Source: Leamington Courier

http://www.leamingtoncourier.co.uk/news/65p-charge-to-speak-.4323129.jp

<<
65p charge to speak to council?

Published Date:  24 July 2008
By Sundari Sankar

People calling for help with services such as rubbish collection and housing may soon be charged up to 65p per minute.
Warwick District Council is considering replacing its current 01926 code with an 0845 number - potentially costing several pounds per call.

Officials want to make the change so that callers can use the same number for district and county councils - but some councillors are unsure about the proposal.

Coun Moira-Ann Grainger (Con, Warwick North) said: "Thought has not been given to who the people are who will be calling. We cannot just look at it from the point of view of costs to the council."

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

We'd like to hear your views on this story. You can send us your comments by simply clicking on this email: This is what I think (tom.sales@leamingtoncourier.co.uk)

Coun Bill Gifford (Lib Dem, Leamington Milverton) added: "This is going to be a substantial hike in costs. It doesn't make sense that the people who can least afford it are going to bear the brunt of the cost."

The proposals form part of new plans for Warwick District Council to move its customer service centre at Riverside House to the county council's site at Shire Hall in Warwick.

If the change goes ahead, there would be one number for all enquiries directed at both the county and district councils.

Members also pointed out that making the change in number would mean the two councils would need to spend money on advertising the new number and changing the stationery staff currently used.

The highest charges would be for customers on Virgin and Sky call plans at 65p per minute. Calls from mobiles can be as high as 35p per minute.
Callers of 0845 numbers are often put into a queue for several minutes, resulting in even higher costs.

Having originally recommended that councillors approve the change to an 0845 number, Coun Les Caborn (Con, Lapworth) suggested delaying the decision.

He said: "We need to look at all the options because costs do vary."
Warwick District Council receives around 19,000 calls a year.
>>

More on the blog:

http://theleamingtoncourier.blogspot.com/2008/07/should-council-change-to-0845-number.html

Source: Kenilworth Weekly News

http://www.kenilworthweeklynews.co.uk/letters-to-the-editor/Why-calling-the-council-will.4347003.jp

Why calling the council will be better and easier

Published Date: 31 July 2008
By Andrew Jones, Warwick District Council

WARWICK District Council recognises that customers are often confused about which council to contact for which council service: the district council or Warwickshire County Council (Courier, last week).

Working together, the two councils are trying to remove the confusion by joining up their customer service centres. To do this the district council is considering changing from its current 01926 number to an 0845 code used by the county council.

Making a ten-minute daytime call to the 0845 number will be cheaper for most customers and will be of particular benefit to those who have an out-of-area code. However, the council does recognise that for some BT customers on an 'anytime' plan and for Sky and Virgin customers, the call will be marginally more expensive.

The 65p charge for Sky and Virgin users referred to in last week's article compares to the current charge of 47p. As 99 per cent of callers are dealt with within five minutes, the increased cost for these customers will be minimal. The district council believes that as all enquiries will be able to be dealt with via a single number, the change is positive for the vast majority of local residents.

Finally the district council wishes to make clear that a final decision has yet to be made as council officers are still examining all the options. - Andrew Jones, head of revenues and customer services, Warwick District Council.
>>

What planet do these people live on?

irrelevant wrote on Aug 5^th, 2008 at 11:21pm:

What planet do these people live on?

They are simply out of date.

These comments reflect the position before "local rate" was abolished for most residential callers and before the 03xx range was introduced to provide the obvious option for this type of situation.

To be fair, we are a particularly well-informed bunch. I find that most people still think that "local rate" is a term with some meaning and are unaware of 03xx.

I would urge campaigners to politely bring all of those involved in this decision up-to-date.

irrelevant wrote on Aug 5^th, 2008 at 11:21pm:

What planet do these people live on?

The one that includes the letters 'anus', I suggest.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 6^th, 2008 at 12:11am:

They are simply out of date. These comments reflect the position before "local rate" was abolished for most residential callers and before the 03xx range was introduced to provide the obvious option for this type of situation.

And how long ago was that.  More than three years ago.

Anyone making these kind of statements at a council is clearly mindlessly handing out lies put in from of them by unscrupulous telcos like Windsor Telecom and Network Europe Group and should be sacked for basic dereliction of duty in properly checking out the competence of their suppliers.

It is the members of the Cabinet who carry the can for checking that the facts they and their staff give out are true.

I still find it utterly staggering how many cretinous councils have been conned in to switching to 084 and 087 prefixed numbers.

Anyone living in one of these council areas would be well advised to follow the official council complaints procedure through to deadlock with its Chief Executive and then pursue the matter further at that stage with the Local Government Ombudsman.

See www.lgo.org.uk

It would be very interesting to see a test decision by the Local Government Ombudsman about a council switching to use of an 084 or 087 number, especially for those councils that are also telling lies to the effect that it is no more than the cost of a local phone call.............

Unfortunately I see that the LGO Advice Team still lists an 0845 number to reach them though at www.lgo.org.uk, even though at www.lgo.org.uk/contact.htm they then also list a geographic alternative alongside the 0845 number.  It seems yet another Ombudsman who is clueless about the use of telephone numbers.  I note that I still await the response of my my complaint of several weeks ago to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman about their use of an 0845 Contact Centre number. [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 10^th, 2008 at 8:31pm:

And how long ago was that.  More than three years ago.

Those familiar with the speed at which time moves in the public sector will recognise that this is still very recent. "Local rate" is still a widely understood term, members of this forum are sadly unusual in recognising that it is meaningless.

The LGO complaints mechanism offers one route for getting the message across to local government representatives and officials. There is also the possibility of engaging the LGA, the DCLG and the Contact Council in what is clearly a necessary exercise of education. Councillors who wish to be re-elected will always be inclined to look at the cost to Council Tax payers before that incurred by service users.

Warwick District Council seems to have caught on to the idea that there could be a problem with a 0845 number. That is a start. They should be open to helpful advice and briefings from informed and experienced sources, as well as representations from the citizens they serve.

Whether they could help in persuading Warwickshire County Council to move to a 03xx number is another question.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 10^th, 2008 at 10:27pm:

Councillors who wish to be re-elected will always be inclined to look at the cost to Council Tax payers before that incurred by service users.

No they won't because Council Tax Payers are also in the main service users of one sort or another.  That is precisely why the vast majority of councils (especially the vast majority of borough and district councils compared to county or unitary councils who are the main 084/7 using offenders percentage wise) have not switched to using 084/7 prefixed numbers.  The argument you are pursuing is a bit like that of those daft councillors who say that Council Tax payers would always rather see vast rises in car park charges than an increase in Council Tax whilst ignoring the fact that many Council Tax payers are also motorists who have to pay the exorbitant fees to park in the car parks.  Not to mention the regressive nature of such flat rate charges on those on lower incomes.

Your argument is a bit like saying that doctors who want to maximise available funding for their practice will always use 0844 numbers.

Sometimes I wonder if you ever check for the internal logical consistency of your own arguments before you spring to make another post in the forum SCV. ::)

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 10^th, 2008 at 10:43pm:

internal logical consistency

I refer only to the first thought in the mind of a councillor, not the well-considered and well-informed state of mind of those who recognise the propriety of retaining geographic numbers with specially-added advanced features or using 03xx numbers.

District and Town Councils covering a smaller area did not have to contend with the historic problem of remote citizens having to pay national rates to call their "local" council when BT had distinct rates. They are also less likely to wish to take advantage of advanced network features available with non-geographic numbers.

Under present regulations, GPs do increase the funding available for their practice by using 0844 numbers. This is perhaps one reason why it is proving so hard to get it stopped. When the DH stopped use of 0870 and said 0844 was OK it had to use taxpayers money to compensate for the money lost in re-paying NEG for "free" equipment. (This is however OT, although the same could apply to local government if use of revenue sharing numbers was banned by the DCLG, given that Council Tax is capped.)

It is only those who understand the truth of what it costs callers and wish to do the right thing, or are afraid of getting caught, who avoid using revenue sharing numbers. Simple ignorance, or a lack of awareness and proper consideration, is at the root of much of this problem.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 10^th, 2008 at 11:36pm:

It is only those who understand the truth of what it costs callers and wish to do the right thing, or are afraid of getting caught, who avoid using revenue sharing numbers. Simple ignorance, or a lack of awareness and proper consideration, is at the root of much of this problem.

Deliberate and systematic deceipt of the technologically illiterate by unscrupulous shysters in the telecoms industry is at the root of the problem.  Although behind that is the shocking incompetence and ineffectiveness of the so called UK telecoms regulator that in turn has made that commercial duplicity and double dealing possible.

None of this excuses the duty of councillors as intelligent lay people to see through all the lies and to understand what are still actually relatively straightforward issues before they sign any contract (not to mention the duty of the so called telecoms and IT experts on their own staff to advise them properly)

I am slowly firing myself up to take Surrey County Council to the Local Government Ombudsman over their repeated failure despite many promises over several years to ditch their 0845 number.

And so to bed.  These British swimming women who insist on winning themselves gold and bronze Olympic medals in the same race at odd hours of the morning have a lot to answer for.

Has anyone from this forum actually contacted Warwick District Council to make the points why they SHOULDN'T go 0845?   I did contact a relative of mine who is fairly up on these matters and lives in the area but she actually comes under a different district council.   I did prepare a document about "Why no to 0845" two or three months ago which I could forward to them if I had a contact (and am also going on holiday in a couple of days so don't have much time).   Dave & Sherbert have/have seen copies of this - they might wish to forward it to WDC.   While it is good for us to discuss the issue on this forum, it is vital to ensure that the decision-makers at WDC have the FACTS (not marketing blurb from their suppliers!).

The following briefing is being circulated.


Quote:

The source of this problem is found in an error in the report from Warwickshire County Council, which formed the basis for the original Warwick District Council decision. This is published at http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/corporate/WDC%20Admin%20R5.nsf/0/a1a8aee934ad79fe8025748000523962/$FILE/council%20phone%20numbers%20appendix.pdf. This states incorrectly, at the end of the document on page 14, that "0845 calls are charged to the caller at local rate (similar to the local rate many WDC callers would pay when calling WDC) and there is no extra cost to the business" and "0300 numbers are specifically for public sector only, with the call charge being shared by caller and the public sector body". These statements are both inaccurate and misleading. The major error is the reference to “local rate”. This has not applied to residential landline telephone tariffs since 2004 and has obviously never applied to mobiles. Nobody pays “local rate”. As highlighted by the Leamington Courier article, most callers pay more to call 0845 numbers than geographic or 0300 numbers. 0300 numbers however, must be charged at the same rate as calls to local, or indeed other, geographic numbers and must be included in packages for both landlines and mobiles. The reason for the higher cost of calling 0845 numbers and the higher cost of renting 0300 numbers (or perhaps receving calls on them) is the fact that “revenue sharing” applies to 0845, but not 0300. Callers to 0845 numbers are subsidising the cost of the advanced telephone features used. Callers to 0300 numbers simply pay their provider’s charge for connecting a call. In presenting its report, Warwickshire County Council is perhaps keen to conceal the fact that callers are subsiding it when calling its own 0845 number. The County apparently has no plans to change to a 0300 number, as recommended by Ofcom and the Varney report. If 01926 numbers are considered unsuitable for services provided from Warwick then the only non-geographic numbers that should be used are those beginning 03.

irrelevant wrote on Aug 5^th, 2008 at 11:21pm:

What planet do these people live on?

I would imagine they are on the planet of brown envelopes, as are many people who award government contracts...

Source: Warwick Courier

http://www.warwickcourier.co.uk/newsl/Up-to-65p-a-minute.4435608.jp

Up to 65p a minute to talk to council?

<<
Plans to charge up to 65p per minute to call for help with services like housing and rubbish collection are back on the agenda this week.

Moves to change Warwick District Council's 01926 telephone code have been challenged by its Liberal Democrat group, which has asked the authority's scrutiny committee to take a closer look at the controversial idea.

The group says the 0845 prefix wanted by officials is a 'premium rate' number for many people.

And they say a change would hit the less affluent, who may need services most, the hardest.

For those with 'inclusive' call deals with companies like Sky or Virgin, or who use 'pay as you go' mobiles, 0845 calls could cost several pounds.

Officials want the switch so district and county councils can share a number, but a decision was delayed earlier this month amid heavy criticism.

Coun Bill Gifford (Lib Dem, Milverton) said then: "It doesn't make sense that the people who can least afford it are going to bear the brunt."

This week national campaigner David Hickson also entered the debate - questioning the decision not to opt for an 0300 code, which must be included in cheap deals.

He claims the decision is contrary to advice from Ofcom, the telecommunication regulator, and a government report.

Mr Hickson suspected the crux of the issue is that features such as call-holding and automation must be paid for by someone.

He says that if an 0845 number is used the caller pays for the extra facilities - and the council benefits from a reduction in the bill it pays to its phoneline provider. An 0300 code means the council pays for the automation.

Calling the choice of 0845 "sinister" he said: "In presenting its report, the council is perhaps keen to conceal that callers are subsiding it when calling 0845 numbers.

Councils should not be subsidising services by indirectly imposing premium charges, especially if this policy is not declared."

The matter will be discussed at a scrutiny and overview committee meeting at Leamington Town Hall on Tuesday, from 6pm.

Coun Alan Cockburn, Warwickshire County Council cabinet member for resources, denied the authorities stood to profit from 0845.

He stressed a variety of options were being considered and that "value for money and service to customers" were the key criteria.

He admitted costs could "vary between providers", but said: "Neither authority stands to generate any revenue from using an 0845 telephone number."

He added: "Mr Hickson presupposes the service provider would share revenue with the council, but this is an incorrect assumption.

"The provider will be selected on the value they offer customers. Callers will not be 'subsidising' the county council".

He said the authority's openness in publishing the entirety of its report were hardly the actions of anyone whose motives are 'sinister'."

A spokesman suggested 0300 "did not offer the best service for all customers".

Last Updated: 28 August 2008 10:22 AM
>>

---

Absolute rubbish!

The payments for the 0845 number and associated services come from the caller, via their provider. This amount is set by virtue of selection of the 0845 number.

The amount BT pays to connect calls to 03xx numbers operated by other telephone providers (when someone calls them from a BT line) is generally in line with the termination charges associated with geographical calls. The inter-operator (termination) charges for 0845 numbers are higher than this.

So if the council intends not to take a cut of these higher "termination" charges, then its provider will be retaining more of the payment for its service (which originates from the caller).

Choose how much the service is considered "value for money", the amount paid to the 0845 telephone service provider is greater than with a geographical ("local") number so we must conclude that the caller is indeed subsidising the service.

Source: Committee Agenda: Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Warwick District Council - 02/09/2008

http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/corporate/WDC%20Admin%20R5.nsf/4f10d806968fe47b80257411003dba10/90a1da974c457737802574b1003e6521?OpenDocument

<<
Proposed Change to Council Phone Numbers. Reason: moving the Council onto a 'premium' 0845 telephone number for customer contact will disadvantage many people by causing them to be charged at premium rates when contacting their Council. Many people operate inclusive calling plans for free telephone calls and many of our less wealthy residents operate pay as you go mobile phones as a cheaper option than the standing charges for a fixed line telephone, both of these options charge premium rates when calling 0845 numbers. It is therefore inappropriate that the Council should be considering moving to a premium 0845 number when options of a free to the customer number would be more appropriate.

The reports submitted to the Executive on 23 July 2008 are attached as appendices 1 and 2 (Pages 1 & 3). The Overview & Scrutiny Committee and Audit & Resources Scrutiny Committee comments and decisions of the Executive are attached as appendix 3. (Page 6)

The options open to the Committee are:

(1) refer the decisions back to the Executive on 15 October 2008;
(2) refer the decisions to Council on 8 October 2008; or
(3) take no further action.
>>

See the article Change of council phone lines toned down. The outcome of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee was that officers will discuss options with telephone providers.

They are against 0845 particularly because of its cost for mobile users. The report also hints that 0300 may be suitable.

Coming to this thread a couple of weeks later, I've found the article is no longer available. So I've pasted it from the Google cache while it's still there.


Quote:

Change of council phone lines toned down      Kevin Unitt      11 September 2008      PLANS to change council telephone numbers to a 'premium' 0845 line could be toned down.      Warwickshire County Council and Warwick District Council are currently exploring the possibility of introducing a centralised number for all calls, making it easier for residents to reach the right people.      But district councillors at a meeting on Tuesday (September 2) were not hung-up on the idea of a new 0845 number, given it could leave mobile phone users out of pocket.      Coun Bill Gifford, chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee which discussed the plan, said: “Many of our council tenants only have mobile phones, which charge premium rates for when calling 0845 numbers, so the general feeling is that we should look again and try to introduce a system whereby calls are free, or at worst are no more expensive than at present.      “The general idea of having a centralised number is a good one, because often people do not know which council it is that they need, but we do not want people to be charged exorbitant rates when calling.”      Council officers are now set to talk to various phone line suppliers and report back their findings next month, when the matter will next be discussed at a district council executive meeting.      Numbers starting 0300 are thought to be a suitable, cheap, option.