin Media/Sky dispute or about 09 tv prize ripoff lines.  But whatever it was she actually wished to make it clear that shock horror the Ofcom Consumer Panel disagreed with what Ofcom was doing and felt it was inadequate and not enough to protect consumers. :o

So perhaps Colette is finally getting the message that representing the interests of consumers as Chairman of the Ofcom Consumers Panel doesn't just mean going to cocktail parties with Ofcom board members and drawing her substantial allowance but actually also means going on record in the national media to say that Ofcom isn't doing enough to protect the interests of consumers.

Just received:


Quote:

Thank you for your email. Further to your last email, I have been asked to provide you with the following information. In March 2005, the Central Office of Information (COI) published a paper entitled Contact centre guidance. Within this document guidance was given on the appropriate use of non geographical numbers. DVLA listened to this guidance along with subsequent guidance given in the Varney report (Dec 2006) and are preparing to move to 0300 numbers. Regards Mr A Milburn www.direct.gov.uk/motoring

I found the below extract from the Varney Report particularly heartening:


Quote:

7.30 I recommend that the public sector should explore the scope for a single access number nationwide for all non-emergency public services, to provide a complementary support for 999. A number of activities could also be carried out in the short term to improve accessibility via public service contact centres and I recommend the following actions be reviewed to simplify access to public service remote contact. First, to improve immediate access to public service departments and agencies and then to rationalise telephone numbers by: - coordinating the implementation of a public sector wide number strategy, utilising the new 0300 number range, to simplify access and tariffs for citizens and businesses to all departments and local authorities; - publishing standard form descriptions of each department’s services on Directgov/Businesslink.gov (as appropriate); and - publishing a government phonebook of public sector access numbers and targeting a reduction of 80 per cent of published telephone numbers and better signposting of the remaining numbers.

~ Edited by Dave: Threads joined

Good news?  The tectonic plates of the government are moving in the right direction. Will the banks do the same?

kk wrote on Jun 7^th, 2007 at 12:21pm:

Good news?  The tectonic plates of the government are moving in the right direction. Will the banks do the same?

But why does everyone who uses an 0845 number who wants to do the right thing now have to get a new number and new leaflets, while all the 0844 and 0845 scammers can just carry on as they are, and the determined 0870 scammers will simply move to 0871 numbers which the stupid punters they rely on will think are also now National Rate too.

After all wasn't the main selling point of these numbers to government agencies, charities, the Police and councils in the first place that they wouldn't have to keep on changing the numbers they used? ;) ::)

And what will be happening at the BBC and what new scam will its greedy telecoms partners at Capital and Cable & Wireless be recommending that it tries to get away with? :o >:(

Still as 03 being a normal geographic rate was my idea at that November 1995 meeting with Sean Williams and co I suppose I can claim I have at least had some impact on the whole process.  But the bad bit is that premium rate numbers are still to be allowed on 0871 (ICSTIS controlled but not as we know it Jim) and on 0844 and 0845 (not controlled at all) so the public still won't know what is a Premium Rate number and what is not.

Heinz wrote on Jun 7^th, 2007 at 11:00am:

Just received: Quote: Thank you for your email. Further to your last email, I have been asked to provide you with the following information. In March 2005, the Central Office of Information (COI) published a paper entitled Contact centre guidance. Within this document guidance was given on the appropriate use of non geographical numbers. DVLA listened to this guidance along with subsequent guidance given in the Varney report (Dec 2006) and are preparing to move to 0300 numbers. Regards Mr A Milburn www.direct.gov.uk/motoring I found the below extract from the Varney Report particularly heartening: [quote] 7.30 I recommend that the public sector should explore the scope for a single access number nationwide for all non-emergency public services, to provide a complementary support for 999. A number of activities could also be carried out in the short term to improve accessibility via public service contact centres and I recommend the following actions be reviewed to simplify access to public service remote contact. First, to improve immediate access to public service departments and agencies and then to rationalise telephone numbers by: - coordinating the implementation of a public sector wide number strategy, utilising the new 0300 number range, to simplify access and tariffs for citizens and businesses to all departments and local authorities; - publishing standard form descriptions of each department’s services on Directgov/Businesslink.gov (as appropriate); and - publishing a government phonebook of public sector access numbers and targeting a reduction of 80 per cent of published telephone numbers and better signposting of the remaining numbers.

[/quote]
There having been no news of the DVLA's introduction of the promised 0300 numbers, I emailed again earlier this week:


Quote:

Dear Mr Milburn I was wondering whether you are yet able to provide details of when the DVLA will change from 0845/0870 numbers to 0300 numbers. As I am sure you will realise, the current furore over NHGS GPs' Surgeries using stealth revenue-sharing 0844 numbers means there is an ideal opportunity to gain highly favourable publicity but making loud public announcements of your intentions!

Although a reply followed within a few days, the wheels (pardon the pun) obviously move very slowly at the DVLA!


Quote:

Further to my previous reply,  I can confirm that meetings are still ongoing and we hope to come to a satisfactory conclusion shortly. Unfortunately, we cannot give a date at this time of when DVLA will change from 0845/0870 numbers to 0300 numbers. Kind regards Lynne Hodgetts www.direct.gov.uk/motoring

In my opinion, that is extremely good news. Now, if only Ofcom can get of its backside and get network providers to handle 03 calls properly, we would be cooking with gas...

The link to Sir David Varney's recommendation has changed and I have updated my opening post accordingly.

One should of course realise that since the DVLA uses mainly 0870 numbers that if they do nothing at all the cost of calling the DVLA will automatically become the same as an 01/02 number on 1st Feb 2008.  Ditto for the BBC.

It is only organisations like the Police, HMRC and Surrey County Council that we have to force to change their numbers to 03 because of the total failure of Ofcom to serve the interests of the UK citizen consumer by also returning all 0845 numbers to geographic call rate on 1st Feb 2008.

To my mind DVLA's final decision on its strategy is clearly going to have to be in place by 1st Feb 2008 (as continued 087 use may be more expensive than switching to 03) but of course due to useless Ofcom there is no final deadline for action by all the numerous publis sector 0845 abusers including none other than the Parliamentary Ombudsman. :o >:( [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Another email from the DVLA timed/dated 15:09 on 5/10/07:


Quote:

Thank you for your email. DVLA fully intends introducing 0300 number services and moving away from 0870. We are currently in negotiations with our Telecoms providers to finalise arrangements and tariffs with regard to their 0300 products. Regards Mr A Milburn drivers.dvla@gtnet.gov.uk www.direct.gov.uk/motoring

It is really good to hear that the DVLA will be switching to 03.  8-)

I suppose that it had to do something with the end to revenue sharing on 0870. Hopefully those public bodies using 0845 will also make plans to move. We do know that there is a public body interested in a large number of 03 numbers, but we don't know which.

Dave wrote on Oct 7^th, 2007 at 9:35pm:

It is really good to hear that the DVLA will be switching to 03.  8-)

It appears that the DVLA continues on with its nose firmly in the 0870 trough.

---

To recap, one of the outcomes of the Varney review was the recommendation that 03xx numbers should be adopted:


Quote:

29. improving immediate access to public service departments and agencies and then to rationalise telephone numbers by: - coordinating the implementation of a public sector wide number strategy utilising the new 0300 number range, to simplify access and tariffs for citizens and businesses to all departments and local authorities; - publishing standard form descriptions of each department’s services on Directgov/Businesslink.gov (as appropriate); and - publishing a government phonebook of public sector access numbers and targeting a reduction of 80 per cent of published telephone numbers and better signposting of the remaining numbers;

Members may be interested in reading this article which looks at the Cabinet Office's Contact Council, the body charged with implementing the recommendations of the Varney review:

Quote:

Improving the front line of public services Wednesday, August 20, 2008 The Contact Council was set up last year to improve the performance of public sector call centres and to raise standards of service. Alison Thomas looks at what's been achieved so far. Anyone forlornly pressing the hash key for the third time of asking – after spending 10 minutes listening to canned Mozart while being assured "Your call is important to us" – knows that call centres can leave a lot to be desired. Step forward the Contact Council, the body established by the Cabinet Office to promote best practice across the public sector in all matters relating to customer contact. Its initial task is to oversee the improvement of performance and standards in publicly-funded contact centres. In the longer term the council, launched last year, aims to build its membership to include representatives of more than 700 contact centres and will set out a vision for public service contact and provide professional advice and guidance. It also aims to develop customer contact as a profession in government and create a network of professionals to improve the skills of the estimated 60,000 public sector contact centre staff. "It's about learning across government from a business perspective," says the Cabinet Office's director of transformational government Alexis Cleveland. "The Contact Council is looking at contact centres across the whole of government, including local government, the police and the NHS. The best of the public sector contact centres perform at the level of the best of the private sector, but a lot don't reach that level at the moment." […] Managing avoidable contact, including wrong numbers and progress-chasing calls, is another issue Cleveland has experience of from her days running the Pensions Service. "We monitored why people were phoning us up and sometimes they were on the wrong number. Why? Because we had something like 17 different telephone numbers, so it wasn't unreasonable for people to have picked the wrong one. "The Pensions Service is on the journey of coming down to only one number to phone, so that it can take out all those wasted calls. […]

Will this single phone number for the DWP be a 03xx one?

Will Recommendation 29 go by the wayside? It seems to me that, at present, the Contact Council is the only chance we have of the large public sector services doing the right thing and switching to 03xx.

Quote:

"It's about learning across government from a business perspective," says the Cabinet Office's director of transformational government Alexis Cleveland. "The Contact Council is looking at contact centres across the whole of government, including local government, the police and the NHS. The best of the public sector contact centres perform at the level of the best of the private sector, but a lot don't reach that level at the moment."

It seems they have merely been learning from the private sector how to lie about the real cost of 084/7 calls by numerous devious means and also focused on making the whole experience of calling so distressing, expensive and unfulfilling that people simply won't bother calling at all. ;) ::) :'(

The so called single number for each department and even for the whole of government services merely means then having to wade through a 20 layer deep IVR menu.  What is required is for numerous different 03 numbers that get straight through with no delay but that are constantly kept bang up to date on their websites and elsewhere.

Also what is the relationship between The Contact Council and the Contact Centre Association on which several large government departments are also represented? :-? :-/

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 21^st, 2008 at 5:04pm:

… learning from the private sector.

Exactly. The vital difference between consumer-driven and equitably delivered taxpayer-funded services is being lost.


NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 21^st, 2008 at 5:04pm:

What is required is for numerous different 03 numbers that get straight through with no delay but that are constantly kept bang up to date on their websites and elsewhere.

A readily accessible and easily understood list of primary numbers with advanced features (requiring use of non-geographic 03 numbers) may offer advantages to all. For simple contact with numerous specific teams there is little justification for the use of non-geographic numbers and the consequent cost of advanced features.


NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 21^st, 2008 at 5:04pm:

What is the relationship between The Contact Council and the Contact Centre Association on which several large government departments are also represented?

As I understand it, the Contact Council is an organ of the Cabinet Office charged with delivering improvements to the delivery of public services by all public bodies (not just central government). It is made up of members appointed to represent all areas of the public sector. The CCA is an open membership trade association serving the interests of all call centre operators, in all sectors.

Whilst one may draw from the other, and they may be seen to work together on common issues, there should be no case for any type of fundamental relationship as the two have quite different purposes. The Contact Council serves users of public services, the CCA serves call centre operators. Whilst the two interests are not necessarily opposed, they are not necessarily the same. The potential for conflict, e.g. over how services are funded, means that they must be kept separate.

The CCA would rightly seek for net operating costs to be kept to a minimum, by any legitimate means that is compatible with relevant service standards. The Contact Council has a duty to ensure that this is not done at the expense of service users, except where it is proper to levy fees for public services.