I dont know if this has been posted before but couldnt find anything using the search function.
Today i was working on a jobcentre plus switchboard and recieved a call from one of the members of this site. I would like to point out several points that i failed to make and some i did, firstly this is not an offical statement and comes only from me. Most jobcentres switchboards(not all) are subcontracted out to Haden BML, company name is changing later this month but it is still the same company. Secondly i may have mistakenly given the impression that i could transfer him to the section he required via a landline and not the 0845 number but under policy i was not allowed, what i really meant to say was i could transfer him but it would be through the 0845 number and he would still be charged at 0845 rate. Thirdly a point i never made at all for the reason this policy has come into use is because all the switchboards are going to be transfered to call centres who will not have the facility to make the transfer at all. On a personal note please understand we are a subcontractor and have to abide by DWP policy and their really is nothing we can do when you contact us as our hands have been tied on this, We have also been set a target of moving on any 0845 related calls inside 30 seconds. I know the frustation this causes many people as i am dealing with this regularly and while your member was very curtious many callers are not. My advise is simple and infact i tell callers the same thing  contact your local MP and pester him until something is done as the DWP will only accept either written complaints or you have to call the 0845 number.

Yours
  a very stressed out subcontractor

scotitch

Thank for very much for your observations.

It is stated that the DWP is always ready to ring back to those who find the cost of calling a 0845 number to be a burden. Can you confirm that this is what you mean when you say that you have a target of "moving on" any 0845 calls within 30 seconds?

scotitch wrote on Nov 12^th, 2008 at 5:59pm:

I dont know if this has been posted before but couldnt find anything using the search function.

It's very pertinent that you bring this up as the 0845 numbers for DWP were discussed the other week at the meeting of a parliamentary committee. Many people have reported that those answering geographical numbers cannot or will not put callers through.


scotitch wrote on Nov 12^th, 2008 at 5:59pm:

Secondly i may have mistakenly given the impression that i could transfer him to the section he required via a landline and not the 0845 number but under policy i was not allowed, what i really meant to say was i could transfer him but it would be through the 0845 number and he would still be charged at 0845 rate.

So what you're saying is that someone can call the geographical number and it will be answered by you. If they call with something you are allowed to deal with on the geographical number, then you will presumably do so.

But, people can call the 0845 number and also be put through to you and you will deal with them on that number when you aren't allowed when they call the geographical number.


scotitch wrote on Nov 12^th, 2008 at 5:59pm:

Thirdly a point i never made at all for the reason this policy has come into use is because all the switchboards are going to be transfered to call centres who will not have the facility to make the transfer at all.

What's the point in a "switchboard" that doesn't transfer calls? That's the point of them.


scotitch wrote on Nov 12^th, 2008 at 5:59pm:

We have also been set a target of moving on any 0845 related calls inside 30 seconds.

That's interesting. So the number of people trying to bypass the 0845 numbers are that large that there must be this "target".

I tried calling the Social Fund and related grants department today. This is part of the DWP and it was an 0845 number based in Milton Keynes. It took me 7 attempts to get through to speak to an advisor there because the long winded recorded message which played the moment I rang the number kept cutting me off telling me that all the advisers were busy so call again later. But, each time I rang through I had to endure (and pay a premium rate for) the long winded 55 second recorded message telling me that I had reached the Jobcentreplus which was part of the DWP and that this number was only for enquiries related to the Social Fund and would be recorded for legal and other reasons! I had NO OPTION but to listen to this 55 second message every time I rang because it was only at the end of the message that the line either rang and rang before telling me that all advisers were busy and telling me to call back before disconnecting my call or ringing endlessly to wait to speak to one of those 'advisers'. There was no way of telling at any point during the pointless and very long recorded message whether I would be put through to someone or automatically disconnected! So, I spent all afternoon and several pounds before speaking to a human. As I only have a mobile phone and no landline number it ended up costing me £9.80 for the joy of trying to reach the Social Fund helpline. I told the adviser how long I had been trying to get through on the 0845 number and how much every failed attempt had cost me and asked her for a landline, geographical number that I could ring instead. She said it was a new callcentre with only the 0845 number that I had rung to access it. That's just shameful government short-termism without considering the full consequences of their pointless policies.

dan8 wrote on Nov 12^th, 2008 at 9:27pm:

I tried calling the Social Fund and related grants department today. This is part of the DWP and it was an 0845 number based in Milton Keynes. …

Might I suggest you write to your MP about this?

DanB

Thanks for sharing your experience.

Can you confirm that there was no offer to call you back?

This point is frequently made, and I am anxious to confirm that it is simply a myth.

scotitch wrote on Nov 12^th, 2008 at 5:59pm:

Secondly i may have mistakenly given the impression that i could transfer him to the section he required via a landline and not the 0845 number but under policy i was not allowed, what i really meant to say was i could transfer him but it would be through the 0845 number and he would still be charged at 0845 rate. Yours   a very stressed out subcontractor

Untrue, you, or anyone that answers a call on an 01/02/03 number, cannot increase the cost of a call simply by transferring to another department, the caller has connected the call at whatever rate they are connected on, and this will not be changed during the course of that call!

I note Silent callsvictims comment on the fact that the DWP will always call you back when a client has dialled an 0845 number-not the feedback I have recently received! I attended a meeting with the senior manager from the regional JobCentre Plus who are now tasked with rolling out ESA (employment support allowance).  We were advised that clients have to phone an 0845 number to initiate their claim and when asked how long this would take we were advised it would take 40 minutes. When it was stated that the cost implications were conciderable the reply was the usual "its a local rate call". It was pointed out this did not apply to mobiles, when the cost would be about £8 minimum, and with the length of the call credit or battery could run out.  The reply-use a landline.  The issue was then raised about receiving a call back from the contact centre-we were advised this would only be allowed in exceptional circumstances.  I note on the DWP website they give an 0800 number for contact-how long this will last I don't know but it would appear not long based on comments by scotitch.  It would be interesting to know if the offer to ring clients back exists in print and where!  If anyone can point this out would be obliged.  

Remember 0800 numbers cost from a mobile.

A very valid point Sherbert, I do note that when I tried the number this is pointed out on the preamble!

redant wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 10:19am:

I note Silent callsvictims comment on the fact that the DWP will always call you back .... It would be interesting to know if the offer to ring clients back exists in print and where!  If anyone can point this out would be obliged.

To be fair I only referred to it having been stated that the DWP would offer to call back.

The reference is found in a posting on the parliamentary update thread.

This information was greeted with some scepticism at the time and was never confirmed.

Caroline Flint has now moved on, being replaced by Tony McNulty.

If I learn any more from continuing engagement with the DWP I will post it here.


On the general points that have been raised, it appears that the DWP agencies are very firmly committed to their telephone systems and the subsidy that is derived from use of 0845 numbers. Those who are lucky enough to be able to break through the system by using alternative numbers in the database, should be grateful to the staff who are perhaps defying their instructions by taking or re-directing calls.

I believe that this will only get resolved by a major political battle that results in extra funding being assigned to replace that earned from the revenue share. Perhaps this could be "lost" in the extra allocations that these agencies are expected to need for a period of recession.

MPs on all sides are already engaged in this fight; they should be encouraged and their numbers swelled.

redant wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 10:19am:

I note Silent callsvictims comment on the fact that the DWP will always call you back when a client has dialled an 0845 number-not the feedback I have recently received! I attended a meeting with the senior manager from the regional JobCentre Plus who are now tasked with rolling out ESA (employment support allowance).  We were advised that clients have to phone an 0845 number to initiate their claim and when asked how long this would take we were advised it would take 40 minutes.

This is totally disgraceful. Anyone claiming such an allowance is the least likely to be able to afford to pay for a call, and least likely to have a landline. They should provide a freephone or geographical number, which are at least reasonable if called from a phonebox. Is there an option of attending an office in person to claim, or does it have to be done over the phone?

derrick wrote on Nov 13^th, 2008 at 3:45pm:

scotitch wrote on Nov 12th, 2008 at 5:59pm: Secondly i may have mistakenly given the impression that i could transfer him to the section he required via a landline and not the 0845 number but under policy i was not allowed, what i really meant to say was i could transfer him but it would be through the 0845 number and he would still be charged at 0845 rate. Yours   a very stressed out subcontractor Untrue, you, or anyone that answers a call on an 01/02/03 number, cannot increase the cost of a call simply by transferring to another department, the caller has connected the call at whatever rate they are connected on, and this will not be changed during the course of that call!

EDIT we do not transfer the call we actually have to dial the 0845 using a prefix of 9 to get an outside line, i dont know if this makes a difference perhaps you could clarify this for me as i dont like passing on wrong information.

Dave wrote on Nov 12^th, 2008 at 7:06pm:

scotitch wrote on Nov 12th, 2008 at 5:59pm: I dont know if this has been posted before but couldnt find anything using the search function. It's very pertinent that you bring this up as the 0845 numbers for DWP were discussed the other week at the meeting of a parliamentary committee. Many people have reported that those answering geographical numbers cannot or will not put callers through. scotitch wrote on Nov 12th, 2008 at 5:59pm: Secondly i may have mistakenly given the impression that i could transfer him to the section he required via a landline and not the 0845 number but under policy i was not allowed, what i really meant to say was i could transfer him but it would be through the 0845 number and he would still be charged at 0845 rate. So what you're saying is that someone can call the geographical number and it will be answered by you. If they call with something you are allowed to deal with on the geographical number, then you will presumably do so. But, people can call the 0845 number and also be put through to you and you will deal with them on that number when you aren't allowed when they call the geographical number. scotitch wrote on Nov 12th, 2008 at 5:59pm: Thirdly a point i never made at all for the reason this policy has come into use is because all the switchboards are going to be transfered to call centres who will not have the facility to make the transfer at all. What's the point in a "switchboard" that doesn't transfer calls? That's the point of them. scotitch wrote on Nov 12th, 2008 at 5:59pm: We have also been set a target of moving on any 0845 related calls inside 30 seconds. That's interesting. So the number of people trying to bypass the 0845 numbers are that large that there must be this "target".

Okay i will answer as best i can, firstly all the switchboards are jobcentre plus so we only transfer calls to jobcentre staff those who work in the Benefit delivery centres are not classed as such.
Secondly the 0845 numbers are completely seperate from the swithboard service and are answered by DWP staff who as far as i know do not transfer calls to us on the switchboard.
Thirdly the thirty second target, I have no knowledge of who wanted this introduced whether it was my company or DWP, but in answer to your question there are a large amount of people who call that have been given the wrong number to call by various departments within the DWP(There seems to either be no communication between departments or the staff just dont bother there backsides ) ie they are given the switchboard number instead of the 0845 number this is the type of call we have to move on within thirty seconds which is a target i do not stick to as your member who called would be-able to verify, i think i spent roughly 10 minutes speaking to him about the subject.

If i have missed anything or you want  more info just ask i wil  try my best to answer although by one of the other replies it seems i am being misinformed as well.

scotitch wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 5:16pm:

EDIT we do not transfer the call we actually have to dial the 0845 using a prefix of 9 to get an outside line, i dont know if this makes a difference perhaps you could clarify this for me as i dont like passing on wrong information.

Thanks for clarifying this. Callers will be charged for the geographical number which they dialled. Your office will probably incur charges for calls forwarded to the 0845 numbers, in exactly the same way as it would if you dialled a 0845 number from your office phone.



scotitch wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 5:33pm:

Okay i will answer as best i can, firstly all the switchboards are jobcentre plus so we only transfer calls to jobcentre staff those who work in the Benefit delivery centres are not classed as such. Secondly the 0845 numbers are completely seperate from the swithboard service and are answered by DWP staff who as far as i know do not transfer calls to us on the switchboard.

Ah right. That explains why you can't put calls through as I had assumed that the staff answering the 0845 numbers were in the respective JobCentres.

Dave wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 7:17pm:

scotitch wrote on Nov 14th, 2008 at 5:16pm: EDIT we do not transfer the call we actually have to dial the 0845 using a prefix of 9 to get an outside line, i dont know if this makes a difference perhaps you could clarify this for me as i dont like passing on wrong information. Thanks for clarifying this. Callers will be charged for the geographical number which they dialled. Your office will probably incur charges for calls forwarded to the 0845 numbers, in exactly the same way as it would if you dialled a 0845 number from your office phone. scotitch wrote on Nov 14th, 2008 at 5:33pm: Okay i will answer as best i can, firstly all the switchboards are jobcentre plus so we only transfer calls to jobcentre staff those who work in the Benefit delivery centres are not classed as such. Secondly the 0845 numbers are completely seperate from the swithboard service and are answered by DWP staff who as far as i know do not transfer calls to us on the switchboard. Ah right. That explains why you can't put calls through as I had assumed that the staff answering the 0845 numbers were in the respective JobCentres.

Thanks for clearing that up for me, I now know the real reason for our instrutions not to dial the number for customers.

In some cases the people are in the same building but are not frontline JCP staff, recently in one of the buildings i work in, as switchboard is not my only duty, just part of a range of office support services that the DWP contracted out to the company i now work for(I was part of DWP previously) the 0845 telephone sections have been given geographical numbers which they are unwilling to give to us but i do believe are being put on letters written to customers, but that was just something a BDC staff member told me so may also be wrong, To further clarify for you JCP and BDC work as if they were seperate companies even if they share premises with each other, I saw something earlier in the thread about social fund calls, the level of staffing for social fund and crisiss loans is far to low, In my area we have gone from having 2 buildings dealing with these calls covering a smaller area to 1 centralised building covering not only my area but several others without increasing the staff enough to cope with the volume of calls, This also applies for benefits such as income support, incapacity, JSA and the new ESA benefit as well, These benfits are no longer dealt with by any local offices but have been centralised to certain offices again covering larger areas.Another part of the problem is that the actual phone system is far from perfect(the staff are to blame as well) and calls are either dropped or misdirected by the system quite a lot which is constantly reported but BT will not act on these issues until DWP has done several different things themselves to try and correct it leading to very long delays for anything to be done about it.Up here we changed the entire phone system alsmost 2 years ago and are still seeing many of the problems we have had from the begining.Good advise was given earlier in the thread about contacting your local MP on all of these issues, I would go one step further and say dont just contact them but pester them until something is done, sorry for the long post that jumps about but i hear and feel the frustration people have with these issues whenever i am on switchboard and most of the staff on the switchboards feel the same way as me.

Quote:

From jrawle yesterday at 11.53 am This is totally disgraceful. Anyone claiming such an allowance is the least likely to be able to afford to pay for a call, and least likely to have a landline. They should provide a freephone or geographical number, which are at least reasonable if called from a phonebox. Is there an option of attending an office in person to claim, or does it have to be done over the phone?

This question did arise and we were told that no face to face facility now exists-everything had to be done over the telephone.  Have not tested this but if I receive any further feedback will advise.  Perhaps scotitch will know as he is at the point of delivery and can provide this information?

scotitch wrote on Nov 15^th, 2008 at 10:39am:

Thanks for clearing that up for me, I now know the real reason for our instrutions not to dial the number for customers.

Indeed. So what they're saying is that it's OK for Joe Public who is out of work and/or claiming benefits to call the premium 0845 number, but not alright for the office which operates the helpline to do the same?  ::)

redant wrote on Nov 15^th, 2008 at 11:23am:

Quote: From jrawle yesterday at 11.53 am This is totally disgraceful. Anyone claiming such an allowance is the least likely to be able to afford to pay for a call, and least likely to have a landline. They should provide a freephone or geographical number, which are at least reasonable if called from a phonebox. Is there an option of attending an office in person to claim, or does it have to be done over the phone? This question did arise and we were told that no face to face facility now exists-everything had to be done over the telephone.  Have not tested this but if I receive any further feedback will advise.  Perhaps scotitch will know as he is at the point of delivery and can provide this information?

We have been told to put ESA calls through to the jobcentre plus staff so i woulds imagine it is possible to come into your local jobcentre and get the form, I will check this tomorrow and let you know, Alll other new claims calls are done on a free phone number up here so i will also check if ESA has been added to this service.The part about picking up the form maybe difficult though as actually getting the forms has been another problem we have, as the supplier of our forms ion are a complete nightmare and the forms are constantly out of stock this is hopefully changing as they are moving to a direct print as you order system but as with all things DWP it could take a while.

Is it not possible to down load a form? I would be surprised if you couldn't, that would be a cheaper option for the DWP. Or even fill it in on line?

Quote:

So what they're saying is that it's OK for Joe Public who is out of work and/or claiming benefits to call the premium 0845 number

Contrast this with the billions of pounds our beloved government is spending on various bale-outs .......

lompos wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 11:12am:

Contrast this with the billions of pounds our beloved government is spending on various bale-outs .......

The saddest thing about the stonewall like refusal of major government operations like DWP, NHS Direct and HMRC to switch away from using 0845 numbers to 03 is that it is not  that it is based on any significant real world financial cost in doing so but purley on bureaucratic arrogance that they have always used 0845 up to now and that loads of other call centres still do so that must make it alright.

Surrey County Council tells me they will be paying 0.5p per minute incoming call cost to Cable & Wireless on the new 0300 and 0345 numbers they are introducing today and that this is only a tiny drop in the ocean compared to the total cost per day and per week and per call of operating their Contact Centre.

I have sent this letter to seven different heads of Department in the DWP and the relevent employment departments. I think it is discusting when it can cost upwards of £1 to contact the JSA and that is from a landline, I dread to think what it is costing some of these people that ring on a mobile.

Can anything be done to put preasure on these departments to use the 03 range or even 0800 range. Can we start a campaign simular to the one with the doctors surgeries. I have sent the letter to the relevent haads of detpartment

I am contacting you today in regard to the contact costly numbers that JSA Benefit clients are forced to use when contacting either the DWP or Job Centre Plus.

At present I am in an unfortunate position that I am in receipt of JSA and to my horror I discovered that an 0845 number is used at the point of entry when requiring additional information. I do appreciate that there are other alternatives to make contact but they are not always convenient and in some cases clients are not able to put pen to paper. Because of the high volume of calls in some cases it has took me up to 30 minutes before I had the opportunity to talk to an advisor, this cost me a connection fee and an addition price per minute, in my view this is unacceptable

There are a large number of your clients that only have pay as you go mobile phones and the average call cost will be in excess of 0.20p per minute, I have been on a call for 30 minutes this cost me around 0.60p this is an unacceptable practice when there is an alternative 03 number range that are included in inclusive call packages. My research has also revealed that some clients have paid upwards of £3.00 when contacting the JSA Centre.

Suggested Solution - I propose that all numbers related to the JSA service should have an 03 number, the 03 number range has been allocated to public service bodies and they are included in all call packages. I propose that all services should be part of the 03 number range these numbers are for the purpose of public services to prevent telecommunication companies charging over the odds for specific services.

May I take this opportunity of thanking you for your time, I will look forward to your reply.

Members may be interested in an exchange that took place on Monday evening in a "Twitterview" with DWP Minister Jim Knight conducted by Think Politics.

The relevant simple exchange was as follows:


Quote:

[Q4] PAYG users pay a premium of 20p / min to subsidise JobCentre Plus on 0845 numbers by 2ppm – when will this stop? [Q4 Reply] We are working on this. JCP makes nothing out of 0845, & the main ones free from landlines, need better from mobiles

Twitter postings (tweets) are limited to 140 characters

There was a further exchange on Twitter between the questioner and Mr Knight


Quote:

NHSPatient @jimknightmp #tptv JCP not telling the "full" truth, it benefits by 2ppm on ALL 0845 calls. The extra 18ppm on mobiles is a red herring. jimknightmp @NHSPatient I'll check - I'm advised we used to but not anymore #tptv

Mr Knight has acknowledged a further briefing sent privately.

The battle with DWP will continue - an often repeated solid position will need to be undermined - see this posting re an FOI request.

The formal intervew is reproduced in a Thiink Politics blog entry. Twitter users may wish to note use of the #tptv hashtag on all relevant postings.

The instruction to call back to mobile callers to 0800 and 0845 numbers, referred to here, is now in the public domain.

See this video clip and the associated media release.

House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 09 Nov 2009 (pt 0023)

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm091109/text/91109w0023.htm#09110957000084

<<
Telephone Services

Mark Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what her Department's policy is on call charges for hon. Members for use of a telephone hotline on behalf of their constituents; and if she will make a statement. [292830]

Jim Knight: In Jobcentre Plus (part of the DWP) district managers are in regular contact with their local MPs in order to offer the personal assistance they need. Any hon. Member with a query about any benefits should contact the Jobcentre Plus district manager who has overall responsibility for the service to local residents. This service is provided through the district manager's office using geographic numbers and will give hon. Members effective support for a range of different queries. Jobcentre Plus will offer a call back service should any MP express their concerns in respect of charges.

The Pension, Disability and Carers Service provide a dedicated telephone service for the express use of Members of Parliament who require information on pensioner or disability and carer-related matters. The helpline numbers are 0113 232 4279 (Pensions) and 01253 333233/333533 (Disability/Carers), both geographic numbers. PDCS will also offer a call back service should any MP express their concerns in respect of charges.
>>

There we have it; MPs get preferential treatment from the Government. Mr Knight even explicitly states that these are geographical numbers. But Joe Public looking for a job or enquiring about a pension must ring a covert premium number. :-X >:(

Dave wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2009 at 10:12pm:

There we have it; MPs get preferential treatment from the Government. Mr Knight even explicitly states that these are geographical numbers. But Joe Public looking for a job or enquiring about a pension must ring a covert premium number. :-X >:(

MPs pursuing constituency casework get privileged access to ministers, government and other other public sector bodies as well as most private sector organisations. This is because of the job that they do as our elected representatives. The costs they incur in doing this work is claimable as an expense and would normally be claimed. An MP looking for work because they did not fancy their chances of being re-elected next year would not be able to avail themselves of this privilege for that purpose.

A call back is offered here as it is offered to any caller concerned about the cost of calling. As reported above it is now offered as a standard procedure to any caller from a mobile to a 0800 or 0845 number.

Jim Knight's explicit reference to a "geographic number" is made in awareness and to show recognition of the context of the question. DWP does now understand that there is a genuine issue here and has started on the long road to addressing it properly and finally. Unlike the Department of Health, it does acknowledge that there is an issue with 0845. Whilst many BT callers pay a reduced rate to call 0845 numbers, it will not be easy to resolve.

It remains a disgrace that so long after the introduction of 03 we are still talking about this, however things are at last moving, at the predictably slow pace.

I cannot see the hypocrisy referred to in the updated subject. I am not aware of any serious proposal that an MP's salary, personal wealth or private earnings should be used to cover expenses incurred in constituency casework, however this is what is implied by the quoted comment. If this proposal were to come into effect we would ask candidates to declare their outside earnings or wealth when they stand for election - not so that we could see if they would be sufficiently dedicated to the job, but so that we could elect whoever was rich enough to be able to offer a good service to their electors. As stated elsewhere, I strand firmly opposed to this this misapplication of the principles of consumerism, which even creeps into the relationship between the citizen and their MP.

Whilst SayNoTo0870 may wish to campaign for all MPs to have the personal wealth necessary not only to fund their casework, but as is also implied, to buy privileged access to ministers and officials, I must register my serious dissent from this campaign.

SCV, I have to take issue with you again; as you say, MPs can claim expenses to cover costs etc (as we all know!).  However, what about county councillors & district councillors?  They are expected to pay out of their own pockets (or set allowances, in the case of district councillors, often very small ones) and yet they can be contacted for help by members of the public for assistance.   District councillors can regularly be contacted about highways matters which are the responsibility of the county council & the county council may well (as with ECC) use an 0845 for highways contact.  IF you are saying that MPs shoud have preferential access, then surely that should apply to elected representatives at all levels?    Also, school governors receive nothing whatsoever for their service but can be contacted by parents with problems which may involve the governor having to make contact with a government department which uses ngns - surely this is unreasonable?   I see no reason whatsoever for MPs to have preferential call rates, after all if they were charged the same as the rest of us, it might concentrate their minds??!!

Barbara. To my reading, you make a very strong case for many other public representatives being required to take on a workload similar to that of the constituency casework of an MP. This would require them to dedicate themselves more fully to their official duties and therefore draw a salary and reimbursement of all valid expenses, e.g. for staff and offices, in place of the modest allowances that are available at present.

Some would see this professionalisation of politics at all levels as a good thing. In the present climate however one must assume that any such proposal would be ridiculed as being out of step with the public mood.

I see however that this is different from the view which you appear to hold. You appear to suggest that no elected representative should be able to have priviledged access to the executive or officials, and that they should all have to go through exactly the same processes as their constituents, in order to "concentrate their minds". I am indeed strongly opposed to this suggestion, although I recognise that this view is sincerely held.

I must however confess to being very disappointed by the reaction of members and increasingly frustrated by the misapplied consumerist nonsense.that is repeated here when discussing public services and even the foundations of our democracy.

JobCentre managers have geographic direct lines, whereas the JobCentre itself uses a 0845 number. The public purse therefore incurs a different charge when an MP calls a JobCentre Manager, to what a service user incurs when calling the Centre. That is the current position. The suggestion that those serving as Members of Parliament thereby benefit personally from some type of preferential treatment over that granted to others is quite absurd.

As a campaigner I have little interest in the way in which costs are transferred around between different sections of the Exchequer. i am concerned about use of 0845 numbers by DWP and others. The benefit of the revnue share to taxpayers and of low daytime rates for calling 0845 numbers by many BT customers do not for me offset the inequity caused to subscribers to other netwroks, who incur a premium charge when accessing public services.

SCV,  if you re-read my post, I did not suggest that MPs should not have preferential access, I said they should not have preferential CALL rates which is not the same thing, and it was facing the same CALL rates which might concentrate the mind.  Nor did I suggest the professionalisation of politics, far from it, councillors with certain authorities are paid at a level which does encourage such undesirable professionalisation, merely that it should be remembered that MPS are not the only ones who represent and fight for the needs of members of the public, I would add that many councillors, both at district and county level, put in considerable amounts of time and effort, on occasions at the level of full-time employment and that some MPs spend far more time on other activities and outside employments, MPs are by no means all fully occupied representing their constituents nor are many councillors merely "dabblers"!  I would also suggest that members of the public should also have direct access to Job Centre managers - after all, if their staff were serving the public appropriately (and I accept they sometimes do not do this from no fault of their own but from poor management and ridiculous restrictions on the staff's freedom to do so) contact at management level would not be necessary.

I think we agree that for public bodies to use telephone numbers where the cost to call is higher than that of a "standard" call is unacceptable.

Barbara, I am assuming that your comments about MPs making telephone calls were relevant to the point under discussion, arising from the quoted written answer from Jim Knight. If not, then you did not make this clear.

If you review the particular issue raised you will see that MPs are not offered preferential rates, they are offered different access. The difference in rates arises purely because the contact point being accessed is different, not because two different numbers are used for the same purpose. Any preferential treatment is therefore obtained purely as a result of having different access. If you wish to make an allegation that the respective choices of telephone number is made deliberately so as to provide a financial benefit to members of parliament, then you can look forward to me tearing that to shreds.

If your suggestion that MPs should enjoy the same conditions as "the rest of us" in order to "concentrate their minds" was in any way relevant to the matter under discussion, it can only have been with reference to the different access. Furthermore and as you say, MPs do not personally incur the cost of the charges associated with telephone calls, so it is only the effort involved in pursuing cases that could have any bearing on their state of mind.

Perhaps you are joining Dave in suggesting that MPs, like other elected representatives, should bear the cost of doing their work from their personal resources. Your condemnation of professionalism, and your praise for councillors who have no need to spend their time earning a living, does indeed suggest that those with private means should be preferred as candidates at an election. You may even believe that those who need to earn a living or women with young children should be debarred from seeking elected office.

The balance between amateurism and professionalism in our elected representatives is both very delicate and key to the precious creature that is our system of representative democracy. The involvement, and thereby the funding, of parties comes into this issue also, as they commonly provide some of the resource used in undertaking constituency casework.

The number of stupid comments that have been made over the issue of MPs expenses (and even some of the outcome of the serious work on a new system) gives one far greater cause for concern about our system than the serious scandals which emerged once a wholly improper scheme (introduced purely as a consequence of populist politics) was shown up for what it was. Please forgive any excess in my intolerance of badly thought out comments on these matters.



Across various areas, it is becoming increasingly common for all customers and service users to have ready access to "Managers". This is achieved by re-titling the staff who routinely deal with all service users and customers as "Managers". A strong principle of consumerism is that those who are sufficiently "empowered" (i.e. informed, eloquent, motivated and having the time to do so) should be able to pursue their personal interests by accessing senior officers who have managerial duties and therefore do not have the time to engage with every aggrieved “customer”. I do not share your stated support for the further adoption of this principle, which I most strongly oppose in relation to public services. I believe that these should be delivered on equitable, rather than consumerist, principles.

I firmly believe that everyone should be treated well and have the opportunity for their complaints to be addressed. I see it as right and proper that personal issues judged to be of particular concern, or genuinely requiring additional assistance in being presented, should be addressed effectively when the support of an elected representative, or other specialist agencies that are run on a voluntary or professional basis, is successfully engaged. It is totally proper that appropriate privileged access channels be made available to all such agencies for use only when it is deemed necessary from their objective standpoint.


Addressing your wider points, I do not agree that requiring managers to receive more representations from customers and service users, or MPs to spend more time engaged in the same struggles that their constituents endure would necessarily improve the quality of the work done by either. It would undoubtedly lead to more weight being given to narrow populist causes. I see us as already suffering from too much of this distortion of proper judgement in the setting of policy at all levels.

In my view, both public service managers and elected representatives should be required to demonstrate the necessary knowledge, experience and capacity for both objective judgement and empathy before being awarded their positions in the first place. There is nothing wrong in these skills being subject to further development, however adopting radical measures in order to correct a serious deficiency that has not been recognised is likely to produce highly undesirable effects.

---

That disposes of the politics and other matters which are strictly OT, the next post will be back on topic.

Further to the previous posting, I am now back on topic - although the conclusion covers both postings.

---

Use of 0845 numbers by public bodies is a particularly difficult issue for campaigners to address, as it requires considerable care. A simple view (call it populist or consumerist) shows that it is calls to the 0845 numbers used by DWP agencies which are offered at preferential rates, as most of those who call them pay less than the cost of calling a geographic number, and many pay no more. That is exactly how their use is justified.

Whilst all calls to revenue sharing numbers must include a "premium", that is not to say that the total cost is always greater than that of calls which do not.

There is a very important point on which myself and others are campaigning. These efforts are not helped by those who make wildly inaccurate statements, reversing the simple truth by suggesting that calls to geographic numbers are always, or generally, cheaper than those to 0845 numbers. If our campaigning efforts become associated with such lies (or perhaps - uninformed inaccurate assertions, to offer a courtesy rarely extended to those with whom we disagree), this serves to discredit and undermine the basis of the campaign.

Our efforts are now made yet more difficult by the fact that calls to even the most expensive revenue sharing numbers (call type "g6") are now cheaper for some. This is all a perverse effect of the fact that some BT prices are kept down by regulation. Unlike the removal of revenue sharing from 0870, which makes this site name relate to what is now a quite separate consumer issue, this effect is in no way a partial victory for the campaign against use of revenue sharing telephone numbers. As the true facts may be validly used to weaken or destroy a poorly presented case, we have to be very careful.

Barbara, your concluding sentence almost echoes the words of the recent statement by the Department of Health. This went on to point out that because 084 numbers are not invariably more expensive than a “standard” call (look at the BT “standard” tariff) they are not covered by a ban on “higher cost” calls. I cannot therefore agree with you.

I deeply regret that fact that there is no agreement between us on many issues; however I am aware that my views have never been well aligned with the general thrust of opinion in this forum.

SCV, I note your intention to avoid further what you consider off topic points.  However, I cannot let pass your first post of 5th Dec, directed at me, without stating that I found your comments personal and offensive.   I would ask that you do not make assumptions about my views or situation nor ascribe statements and views to me which I have not expressed.   Should you have any interest, I would again ask that you read my posts, you will see I did not express those views which you ascribe to me, nor did I say "professionalism" but "professionalisation" which is vastly different.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2009 at 1:01am:

Dave wrote on Dec 2nd, 2009 at 10:12pm: There we have it; MPs get preferential treatment from the Government. Mr Knight even explicitly states that these are geographical numbers. But Joe Public looking for a job or enquiring about a pension must ring a covert premium number. :-X >:( MPs pursuing constituency casework get privileged access to ministers, government and other other public sector bodies as well as most private sector organisations. This is because of the job that they do as our elected representatives. The costs they incur in doing this work is claimable as an expense and would normally be claimed. An MP looking for work because they did not fancy their chances of being re-elected next year would not be able to avail themselves of this privilege for that purpose.

The point stands about the hypocrisy of the DWP giving geographical numbers to MPs and 0845 (and 0800) numbers to the public.

Raising this issue of "preferential treatment" has nothing to do with the fact that MPs can call managers direct whereas Joe Public cannot. When I wrote my post, I noted the difference in the way calls are dealt with and accepted it in its entirety.

I thought the facts that Mr Williams' question specifically related to call charges, the words I highlighted and the subject of this forum made it obvious that I was referring solely to the types of telephone numbers provided for MPs and the public.



SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2009 at 1:01am:

It remains a disgrace that so long after the introduction of 03 we are still talking about this, however things are at last moving, at the predictably slow pace.

This is essentially my point. It took years and years for the DVLA to switch its numbers from 0870. It gave excuses about everyone paying the same rate and no acknowledgement of the real bone of contention (the premium call charges). That changed to a "we're waiting for Ofcom to tell us" and still it took years...

Dave wrote on Dec 7^th, 2009 at 1:07pm:

The point stands about the hypocrisy of the DWP giving geographical numbers to MPs and 0845 (and 0800) numbers to the public.

I am sorry but I cannot see the point that is alleged to stand.

For most calls made to DWP agencies 0845 (and 0800) numbers are cheaper than geographic numbers. Whatever issue there may be in the public purse incurring the cost of MPs calling geographic numbers on whatever business tariff applies to their work on behalf of their constituents, I cannot see the alleged hypocrisy. I can clearly see the basis for a tabloid headline and story, but the issue would not withstand careful consideration.

I fear that contributors to this thread may not have thought this issue through properly and have therefore ended up making points that perhaps they did not intend to make. If that is true, then I am happy to withdraw any critical inferences applied to what was said, if that is not what was intended. As comments stand however, so do my responses.

Whatever our views may be on the fact that MPs are reimbursed for the expenses they incur in undertaking casework for their constituents, notwithstanding the potential for fraudulent and improper claims which many have been found to have made, we cannot deny the fact that this system of proper reimbursement exists and is not universally abused.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 7^th, 2009 at 11:40pm:

For most calls made to DWP agencies 0845 (and 0800) numbers are cheaper than geographic numbers.

Not for anyone who has either an anytime landline calls package or a mobile phone with a substantial number of bundled minutes to 01/02/03 numbers.  That is most telecoms consumers as far as I can see.

Given the perpetual piffle that you turn out in this forum SCV I think you must actually be a paid fifth columnist working on behalf of the telecoms industry.

Therefore for MPs to have access to special 01/02 numbers the public cannot use sends out all the wrong signals.

Here, here NGM's Ghost!!!!

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 7^th, 2009 at 11:40pm:

For most calls made to DWP agencies 0845 (and 0800) numbers are cheaper than geographic numbers.

Only from a BT fixed line re 0845 number, (and 0870, but we are not discussing those in this thread).
ALL other telcos charge more to call 084's than 01/02/03.

Also don't forget it costs substantially more to call these numbers from a payphone and a mobile!

Members must recognise that my continuing efforts to get the DWP to change its approach are based on reality.

The situation for those with non-BT landlines, with mobiles and using payphones makes the retention of only 0845 and 0800 numbers unacceptable. Any revenue-sharing number is unacceptable as a matter of principle.

There has been an interim move made by the offer of a call back to all mobile callers to both 0845 and 0800 numbers. Further significant progress with 0800 is expected to be announced shortly.


Information collected by DWP shows that a very high proportion of calls to 0845 numbers comes from landlines. There is no more detailed data, however after removing the proportion likely to be calling from those non-BT lines where the cost is greater than that of a geographic call and those who incur the same cost as subscribers to the BT anytime package, one is still left with the majority likely to be calling from BT and benefiting from the discount applied to non-inclusive calls to 0845 numbers.

If anybody can offer an objective way of establishing how the proportions of daytime landline calls to 0845 numbers may be broken down into being cheaper / more expensive than, or the same as, geographic calls then perhaps a more accurate assessment of the impact of the present DWP policy could be made. Until this has been done, I have to stand by my statement.


For me, there is no question that many landline callers find it cheaper to call 0845 numbers. Whether this represents a majority or minority of callers to any particular number is irrelevant and therefore unworthy of consideration in my view. I see serving the interests of the majority over those of a minority as anti-democratic tyranny. I regret the fact that many disagree with this view. I have pointed out to the DWP that if the interests of the majority of taxpayers were to be served over those of the minorities who are unemployed, disabled, over pensionable age or in need of help obtaining child support, then the DWP agencies would be abolished. The belief that the financial interests of a sizable number (allegedly a majority) overrides the need for a broader equity however remains in force as the justification for retaining 0845 numbers.

Some may wish to change the position by broad subjective assertions that the interests of the majority demands abandonment of 0845 numbers. I am not convinced of this as a point if fact, and I approach the matter in a quite different way.

I fully appreciate the desire to address these matters in the simplest way possible. This cannot however include denial of the relevant facts. Attacking use of 0845 numbers on the simple basis of the cost to callers has never been easy because of BT's perverse charging policies. Although BT's pricing is commonly misrepresented as being typical (which it is not), it cannot be dismissed.

I hope that those who argue for most BT customers to pay more to contact DWP agencies, whilst those who use others providers would pay less, would be happy to answer any charge that they represent the interests of those other providers, perhaps in return for payment. Those who argue for the DWP not to benefit from revenue share must also answer for their implicit support for a greater burden of cost being placed on the taxpayer. I am happy to defend my position.

Here's a few figures to get you started..

June 2009: "BT’s residential market share has been steadily declining since 2003 and now stands at 65.3%
of residential exchange lines and 48.3% of call minutes"
source http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/retail_markets/responses/bt.pdf p6

March 2009 BT have 20,665,000 consumer landlines (p146)
Of which 14 million consumers had call packages of some sort (p34)
(source http://www.btplc.com/Sharesandperformance/Annualreportandreview/pdf/BTGroupAnnualReport2009smart.pdf)

Just trying to find out if there is anywhere BT have said what proportion of call packages sold are anytime ones, as that would complete the picture - those people would be paying the same (i.e. nothing) for 0845s as Geographics.

Certainly less than half of all landline calls are made via BT, so it would seem a fair suggestion that as most people use the same call provider for all calls, more than half are made with providers that charge more than BT.

BT Retail is the exception with its perverse pricing structure, by virtue of regulation. Of those providers other than BT, the vast majority charge more for 0845 calls than geographical and 03 ones. This is to be expected to be the case due to the underlying premium carried on 0845 calls.

Those who adopt an exclusive 0845 numbering strategy on the basis that it is allegedly cheaper to call for the majority are essentially meddling with the call origination market. The result of this is that those who don’t subscribe to BT’s atypical charges pay more. I firmly believe that these call recipients (service providers) should keep their noses out of the call origination market. In deciding their primary numbering strategy they should go as far as deciding what level of subsidy (if any) they wish to derive from callers or whether they wish to cover the cost of calls from landlines.

Service providers may like to offer alternative 0845 numbers for those customers with BT and other perverse charging providers.

Thus, where only 0845 numbers are used, they should be employed solely as a mechanism to levy fees on callers.

Those in the said majority are set to benefit from call charges up to 3.29 pence per minute cheaper than geographical and 03 calls. Those in the said minority are set to be disadvantaged from call charges up to 40 pence per minute greater than geographical and 03 calls.

With this in mind, how much greater weighting do those individuals paying more have than those paying less in the DWP's calculations?

irrelevant wrote on Dec 13^th, 2009 at 7:06pm:

Here's a few figures to get you started. ...

I have been working on the later figures (for Q1 09/10) published by Ofcom in September:

These give BT 46.7% of residential call volumes, Virgin Media 16.6% and 36.7% for Others.

Virgin Media charges more for 0845 than geographic calls in all cases. Talk Talk, Sky, PO Homephone, Tiscali and others follow BT by charging less.

There are other tables that break down by call type, however these do not distinguish residential callers from business. I have gently attempted to press Ofcom for more information from their source data, in particular in the breakdown of "Others", but without success.

BT has stated that around 10% of its call plan customers are on Anytime.

From these very rough figures one may conclude that something approaching 79% of landline callers pay less to call 0845 numbers than geographic numbers. The figure for those who pay no more is higher.

The DWP defence of its use of 0845 is actually based on BT's share of landline provision, which probably gives a lower percentage.

The DWP has reported that around 70% of calls to 0845 numbers have been found to come from landlines. There are a few odd mobile tariffs with lower rates for 0845 calls which could be added in.

This is how one is able to sustain the claim that a majority of callers pay less to call DWP agencies on 0845 numbers.


If someone wants to play around with the statistics and try to use this as the basis for a case then please do so.

As stated above, I SEE THIS AS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT - I would still press the issue if 95% of callers found it cheaper to call a revenue sharing number. One cannot play off one group of public service users against another. If there are potentially conflicting interests to be served, some proper means of resolution has to be found - simple head counting or financial calculation is not satisfactory for reasons that should be obvious. That is why we have a representative democracy, so that elected, and thereby accountable, representatives can make appropriate decisions.


If the DWP or any other public body wants to give some callers the option of benefiting from perverse discounts available from one or more telephone companies, then I have no objection to it offering as many special alternative numbers as it feels that it can, given the need for clear and precise explanation of the circumstances in which these should be used. Its primary numbers may not be subject  to revenue sharing. If there are sound reasons for using non-geographic numbers, they must be from the 03xx range.

There is also another aspect which has been lost, not as important as the actual call cost but still a consideration and that is the immorality of revenue share AT ALL, whatever the caller pays, somthing is still going to the DWP and that is wrong (at least, most of us seem to think so!).   Should the DWP be profiting (ignore how it spends the profit, that is irrelevant, if it is using it to fund the service, that in itself is masking an underfunding issue which needs addressing) from those who have to call it, it is a public service monolopy with no competition choice, in other words, callers are being held to ransom - call this number or go without benefits etc to which you are entitled and for which you have already paid through taxation (& remember, even children pay VAT on things so are taxpayers!)

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 14^th, 2009 at 2:04am:

irrelevant wrote on Dec 13th, 2009 at 7:06pm: Here's a few figures to get you started. ... I have been working on the later figures (for Q1 09/10) published by Ofcom in September: These give BT 46.7% of residential call volumes, Virgin Media 16.6% and 36.7% for Others. Virgin Media charges more for 0845 than geographic calls in all cases. Talk Talk, Sky, PO Homephone, Tiscali and others follow BT by charging less.

Talk Talk charges 0845 calls inline with national geographical calls at all times and Sky Talk charges them 6ppm at all times.

The only operators I can see that charge less for 0845 calls at certain times are BT (3.29ppm), Post Office Home Phone (1.564ppm) and Tiscali Talk (0.59ppm). So any saving is well below 4ppm.



SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 14^th, 2009 at 2:04am:

The DWP defence of its use of 0845 is actually based on BT's share of landline provision, which probably gives a lower percentage. The DWP has reported that around 70% of calls to 0845 numbers have been found to come from landlines. There are a few odd mobile tariffs with lower rates for 0845 calls which could be added in. This is how one is able to sustain the claim that a majority of callers pay less to call DWP agencies on 0845 numbers.

The DWP is clinging to its 0845 numbers by presenting the version of "reality" that justifies its current position. It most probably adopted 0845 numbers on the basis that they were "local rate" and was consumed by the fixation that it would be wrong for some callers to pay the difference between BT local and national rates, 3.96ppm.

Now we have a situation where many pay far than they would do to a local geographical number, but this is swept under the carpet. The differential between call rates we are talking about today put the less than 4ppm figure in the shade!

The DWP has reported that around seven out of 10 calls come from landlines. How many of these are from people who are using a friend's landline because they don't have their own? How many people are not ringing up at all because either they cannot afford the credit on their mobile or they are fearful of the cost of the call from their mobile?

I assume it's fair to say that the majority of people making contact with the Department are in the least well off proportion of the population. Perhaps its statistician would like to confirm this. The greater extra cost weighs even heavier on those who can least afford it. This is evidently not the "reality" that the DWP wants to face.

Barbara wrote on Dec 14^th, 2009 at 10:49am:

There is also another aspect which has been lost, ...

Lost! I will not quote from my, admittedly lengthy, comments, but I think you will find us to be totally in agreement on the fact that it is the principle of revenue sharing that is the issue, not the matter of how many people pay this or that rate to call.


Barbara wrote on Dec 14^th, 2009 at 10:49am:

callers are being held to ransom

This is where we part company. I refuse to accept that any sort of consumerist model (e.g. reference to the absence of a competitive market) is appropriate. We have been encouraged to think of everything in terms of a grocery shop. Sometimes that can be useful as a model, sometimes it may provide a useful analogy whilst not being totally relevant, sometimes (for example in this case, as in many others) it is totally wrong-headed and misleading.


Dave wrote on Dec 14^th, 2009 at 3:12pm:

The only operators I can see that charge less for 0845 calls at certain times are BT, Post Office Home Phone and Tiscali Talk.

Thank you for correcting my error. I tried to do the relevant calculations some time ago, purely out of interest. I knew that there was no clear answer and so was a little casual in my efforts to defend my assertion that it could be a majority who pay less (which you may have challenged by removing Talk Talk and Sky). My desire to show this was only for the purpose of demonstrating strongly that this is not what matters.

Your points about the impact that use of 0845 numbers has on caller behaviour are well made. These have been previously been shared with DWP officials and will continue to feature in arguments presented. I have discussed the issue of who the callers may be, in relation to the type of tariff they may be on. It is not easy to characterise the typical user of BT vs. Virgin Media. It is fairly clear that mobile users demand special attention, which is what has been provided by the present call back arrangement. The call back approach is however very expensive for the Department and is not seen as a permanent solution. Once the 0800 issue has been resolved attention will turn to the 0845 (vs 03) issue. I personally believe that consideration of mobile callers will be the deciding factor.

Whilst the existence of differential landline rates for 0845 calls is highly significant, I am not sure that the present situation will be the issue that tips the balance. At some point in the new year Ofcom will be starting work on its new review of all NTS ranges, with the question of what to do about 0845 near (or at) the top of the agenda. Initial indications of what may be likely to emerge from this will doubtless have a bearing. Only the early removal of revenue sharing and enforcement of charging on the same basis as 03, by all providers, would provide any justification for retention of 0845 at this time. This is possible, but, I think, unlikely - unless the remaining dial-up ISPs and those who require the benefit of revenue sharing can all be moved onto a suitable 0844/3(/2?) range swiftly.

As stated previously, I am happy to encourage anyone who wants to try and get into the detail of the volume-weighted cost impact on landline users of the choice of 0845 over 03. This may be relevant to the extent of the need to retain 0845 numbers as alternatives after a changeover to 03 has perhaps been completed. This would however need to look to the long term considering what call rates are likely to be in the future, e.g. after the NTS condition has perhaps been removed from BT and perhaps something similar imposed on all providers! Good luck to you!

Source: DWP "In Touch" December 2009

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/about-dwp/customer-delivery/jobcentre-plus/stakeholders-and-partnerships/keeping-in-touch/in-touch-december-2009/


Quote:

New 0845 phone number for Jobcentres A new, national Jobcentre 0845 phone number (and separate Welsh language line number for Wales) is being introduced to replace more than 700 geographical phone numbers. This is part of ongoing transformation to simplify customers' contact with Jobcentres. The national numbers will help standardise the service offered to customers and make it easier for those customers to access the Jobcentre services. At the same time, switchboard services will be centralised into four Balfour Beatty WorkPlace (BBW) Service Centres. This will provide a consistent national service for customers. When customers phone the 0845 number, operators will be able to place the call to the jobcentre the customer asks for or, if the customer has incorrectly phoned the Jobcentre, the operator will signpost them to the correct location (for example, to make a new claim, or for a benefit enquiry). A managed roll-out of the jobcentre 0845 numbers and centralisation into the Service Centres began in November and will continue until April 2010. Stakeholders and customers will informed when the change is due to happen in their area.

This explains the date in the "0845 No" column beside each JobCentre in the spreadsheet provided in this FOI response.

As a temporary measure the DWP will call back those ringing from mobiles. But yet it continues on its course to use 08xx contact numbers... ::) :-X

By the end of April, the published number for all JobCentres will be a centralised 0845 one. The local numbers will have a redirection message placed on then.

This is a very very disappointing move by the DWP. Those citizens who make their calls with BT pay 3.4pence per minute less, yet those with other landline providers pay up to 10pence per minute more, and those from mobiles upto 40 pence per minute more!

Dave wrote on Jan 10^th, 2010 at 3:43pm:

By the end of April, the published number for all JobCentres will be a centralised 0845 one. The local numbers will have a redirection message placed on then.

With the best will in the world I sincerley hope not to be using Jobcentre numbers by then  :'(

Yesterday the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said that all phone numbers for her Department will be reviewed.

Read it in Hansard or watch the oral question and answer session on They Work for You:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2010-02-01a.1.3&s=telephone+phone+%22further%20steps%22+0845+reviewed+call+%94call%20back%94%23#g1.4

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100203/text/100203w0007.htm#10020389000079


Quote:

Departmental Telephone Services Lembit Öpik: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average cost was of calls made to her Department's 0845 telephone number from (a) land lines and (b) mobile telephone networks in the latest period for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. [312889] Jim Knight: It is not possible to give an average cost of a call to the Department's 0845 numbers. The cost of calls to the Departments 0845 numbers will vary according to each service provider, who will determine their own costs. BT landlines charge the lowest tariff and 70 per cent. of DWP callers do so from a BT landline. BT provide free 0845 calls if the call is made within the individual caller's call plan. Cost of calls to 0845 numbers from mobile phones will vary according to which mobile operator a customer uses. Although we can identify if a caller is using a mobile phone, the Department is unable to identify which mobile operator a caller is using.

I would like to know how the DWP know when a landline caller is ringing from a landline whose call provider is BT Retail rather than any other provider.

Mr Knight goes on to say that "BT provide free 0845 calls." It is becoming clearer that the Department is acting as a marketeer for its own chosen telephony provider, BT.

Source: Consumer Focus

http://www.consumerfocus.org.uk/news/consumer-focus-response-to-dwp-0800-free-calls-announcement

<<

Consumer Focus’ response to DWP 0800 free calls announcement

Audrey Gallacher, telecoms expert at Consumer Focus said:

‘We welcome the move to make calls to some of the Department of Work and Pension’s 0800 numbers free if called from mobiles.  This will come as good news to many consumers, particularly elderly people and those on low incomes.

‘But this should be just the first step not a temporary move.  People need to be able to access all essential services that use 0800, such as frontline NHS phone services, free from a mobile. Consumer Focus research found that around 8 out of ten people thought calls to essential  helplines should cost the same from mobiles as from landlines. ’

>>

See the inaugural posting on the SAYNOTO0870.COM Blog on why the DWP should switch from 0845 to 03 numbers:

http://saynoto0870.blogspot.com/2010/02/dwp-case-for-03-numbers.html

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE  can everybody follow suit and contact at their MP. I have contacted Eric Illsley and he has responded stating that calls to Job Centre Plus should be affordable

He has also stated that he has written to the Secretary Of State For Department Of Works And Pensions highlighting the points I have made.

Needless to say I have not had a reply and received the letter in November 09.


Baz

bazzerfewi wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 5:26pm:

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE  can everybody follow suit and contact at their MP. I have contacted Eric Illsley and he has responded stating that calls to Job Centre Plus should be affordable He has also stated that he has written to the Secretary Of State For Department Of Works And Pensions highlighting the points I have made.

Well done! I posted a link above in reply #49 to the Oral Questions session in Parliament to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Your MP asked the first question and you can watch it here.



bazzerfewi wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 5:26pm:

Needless to say I have not had a reply and received the letter in November 09.

Write back and remind Mr Illsley you haven't had a response. Perhaps his office has received a response from the SOS, but has forgotten send you a copy.

I came across this interesting FOI response on WhatDoTheyKnow:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/analysis_of_costs_of_0845_vs_030

The requestor noted that in a previous FOI response, the DWP said that it had considered the use of 0300 numbers (in place of 0845 numbers), but decided against them because its analysis showed that it would result in higher call charges for the majority of callers. This request asked for a copy of this analysis, including research fed into it and notes of any communication with Ofcom on its advice in favour of 0300 numbers.

The response states:

Quote:

In June 09 we completed analysis of the charges for customers supplemented by information on the profile of callers to our services (by landline, mobile and call box).  This shows that moving from 0845 to 0300 would disadvantage more customers in our view than it would advantage.  The attached spreadsheet provides full details of the analysis (see tab on Better Value Flow Chart)

Unfortunately, I could not open the spreadsheet referred to. If anyone can open it, then I will be interested to see it. Anyway, it goes on to say:

Quote:

We are also planning to lobby to try and solve this continuing dilemma with 0845 and indeed would like to see 0845 calls treated in the same way for charging purposes as geographic calls (whether they are 01, 02 or 03). However, our current priority is to resolve issues with charges on 0800 calls from mobiles. We will conduct a further update of the analysis in September 09 and use the latest information from OFCOM about market shares. We have not discussed any OFCOM advice on whether to use 03 numbers.

The DWP is spouting the sort of nonsense we have come to expect from GPs!

It has chosen to use 0845 numbers and benefit from subsidy from callers. Yet now it would like to continue receiving that subsidy, but doesn't like the idea of callers paying more. Someone's got to pay for it.  ::)

Thanks Dave for your reply in regard to 0845 numbers for JSA I have contacted Eric Illsley in this regard he is the MP for Barnsley Central, he addressed the house 1st February 2010, if other members could also contact him or their MP it would be great. Please follow this link if you wish to make a coment. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/

24 February 2010      
I reply to your response on 1st February 2010 in the House of Commons in regard to the use of 0845 numbers within the DWP I thank you for raising this point.  I also appreciate that the secretary of State for the DWP addressed the issue but in my view the response was only a part of the issue that I and others had raised. I do agree that when carriers initially contact the DWP on an 0800 number the call should be free of charge and I am grateful that this issue has been dealt with in regard to callers using a mobile phone but it skirts around the issue of the 0845 numbers. I have also learned to my horror that a new batch of 0845 numbers have been introduced to Job Centre Plus offices and the system no longer accepts calls from 01and02 numbers, “This is a travesty” and unacceptable. Research suggests that the connectioe charge to an 0845 number is upwards of 8p and the caller is charged 8p per minute there after an average call will cost the caller 88p. I have even contacted them on an 01 number and the operator has grilled me as how I came across this number this is unacceptable and down right incompetent. I do appreciate that you will do your upmost to rectify this issue and I again thank you for your cooperation in this matter

.
Income Support & Social Fund 0845 Rip-off

I live in London, today I tried to call my local DWP Social Fund Loan Dept. I felt sure as it was a .GOV dept that they would supply callers with a geographic number. I was re-directed to call Jobcentre Plus who handle Social Fund Loan & Income Support enquiries and a quick google gave me this list of geographic numbers for Jobcentre Plus Offices in the London area,

http://www.get-uk-jobs.com/London-job-centres.html

I tried various numbers in that list and each time I was connected to a switchboard operator who either refused to connect me to the Social Fund dept. or said they were unable to do so. On one call I asked to speak to a supervisor whereupon the switchboard operator did actually attempt to connect me to the Social Fund, I could hear it in the background, but the connection failed.

I think it stinks that the people who can least afford to pay these 0845 call charges are being hit, I don't have a BT line because I can't afford the installation charge, therefore I'm forced to call these .GOV depts from a PAYG mobile between 9am - 4pm which is prohibitively expensive. I spent 3 quid in mobile phone charges today to speak to a .GOV dept, money I can ill afford to waste.

k2150 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2010 at 10:05am:

I live in London, today I tried to call my local DWP Social Fund Loan Dept. I felt sure as it was a .GOV dept that they would supply callers with a geographic number. I was re-directed to call Jobcentre Plus who handle Social Fund Loan & Income Support enquiries and a quick google gave me this list of geographic numbers for Jobcentre Plus Offices in the London area, http://www.get-uk-jobs.com/London-job-centres.html I tried various numbers in that list and each time I was connected to a switchboard operator who either refused to connect me to the Social Fund dept. or said they were unable to do so. On one call I asked to speak to a supervisor whereupon the switchboard operator did actually attempt to connect me to the Social Fund, I could hear it in the background, but the connection failed. I think it stinks that the people who can least afford to pay these 0845 call charges are being hit, I don't have a BT line because I can't afford the installation charge, therefore I'm forced to call these .GOV depts from a PAYG mobile between 9am - 4pm which is prohibitively expensive. I spent 3 quid in mobile phone charges today to speak to a .GOV dept, money I can ill afford to waste.

The DWP rip-off on 0845 numbers is unacceptable and must be ended as soon as is possible.

The situation with 0800 numbers has been recognised and these should now be free to call from mobiles (barring fringe operators not having yet been drawn in to the scheme).

If the enquiry is in relation to a new claim, the number given on the DWP website is 0800 0 55 66 88. This should be at no cost to the caller.

If in relation to an existing claim, the number for the local JobCentrePlus office is found at: http://www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk/JCP/Aboutus/Ouroffices/Search/LocalOfficeSearch.aspx
If this is a 0845 number, the agent will offer to call you back as soon as you get through. If this offer is not made immediately the agent would be breaching clear instructions which we have been assured are followed rigidly. Insist that you receive a call back if it is not offered. (Please PM me with the details if the offer is not made immediately.)

This is not yet good enough, more is going to be done.

k2150 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2010 at 10:05am:

I think it stinks that the people who can least afford to pay these 0845 call charges are being hit, I don't have a BT line because I can't afford the installation charge, therefore I'm forced to call these .GOV depts from a PAYG mobile between 9am - 4pm which is prohibitively expensive. I spent 3 quid in mobile phone charges today to speak to a .GOV dept, money I can ill afford to waste.

Hi and welcome to SAYNOTO0870.COM.

This is quite a hot topic on our forum. The DWP (which incorporates JobCentre Plus) says it uses 0845 numbers because more people pay less to call than pay more. But those who pay more pay much more than those who save, but this isn't taken into consideration.

Unfortunately, the numbers for JobCentres will soon be replaced by one 0845 number. The old local numbers will play a recorded message redirecting to the 0845 number.

Perhaps you would like to write to your MP about this, making the points you made on this forum.

Dave wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2010 at 10:39am:

k2150 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2010 at 10:05am: I think it stinks that the people who can least afford to pay these 0845 call charges are being hit, I don't have a BT line because I can't afford the installation charge, therefore I'm forced to call these .GOV depts from a PAYG mobile between 9am - 4pm which is prohibitively expensive. I spent 3 quid in mobile phone charges today to speak to a .GOV dept, money I can ill afford to waste. Hi and welcome to SAYNOTO0870.COM. This is quite a hot topic on our forum. The DWP (which incorporates JobCentre Plus) says it uses 0845 numbers because more people pay less to call than pay more. But those who pay more pay much more than those who save, but this isn't taken into consideration. Unfortunately, the numbers for JobCentres will soon be replaced by one 0845 number. The old local numbers will play a recorded message redirecting to the 0845 number. Perhaps you would like to write to your MP about this, making the points you made on this forum.

Thanks for the welcome, I will be writing my MP, but I've the feeling he won't be for much longer. The DWP have closed the local office in my area, we are now served by one centralized Jobcentre Plus office which is miles away. From there you can call any department free of charge using an internal phone, you're given a ticket number and then queue up to use the phone, if you close your eyes it's just like being in Argos.  My problem is getting to that office after suffering a stroke last November isn't easy, my only recourse at the moment is to use my mobile phone. I fully expect things to get worse this year, when more cuts in public spending are imminent thanks to the banking catastrophe.

When I called Jobcentre plus (Stratford, London) a few hours ago, at no time did the switchboard operator offer to call me back, he just furnished an 0845 number, calling that number gives you approx a 1 min recorded message followed by a waiting period to actually get through to a person. That waiting period can be any length of time depending on how busy they are, and how quickly they pick up, so in practice by the time your connected to a person to request a call back you will have already spent a considerable sum of money. Call back is scam, they need to to give people surviving on Income support, or a state pension, or incapacity benefits, an 0800 freephone number to call.

k2150 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2010 at 11:31am:

When I called Jobcentre plus (Stratford, London) a few hours ago, at no time did the switchboard operator offer to call me back, he just furnished an 0845 number, calling that number gives you approx a 1 min recorded message followed by a waiting period to actually get through to a person. That waiting period can be any length of time depending on how busy they are, and how quickly they pick up, so in practice by the time your connected to a person to request a call back you will have already spent a considerable sum of money. Call back is scam, they need to to give people surviving on Income support, or a state pension, or incapacity benefits, an 0800 freephone number to call.

Thanks very much for the information. Clearly you are familiar with the process and know that you could not call the 0800 new claims number.

As the Stratford office retains its own switchboard on a geographic number, no call back is offered. We have been led to believe that the function of a local, or indeed the replacement national, switchboard is to put you through to the agent best able to help. It seems that the Stratford switchboard is simply offering a personalised version of the recorded announcement provided at offices where the local switchboard function has been closed down.

We are battling for the 0845 numbers to be replaced by 03 or geographic numbers, as appropriate. That is the essence of the saynoto00870 campaign as it removes the element of additional payment and subsidy to the service provider one is calling. With a minimum 60 second wait, you make a very strong case for all JobCentre Plus services to be free to callers. As you rightly say, there is the question of whether taxpayers would be happy to meet this additional cost now that the trick of paying for public services by borrowing, rather than increasing taxes, seems to have come to an end.

The cost of 0800 calls being free from mobiles has however been met. I have not yet heard anyone suggest that this is a misuse of public money, so perhaps there is hope that more generosity and addition to the deficit could be tolerated. Current MPs and those who will seek to replace them should all be asked how far they would go in charging for, or subsidising the costs of, access to public services by telephone. Astute voters will ask how additional generosity will be paid for, after all of the cuts to unnecessary expenditure and efficiency savings that are required anyway have been made.

k2150 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2010 at 11:31am:

Thanks for the welcome, I will be writing my MP, but I've the feeling he won't be for much longer. …

Perhaps you could hold off until after the election.  :-/



k2150 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2010 at 11:31am:

When I called Jobcentre plus (Stratford, London) a few hours ago, at no time did the switchboard operator offer to call me back, he just furnished an 0845 number, calling that number gives you approx a 1 min recorded message followed by a waiting period to actually get through to a person. That waiting period can be any length of time depending on how busy they are, and how quickly they pick up, so in practice by the time your connected to a person to request a call back you will have already spent a considerable sum of money. Call back is scam, they need to to give people surviving on Income support, or a state pension, or incapacity benefits, an 0800 freephone number to call.

For your information, the 020 7301 8200 number for Stratford and quite a few other London JobCentres is to be turned off on the 14 April.

What 0845 number is it that you were directed to?

I ask because if the 0845 number you should have called was answered anywhere else than your local JobCentre, then that would explain the reason that they could not offer you a call back on the 020 number even if they were permitted to do so. In order for them to do that, the message would have to conveyed to whatever call centre deals with the type of enquiry you were ringing about, and I don't believe that there is such a mechanism in place.

The idea of call backs sounds good in theory (at least as a temporary fix), but as you say, there is the unacceptable cost of the call whilst you are waiting in a queue, for which you have no idea how long it will be. I imagine that waiting creates tension caused by the fact that your credit could run out, and that this in turn would leave you unable to contact anyone until you top-up again.

Dave wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2010 at 10:51pm:

k2150 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2010 at 11:31am: Thanks for the welcome, I will be writing my MP, but I've the feeling he won't be for much longer. … Perhaps you could hold off until after the election.  :-/ k2150 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2010 at 11:31am: When I called Jobcentre plus (Stratford, London) a few hours ago, at no time did the switchboard operator offer to call me back, he just furnished an 0845 number, calling that number gives you approx a 1 min recorded message followed by a waiting period to actually get through to a person. That waiting period can be any length of time depending on how busy they are, and how quickly they pick up, so in practice by the time your connected to a person to request a call back you will have already spent a considerable sum of money. Call back is scam, they need to to give people surviving on Income support, or a state pension, or incapacity benefits, an 0800 freephone number to call. For your information, the 020 7301 8200 number for Stratford and quite a few other London JobCentres is to be turned off on the 14 April. What 0845 number is it that you were directed to? I ask because if the 0845 number you should have called was answered anywhere else than your local JobCentre, then that would explain the reason that they could not offer you a call back on the 020 number even if they were permitted to do so. In order for them to do that, the message would have to conveyed to whatever call centre deals with the type of enquiry you were ringing about, and I don't believe that there is such a mechanism in place. The idea of call backs sounds good in theory (at least as a temporary fix), but as you say, there is the unacceptable cost of the call whilst you are waiting in a queue, for which you have no idea how long it will be. I imagine that waiting creates tension caused by the fact that your credit could run out, and that this in turn would leave you unable to contact anyone until you top-up again.

The Stratford switchboard gave me this number to call, 0845 6000 148, calling that number gets you a recorded message with various menu options for different departments. There was no option for the Social Fund department which is what I wanted, so I chose the Income Support dept, when I got through to Income Support they were able to answer my query but it took longer than normal. Why the Social Fund Dept was not an option on the 0845 menu I have no idea.

k2150 wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2010 at 12:08am:

Why the Social Fund Dept was not an option on the 0845 menu I have no idea.

A quick review of the DWP and JobCentre Plus websites does not find any reference to a Social Fund Dept. The "Social Fund" appears to be the name given to a group of benefits, some of which are budgeted for in a particular way. Each Job Centre Plus office appears to be able to deal with enquiries. The central 0800 number appears to deal with new claims.

The fact that the system is potentially very confusing is a further reason why expensive telephone numbers are inappropriate. The incompetence of staff who suggest contacting a non-existent "department" is another sadly familiar issue. Whilst there is no policy of automatically offering a call back on geographic numbers, the Stratford switchboard should have put the call through to the appropriate person within that office, who should then have responded to a request for them to call back.

Any call that is handled wrongly is unnecessarily expensive, whatever type of number is used.

Dave wrote on Jan 9^th, 2010 at 2:38pm:

Source: DWP "In Touch" December 2009 At the same time, switchboard services will be centralised into four Balfour Beatty WorkPlace (BBW) Service Centres. This will provide a consistent national service for customers.

If I wasn't already disgusted at this move by the DWP to take money by way of a stealth tax on those that can least afford it, I am now ABOLUTELY SICKENED to hear that the work has been outsourced to private company Balfour Beatty.

I am against privatisation of anything, but my reasons here go beyond that (and justify my preference of nationalisation.)

Balfour Beatty were recently one of the biggest players involved in a bid rigging scandal for the construction of public buildings. What this means is that several companies collude to artificially inflate contract costs, having an agreement between themselves that they will divide contracts up equally.

The net result is that taxpayers will be charged about 15 million for, lets say a hospital, that in reality costs closer to 5 million. The knock on effect is the deaths of patients due to lack of funds for treatment.

This is covered under law as cartel activity (mafia) and punishable by 5 years in prison.

Months later, the [company is] awarded this contract.

The bid rigging scandal gained very little publicity, my belief is that there is so much collusion that people were deliberately kept in the dark. The 08 number scam goes much much deeper than telephones, trust me.....

http://www.contractjournal.com/Articles/2008/04/17/58653/bid-rigging-balfour-beatty-granted-leniency-by-oft.html

---

~ Edited by Dave: Posting amended

I do not think that there was anything in the original version of the comments about a company known as Balfour Cheaty that it not repeated all over the web regularly.

The specific example does however demonstrate a syndrome seen through both the previous and current governments.

Devolving decision making to local bodies and contractors encourages a pragmatic approach. This may have its benefits, but it makes adherence to important points of principle extremely difficult to maintain and enforce. If the easiest and cheapest way of delivering a service is by getting users to pay for it, and nobody complains loudly enough before the event, then this is what will happen.

Once it is done, what is then seen as being added cost, plus the trouble and expense of change, mitigate against necessary corrective action being taken.

---

With reference to the DWP (and HMRC and others), I have noted, and commented on, the following item from the Sunday Mirror -

Scandal of Government helplines that cost 40p a minute

---

As this forum is structured for discussion rather than news postings, I am never sure whether members in general are interested in such bland contributions as that immediately above, or if each should have a new thread in the expectation of stimulating a debate.

Those who may wish to follow developments on campaigns that I am engaged in may wish to subscribe to news feeds that I maintain. If any item, such as that referred to above, is considered worthy of discussion, then it could be brought into this forum. I believe that members in general should decide what it is that they wish to discuss in the forum. (I am well aware that there are many who do not wish to see contributions from myself.)

In addition to those which are general to my campaigning efforts, I now also offer feeds on specific topics. The feeds may be viewed and subscribed to at this link.

N.B. There is no cost involved, "subscription" is free of any charge. Furthermore, there is no monetary gain for me from my feeds or my blogs.

I would be delighted to hear from anyone who has suggestions about the presentation, wishes to propose items for inclusion (current or historic) or wishes to invite me to subscribe to their feeds of related material.

Hi there!

I had to contact the DWP for my pension forecast, and I duly looked on this website.  Anyhow, I had the following happen:

"Just thought that I would advise you that if you dial the ( 141 ) 0191 218 777 and ask to be put through to the Pension Service
( Forecasting ), they will not transfer you, even if you tell them that the 0845 number is NOT a local call number.  They insist, that it is a 'Local' call number."

What idiots do we have at the DWP?  They could quite easily use a 0191 number or even better a 03 prefix number for each department.

James Bond

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jun 29^th, 2010 at 7:08pm:

I do not think that there was anything in the original version of the comments about a company known as Balfour Cheaty that it not repeated all over the web regularly.

I have just googled the term "Balfour Cheaty" (in parenthesis) and this is the only page that was returned from the entire web.


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jun 29^th, 2010 at 7:08pm:

The specific example does however demonstrate a syndrome seen through both the previous and current governments.

Some people are quick to forget that the current problems in our country were instigated by the tories of the 1980's (unstable employment, over inflated housing market, tax rip offs such as increasing VAT from 7.5% to 17.5%, ignorance and indifference to the youth of the nation) The last and current governments are peas from the same pod.


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jun 29^th, 2010 at 7:08pm:

Devolving decision making to local bodies and contractors encourages a pragmatic approach. This may have its benefits, but it makes adherence to important points of principle extremely difficult to maintain and enforce. If the easiest and cheapest way of delivering a service is by getting users to pay for it, and nobody complains loudly enough before the event, then this is what will happen.

It is often difficult to complain before the event as very little information is typically divulged. Usually it is dressed up to make it look like the government are doing us a favour so many people are not aware of the potential problems until they are hit by them.


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jun 29^th, 2010 at 7:08pm:

Once it is done, what is then seen as being added cost, plus the trouble and expense of change, mitigate against necessary corrective action being taken.

Solution - revert back to the original system. Cost - Nil.

floella2 wrote on Aug 20^th, 2010 at 6:05pm:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jun 29th, 2010 at 7:08pm:

I believe that we are essentially in agreement, other than on two points.

My reference to other comments on the web was intended simply to reassure in general terms.

In many cases, new centralised call centre based services have been set up using 0845 numbers to save money and perhaps provide a better service. It would certainly not be cost free to revert to the previous way of operating, nor to give up the benefits of revenue sharing on a 0845 number. I would stand aside from arguments on the former point, but argue furiously that the cost to the taxpayer of the latter must be incurred in the interest of equity and to save an even greater expense to service users.

Members may be interested to read the recent FOI responses from DWP which I posted about on the thread in the FOI section of the forum.

In a recent written answer, the Employment Minister said that his Department is currently reviewing the use of 0845 numbers:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2011-06-21b.59138.h

Let us hope that they do a better job than when under the previous administration where it seemed more an exercise to justify the status quo.

Dave wrote on Jun 24^th, 2011 at 10:27pm:

In a recent written answer, the Employment Minister said that his Department is currently reviewing the use of 0845 numbers: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2011-06-21b.59138.h Let us hope that they do a better job than when under the previous administration where it seemed more an exercise to justify the status quo.

Readers may be interested to note the annotation added to the published answer. This includes a link to the additional information provided.


The information deposited in the House of Commons Library includes an "Analysis" suggesting that nearly 50% of landlline callers would be worse off if DWP switched to 03. This is based on the assumption that all DWP claimants are just as likely as anyone else not to be at home during the working day and so are unlikely to subscribe to BT Unlimited Anytime. It also assumes that no DWP claimant callers subscribe to "BT Basic", even though only DWP claimants qualify for this special tariff!

If one considers the population who are in receipt of DWP benefits (including all old age pensioners, the long term sick and the unemployed) it seems a little foolish to assume that they would be no more likely to choose a tariff designed for those who use the phone during the day than anyone else.

Assuming that NO DWP callers subscribe to BT Basic, when all BT Basic subscribers must be DWP claimants, and when the premium charge they incur for calling 0845 numbers is that given in the written answer, thereby implying that this tariff is representative of the situation for ALL callers, goes beyond foolish!

(BT Basic is a "social tariff" available to DWP claimants who make very few calls, with an allowance of calls included in the monthly charge for the service. Calls to 0845 numbers are excluded from this allowance!)


The assumption that BT's diminishing share of the market in landline calls is 52.1% reflects the position as it was around the middle of 2007 (although this precise figure is not found in the relevant Ofcom publication). The latest published BT share is 39.9%.

The fact that some callers may be worse off by calling 03 rather than 0845 numbers is due to them probably having selected the wrong telephone package. Unless the call to DWP is a rare and exceptional example of a weekday daytime call, those who incur the BT penalty charge for calling outside the terms of their selected package are making a mistake. If one takes the DWP assumptions, but applies the up-to-date BT share of the calls market, those caught in this position only amount to 25% of DWP callers - significant, but far from overwhelming.

Use of a revenue sharing number without declaring a "service charge" is indefensible anyway, but to attempt to defend it on the basis that up to 25% of callers have chosen the wrong telephone package to meet their needs makes the position of the DWP even worse.


I share the hope expressed above, however a significant change of approach will be required before DWP can get a grip of what is really happening.

I read somewhere on another page about finding the old geographical number for the jobcentre ending in 00 and adding 1 therefore making the end of the number 01.
I found the old number by searching on an associated search site for jobcentre, which seperated the words so read, job centre plus. I used the +1 number today and it worked. The lady who answered seemed a bit surprised but did not question me, and dealt with my query. The other page on this site also advises that if +1 doesn't work (could be a fax number) then try +2 or +3.  ;D  ;D  ;D

PONTYBOY wrote on Sep 16^th, 2011 at 9:40am:

I read somewhere on another page about finding the old geographical number for the jobcentre ending in 00 and adding 1 therefore making the end of the number 01. I found the old number by searching on an associated search site for jobcentre, which seperated the words so read, job centre plus. I used the +1 number today and it worked. The lady who answered seemed a bit surprised but did not question me, and dealt with my query. The other page on this site also advises that if +1 doesn't work (could be a fax number) then try +2 or +3.  ;D  ;D  ;D

Hello and welcome to SAYNOTO0870.COM.

Please can you tell me which Jobcentre this relates to and the full number so I can add it to the listings?

Hope you get this DAVE(global moderator)
I think I've already posted this on the jobcentre alternative numbers page.
The number I provided was for Blackwood jobcentre in Gwent.
Old number was 01495 232600 which doesn't work but 01495 232601 does. I've tried it.
Like I said somewhere on this site I read that adding 1 to the old number ending in 00 should work unless it's a fax, then try +2 and so on.

PONTYBOY wrote on Sep 17^th, 2011 at 3:08am:

Hope you get this DAVE(global moderator) I think I've already posted this on the jobcentre alternative numbers page. The number I provided was for Blackwood jobcentre in Gwent. Old number was 01495 232600 which doesn't work but 01495 232601 does. I've tried it. Like I said somewhere on this site I read that adding 1 to the old number ending in 00 should work unless it's a fax, then try +2 and so on.

Thanks for this. I've found the entry you submitted to the listings and verified it.

If you find any more additions or updates (or removals) necessary in the database, please post in the Requests section of the forum and I'll sort them.  :)

I spent over £30 ringing the DWP during february and march, all to their 0845 number.

Complained to ofcom who in short they didnt think its a problem but reckon they did lean on the government to switch to 03xx numbers.  Clearly not enough.

How did a media campaign get started to fix HRMC but the DWP hasnt had one?

ihate0845 wrote on Apr 10^th, 2012 at 2:36pm:

I spent over £30 ringing the DWP during february and march, all to their 0845 number. Complained to ofcom who in short they didnt think its a problem but reckon they did lean on the government to switch to 03xx numbers.  Clearly not enough. How did a media campaign get started to fix HRMC but the DWP hasnt had one?

I believe that the media pressure has been roughly equal, however an important difference came in the fact that the Treasury Select Committee was doing an investigation into HMRC and picked up on this issue.

This is a point worth making to the Work and Pensions Committee.