can anybody tell me how much a minute these are to ring please?

~ Edited by Dave: Thread title amended

You will have to say what type of phone you are calling from and you will probably have to give a couple more digits.

using a landline and ringing an Abbey branch ( for example 05511 430508)

echo wrote on Jul 1^st, 2008 at 3:11pm:

using a landline and ringing an Abbey branch ( for example 05511 430508)

If by "landline" you are saying you make your calls with BT, then calls are charged as per geographical calls.

Hi

Edit. I posted incorrect info , therefore I have deleted this posting.

(see #post 5 for my deleted posting and correction)


Alan

alan99 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2008 at 8:53pm:

What a rip off. Needless to say they aren't included in 01 02 inclusive packages. 1899 nor 18185 don't carry then either (I didn't try  18866 but expect no joy) Now that some punters are aware of 0844 scams along come Abbey with their 055 numbers just to keep us on our toes . BTW it is a bit cheaper phoning them Sat daytime if you can be bothered . Rates from BT landline are 4.89 ppm daytime, 2ppm eve and 1.18 ppm weekends all day, inc VAT.

Alan, BT do charge Abbey's 055114 numbers as per geographical calls and are inclusive where applicable. The rates you quote are "non-discounted" ones which are not those which inclusive tariffs apply on.

Navigate the BT Price List using the following:

Look-up 05xx prefixes here. 055114 are in charge band g21.

"Non-discounted" rates are here. These rates apply on Light User Scheme and other old tariffs. Local and national geographical rates are different and 0845 and 0870 are charged inline with these, respectively. The rates (those which you listed) for g21 are between local and national rates.


The relevant pages of the BT Price List for "BT Calling Plans" (formally BT Together Options) say that "UK calls" include calls to g21 numbers.

Calling Plans - Unlimited Weekend Plan (Formerly known as BT Together Option 1) -- Table 1a shows rates for UK calls and the footnote below that table says ""UK" includes calls to any number range charged at g21 rates and shown as 11 under Categorisation for Customer Options in Section 2 Part 11".

Calling Plans - Unlimited Evening & Weekend Plan (Formerly known as BT Together Option 2) and Calling Plans - Unlimited Anytime Plan (Formerly known as BT Together Option 3) -- Table 1a in each of these shows the UK geographical call rates for each one and each one has the same footnote.

Virgin Media is one such provider which charges these numbers above geographical call rate. Other providers may or may not charge these numbers inline with geographical calls, but BT, with its three main residential Calling Plans at least, does charge them inline.

Hi Dave

Thanks for info. Sorry about me posting wrong info on your forum. It just shows how complicated phone charges are. That will teach me as a newbie to be more careful in future  :)

Although I agree with you the reason I said 05 numbers are not included is BT's
overview of calling plans states the following are included. " *Means calls of up to an hour to numbers beginning 01, 02 and 03, excluding the Channel Islands. Other exclusions apply."
It doesnt say 05 are included , but then g21 are , I wont try to guess about g6 calls. (it is not easy is it  :-/)
I realise this is just a customer guide, not a definitive price guide.

When searching for an 0844 or 0871 charges  I tend to use http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumer/consumerProducts/pdf/SpecialisedNos.pdf
Can this be relied on when phoned  from a BT landline Opt 1 ?

Alan

alan99 wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2008 at 12:12am:

When searching for an 0844 or 0871 charges  I tend to use http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumer/consumerProducts/pdf/SpecialisedNos.pdf Can this be relied on when phoned  from a BT landline Opt 1 ?

Yes.

If a particular charge band is shown under "Calling Plans" (page 42 onwards), then those rates apply to you. If not, then you will have to refer to "non-discounted" prices on pages 43 and 44. The latter is usually the case with 0844 and 0871 numbers.

Do 05xx numbers route to an 01 or 02 the same as an 08xx does?

I have tried getting even the 05 number for my branch (Walthamstow) out of Abbey customer services but they wont give it up. Intead they offer to put you through to the branch, where you usually get voicemail.

The reason for HAVING to speak to the branch in the first place is that in order to draw over £500 you have to give them 24 hours notice. Since I work too far from the bank I cannot do it in person, and have to notify them over the phone to make a Saturday withdrawal of these amounts. I guess the other alternative is to draw it out in dribs and drabs from the ATM....

My partner has had the same probs with HSBC.

Who runs things these days, the customer or the company? Silly question!!!

Read this...   http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=440649

I think about half way down should answer your question.

Fusion wrote on Jul 8^th, 2008 at 12:14pm:

Do 05xx numbers route to an 01 or 02 the same as an 08xx does?

I guess the answer is probably no because of the type of line (VoIP) they are used for.

Dave wrote on Jul 8^th, 2008 at 1:48pm:

I guess the answer is probably no because of the type of line (VoIP) they are used for.

Surely we have also previously established that the final destination point of some 084/7 numbers is a voip computer destination and not a geographic 01/02 phone number though. :-? :-/

NGMsGhost wrote on Jul 12^th, 2008 at 8:25pm:

Surely we have also previously established that the final destination point of some 084/7 numbers is a voip computer destination and not a geographic 01/02 phone number though. :-? :-/

Unless someone who knows first hand how this works, then we cannot be certain and we can speculate until the cows come home.

I am given to understand that all 08 numbers have underlying geographical numbers - that come second hand from Ofcom.

The 'translation' of the 08xx number takes place on the network which operates it. It is obviously therefore reasonable to assume that all do not have to operate in the same way.

Ah, but surely the destination of/for the translation can be a soft number? After all, I have done that for clients with 080X numbers.

Tanllan wrote on Jul 13^th, 2008 at 9:17pm:

Ah, but surely the destination of/for the translation can be a soft number? After all, I have done that for clients with 080X numbers.

I also thought there were a fair few 084/7 numbers where nobody on this site had managed to find a geographic alternative 01/02 phone number for the simple reason that no such alternative exists and that the call only terminates on a computer based switch.

Abbey seem to have moved from 0845 to 05511 numbers. Are we moving to another set of numbers to confuse and con the public or are these ok. I tried looking them up on the internet without joy, I did a search here without joy and when I phoned BT they didn't know and have promised to phone me back.

I'm sure the experts here will know  ;)

BT have got back to say it is special rate (5p/min). It was new to the lady that called me.

Ye gods it just gets worse. What the hell are OFCOM doing. At last people are getting to know about 08xx numbers and a new lot of rip off numbers are introduced. How the hell are people suppossed to know what the costs are?

Most 05511 numbers are charged as g21 (4.89p daytime,2p evening, 1.18p weekend)/min. However, 055 100 numbers are charged in band g6, 5p/min at all times. Is this what Abbey are using?
http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumer/consumerProducts/pdf/SpecialisedNos.pdf

055 numbers have been around for a long time. They were originally intended for use by companies with VoIP phones, but with the rapid evolution of services, these are usually provided on standard numbers with no need for special numbers.

This does indeed look like a new strategy to confuse and rip off their customers.

Where does it say Abbey have moved from 0845 to 05511? Is this an official thing, or are you referring to the alternatives in the database?

As far as I'm aware, Abbey have used 05511 numbers internally for years - the vast majority (if not all) of their branches use the Cisco VoIP phones, and have 05511 numbers attached to them.

From my VoIP provider, they are actually charged at "VoIP" rate and only 0.6p a minute for me to call (I haven't tried calling one yet though...)

Can we clear this up.

My searches show all local Abbey branches with the memorable number 0845 7654321. There is the usual smattering of 0800, 0845 and 0870 numbers for various services but no reference I can find to 05511 on the public website.

Do we know any anyone who uses 055 numbers for contact with the public?

If so, can we establish whether users benefit from revenue sharing?

If so, do they provide honest price declarations?

Is there simply an issue with some call providers charging excess rates without the justification of revenue sharing?

If there is something to focus on here, then it is important that it is included in the scope of campaigning efforts, but this must be done with clarity and accuracy.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 7^th, 2008 at 9:19pm:

My searches show all local Abbey branches with the memorable number 0845 7654321. There is the usual smattering of 0800, 0845 and 0870 numbers for various services but no reference I can find to 05511 on the public website.

I believe Abbey's branches have 05511 430xxx numbers. Search the database.

Obviously the 0845 number is given for public contact, but they do appear to have these 05511 numbers for branches. BT charges them as per 01/02/03 calls, being inclusive where applicable. I believe others such as Virgin Media charge them at a higher rate than 01/02/03 calls.

The branch I was dealing with had an 0845 number, which they were crossing thru on their stationery and replacing with hand written 0511 number. I assumed because they were replacing the 0845 number with the 05511 number.

Dave, you say they will be treated as inclusive in packages (by BT) and if the case I'm pleased. However when I enquired for clarification from BT they at first didn't know and then called me back to confirm that the number would be charged at 5p/min and was not included in packages (specifically in my case Option 3).

Call centre numbers I use for them are 0800 (or 0845 which I don't call obviously).

If you search for Abbey 05511:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=abbey+05511
it seems their numbers are in the form 05511 430xxx

According to BT's price list that I linked earlier, these are charged at varying rates according to the times of day, but never as much as 5p. As I write, the BT site is down for maintenance, but I think there may be a "y" to indicate that they are counted as inclusive calls, but it might just be "y" for Friends&Family discounts. You can check tomorrow.

Did you give the full number to the BT person on the phone, or just say 055? If the former, then they gave you the wrong price as only 055 100 numbers are 5p/min at all times. That sales assistant must be on loan from Virgin Media!

I stand ready to be corrected, but I wonder if we have a subsidiary issue raising its head here.

Many large organisations find that most telephone enquiries are better handled by specialist representatives in a call centre than by interupting the routine of staff at branches.

If this works, which it often does not, it should be more cost effective for the company and also deliver better service to most callers. There are however occassions where one needs to make contact with someone at a branch, e.g. to follow-up on points discussed at a meeting with the person who will recall the discussion or to make particular arrangements that are outside the scope of a central service operation. This can be achieved by qualified publication of "local" numbers, passing calls through or arranging call backs.

It appears that Abbey branches have 05511 numbers, which they release out of frustration with the central call centre, whereas the company prefers all calls to be channelled through 0845 765 4321.

We all hate the process of going through a call centre, however we are equally frustrated by speaking to a branch representative who has neither the breadth of knowledge nor the authority to deal with our enquiry. With counter staff serving a visible queue of customers, back office staff not sufficiently skilled to handle enquiries and management with their own concerns, there is often nobody left to answer the telephone anyway. That is not to say that waiting times at call centres are not often excessive.


There are positive exceptions at both ends, perhaps more commonly at branches, where staff are geared to a closer engagement with customers. The nature of their work however often leaves them little time to dedicate to dealing with customers by telephone.

My view is that one should campaign for higher standards from call centres, rather than trying to resist their continuing growth. For various reasons (some of which have passed into history) non-geographic numbers commend themselves for use by call centres. Now that 03 allows the connection between NGNs and revenue sharing (and the consequent excess call charges) to be broken, adoption of 03 numbers is one way in which this improvement in standards can be achieved. There are many others.

I wait to hear more from those researching 055 in general.

jrawle,

I gave the full number, but the person at BT I was speaking to could have made a mistake of course in their response, although it wasn't off the top of her head, but after going away and consulting and phoning me back.

I looked up the details were you suggested and it does only refer to F&F discount so I still don't know whether it is included in inclusive packages.

Let us hope the lady at BT is wrong and they can be included in inclusive packages and I have started a completely spurious thread.

However the lesson here is that at this point in time we just don't know the answer to a very simple question. And that is the crux of the position with these sort of numbers. We have experts posting to this site and we have consulted BT, yet the numbering position is such a shambles that we still don't actually have a definitive answer as to whether a particular number is included in inclusive packages or not, which frankly should be a very simple question to answer.

All BT's charges are published on its Price List:

Identify which charge band 055114 numbers are in (g21):

http://www.serviceview.bt.com/list/public/current/Call_Charges_boo/0025_d0e5.htm#0025-d0e5

BT Unlimited Anytime Calling Plan (BT Together Option 3) pricing info is here:

http://www.serviceview.bt.com/list/public/current/Cust_Opts_Res_boo/3210_d0e314.htm#3210-d0e314

Table 1a identifies the cost of UK geographical calls and the note under it says that these rates also apply to g21 numbers.


Incidently, all 03 numbers are also in band g21:

http://www.serviceview.bt.com/list/public/current/Call_Charges_boo/FrameworkImpl97281.htm#FrameworkImpl97281

Confusion reigns at Virginmedia.

A representative has just asserted to me that 03 numbers are not included in the "Talk anytime" package, despite the fact that the published literature rightly contradicts this advice - see page 3.

055114 numbers are classified, along with others but not 03, in Chargegroup PG21 (the VM equivalent of BT's P21 call type) - see page 2. A similar assertion was made in respect of these, however in the light of the above it has little credibility.

If my request to address this matter with someone able to represent Virginmedia accurately in this regard yields any response, I will report it here.

Thanks Dave. So to clarify I have no complaint re charging and the number will be foc with BT Option 3 package and my only complaint is the complete pigs ear of a telephone number system that results in staff at Virgin and BT to quote the wrong information even after they take advice before doing so.

If I have to trust anyone regarding the facts it is more likely to be you.

Keith wrote on Nov 9^th, 2008 at 11:05pm:

Thanks Dave. So to clarify I have no complaint re charging and the number will be foc with BT Option 3 package and my only complaint is the complete pigs ear of a telephone number system that results in staff at Virgin and BT to quote the wrong information even after they take advice before doing so.

Calls to 055114 will be as per 01/02/03, so yes FOC for the first hour on BT Option 3 (Unlimited Anytime).

I think this just goes to show what a mess it all is; if staff at the respective telephone companies don't consult or can't understand their own pricing information then there's something wrong. It may be that chasing statistics is considered more important in that calls must be kept as short as possible and as many calls be answered as possible for the fewest number of staff.

I accept that, particularly in the case of the BT Price List, it's less than user-friendly. That's obviously a matter for the telephone company to address, for which it may be said that it's in its interest not to.


Keith wrote on Nov 9^th, 2008 at 11:05pm:

If I have to trust anyone regarding the facts it is more likely to be you.

Why, thank you! ;D

Today, after enquiring with Virgin the cost of calling 005511430*** they had no info on these numbers, but offered to contact Abbey directly, with Abbey claiming it can charge what it likes for it's 005511430*** numbers  >:( Abbey describing their number as "national"  ::) ... that tells me it's equivalent to at least 0870 rate (9.79p per min from 01/10/09, from a Virgin landline) - but, I will not be calling Abbey on that number to find out!  ... in this instance I'll decline to partake of the "Abbey habit" :P

Hope this is of use to someone  ;)

Telegram_Sam wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2009 at 1:09pm:

Today, after enquiring with Virgin the cost of calling 005511430*** they had no info on these numbers, but offered to contact Abbey directly, with Abbey claiming it can charge what it likes for it's 005511430*** numbers  >:( Abbey describing their number as "national"  ::) ... that tells me it's equivalent to at least 0870 rate (9.79p per min from 01/10/09, from a Virgin landline) - but, I will not be calling Abbey on that number to find out!  ... in this instance I'll decline to partake of the "Abbey habit" :P

The company you're calling does not set the call rate, your call provider does!


Virgin Media publish call charges for all types of calls at [url=www.virginmedia.com/callcosts[/url]]www.virginmedia.com/callcosts[/url]

Firstly, refer to the "UK non-geographic calls" document, page 2 identifies the 055114 as being chargeband PG21.

Then refer to "Residential tariffs" to find out the cost of calling PG21 numbers. Page 14 shows they have a connection fee of 8.8 pence, and cost 4.79 pence per minute during the daytime and 1.96 pence per minute during the evening.

***    the cost of calling 005511430*** they had no info on these numbers ***

Dialling 00 55 11 430x xxxx  gets you to São Paulo, Brazil.


As an aside, all 055 numbers are currently unformatted in the sayNOto0870 database.

Location Independent (g21) 055/056
1.96 / 4.79 ppm evening/daytime rate on Virgin talk plans, inc. VAT.

Source: here.

These are VoIP precursors to the new 03 range, that never really took off due to the hoops you had to jump through to actually get one!  Some tariffs from some suppliers bill them as 01/02/03 numbers, others don't.  But as a general rule, nobody has heard of them and you'll get any old random answer if you try and ask customer services!


Edit: oops missed this had been answered on the next page!  Leaving it here for the alternate source link.

Just been given my first 05511430239 number to call Santander branch.   This is a first for me so I put it into 'Sayno' for a geographical number.   Nothing found so I put in Santander and got a lot.  I was surprised to find both on the main and unverified database 0551 numbers quoted in the 01/02/03 column.   Is this not misleading or have I misunderstood these, new to me, 0551 numbers?    

michael.mclaughlin wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 2:07pm:

Just been given my first 05511430239 number to call Santander branch.   This is a first for me so I put it into 'Sayno' for a geographical number.   Nothing found so I put in Santander and got a lot.  I was surprised to find both on the main and unverified database 0551 numbers quoted in the 01/02/03 column.   Is this not misleading or have I misunderstood these, new to me, 0551 numbers?

Welcome to SAYNOTO0870.COM.

I've joined your posting to a thread already running on this.

0551 numbers are non-geographic "corporate" numbers and Santander uses them in its branches that used to be Abbey. They are not revenue sharing numbers, hence the fact that they are listed in the geographic number column in the database.

BT charges these numbers the same as a geographic, 03 or 0870 call; i.e. 0551 numbers are inclusive where applicable. I believe, unfortunately, that many other providers levy a premium to call them, although you will have to check to see if that is the case with yours.

Please can you tell me the location of the branch so I can add it to the listings?  :)

Thanks Dave for your reply.   As a Newbi I have missed a lot on this subject.
That number I quoted belonged to Santander Belfast Branch, I think Royal Avenue.

Dave if the 0551 numbers are posted in the 01/02/03 column do you not think that this could mislead people into dialling these numbers and assuming that they are charged same as 01/02/03 and therefor included in packages?   I appreciate your point about non revenue sharing but this is irrelevant to the user if they are charged by their telco without them being aware.    

michael.mclaughlin wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 8:21pm:

Dave if the 0551 numbers are posted in the 01/02/03 column do you not think that this could mislead people into dialling these numbers and assuming that they are charged same as 01/02/03 and therefor included in packages?   I appreciate your point about non revenue sharing but this is irrelevant to the user if they are charged by their telco without them being aware.

For the most effective use of the alternative numbers listings it requires a user to know which numbers are the cheaper on their particular tariff.

It would be impractical for the SAYNOTO0870.COM search page to request the visitor's tariff so as to advise which is cheaper. Any such solution would need to know, and be kept up to date, with call charges on many different tariffs.

There are four fields (columns) for phone numbers: 0870/1, 0844/5, 01/02/03 and freephone. We can't have too many because it would not fit.

There are situations where it is not simply the case that the numbers to the right are cheaper to call than those on the left such as freephone numbers from mobiles and 0870 numbers which are inclusive with BT at times when 01/02/03 numbers are inclusive.

It is in my view totally and utterly wrong for this site to be listing 0551 numbers in the 01/02/03 column when 0551 numbers are not ever charged at 01/02/03 rates.

As 0551 numbers are usually more expensive to call than 0845 numbers and are also not part of call packages (unlike 0845 on BT, TalkTalk and many other landlines) then why are they being listed as alternatives to 0845 numbers at all, let alone under the 01/02/03 column.  If they are going to be listed at all for these branches as alternatives then it should surely only be done under "Other Information" with a suitable caveat.

NGMsGhost wrote on Sep 27^th, 2010 at 9:50am:

It is in my view totally and utterly wrong for this site to be listing 0551 numbers in the 01/02/03 column when 0551 numbers are not ever charged at 01/02/03 rates.

This statement is incorrect. BT charges 055114 numbers the same as 01/02/03 numbers.



NGMsGhost wrote on Sep 27^th, 2010 at 9:50am:

As 0551 numbers are usually more expensive to call than 0845 numbers and are also not part of call packages (unlike 0845 on BT, TalkTalk and many other landlines) then why are they being listed as alternatives to 0845 numbers at all, let alone under the 01/02/03 column.  If they are going to be listed at all for these branches as alternatives then it should surely only be done under "Other Information" with a suitable caveat.

This is also incorrect. As I said, BT charges 055114 the same as 01/02/03 numbers. This means that they are part of inclusive packages.

Dave wrote on Sep 27^th, 2010 at 10:05am:

This statement is incorrect. BT charges 055114 numbers the same as 01/02/03 numbers.

So what of landline customers who are not with BT and who are with TalkTalk, Sky, Virgin or numerous other landline companies and what of mobile phone customers.  And what of the numerous mobile phone customers with inclusive call plans that do not include these numbers.

If in the majority of cases apart from BT customers using 055114 numbers are subject to an extra charge and BT is the exception to the rule then surely users of the site should be warned about this.  Especially when 055114 will be an unfamiliar code and the only other use of 05 is for 0500 Freephone numbers.


Quote:

This is also incorrect. As I said, BT charges 055114 the same as 01/02/03 numbers. This means that they are part of inclusive packages.

And what about non BT landline customers not to mention users of BT Payphones who also will be charged a premium rate for calling 05514 numbers.  For you to simply list the number in the 01/02/03 column when it is physically not an 01/02/03 number and not charged on an 01/02/03 basis on most landline call plans apart from BT's is inappropriate.  Ditto when it is not part of inclusive bundled minutes on any mobile phone calling plans.

If you are going to list the number do not list it misleadingly as being an 01/02/03 number when it is not and I certainly would not like to see the column heading changed to include 05514 when it is not charged the same way as other 01/02/03 numbers by most call providers other than in BT's domestic landline call packages.

If the 0551 numbers were included in the 0845 column because they are a corporate version of non-geographical numbers then everyone would be alerted to possible additional charges.   If you are a BT customer there is less chance of being hurt.   It appears to me that BT customers don't need 0845/0870 to be listed in a seperate column.
I would think that the average person using the site look at the columns on the left and then the right to find the cheaper alternative.   This would be my general approach but because I am very aware of what is happening in this number game I would investigate.      

I do hope that we are not getting into the tempting, but dreaded "Calls cost xx from a BT Landline, other providers may vary" syndrome.

If all other providers follow the BT pattern then fair enough. I have not done the work properly, but at a quick look Virgin Media appears not to treat "PG21" as inclusive, although it charges less than for non-inclusive calls to geo numbers. If my quick look was correct then surely these cannot belong in the 01/02/03 column, even though it may be untrue to say that they are never charged on the same basis. One could say that 0845 and 0870 are sometimes charged at the same rate as 01/02/03, and in the case of some mobile situations the same is true for 0800.

With the present columns, if there is some value in offering 0551s as alternatives I would suggest that they probably belong in the "Other Information" column.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Sep 27^th, 2010 at 4:25pm:

With the present columns, if there is some value in offering 0551s as alternatives I would suggest that they probably belong in the "Other Information" column.

For once SCV I find myself fully in agreement with you.

Whilst 0845 and 0870 numbers are now included in BT landline call packages (even they are still charged at a 900% per minute premium from BT Public Payphones compared to 01/02/03 numbers) I do not notice these numbers as having now started to appear in the 01/02/03 numbers column on this site.

There is a very good reason for this which is because although BT charges 0845 and 0870 numbers as per geographic numbers at the present time it does so purely for marketing reasons whereas in the case of 03 numbers everyone (landline and mobile phone companies) must charge them at the same rate as their rate to 01 and 02 numbers by regulatory dictat.  Since there is no regulatory dictat that these Santander 0551 numbers will be charged at the same rate as 01/02/03 numbers and they are frequently not charged on this basis (with the many telecoms companies other than BT and I am sure also with BT from Public Payphones) then it is clearly wholly inappropriate to list them as being 01/02/03 numbers.

I think it a great pity that Abbey (now calling themselves Santander as if they wish to extinguish all mention of any Britishness about their name or organisation and to remove any last vestiges of our British heritage and culture in favour of an amorphous and vanilla flavour across Euroland) seems to be falling over itself in its desperation to rip off and scam its customers by eliminating the use of all normal geographic numbers and getting all confused over their use of 0845 and 0551 numbers.  It is a shameful and demeaning sight to behold to see a once solid and dependable company, formerly a mutual society for the mutual benefit of its members, debasing its relationship with its clients and the British public at large.

I have been a user of Abbey National financial services ever since they first expanded their mission from being purely a savings and mortgage organisation into the venture of operating current accounts and other services.   I have always thought the design, function and style of their on-line systems to be first class, something which sadly could not be said about the former management which so disastrously lost its way and weakened the company that they allowed themselves to be taken over and the Abbey National identity lost forever.   The one good thing that can be said about Santander is that, so far, they have not interfered with, absorbed or messed about with the on-line systems which still work excellently as far as I am concerned.   If they were ever to do such a thing then that would probably be the final straw which would compel me to look elsewhere for such services.

Having said that, I notice that we have listed on our database a large number of 0800 numbers which can be used to contact "Abbey" although they are mostly unverified.   Whilst I prefer to conduct almost all my business through the Abbey on-line systems I can say that I find 0800 032 8929 to be an ideal alternative for contacting Abbey and can be moved to "verified" (moderator please note).   Although promoted mainly as a sales and advisory line, one is greeted by a mercifully short welcome and menu and I have been put through to my local Branch after using this number and indeed to other services.

So at the moment there is no need to use either of the controversial and disliked 0845 or 0551 numbers. I hope that this is helpful.  

loddon wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 8:26am:

I think it a great pity that Abbey (now calling themselves Santander as if they wish to extinguish all mention of any Britishness about their name or organisation and to remove any last vestiges of our British heritage and culture in favour of an amorphous and vanilla flavour across Euroland)

......and they are continuing to do so with other banks........

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1316083/As-Santander-buys-million-RBS-NatWest-customers-chaos.html

loddon wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 8:26am:

I think it a great pity that Abbey (now calling themselves Santander as if they wish to extinguish all mention of any Britishness about their name or organisation and to remove any last vestiges of our British heritage and culture in favour of an amorphous and vanilla flavour across Euroland) seems to be falling over itself in its desperation to rip off and scam its customers by eliminating the use of all normal geographic numbers and getting all confused over their use of 0845 and 0551 numbers.

loddon,

I appreciate where you are coming from with your views on the loss of the historic Abbey National brand but we must face the fact that this was actually lost when they were taken over by Santander and Abbey shareholders like myself found we now had Santander share certificates and were paid foreign Spanish dividends with Spanish withholding tax (although still paid in sterling as the only concession).  So given the history of other larger multinational expansion programs the rest was surely inevitable as with the case of the Midland brand (the friendly Griffin being a particularly charming television advertising character) being subsumed by HSBC.

Whilst I agree it is a shame a once fine British financial services institution (one I had my first savings account opened with at the local branch at age 7) has been sold off to an institution in another European country I personally find this in your face rebranding (which Santander did delay for several years) to be more honest and straightforward than say BAA/British Airports Authority still calling itself BAA rather than Ferrovial when the only thing that is now British about this subsidiary of Ferrovial is the physical location of the airports of its UK brand.

As a longstanding NatWest customer I personally regard the retention of the NatWest brand and the associated advertising straplines for the brand as actually being a deliberate attempt to hoodwink NatWest customers that something they are familiar with and attached to still exists when they are actually now a banking customer of the Royal Bank of Scotland (and/or subsequently of HM Government depending on your point of view).  To my mind NatWest died when Royal Bank of Scotland took it over and a much better NatWest cash machine interface was lost by being replaced by that of the new parent bank.  Later numerous other anti customer policies designed to extract a few pennies more profit from them were rolled out by Sir Fred Goodwin and the yes men who comprised the rest of his board.

Getting back to topic Dave has no justification for listing the 0551 numbers in the 01/02/03 column (which are numbers guaranteed to be charged at any telecoms provider's geographic calling rates by regulatory dictat whilst 0551 numbers are not) but seems to be finding it difficult to admit that he has made a mistake and apply the necessary corrective action to the database.

NGMsGhost wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 9:49am:

[ I personally find this in your face rebranding (which Santander did delay for several years) to be more honest and straightforward than say BAA/British Airports Authority still calling itself BAA rather than Ferrovial when the only thing that is now British about this subsidiary of Ferrovial is the physical location of the airports of its UK brand.

NGMsGhost,
Thanks for your supportive comments.   I felt Abbey National really showed it had lost its way when it dropped "National" and its longstanding logo and adopted an all lower case weak and wobbly looking name in random assorted pale and putrid pastel colours which accurately reflected the abysmal lack of confidence and direction that must have infected the Board.   It was inevitable they would go under.

I agree that the use of the parent company name is more honest than the pretence practiced by the Spanish owners of Scottish Power, another example, but I am lamenting the disappearance of Guardian Royal Exchange, Equity & Law and others into Axa, Commercial Union, General accident and Norwich Union into Aviva, and many more examples in our daily life which I feel all contribute to a steady and even accelerating rate of attrition of words names and phrases which are part of our established national character.   I do not lament the loss of one or two odd names, so much as the wholesale decimation and the fact that so many of our important national companies are now foreign owned such as all the major energy companies.

At least your Natwest account will now be re-branded openly with Santander ;) ::) :(

Getting back to the matter of 0551 numbers my view is that the only numbers which appear in the 01/2/3 column should be those which are definitely charged at the same rate as 01/2/3 numbers.   If 0551 numbers can be charged differently then they must belong somewhere else, perhaps adding them to the 0844/5 column, if not in the Other Info column.

loddon wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 1:24pm:

At least your Natwest account will now be re-branded openly with Santander ;) ::) :(

Do you know something that I don't or have missed during my absence in Spain (ironically enough) for part of the summer?


Quote:

Getting back to the matter of 0551 numbers my view is that the only numbers which appear in the 01/2/3 column should be those which are definitely charged at the same rate as 01/2/3 numbers.   If 0551 numbers can be charged differently then they must belong somewhere else, perhaps adding them to the 0844/5 column, if not in the Other Info column.

Agreed.  I look forward to Dave acting on the widespread consensus shown on this matter by other longstanding forum members.

So far as Iberdrola is concerned do you suppose that they felt that Spanish Power might not have the same ring with British consumers as a thrifty Scottish image?

NGMsGhost wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 1:39pm:

loddon wrote on Sep 29th, 2010 at 1:24pm: At least your Natwest account will now be re-branded openly with Santander ;) ::) :( Do you know something that I don't or have missed during my absence in Spain (ironically enough) for part of the summer?

Yes mate, you are now using Santander!!  :o :o  See sherbert's latest posting above.
 

Quote:

So far as Iberdrola is concerned do you suppose that they felt that Spanish Power might not have the same ring with British consumers as a thrifty Scottish image?

Yes, Iberdrola could have been more honest but chickened out.   Why can we British not produce our own energy?   I thought that Energy was supposed to be an asset of national and strategic importance. :o

Look at this comment!!

"AND just why is it that Santander seem to be the ONLY bidder? Are the EU trying to give them a monopoly position in the UK?
Vince Cable should be stepping in on this but seems to be concentrating on incoherent ramblings. I have already closed my membership of the Lib=Dems - UKIP here I come.
- roy, billericay, 29/9/2010 7:49

Santander is, as you say, the ONLY Bidder. Why? Santander is owned by the Spanish Government and all of it's Debts are underwritten by UK Banks from whom they have borrowed. Apparently Santander will not fail as the Spanish Government will be responsible for paying back the Debts. However, were Santander not a Government owned Bank, and failed, the UK Banks would also fail as they are the biggest lenders.

Santander are buying on borrowed money from the very Banks they are taking over. More like a Political carve-up to destroy the UK Banking system. Lloyds/Halifax/BOS is next on the list for the carve-up under the Monopolies Commission sell-out.
- Lizzie M., Alexandria, UK., 29/9/2010 "


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1316083/As-Santander-buys-million-RBS-NatWest-customers-chaos.html#ixzz10vf0bVmC

After all of this agreement, perhaps we need a spiky contribution. When Daily Mail readers are cited as an authoritative source of opinion, I must be expected to react.

I am sure that every generation laments the passing of names it has grown up with. Many of those mentioned above were the product of amalgamations of once proud individual institutions, whose passing was lamented by a previous generation.

Some of the comments made and quoted above beg the questions of whether or not one supports the free movement of capital between nations and the direct involvement of governments in the financial services and utility sectors.

Those who may welcome the contribution of Santander to motor racing surely cannot be surprised or unhappy at the fact that it can only achieve its return on this investment by the branding of its interests.

The sense of regret that I have relates to the fact that many of those named above were once owned mutually or publicly. The tipping point was that of nationalisation / de-mutualisation. If one accepts that an institution exists in the open market, I cannot see how one may dictate from where it may obtain its capital, or seek to deny whoever may acquire a controlling interest the right to exercise their will over its branding and operations.

I can understand why we seek to relate the misuse of non-geographic telephone numbers to other gripes that we may have, as it is always good to find any supportive evidence for one's views about an organisation. I cannot however find a general connection, as many of those I fight most strongly over this issue are those who I otherwise support.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 3:57pm:

After all of this agreement, perhaps we need a spiky contribution. When Daily Mail readers are cited as an authoritative source of opinion, I must be expected to react.

Do we assume from your extremely patronising comments SCV, that the Great British Public should only take notice of Times and Telegraph readers?

The Telegraph and the Times sells about 1.2 million  daily between them and the Mail is the second largest selling paper (after The Sun sells about 3 million) sells just over 2 million.

So, from what you are saying is that the Mail readers do not know what they are talking about and the minority who do?

sherbert wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 4:50pm:

Do we assume from your extremely patronising comments SCV, that the Great British Public should only take notice of Times and Telegraph readers?

No you have SCV all wrong sherbert.  It would only be letters to The Guardian and The Independent that he would deem as being worthy of being taken sufficiently seriously in politically correct circles.

Doesn't that surely come across loud and clear in virtually of all his lengthy pontifications that would I am sure land him a job as an Ofcom consultation writer at the drop of a hat were he to ever consider applying for the role.

You are probably right NGMsGhost and if that is the case it means SCV's comment is even more ludicrous as those two papers together sell less than half a million copies a day.

Apologies for making such a stupid error in my previous post  ;D

I would hope to judge any comment on its intrinsic merit, regardless of the source. All organs of the media contain both drivel and perceptive writing. Some have a bigger circulation than others, for a variety of reasons. I hope we accept that one is free to choose one's newspaper, rather than only the wisest amongst us being permitted to buy those with the largest circulation.

It is common currency that Times and Telegraph readers hold views to what could once be called the right of centre, Independent and Grauniad readers to be driven by political correctness and Mail readers to be petty-minded haters of the both the state and disorder. I could go on.

Two quoted pieces which switch in an instant from condemnation of an alleged authoritarian conspiracy to a demand for state intervention in what is essentially a free market situation are typical. I am disappointed that it is only my introductory remarks, rather than the substance of my comments, which attempt to address the topic of the thread, that excite a response.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 6:28pm:

I hope we accept that one is free to choose one's newspaper, rather than only the wisest amongst us being permitted to buy those with the largest circulation.

I regret to report that I dispensed with purchasing a daily British newspaper quite some years ago in favour of television and radio news and free news on the internet.  I do always reliably purchase a daily English newspaper for the expat market when I am staying at holiday residence overseas.  One of the main reasons for this is because I am much more interested in local community affairs there than I am back at home and because the said newspaper has cleverly refused to make most of its more useful local content available on the internet even though it does have a website.

I cannot actually see why people would purchase a newspaper any more unless they were either internet illiterate or they perhaps have a long train journey each day.  And lower cost mobile internet is surely now beginning to destroy even that part of the market.

I say all this with a sense of regret since one of my close relatives works for a major national newspaper but the writing is surely on the wall with tablet look devices with long battery lives starting to appear any my relative believes they can redeploy their skills in to editing content on websites as and when the time comes.

I note that SCV does not take any issue with my suggestion that The Independent and The Grauniad might be rather closer to his own reading tastes than The Times or The Torygraph.

NGMsGhost wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 6:43pm:

I note that SCV does not take any issue with my suggestion that The Independent and The Grauniad might be rather closer to his own reading tastes than The Times or The Torygraph.

If one is sufficiently interested in my comments to attempt to divine some understanding of the author, then this conclusion is hardly of earth-shattering brilliance. I cannot however see how our choices of newspaper, political affiliations or whatever other loyalties we may have should have any bearing on our ability to discuss issues.

If we keep our little swipes at others declared positions to the margins of our discussions, maintain good humour and keep essentially to the topics under discussion, then any soggy liberalism that may be found within my arguments can be attacked as a weakness in those arguments. I would hope to address other contributions similarly as we engage in discussion of the topics raised. I cannot see what relevance the circulation figures of various journals may have to the content of my comments on the issues being discussed in this thread. Yes I did refer to the Daily Mail, as others have seen fit to quote from it. That was not however the essence of my contribution, but we have allowed ourselves to move well off the subject.

I will attempt to draw us back by re-stating my point that I see no connection between the general conduct of an organisation and a decision to adopt revenue sharing, or as in the case of 0551, expensive non-geographic, numbers. Centralisation of telephone contact is naturally associated with use of non-geographic numbers and this can be either positive or negative in terms of service levels, often depending on the type of service required. Because awareness of the 03 range is well short of what it should be, "non-geographic" still tends to mean "revenue sharing", but prior to 2007 this was the only option available.

I maintain that it is a combination of ignorance, lethargy, a reluctance to make what many still see as a "pioneering" move to 03 and an unwillingness to incur the costs of a number change that leaves so many on 0845 numbers. The benefit in terms of subsidy is modest when taken in context, although there is a visible cost (for many) in moving to 03. Although when looked at properly the increased cost incurred by some BT customers is not really an issue, it appears to be so.

I maintain that one does not have to have a black heart and be motivated by insatiable greed to operate a 0845 or 0551 number. It is however generally a bad decision that needs to be carefully reviewed and changed at the most suitable early opportunity. I believe that the need to make this change is more important for the public sector and also this is where, as has been seen already, it is more likely to be achieved. I do not in any way exclude the private sector and (assuming present plans are executed) will shortly be seen making this point in public.

(I continue to be re-assured that when the Ofcom consultation is published in around a month's time it will contain some radical proposals to seriously address the issues that we are campaigning on - many for much longer than I. I continue to be convinced that progress from there will be slow and difficult and I hope that we will all be ready to engage in a proper and positively focused battle.)

loddon wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 1:50pm:

Yes mate, you are now using Santander!!  :o :o  See sherbert's latest posting above.

No my dear old chap (less of the mate stuff please as I really don't think that's the kind of language normally favoured between saynoto0870'ers) it seems that you are very much mistaken and that as an English (with the University of Exeter branch, although it has sadly currently moved to a Portacabin for two years while the original branch is reconstructed within some ghastly new shopping mall on the campus) NatWest customer I will be remaining firmly in UK government and NatWest branded hands for the time being at least until George (nee Gideon) Osborne can find someone else offering him an attractive enough deal to flog us off to.


Quote:

Santander has bought all 311 RBS branches in England and Wales, and seven NatWest branches in Scotland, after the state-backed bank flogged its assets to satisfy European competition rules.

So it is only the Scottish aspect of RBS that is to be expunged (perhaps because they have correctly recognised that this is where the rot set in) and one could argue that there is now a strong case for rebranding the whole parent operation as NatWest to eliminate the unhappy memories associated with the out of control Scottish lairds.

So far as Abbey National is concerned I closed my childhood savings account some time in the 1980s not long after I started working when some aspect of the terms and conditions were made very much worse and I decided that I was better off with National Westminster Bank (as it then was).

In regard to your being upset about all the familiar institutional names of your childhood now being swept away I wonder if you have perhaps considered applying to the BBC for a part in their next series of Grumpy Old Men? ;D