A recent submission to the database for Transport for London with the number 0843 222 1234. It had a note "020 Travel Advice number likely to be discontinued".  :-?

The 0843 number is answered by a female voiced IVR, the same voice as is on 020 7222 1234. The menu options on the 0843 number are slightly different to those on the 020 number. They are both announced as "Transport for London's 24hr Travel Information Line".

The 0843 menu is:

1 Travel information (including journey planner)
2 Engineering works
3 Useful transport contacts

The 020 menu is:

1 Engineering works
2 Speak to a travel advisor
3 Useful transport contacts

It is interesting to note that speak to an advisor has been replaced by an automated journey planner service.

I have Googled the 0843 number and can find no trace of it. It may be in the design and testing stages.  :-/

It's been a while since I needed to call TfL, but they've had that same number since it was quoted as "ABBey 1234"  - I've some old tube maps with it on like that - to kill it now for something as money-grubbing as an 0843 is ridiculous.  Any Londoners on here want to protest to Boris?

Source: Evening Standard

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23764640-musicians-stage-protest-over-rules-that-could-drive-them-off-the-tube.do

<<
Musicians stage protest over rules that could drive them off the Tube
Katharine Barney, City Hall Reporter
05.11.09

Tube musicians took part in a mass busk outside City Hall in protest at what they call draconian new measures.

The 250 performers who play across the network say many are being forced to quit.

Buskers are angry at being banned by Transport for London from selling CDs or handing out business cards which gave them extra earnings.

They are also objecting to new guidelines on noise and a higher-rate phone number to book their pitches.

The buskers say TfL has banned them from performing if they have not pre-booked, when it was previously accepted that they could play in a spot if no one was there 20 minutes after a two-hour slot began.

They claim problems began this year when TfL took over management from a private contractor.

Michael Ball, 47, who has been busking for 25 years and plays in West End Tube stations, said the changes would drive away talent. “It's cretinous and makes me despair.

“Previously we just rang a standard rate number once a week and booked our slots. Now we have to call an 0845 number and every time no one answers we get a message which costs 40p. The whole process ends up costing about £20 a week.

“They won't even meet us to discuss our concerns. Previously we had quarterly meetings. This is just incredibly bad management.”

[…]
>>

I wonder how much the 0843 222 1234 number cost. It's memorable and it's last seven digits are the same as the current number. This specification must surely have come at a price.  :-?

This is a classic issue for campaigning.

The Met Police set the standard in London last year by choosing 03 when a new non-geographic number was required. It will take time for all the existing 084 public sector numbers to change over, but there is no excuse for introducing a new one.

It is not too late for TfL to change their mind as the new number has not yet been publicised.

It is of course a call type g6 - the highest possible level of charge and revenue share short of classification as being a Premium Rate Service.

Conversations with TfL personnel have included casual use of the term "local rate" and extensive reference to BT charges - BT is the provider of the number.

The fact that regulation enables BT customers to call this number during the working day at less than the cost of a non-inclusive geographic call is little more than a red herring.

I understand that concern has already been expressed within TfL about this. It would be quite foolish to wait until loads of money has been spent publicising the new number before the level of complaint forces consideration of a further change.

TfL must either stand up now and justify charging callers for this service (why not use a proper PRS number?) or change its plans.

Oh dear, I wanted to think Mayor BoJo would not follow the traditional conservative agenda.

So far he's abolished the congestion charge expansion plans for West London, he's abolished the plans to charge 4x4/very polluting vehicles a premium congestion charge. Who benefits? The rich.

To recover revenue, fares on the tube and bus network have been increased for the "oiks" and now his beloved "oiks" will apparently have to pay a premium to get information from TfL.

Unfortunately I do not live in London but do visit there every so often. I'll still send an email to protest about this but it would be good to set up a petition on the 10 Downing St site or something.

Since there are over half a million mentions of   020  7222  1234   out there on the web, they would have to be crazy to change that telephone number now.

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=%22020+7222+1234%22
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=%22020+72221234%22
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=%220207+222+1234%22
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=%220207+2221234%22
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=%2202072+221234%22
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=%220207222+1234%22
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=%2202072221234%22

The number must get millions of calls per year. So, would they keep the old line open with a recorded announcement of the 'new' number, thereby causing customers to waste money on that call - or would they simply take the old number out of service and make that number unobtainable so that callers are not charged for ringing it?

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.


Are they simply wanting to cash in on the millions of "Olympics Tourists" perhaps?

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 26^th, 2009 at 11:45am:

Conversations with TfL personnel have included casual use of the term "local rate" and extensive reference to BT charges - BT is the provider of the number.

The number prefix 0843 222 is allocated to Telecoms World Plc. Assuming that it has been ported (transferred) to BT, then how much did Telecoms World charge to give one of its very memorable numbers go to another provider?

Bearing in mind that evidently the specification was that as many of the digits were to remain the same as the existing number and that in order to do this (i.e. to get the "222" sequence) TFL had to approach Telecoms World, how much taxpayers' money was spent on this?  :-?



SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 26^th, 2009 at 11:45am:

I understand that concern has already been expressed within TfL about this. It would be quite foolish to wait until loads of money has been spent publicising the new number before the level of complaint forces consideration of a further change.

What money has already been spent on it and what is the expected cost of changing signs at bus stops, Tube stations, railway stations and anywhere else the number appears?



SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 26^th, 2009 at 11:45am:

TfL must either stand up now and justify charging callers for this service (why not use a proper PRS number?) or change its plans.

If the difference between the current 020 service and the new 0843 service is that the latter will be more automated, then they are actually saving money by not having to have as many operators ready to take calls.

Dave wrote on Nov 27^th, 2009 at 10:50am:

If the difference between the current 020 service and the new 0843 service is that the latter will be more automated, then they are actually saving money by not having to have as many operators ready to take calls.

But as you know, there is nothing that can be done on an 08* that cannot be done on an 020 number.. and surely the cost of changing every bus stop and tube map and publicity item in London would be pretty significant..

I'm pretty strongly opposed to travel information lines being on 08 numbers, as it happens, since most callers to them would likely be away from home, wondering how to get back, and so be using mobiles or payphones!  (The same goes for local radio jam lines: why on earth would I want to spend 20-40p/min to tell them about some traffic just so they can get 2p out of me that they wouldn't have had if they used a normal number!)

irrelevant wrote on Nov 27^th, 2009 at 6:13pm:

But as you know, there is nothing that can be done on an 08* that cannot be done on an 020 number.. and surely the cost of changing every bus stop and tube map and publicity item in London would be pretty significant.

So far as I am concerned the jury is still out on the question of whether there is any advantage (other than geographic anonymity) to use of non-geo numbers. I fully accept that anything is possible, however that is not to say that there cannot be advantages to one option over another.

The option of using 03xx numbers should make this argument redundant; it flushes out the matter of cost to the caller and revenue sharing. It is the choice of 084 over 03xx that is the issue for me - see my media release on TfL. I have little interest in a general campaign against changing local numbers to 03xx. I cannot see any reason why this would be done with improper motives and my concern is with the cost of calling imposed by use of revenue sharing numbers.

The cost involved in this number change will indeed be significant. That is why it is vital that this matter be put right before the new number has been introduced. The cost of a further change will make it very difficult to deal with later, so keeping with the plan and then waiting to see how many complaints are received is not a proper option. Let us all throw whatever weight we have behind this now to see if we can achieve a victory.

Has anybody asked TfL about it yet? I'm happy to submit an FoI request about it - something along the lines of:
- do they propose to operate on an NGN, and if so, on what range [just to clear up the are-they-aren't-they question]
- what would happen to 020 722 1234
- what consideration have they made with regard to mobile and payphone users who would pay substantially more?
- what costs do they anticipate in changing all references?
- what income do they anticipate receiving?

anything else?

I think the question of whether a non-geographical number is necessary from an operational (technical) point of view is a very important one in this case. If it's not but they use one anyway, then money will be spent totally unnecessarily on publicising (and purchasing) a new non-geographical number. This is in addition to the potential confusion and inconvenience to the public dialling the 'old' 020 number.

Don't forget that they have already had to change all the publicity for the number in 1990 (071), 1995 (0171) and 2000 (020), so they may not be too concerned about doing it again. Campaigning on the basis of the cost of the change is a non-starter; better to focus on the cost to callers.

Quote:

jury is still out on the question of whether there is any advantage (other than geographic anonymity) to use of non-geo numbers

Why would the telephone number for London's transport system need 'geographic anonymity'?

Why wouldn't they have a London 020 number?

I guess it is all about someone somewhere raking off some cash from this. It stinks.

It appears that I am in a minority amongst those contributing to this discussion.

I would urge those who understand the technical issues sufficiently, to recognise that the only purpose of non-geographic numbers (other than geographic anonymity) is making money, to share their understanding.

If the 03 issue was a total scam all along, why was not this brought out at the time and properly explained in published responses to the Ofcom consultation? I have been commending 03 and its use - will somebody who knows why Ofcom was wrong to introduce it, because it is totally unnecessary, please explain this. I support it from a position of ignorance. If technical benefits are claimed and there is no added cost to callers, then that is good enough for me.

Those who feel that they have sufficient expertise to be able to attack telecoms procurement decisions by public bodies on the basis of superior technical knowledge should make their arguments through the proper channels, which do not include this forum. We are concerned here with the cost to service users. The benefits of revenue sharing and the costs of number changes to taxpayers are a separate issue. Comments on these matters are likely to take a position quite opposite to that generally presented here. The present Mayor was elected on the basis that he would be able to rake off cash for taxpayers from the budgets set by his predecessor - it may stink, but that is democracy.

In the absence of a proper understanding of why 03 is bound to be unnecessary (as alleged), I will continue my campaign. I regret that in doing so I am pressing a position that is contrary to that held by saynoto0870, as seen from the balance of contributions to this thread.

I am not prepared to engage in arguments over technical issues when I have no idea what I am talking about. I do not believe that there is the time, or the need, to mess about with FOI requests, having learned all I need to know from conversations with TfL personnel, as reported above. If anyone wishes to try and persuade me to change my position, I am prepared to listen.

I'm sorry; my knowledge of telecoms is mostly technical, and from an interested-observer point of view - I have no inside knowledge.  My political and campaigning skills are zero and I happily defer to those whom are much better at it.

My impression is that many of those whom have been sold 08 numbers have been done so by unscrupulous salespersons who sell on the basis of the income available, and gloss over, or just lie about, the additional costs for callers.  Also, they have become so common, and the untruths ("local call rate" etc) so often quoted, that there's a fair amount of "well if they can do it, so can I" too.  Nobody tells them that it can put off customers from calling...

Whilst it is true that 01/02 numbers can be linked to all the same call handling facilities as NGN numbers, to add this to an existing number can involve some technical trickery, as the standard BT exchanges do not generally support it - either additional equipment would need to be installed in-house, or the number would have to be ported to another operator who can handle it, either of which might involve some downtime at point of changeover.

Supply of a new number of any sort avoids this, of course, as it can be set up in parallel first.  And operators will push 08* numbers as their cut is much higher, and it gives them enough margin to cover the cost of forwarding the call back to the existing 01/02 number, so making setup far easier.  This is why we usually find geographic numbers behind NGN numbers.

The only benefits of 03 over using a geographic number that I can see are:
- it'll slot right into existing NGN providers infrastructure
- it still provides geographic anonymity (and no need for providers to get allocations in every area code)
- migration options, e.g. 0845->0345 to make changing over numerically simpler.
- plus the smaller benefit of having enough new numbers available to find a memorable one.

I think the second of these is the most important.  Despite everything, there is still a perceived disadvantage of calling "long distance" among a large segment of the population.  03, like the original intent of 0845, addresses this.

Obviously in the case of a local business serving a local area, be that John Smith the Blacksmith, or Transport for London, people would expect them to be on a "local" (ie, relevant are code) number.   Having an NGN can be counter-productive.  I've called businesses with NGNs that are not able to help me as I've turned out to be out of their area!  Obviously if they had real numbers, I'd have been able to tell this before I called.

I think there is a case for educating the people in businesses whom get sold NGNs about the true facts.  It's too easy for them to be blinded by the pound signs in their eyes, letting them be taken in by the salespersons.  What use is being told that 0844 is only 5p/min from a BT landline when your target audience is going to be calling from mobiles or payphones at between 20 and 40p/min?   I wonder how much clout the ASA could have in this - they already rule against incorrect pricing; would they be amenable to a suggestion that pricing should be "appropriate" too - i.e. if the callers are expected to be mobile users, then typical mobile pricing should be quoted rather than landline pricing ..  Anybody got any feelers into them?


Sorry this has been a bit of a ramble..

There are essentially three options:

1. Keep the existing number and operate the new service on it.
2. Get a new number that will be charged to callers at their normal geographical rate.  This will be a 01, 02 or 03 prefixed number.
3. Get a new number of the revenue sharing kind that carry a premium. This will be a 084x/0871/09 prefixed number.

In response to these I make the following points and pose some questions:

• Option 1 will cost nothing for changing signs at bus stops and so on as they won't need changing.
  
• Does the existing service function perfectly well on the current number? If so, why is it necessary to change to a non-geographical number?
  
• If there are technical operational improvements over the current setup that can be made, then are they not available on the current number?
  
• In order to charge service users directly, the telephone number must be changed. If this option is taken, then how long will it be before it comes into the black, taking into account the cost of promoting the new number, including changing signage?
  
• Reasons for going for option 3 are:
  
  • to charge service users directly, or;
    
  • to charge service users directly and for necessary technical benefits not available on the current number.
  
  
• We shouldn't assume that all users of revenue sharing numbers really need any aledged technical/operational benefits of using a non-geographical number.

There is one further reason for using a non-geographical number and that is that it provides geographical anonymity. I may understand this if the service were for an area served by many different STD codes, particularly where the code used is a national (long distance) call for some, where they may perceive that the service isn't really for their area. As this is not the case, I don't see this as an issue.

Returning to an earlier point made in this thread, if one of the reasons for using 0843 is to be able to increase automation and reduce the number of operators is this not, too, against consumer interests?   Surely the main reason to phone TfL (certainly when I have called them) is because I want to speak to a PERSON as I have a specific question which may also generate a follow-up query?   If generalised automated information was sufficient, surely their website or a leaflet would be adequate?   Hence another reason why 0843 would be a VERY BAD THING if it leads to less opportunity for human contact!

Barbara wrote on Nov 28^th, 2009 at 3:14pm:

Returning to an earlier point made in this thread, if one of the reasons for using 0843 is to be able to increase automation and reduce the number of operators is this not, too, against consumer interests?

It may be ... but there is no technical reason why they would need to move to an 08(43) number to do this.  It could be done on their existing number

There's a new tube map to be published around December 9th/16th (I believe) and then again in March.


I'd guess any change would occur at one of those points.

It goes without saying. An absolutely stupid idea from Tfl.
Not only is the 020 7222 1234 famous , it is easy to remember.

Can the 08 number be dialled from all overseas phones? I think some phones wont allow the connection. If the 08 no. can be rung at all from overseas it will be very expensive.
Many visitors and returnees will need to check with Tfl before arriving on late planes for example. Weekend engineering works, last trains from Heathrow etc etc.

I wonder if Tfl will go down the same route as Abbey National have recently. That is allow the geographic number to be dialled but only from an overseas phone. Abbey block calls from Uk lines to their 01908 237963 phone banking number.

Alan

Source: Evening Standard

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23777011-tfl-to-charge-40p-a-minute-for-travel-information.do

<<
TfL to charge 40p a minute for travel information

Katharine Barney, City Hall Reporter
30.11.09

Bosses at Transport for London are facing a public backlash over plans to make passengers pay more for travel information by phone.

The company wants to change its telephone information line to a higher rate number which means it will receive part of the money from the cost of the call.

Currently passengers call an 020 7 number but this is to be changed to an 0843 number - against the advice of telephone regulator Ofcom.

Callers from pre pay mobiles will now be charged 40p per minute rather than 20p. On a land line it will cost 3-5p, similar to its current level.

Passenger watchdog London Travelwatch condemned the moveand said it was preparing a report.

A spokeswoman said: "Passengers should be able to call on a low cost number and not have to pay any more."

Members of the London Assembly's transport committee also criticised the number change as "outrageous" that would hurt the poorest the most.

Labour member Val Shawcross said: "People logged onto a computer will normally be able to find the information they need free of charge, but if you think about the poor pensioners who want to make a trip - it could cost them quite a lot of money."

TfL has also switched the number used by buskers to book pitches to an 084 number which is said to cost up to £20 a week.

A spokesman for TfL defended the move, saying that it was being made so an automated service could be implemented.

He claimed that some customers would pay less as TfL would be able to handle a greater volume of calls.

TfL's public affairs manager Graham Orr said in an email: "Through the percentage of the call income we receive, TfL will only cover the cost of providing our services - we are not making a 'profit'."
>>

irrelevant wrote on Nov 27^th, 2009 at 7:14pm:

Has anybody asked TfL about it yet? I'm happy to submit an FoI request about it - something along the lines of: - do they propose to operate on an NGN, and if so, on what range [just to clear up the are-they-aren't-they question] - what would happen to 020 722 1234 - what consideration have they made with regard to mobile and payphone users who would pay substantially more? - what costs do they anticipate in changing all references? - what income do they anticipate receiving? anything else?

Yes - the likely inability to guarantee termination of internationally-originated calls, especially as London is a significant destination for foreign visitors.

I cannot, as yet, see any prima facie evidence that TfL intends to introduce this number, although I wouldn't be surprised if such number appeared. I've had a quick scan of TfL's news releases, and also a web search, and there appears to be little of any substance.

Given London's status as an "alpha world city", it is quite inappropriate for its transport system to use a telephone number that will be impossible for many potential callers to actually use.

Maybe it's the cynic in me, but one wonders if TfL are thinking of the massive amount of revenue they could generate from transport-related calls during the Olympics?

jgxenite wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2009 at 8:42am:

Maybe it's the cynic in me, but one wonders if TfL are thinking of the massive amount of revenue they could generate from transport-related calls during the Olympics?

TfL may well have considered the cost of enhancing their telephone service and providing extra capacity to cope with the increased demand and need for higher quality during the Olympics and chosen an option that places a lesser burden on London taxpayers. That option may well have been presented to TfL by a telecoms system supplier keen to win the business for the new system. Many London taxpayers are very keen to keep the cost of staging the Olympics down.

If there is any truth in this suggestion, then who is being cynical?

So far there is no other mention of the new number other than here and on Money Saving Expert.

Keep an eye on:   http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=%220843+222+1234%22

catj wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2009 at 10:26am:

So far there is no other mention of the new number other than here and on Money Saving Expert. Keep an eye on:   http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=%220843+222+1234%22

The article in the Standard, with quotes from various bodies, should provide sufficient evidence, in the public domain, of what is currently planned.

Some campaigners aim to prevent changes like this from happening. Others prefer to wait until it happens so that they can be justified in complaining about it, as an example of how awful the world is. I will be very happy if the Google search referred to never produces any meaningful results. It appears that again I may be in a minority amongst members of this forum.

I am not sure why you think my statement disagrees with yours.

So far, the number has not been publicised by TfL on the web. Keep an eye on that search for the first indications of any mention so that swift action can be taken in complaining about it. However, do also complain about it before it happens because scrapping the 020 number would be a stupid move.

catj wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2009 at 11:46am:

I am not sure why you think my statement disagrees with yours.

I am not a consumerist. In my campaigning activities on this and other issues, I do not deal in "complaints".

Consumers who feel that the service they have received from TfL, their GP or a JobCentre has not delivered good value for money are entitled to complain about it and seek personal redress. Equally they may seek to get better value for money by finding an alternative telephone number on SayNoTo0870 or obtaining a better deal for their telephone service. There are many campaigners fighting hard on these issues. For a variety of reasons, I am not amongst them.

irrelevant wrote on Nov 27^th, 2009 at 6:13pm:

But as you know, there is nothing that can be done on an 08* that cannot be done on an 020 number.. and surely the cost of changing every bus stop and tube map and publicity item in London would be pretty significant..

Not wishing to defend the use of rip-off numbers, but I have to say I doubt changing those places you mention to reflect the new numbers will cost that much. Signs and maps are replaced all the time. They release new versions of the maps several times every year, for example for the new Circle Line service starting next week. All the posters at tube stations will have to be changed anyway. It'll be interesting to see if the new number is on them!

Although I travel to London fairly frequently, I've never seen the need to call any phone number (likewise for National Rail enquiries). It's claimed it costs 40p from mobiles, but show me a mobile nowadays that can't access the web or at least WAP. There's no point making a phone call just to use an automated system (not that the call operatives on this sort of phoneline usually provide much more help than a machine anyway). Perhaps there should be a new campaign site to teach people how to use their mobile phone properly to find information instead of dialling rip-off numbers.

If it's between charging people to call the phoneline or increasing my London transport costs, I'm afraid I'm for the former. They should be honest and make it an 09 premium rate number, though, not a covert 0843 number so that most people won't have a clue of the cost.

sorry, jrawle, but I cannot believe the last part of your post.   I expect the cost of my ticket to INCLUDE customer service, in the same way I don't expect to have to clean or service the trains before I use them, and if, due to lack of staff as is often the case, one has to phone then the cost should not be at a premium.  As I said in a previous post, I have phoned TfL when I haven't been able to find the info I wanted on the internet.  Ideally, it would be great to be able to phone individual stations, both TfL & National Rail, as one used to be able to do, to get personalised info (eg is the car park normally full or are there spaces? if so on which days/times?)   Finally, my husband and I DON'T have mobiles with internet access & why should we have to spend a fortune on that just to get info (which, as I've already explained isn't necessarily on the web)?!

No doubt if the ticket did include customer service, the cost of the ticket will increase.

Barbara wrote on Dec 6^th, 2009 at 11:16am:

sorry, jrawle, but I cannot believe the last part of your post.   I expect the cost of my ticket to INCLUDE customer service, in the same way I don't expect to have to clean or service the trains before I use them, and if, due to lack of staff as is often the case, one has to phone then the cost should not be at a premium.  As I said in a previous post, I have phoned TfL when I haven't been able to find the info I wanted on the internet.  Ideally, it would be great to be able to phone individual stations, both TfL & National Rail, as one used to be able to do, to get personalised info (eg is the car park normally full or are there spaces? if so on which days/times?)   Finally, my husband and I DON'T have mobiles with internet access & why should we have to spend a fortune on that just to get info (which, as I've already explained isn't necessarily on the web)?!

If the new service only provides an automated travel information service, and doesn't provide the opportunity to speak to a real person, it seems this will no longer handle queries that can't be found on the web, which presumably aren't just routine journey planning or engineering work queries.

I'd be interested to know what model of phone you have and what network you are on not to be able to access at least WAP. As a hater of mobile phones, I only have a very old phone and PAYG that I rarely use to make calls, but even so I could access the TFL WAP site, cheaply via GPRS, if I needed to. (They also offer an SMS service, indicentally.)

I always have to laugh at some people (and I'm not referring to you) who have the latest fancy phones they pay £40/month for, yet when I suggest they look something up online, they claim their phone doesn't have web access. What they may mean is they don't know how to use their internet access, hence my idea of setting up a site to help people make use of this rather than rip-off phonelines with no geographical alternatives.

I fear that in their obsession with consumerism (my bête noir) members are getting confused between the role of TfL and that of TTL, its subsidiaries, and the other operating companies. The telephone number in question is used by TfL itself to provide a general public information service.

The latter points touch on what could be another issue for discussion. The Communications Consumer Panel is pressing for more public services to be delivered online in order to promote digital inclusion. It argues that if more people were forced to use the internet, especially those who do not do so at present, then this would increase the demand for broadband access, so that more public money could be justifiably spent on delivering it.

Many services that may be accessed through the internet without charge are subject to premium rates when accessed by telephone. The "voice of the communications consumer" appears to be condoning or even encouraging such an approach, especially for public services.

The CCP (formerly the Ofcom Consumer Panel) has always seen the interests of consumers as being represented by the extent of consumption, as it has always worked for the maximisation of use of telecommunications services. That is consumerism for you!

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 6^th, 2009 at 5:15pm:

I fear that in their obsession with consumerism (my bête noir) members are getting confused between the role of TfL and that of TTL, its subsidiaries, and the other operating companies. The telephone number in question is used by TfL itself to provide a general public information service.

What does transistor-transistor logic have to do with this discussion?  :-?

Dave wrote on Dec 6^th, 2009 at 5:37pm:

What does transistor-transistor logic have to do with this discussion?  :-?

What does the price of tickets have to do with this discussion?

jrawle wrote on Dec 6^th, 2009 at 1:59pm:

I'd be interested to know what model of phone you have and what network you are on not to be able to access at least WAP.

FWIW, I can't get internet on my mobile.  My tariff is a very old one that only has unlimited WAP but does not allow me to use GPRS.   But my phone is an N95 that does not support WAP for accessing the internet ...  It's great if I'm near a WiFi hotspot, but not otherwise.

jrawle, my phone is a Siemens, at least five & a half years old, PAYG, doesn't even have a camera or anything, I just wanted something which I could use to make calls in an emergency (not from near my home either, as I am on Orange, which is the best coverage for my area but most of the time I have no signal).  Having watched my adult children, all quite techie, struggle to get sense out of mobile internet, particularly round here, I can't say I'm impressed.   I just want to be able to speak to a person at TfL if I need to, because I can't find what I want on the internet.  (BTW, National Rail on the internet can't even seem to give ticket prices from eg Cambridge into London to include Travelcards although these do exist, I even emailed them about this & was told their system could not support this info.)

I would guess, even if you did manage to speak to a person, that person would only get the information off the internet, and if you can't find the information you want on the internet, there is little chance that the call center will.

I remember many years ago I asked the Indian call center for National Rail enquiries about getting to Exeter and he told me that he had never heard of Exeter and asked which country it is in.

So I think you are wasting your time and energy looking for a telephone number for TFL as they wont be able to tell you anything you don't know already.

Actually, Sherbert, on previous occasions, staff at TfL had been brilliant, they have responded to emails by telephoning me as they thought it might be easier and have been able to provide information required and they were in London!  It is this level of service which I would like to see protected and why I would oppose an 0843 number because, apart from the cost, it would lead to more automation and a loss of that level of service.

I agree Barbara, that would be brilliant, however that would mean employing more people to answer the telephones (instead of the automatic replies) and it has to be paid for, either by telephone rip off charges or increasing the fares.

I wonder how many telephone enquiries, automaic or not, TFL get in a year. If it is not that many compared to the number of passengers they have, then I would guess paying for an enquiry would be fairer?

I do not believe premium rate numbers can ever be justified, other than for the trivial or truly optional, such as competition lines.  With TfL, it is not as if one has the choice of another operator, it is a monopoly.  I suspect, in this case, it is yet another example of an organisation exploiting the Olympics situation to make money when otherwise it would not get away with it, again to the great detriment of those wishing to visit London & who may have nothing or not wish to have anything to do with the Olympics yet all are being ripped off to pay for them).

Barbara, have you ascertained whether you can still speak to a human being on the new TfL helpline? Or have they made it useless as well as going over to a rip-off number?

My phone actually dates from 2002, although admittedly it was top-of-the-range in its heyday (I didn't have it from new). I'm on Virgin PAYG. I can access WAP pages with no trouble, although Virgin have made the pricing for GPRS less attractive than it used to be for very light use (although still no more than even a geographic call to a helpline).

Incidentally, I just checked the rail ticket site I normally use, FGWtickets (branded by my local train operator, but actually TheTrainline without their rip-off fees) and it offers Travelcards from Cambridge, starting at £20.20 off peak. I could even add unlimited bus travel in Cambridge for £2.70!

TfL is now advertising its switch to an 0843 revenue sharing number on the website.

It is an executive agency of the Greater London Authority and should not be making a profit from members of the public calling for transport information.

The current number most people can call free out of inclusive minutes, the replacement number will always be charged for.

I recommend complaining directly to TfL: http://bit.ly/6fMwzP

If you call 020 7222 1234
In the meantime, you'll be transferred to the new number at no extra charge.

I wonder how long "the meantime" will last.

Source: TfL

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/contact/13879.aspx


Quote:

New telephone number New Travel Information Call Centre number From 21 December 2009 please call 0843 222 1234* New, voice-activated service The new number includes a voice-activated service that will deal with simple A to B journeys between stations, hospitals, major landmarks or points of interest within the London area. If your journey's more complicated you can speak to a travel adviser Benefits    * No more waiting to speak to someone    * Get information easily and speedily    * On the phone for less time    * Travel advisers have more time for you if you do need them Call charges *You'll pay no more than 5p per minute if calling from a BT landline. Charges from mobiles or other landline providers may vary If you call 020 7222 1234 In the meantime, you'll be transferred to the new number at no extra charge.

You will never be charged extra when you are transferred. You only pay for the number you dial. This has been discussed elsewhere.

020 7222 1234 is now busy.  :-?

Dave wrote on Dec 21^st, 2009 at 10:04pm:

020 7222 1234 is now busy.  :-?

I got through just now, but further calls yield the engaged tone.  :-?

Complaint submitted to TfL wrt internationally-originated calls.

Ridiculous.

This is interesting (not in a good way).  At the beginning of December, I sent a message to TfL by their website, asking quite simply was the rumour about tel no change true.  I had an immediate acknowledgement saying my enquiry had been passed to Customer Services.  Since then, I have heard NOTHING, in spite of numerous enquiries.   What an appalling way to treat customers, they KNOW the truth yet refuse to confirm it until the change has taken place.   As if it wasn't bad enough that you could no longer call a station direct (the only people who would be likely to know if the car park is full on weekdays), they refuse now to answer queries, they are determined to make a profit from customers who need to contact them, probably because of a communications failure by TFL (ie it's TfL's fault that the customer needs to contact them!) and they are now going to have a telephone system when you are going to be on hold forever to speak to a human!   I despair - public service in this country is DEAD.

I actually complained to TFL and Boris about another matter,  which I wont go into here, in September by emails. I received a stupid reply about a month later from TFL and am still waiting to hear from Boris!! >:(

The email you get back says:

...committed to responding to your query within 20 working days.

Two months later; still waiting.

In my original posting on this thread I noted that there were differences between the 020 number and 0843 number. But now the 020 number is answered with the exact same menu options as the 0843 number. So the automated "Journey Planner" is now on the 020 number as well as the 0843 number.

The 020 number makes no mention of the change to the 0843 number. Are signs with the 020 number being replaced with ones with the new number on?

idb wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2009 at 1:11am:

Complaint submitted to TfL wrt internationally-originated calls. Ridiculous.

And the response:

We have made the change to the number to allow for increased capacity that is needed within the travel information service for both the existing service and the new additional automated service especially in times of increased demand such as the recent snow travel disruptions etc and other times of incidents. The 020 number will continue for a period of time (yet to be determined) in parallel to the new 0843 number.

Callers from outside the UK can call 0843 numbers and this has already proved to be the case including calls received onto the 0843 222 1234 from France, Spain, Ireland (this information has been confirmed by the number provider) however callers not able to use the service are normally prevented from doing so by the provider of the local telecoms service and its local capability and not by the number itself. Our provider has informed us of other customers who additionally have 0843 numbers and their customers that are able to call from countries including Canada, Holland, Ireland so we have been advised that the USA should be ok to call this number.

Callers from abroad can still continue to use the website Journey Planner service in order to plan journeys in advance which is of course free of charge

Long term we cannot continue to provide multiple numbers due to the fact that we would be unable to restrict those using 0207 simply to those callers from abroad and manage multiple numbers is more complex and costly

I hope this helps explain the situation.

Kind regards

Lee Hill

Customer Relations Officer
TfL Customer Relations

Quote:

We have made the change to the number to allow for increased capacity that is needed within the travel information service for both the existing service and the new additional automated service especially in times of increased demand such as the recent snow travel disruptions etc and other times of incidents. The 020 number will continue for a period of time (yet to be determined) in parallel to the new 0843 number.

No mention of using a 0843 number in order to levy a fee on service users. ::)

So with today's technology there's no way of increasing the capacity on the 020 number and therefore taxpayers must incur the cost of replacing this "old" number (replacing signs etc).



Quote:

Callers from outside the UK can call 0843 numbers and this has already proved to be the case including calls received onto the 0843 222 1234 from France, Spain, Ireland (this information has been confirmed by the number provider) however callers not able to use the service are normally prevented from doing so by the provider of the local telecoms service and its local capability and not by the number itself. Our provider has informed us of other customers who additionally have 0843 numbers and their customers that are able to call from countries including Canada, Holland, Ireland so we have been advised that the USA should be ok to call this number.

This sort of thinking is what is wrong with the world today. This may be true; there may be one or more telecommunications providers in each of these countries that allows UK 0843 numbers to be dialled.

But what about all those who do not. TfL's answer is to simply pass the buck to them; it's their fault.

Of course, for those who can connect to +44 843 numbers, the cost is likely to be astronomical.

Absolutely disgusted, especially considering the majority of users are probably out and about at the time, therefore paying 'significantly more' on their mobile.

No doubt the revenue is needed to fill the gap left by the Metronet brown envelopes.

I tell you what, any time we spend a pound planning a journey, lets recoup this by fare dodging.

With regards to the 'increased call volume' etc etc, I have used Journey Planner on an unquantifyable number of times due to the travelling involved in my job. I AM VERY VERY HAPPY WITH THE SERVICE AS IT IS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. If anybody cannot wait a short time to get the information they need, then offer the premium number to them only, and let them pay for it.

With regards to people calling from France, Spain, USA etc, can anybody find out what percentage of callers are from overseas, calling TFL for such information as the Number 1 bus to South Bermondsey?

floella2 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2010 at 3:49pm:

I tell you what, any time we spend a pound planning a journey, lets recoup this by fare dodging.

Premium rate telephone numbers are not illegal, fare dodging is.

sherbert wrote on Jan 21^st, 2010 at 4:04pm:

Premium rate telephone numbers are not illegal, ...

They are now in the NHS (ibid)

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 21^st, 2010 at 5:35pm:

sherbert wrote on Jan 21st, 2010 at 4:04pm: Premium rate telephone numbers are not illegal, ... They are now in the NHS (ibid)

Ok, I will re phrase that

Premium rate telephone numbers for TFL are not illegal, fare dodging is.  ::)

sherbert wrote on Jan 21^st, 2010 at 5:50pm:

Ok, I will re phrase that

There was no need, I was not seeking to take issue, the word "illegal" struck a chord.

What is happening in the forum; planning mass campaigns of organised civil disobedience? The anti-terrorist branch will be on to us soon. I suspect that they have the numbers of some of us anyway! Best to keep away from London Transport; for the safety of other passengers that is.

Hello, I have JUST noticed this thread, after a link provided by Dave from another TFL related thread.

I noticed sometime ago that TFL had started to introduce an 0843 number on their site: 0843 222 1234. Now only when you click the link on the same page does it take give you the 020 number (020 7222 1234) which incidently as previously stated has been around since the time of 01 numbers.

I submitted an online "complaint" : TFL are now using a 0843 number as listed on your website (www.tfl.gov.uk) to provide 24 HR travel info. Are TFL aware that if calling from a Mobile Telephone the charges are CONSIDERABLY more then calling the 020 number? The average is 20-30p per minute! Why are TFL changing the number, other than to make MORE money out of the users of their services? Surely as the 020 number has been in existance since LONG before 020 was around there is NO need to change it? ------------------

I reviced a few days later the following response: Thank you for your email.

I apologise for the delay in my response.

Some information on the new number can be found at the following link: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/contact/13879.aspx

The voice-activated service will run alongside the existing call centre and will not replace it. Staffing levels are totally unaffected.

It is not possible to run the voice activated service on an 020 number and therefore a change is essential. Additionally, it is planned that the number will become a centralised number for Transport for London so that any department can be accessed through one number rather than the multiple number system we currently have.

I appreciate this change may negatively affect some callers but, in order to maintain the level of service we hope to provide, it was an essential change.

Additionally, I would like to point out that TfL will not make any profit from this number change and all revenue will go into maintaining and developing the system.

I hope this helps explain the situation.

Kind regards
------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting, however as has been pointed out here regarding NHS Dr's Surgeries, these facilities can be available with out the use of an 084 number.. even to the point of having an 03 number...

I have to be honest and say I did not respond, however seeing this thread, I may do so when I have more time..

This is perhaps one of the tricky cases.

Public Transport in London is funded by Fare payers, Congestion Charge Payers, Council Tax Payers in the Boroughs and tax-payers in general through the Central Government grant to the GLA. (This is a little simplified.)

TfL should point out that a 03 number could have been chosen, which would have meant that the full cost of the new telephone system would have been carried by the above.

It should also point out that its decision to use a revenue sharing number, so that part of the cost of the new system is carried by callers, has a far more severe cost impact on most callers than the present rate charged by BT.

The misinformation is inexcusable. Picking out just one atypical rate to use as an example, indeed the only case where some callers do not suffer a premium charge, should be deemed to be deliberately misleading.

As for the policy decision to charge callers extra so as to fund a new system, if it was made openly and can be defended honestly, at a time of cutbacks in public spending it is not so easy to attack as many others. For the NHS, the DWP, HMRC and many other cases, I have no hesitation in saying that telephone services should never be subsidised by callers. In this case, I will unequivocally attack the way it is described, but I would be ready to consider any argument that was advanced to justify this service being treated in the same way as those subject to a fare, or other usage charge.

Politically I would argue for free public transport, funded by progressive taxation (not the regressive Congestion Charge), however even Ken never got that far for over-15s.

Source: The London Assembly: Questions to the Mayor

http://mayor.london.gov.uk/mqt/public/question.do?id=31319


Quote:

Calls to TfL Question number      1552/2010 Meeting date      19/05/2010 Question by Murad Qureshi Why TFL have been allowed to change their travel information telephone number from an 0207 number which can be called from mobiles within the calling allowance to an 0843 number which is charged at a high rate per minute from mobiles? Why have you approved this change? Clearly this charge will benefit the mobile 'phone companies, but what benefit does it give to TfL or to passengers? Answer by Boris Johnson TfL has changed its travel information number to 0843 222 1234 in order to meet the growth in demand in a cost effective manner and, at the same time, improve customer service. The travel information number already handles 3.4m travel enquiries per year. The 0843 number gives customers the opportunity to use a voice-activated service to plan their journey, though they do always have the option of speaking to a customer service advisor if that is their preference. Unlike the previous service, no one calling the 0843 number should get an ‘engaged’ tone, meaning TfL can provide a better service at times of high demand, such as during serious disruption caused by adverse weather. Mobile phone companies set their own tariffs which are subject to regulation by Ofcom. TfL does provide a wide range of travel information to customers at no charge, including the on-line TfL Journey Planner, posters and leaflets at stations, announcements by staff and through the media via the syndication of real-time travel information to broadcasters and others.

Eight months on after the launch and the 020 7222 1234 number is still answered just the same as 0843 222 1234! There is no warning of any impending change.

What's the situation in London? Has the number been changed on bus stops, underground stations and the like?

Dave wrote on Aug 15^th, 2010 at 1:14pm:

Eight months on after the launch and the 020 7222 1234 number is still answered just the same as 0843 222 1234! There is no warning of any impending change. What's the situation in London? Has the number been changed on bus stops, underground stations and the like?

Last time I was up there, they were advertising the NEW 084 number, just another stunt to grab money from the Public, I still use the 020 Number, because as TfL does NOT appreciate most people who call it do so from a mobile.

It just reminds me of Traveline who used to have a VERY memorable 0870 number, and switched to the more expensive 0871 number which I can now never remember!

I just hope something can be done to convince these companies to STOP using these numbers.  Sadly whist Ofcom (or Ofcon as I prefer to call them) allow these numbers to exist, there is little hope.

:(

Val Shawcross, Chair of London Assembley's Transport Committee asked a question similar to that by Mr Qureshi above:

http://legacy.london.gov.uk/assembly/assemmtgs/2010/mqtjan27/minutes/written-answers.pdf


Quote:

London Travel Information Question No: 223 / 2010 Valerie Shawcross I have been asked by a member of the public to ask the following question: “I would like to know why TfL is moving from a local 020 7222 1234 number to a more expensive 0843 number for London Travel Information. Most telecoms company call packages include 02x numbers for free, so this move will increase costs for everyone calling the service. It is not right that council tax and fare paying customers will have to pay additionally for travel information through such a number. This comes at a time when numbers for such agencies are being encouraged to move away from 08x to 03x numbers which are charged at a lower rate or are included in call packages. This change will encourage those who are able to use internet and mobile internet services for information and will punish the most vulnerable who do not have access with high call charges.” Answer from the Mayor: TfL has changed its travel information number to 0843 222 1234 in order to meet the growth in demand in a cost effective manner and reduce waiting times for its customers. TfL's 0843 service gives customers the opportunity to use a voice-activated service to plan their journey, though they do always have the option of speaking to a customer service advisor. No one calling the 0843 number should get an ‘engaged’ tone, meaning TfL can provide a better service at times of high demand, the recent period of cold weather being a prime example. TfL will not profit from the calls, although they do receive a share of the call cost to pay for the voice-activated service. From a BT landline, a call to 0843 222 1234 will cost no more than 5p per minute. Mobile phone companies set their own tariffs which are subject to regulation by Ofcom. As well as providing travel information free on its website and throughout the transport network itself such as at stations, TfL also provides a journey planning facility for a small cost via text message.

Ah, a premium is now levied so as to banish the engaged tone!  ::)

I have not read everything here.

Tried calling Oyster enquiries today via both the geographic numbers listed 020 7222 5600 and 020 7222 1234.

I was put into a queue said to be 6 minutes long whereas using the 0845 330 9876 advertised took me to a different automated system which was actually answered whilst I was going through the procedure of entering my own number.

Well done and thanks to those pursuing the GLA people. Maybe a way forward would be for one or several London GLA Electors to contact their GLA Councillors and asking them to take the case forward - that may have been done already, I do realise. I am not in the area/don't have time or energy/excuse!

The 020 7222 1234 number is now proceeded with a message that it will be turned off and replaced by the 0843 number on 25 October.

There is the usual pricing information: "Calls will be charged at 5 pence per minute from a BT landline. Calls from other networks and mobile operators may vary."

Naturally, TfL chooses to promote BT's highly discounted call charges as if they are the norm.  ::)

Dave wrote on Oct 12^th, 2010 at 3:38pm:

The 020 7222 1234 number is now proceeded with a message that it will be turned off and replaced by the 0843 number on 25 October. There is the usual pricing information: "Calls will be charged at 5 pence per minute from a BT landline. Calls from other networks and mobile operators may vary." Naturally, TfL chooses to promote BT's highly discounted call charges as if they are the norm.  ::)

There goes me calling them ever again! Another rip off!

Remember that TfL does have a WAP site: wap.tfl.gov.uk (or tflwap.gov.uk)

I can't vouch for its usefulness, but it's certainly worth a try to avoid the rip-off call charges.

Dave wrote on Oct 12^th, 2010 at 6:49pm:

Remember that TfL does have a WAP site: wap.tfl.gov.uk (or tflwap.gov.uk) I can't vouch for its usefulness, but it's certainly worth a try to avoid the rip-off call charges.

I only ever called them for Taxi services in London, and up to the minute live travel info, such as delays!

The other rip off advertised is the number for Taxi's - One Number Taxi's http://www.tfl.gov.uk/gettingaround/taxisandminicabs/taxis/1136.aspx - Another 0871 number!

The travel information number for Greater London, (020) 7222 1234, which has been in service for many years has been switched off. Callers are now greated with a recorded message advising them of the number change to 0843 222 1234 and that call charges are 5 pence per minute from a BT landline and that calls from other networks and mobile operators "may vary".

Of course, people are going to ring this number from their mobile at up to 40 pence per minute.

Dave wrote on Oct 25^th, 2010 at 11:57am:

The travel information number for Greater London, (020) 7222 1234, which has been in service for many years has been switched off. Callers are now greated with a recorded message advising them of the number change to 0843 222 1234 and that call charges are 5 pence per minute from a BT landline and that calls from other networks and mobile operators "may vary".

Just checked and 020 7222 1200 gives the same message, and ** doesn't do anything either  :(
Thankfully I don't need to call this but if I did I would be really annoyed!
Just looked at the WAP site mentioned (www.tflwap.gov.uk) and it seems to be a fairly basic quick to load site.

samwsmith1 wrote on Oct 26^th, 2010 at 12:14am:

Dave wrote on Oct 25th, 2010 at 11:57am: The travel information number for Greater London, (020) 7222 1234, which has been in service for many years has been switched off. Callers are now greated with a recorded message advising them of the number change to 0843 222 1234 and that call charges are 5 pence per minute from a BT landline and that calls from other networks and mobile operators "may vary". Just checked and 020 7222 1200 gives the same message, and ** doesn't do anything either  :( Thankfully I don't need to call this but if I did I would be really annoyed! Just looked at the WAP site mentioned (www.tflwap.gov.uk) and it seems to be a fairly basic quick to load site.

Hi samwsmith1, thanks for the feedback.

After I confirmed that the 7222 1234 number had been switched off yesterday, I found that 7222 1200 (which was previously giving status updates) allowed one to press * twice to be put through to a live agent.

This has now bitten the dust, so now we have no direct alternative for public transport information in Greater London.  :(

I have also tried wap.tfl.gov.uk (same as tflwap.gov.uk) and it does seem very limited. There is no ability to plan a journey using only certain modes of transport as there is on the website.

Hey all - I'm new here! I stumbled across this today when I wanted to call them and was horrified to see they'd switched to an expensive number. They must be fully aware that a majority of their callers will use a mobile, so it's an utter disgrace that they have done this.

I've only ever had to call it however to complain about their poor service however, and wanted to ask them where the hell my bus was because it didn't show up for 45 minutes. I found calling 02072225600 does the trick - it appears to be their head office or something and they put you straight through to the help line.

cfxtv wrote on Oct 28^th, 2010 at 3:49pm:

I've only ever had to call it however to complain about their poor service however, and wanted to ask them where the hell my bus was because it didn't show up for 45 minutes. I found calling 02072225600 does the trick - it appears to be their head office or something and they put you straight through to the help line.

Hello and welcome to SAYNOTO0870.COM.

Feedback is much appreciated; many thanks.  :)

Do join in on the forum, posting about any necessary updates/removals/additions you find are required in the alternative numbers database listings. The site relies on visitors' feedback.

I have all the internal LUL numbers on a PDF, including emergency numbers, which I found left on a train one day (heh heh).

Problem is I dont know if to release them on here, for several reasons including that TfL might get sh**y and get a takedown order against this site purely because of people using emergency numbers.

"These numbers are for use by transport professionals e.g. TOC, Freight, Network Rail, London Buses Controls as the primary contact point for the Network Operations Control - the NOC will recognise the incoming call as a request, advice or instruction from an external (to LU) transport professional. THESE NUMBERS ARE NOT TO BE RELEASED TO ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC"

Sorry, bit I was absolutely f**king livid today when calling 020 7222 1234 to be greeted with the 0843 scam number message. My call was neccessary because the District line was suspended and there were no replacement buses on offer to my destination. I wanted advice - so my choice was to pay 40p per minute for the advice or pay £1.20 catching an otherwise unneeded bus.

I am also sick of the swerve technique these skullduggers use when referring to 'BT costs 5p, other providers may charge more'. Many people do not want or need BT lines and why are government organisations allowed to give so much free promotion to BT services to protect themselves from using the old 'Local Rate Call' blagging fiasco? The Jobcentre now use similar tactics.

To further my digust, there are adverts everywhere about illegal mincabs and the risks of rape. Journey Planner offers an invaluable service to somebody needing to get home safely, particularly late at night. It was even very easy to use from a payphone for somebody who has no mobile credit.

I really am sickened by this. The revenue share will go to replace the money creamed off by cowboy maintenance firm Metronet who left a £1 bllion deficit and no doubt a brown envelope has changed hands somewhere in the Telecoms World dealings.

Absolutely disgusted by this one.

mc661 wrote on Oct 30^th, 2010 at 10:31pm:

I have all the internal LUL numbers on a PDF, including emergency numbers, which I found left on a train one day (heh heh). Problem is I dont know if to release them on here, for several reasons including that TfL might get sh**y and get a takedown order against this site purely because of people using emergency numbers. "These numbers are for use by transport professionals e.g. TOC, Freight, Network Rail, London Buses Controls as the primary contact point for the Network Operations Control - the NOC will recognise the incoming call as a request, advice or instruction from an external (to LU) transport professional. THESE NUMBERS ARE NOT TO BE RELEASED TO ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC"

Surely one should ask oneself if any of these numbers represent usable alternative ways of accessing public contact points that are otherwise accessed using revenue sharing numbers. As I understand it, that is the purpose of this site. If the reason for them "not to be released to any member of the public" is simply to protect revenue share income then this would be a battle that many would be prepared to join.

A straightforward reading of the quoted description suggests that these numbers are of no use to the general public anyway. Whilst arguments about security, service quality and suchlike are used to protect release of usable alternative numbers, that is not to say that any or all such arguments are false.

I sincerely hope that the site does not countenance publication of numbers that are not for public use, as this would give it a very different role.

I think to be honest the numbers on this document are for controls and emergency contact purposes.
It does however have a one-stop contact for all control related purposes.

Members may be interested in this blogging on premium rate public transport information lines:

http://leytr.blogspot.com/2010/10/premium-rate.html

Anyone looking for a geographic number to ring for public transport information in London, look in the database.  ;)

Dave wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2010 at 7:35pm:

Anyone looking for a geographic number to ring for public transport information in London, look in the database.  ;)

Genius!! Thank you so much!!! I use this service a lot and I am really grateful!!

A slight tangent, but still relevant. Please have a look at this page, the full contacts for TFL (of course all now 08 numbers)

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/contact/4417.aspx

Take note of the Dial A Ride section where it states:

'To make a booking: Call us on 0845 999 1 999 (or 020 7309 8900, if your telephone provider charges extra for 0845 numbers)'

And

'To enquire about the progress of your vehicle: Call us on 0845 300 4717 (or 020 7309 0015 if your telephone provider charges extra for 0845 numbers)'

And

'To give feedback about Dial-a-Ride: Call us on 020 7446 0251'

I definately appreciate it is the more vulnerable people that use this service and this is possibly why both numbers are provided.

However... I personally am not legally allowed to drive because I suffer from seizures. So despite the fact I have to use public transport for health reasons, I am still expected to call a premium number to discuss any aspect of my journey.

I really wanted to quote this in a complaint to reinforce that 020 numbers should be provided for all department, but I declined due to worries they would pull the plug on the 020 number for Dial A Ride as well!!

What do you guys think?

floella2 wrote on Nov 8^th, 2010 at 3:25pm:

I really wanted to quote this in a complaint to reinforce that 020 numbers should be provided for all department, but I declined due to worries they would pull the plug on the 020 number for Dial A Ride as well!! What do you guys think?

This is a very clear acknowledgement that not all callers benefit from the fact that BT is prohibited from adding its own charges to the premium applied when calling 084 numbers. (A few others copy its charges.)

The amount of money gained is so petty in the context of the general cost of a service like dial-a-ride that I cannot believe there would be any risk of the alternatives being withdrawn.

There can be functional benefits in using non-geographic numbers, so having a 0845 with a geographic alternative is not always a possible approach. All service providers, who cannot justify themselves levying a charge for telephone access, should use 03 numbers when the technical features that are more readily available with a non-geographic number are of benefit.

Noting the admission in respect of the dial-a-ride numbers, one should ask how the premium charge for most callers is justified where 084 numbers are used.

The 034x equivalent is available for a simple migration (or as an alternative) for every 084 number, and may be adopted within the term of an existing telephone service contract.

Some may have special needs, indeed the least wealthy are less likely to have landlines, but this is about basic equity for all, not about privileges for some (e.g. BT customers!).

The October 2010 edition of the London tube map promotes only the new 0843 number now.

There is now a FOI TfL response to a query submitted by an "I Madder".

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/tfl_helpline_0843_222_1234

I also have submitted a short FOI request to the same body, and expect a reply next month. I will post any response on the FOI discussion forum.

There is an 0203 number that goes straight through to TfL's call centre for enquiries for travel, which is

0203 054 4040

markpantelli wrote on Dec 20^th, 2010 at 10:53am:

There is an 0203 number that goes straight through to TfL's call centre for enquiries for travel, which is 0203 054 4040

Hello and welcome to SAYNOTO0870.COM.

Thank you for this information. I already listed a suitable alternative which is (020) 3283 6509. The previously listed 3283 6500 is now not recognised, which rather suggests that TfL is actively disabling numbers published on this website.

I should point out that there is no such STD code as 0203 and that it's usual convention to put a space between code and local number. It has never been 0203, 0207 or 0208 as the last digit of each of these (3, 7 and 8) are in fact the first digits of local numbers.

The code for London has been 020 for over ten years now. Anyone with a London number can pick up the phone and ring any other London number using eight digits.

That number is for TfL streets management.

"Commuters checking whether Tube trains are on time are being "ripped off" by having to phone a premium rate number, it was claimed today.

A five-minute call to the Transport for London customer service line - relied upon by many to find out about problems on the Underground - costs up to £2 from a mobile phone.

London Liberal Democrat leader Caroline Pidgeon, who uncovered the higher rates, said the calls should be free or at least equal whether people are using a mobile or a landline."

Full story here: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23933897-tube-commuters-ripped-off-by-premium-rate-phone-number.do

Some questions to the Mayor on the subject of TfL's covert premium rate 0843 number:

http://mqt.london.gov.uk/mqt/public/question.do?id=33630

New Transport Information Contact Centre number (1)
Question number      3552/2010
Meeting date      17/11/2010

Question by Caroline Pidgeon

(a) How much, per minute, does the new 0843 222 1234 cost customers, if calling both from a London number and a mobile phone?

(b) How much, per minute, did the old 020 7222 1234 cost customers, if calling both from a London number and a mobile phone?

Answer by Boris Johnson

The charge to call 0843 numbers varies according to the land line provider or mobile network – it is not location specific as such to a London number.

0843/0844 numbers are known as “lo call”. They are not "premium rate" numbers and are considerably cheaper.

From a BT landline the standard charge is 5 pence per minute. Costs from other land line network providers will vary depending on the tariff.

The cost to call from a mobile phone will vary from one mobile network operator to another and will also depend on the package, which are many and varied. For example, many mobile phone users have free minutes as part of their contracts. A typical mobile contract call will range from 20 pence per minute upwards, again depending on what mobile contract the user has.

Callers to the old 0207 number were also charged variable amounts depending on the package through landline network providers or mobile networks.

A typical 'pay as you go' mobile contract without 'inclusive' packages would have cost 20 pence per minute to call an 0207 number.

Our new service ensures that all customers can obtain accurate travel information far quicker than in the past. Up to 1 minute is being saved on the speed of the call, helping to save money on call times.

We advise our customers to check charges with their service provider before calling.

There is a wide number of free channels for travel information, including via our website, those to whom we syndicate information such as broadcasters and information at stations.

---

http://mqt.london.gov.uk/mqt/public/question.do?id=33631

New Transport Information Contact Centre number (2)
Question number      3553/2010
Meeting date      17/11/2010

Question by Caroline Pidgeon

What financial savings do you anticipate in your 2010/11 and 2011/12 budgets as a result of the switch from the 020 7 to 0845 number?

Answer by Boris Johnson

TfL is not moving to an 0845 number.

There are no savings attributed solely to the transition from 0207 to 0843, but the move, part of a wider programme to improve efficiency across our customer contact centres, allows TfL to deliver a better and faster service while also partially covering the costs of those improvements.

The change also substantially increases call handling capacity during times of disruption to help customers obtain information quickly rather than endure an engaged tone or long wait.

We advise our customers to check charges with their service provider before calling. There also remain a wide number of free channels for travel information, including via our website, those to whom we syndicate information such as broadcasters and information at stations.

---

A question was asked of the Mayor as to the number of calls the 0843 number has received:

http://mqt.london.gov.uk/mqt/public/question.do?id=34686

---

Some further questions:

http://mqt.london.gov.uk/mqt/public/question.do?id=36721

Telephone Numbers for TfL (1)
Question number      1987/2011
Meeting date      15/06/2011

Question by Tony Arbour

What is the level of rebate received by Transport for London for the use of its 0843 number for the Travel Information Service? What is the total amount of rebate that has been received since the service was introduced?

Answer by Boris Johnson

Transport for London receives a rebate of 1.5 pence per minute.

Since the 0843 number was introduced on 22 December 2009, Transport for London has received a total of £46,832.93 in rebate. This is used to pay part of the running costs of our travel information services.

---

http://mqt.london.gov.uk/mqt/public/question.do?id=36723

Telephone Numbers for TfL (3)
Question number      1989/2011
Meeting date      15/06/2011

Question by Tony Arbour

What is the average waiting time, before speaking directly to an adviser, on the Travel Information Service using the 0843 number? What was the average waiting time for the previous service using the 020 number?

Answer by Boris Johnson

TfL has changed its travel information number in order to meet the growth in demand and reduce waiting times for customers. With the added services we are able to provide on 0843 222 1234, the average speed of answer is 19.5 seconds.

The average waiting time for the 020 7222 1234 telephone number was 32 seconds, and was severely limited by capacity issues during periods of heavy demand. In many cases, customers simply obtained an engaged tone.

---

In case you're wondering where "Telephone Numbers for TfL (2)" has gone, it's here, just it's not been answered yet.

Quote:

here

Not any more!  Where's it gone now?



And, someone ought to put Boris right as he keeps incorrectly waffling on about "0207" numbers.  Fool!

Three years after Transport for London abandoned its 020 number in favour of 0843 222 1234, it is to change again. Callers to the 0843 number hear a message announcing that there is a new number which is "charged at local rates". The new number is 0343 222 1234.

There is also a programme to reduce the number of phone numbers for the different parts of the London public transport system. Other enquiries such as those for Oyster Card, buses and Underground are now being channelled through the 0843/0343 number; these used to have their own 0845 numbers, which are now answered the same as the 0843/0343 number.

That's excellent news but it doesn't seem to have reached the TfL website yet, which still lists the 0843 number. (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/contact/4417.aspx and others)

kasg wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2013 at 8:33pm:

That's excellent news but it doesn't seem to have reached the TfL website yet, which still lists the 0843 number. (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/contact/4417.aspx and others)

I was about to say exactly the same thing... I have now saved TfL's "new" number into my phone so as not accidently call the 0843 number.  :)

edit: I have e-mailed TfL via their site, to ask when it will be updated.

:)

Why not just change back to the 020 number?

That would mean incoming calls would be at no cost to TfL (whereas 0343 calls will cost them money).

Presumably the deal they had with the 0843 number (now 0343) provides additional facilities that they did not have with the 020 number (at least they sold it to the public on that basis when it was introduced). I don't know what sort of contract they would have had, but changing to 0343 should not have incurred any penalties, a point we keep making (to little avail) in connection with GPs using 0844 numbers.

kasg wrote on Mar 26^th, 2013 at 7:32pm:

Presumably the deal they had with the 0843 number (now 0343) provides additional facilities that they did not have with the 020 number (at least they sold it to the public on that basis when it was introduced). I don't know what sort of contract they would have had, but changing to 0343 should not have incurred any penalties, a point we keep making (to little avail) in connection with GPs using 0844 numbers.

I believe Heinz was pointing out that TfL will be charged a per call or per minute rate from it's number supplier as it's now using an 03 number as opposed to an 08 number, which it received revenue per minute.

I don't believe Heinz was suggesting TfL would have been penalised for changing the number.

:)

CJT-80 wrote on Mar 26^th, 2013 at 9:22pm:

I believe Heinz was pointing out that TfL will be charged a per call or per minute rate from it's number supplier as it's now using an 03 number as opposed to an 08 number, which it received revenue per minute. I don't believe Heinz was suggesting TfL would have been penalised for changing the number.

Thanks - I realised all of that, I was merely suggesting possible reasons (other than, I suppose, loss of face) for not changing back to the 020 number.

kasg wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 11:11am:

CJT-80 wrote on Mar 26th, 2013 at 9:22pm: I believe Heinz was pointing out that TfL will be charged a per call or per minute rate from it's number supplier as it's now using an 03 number as opposed to an 08 number, which it received revenue per minute. I don't believe Heinz was suggesting TfL would have been penalised for changing the number. Thanks - I realised all of that, I was merely suggesting possible reasons (other than, I suppose, loss of face) for not changing back to the 020 number.

Apologies Heinz, I agree totally that it's most likely that TfL would loose face if they moved back to a 020 number.  I assume the "contract" connected to the 0843 number can now be amended and after a possibly large number of complaint's they have in some ways relented.

Further to my earlier post.

I recently contact TfL via it's online contact form, and "praised" them for changing their number from 0843 to 0343.

I pointed out that as far as I could see the new number does not appear on the TfL website.  This is the reply I got:
"Thank you for writing to me about our new 0343 222 1234 phone number.
I am glad that you are happy with this change. The new phone number is already on our website. Please visit www.tfl.gov.uk/contact/4417.aspx for our contacts page. However it will be released gradually to help manage demand.
Thank you once again for writing."

The link given takes you to the Useful Contacts page, and the 1st number given for TfL is STILL the 0843 number.

Those with eagle eye's will notice that it's not until you reach the Oyster Card Helpline that the new 0343 number is mentioned.

I did of course point this out in my reply.

I guess this is to "help manage demand"  ::)

I have just seen in the South London Press dated Fri.3rd May that there is 0343 222 1234 number for refunding money left on unused Oyster Cards also the deposit on unused Oyster Cards.

Within a few weeks this can be refunded from any Tube Station

I posted this on the sayno FOI Thread which Google found, before I realised that there was another relavant TFL thread here.

It's good to see they are "Finally" advertising it..

Last time I checked the 0343 number was being given for TfL's main contact number via the link I showed previously.

:)

Edit:

However checking my online Oyster Account, it appears that they have NOT updated the contact number on their messages:
You do not currently have any incomplete journeys that are eligible for an online refund application. If there are further incomplete journeys that you think may be eligible for a refund, please contact the Oyster helpline on 0845 330 9876 (8am-8pm daily).

Lets hope they do soon!

Apologies for late notification of the fact that this issue is covered by a fair telecoms campaign news release, in response to that of TfL on 26 March. No campaigner succeeding in securing media coverage of this issue (to my knowledge).



CJT-80 wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2013 at 2:26pm:

Quote: … it will be released gradually to help manage demand.

This indicates that there is either confusion about the question or deliberate malpractice going on, as TfL deals with 2 separate issues at the same time.

Firstly, it is engaged in a project to consolidate all customer service enquiries onto a single number. Secondly, that number has been migrated (in parallel) from 0843 to 0343.

The Oyster service, previously on a 0845 number, was the first to be transferred over. Other services, on 0845 and 020 numbers, will follow. The phasing of this may be fairly described as having the effect of managing demand for the main number.


For the services that have always been on the 222 1234 number, the situation is totally different. There is no need to manage demand between the 0843 and the 0343 versions of the same number, as it is met in exactly the same way. The only issue is one of cost. It makes a difference of around 5p per call minute (VAT inclusive) for TfL and generally more, often much more, than that for callers.

There is no justification whatsoever for continuing to aim to impose a Service Charge through continuing publication of the 0843 222 1234 number, which is now simply an expensive alternative for exactly the same service that is accessible via 0343 222 1234.


One may forgive a modest delay in updating material relating to the contact number for Oyster as this cannot be done until the transfer is seen to be complete and working. The out of date example quoted above does not however sound as though it is taken from old stock of printed material that was distributed before the change and not recalled.

If TfL is "managing its costs" by seeking to retain the benefit of a Service Charge it claims to have withdrawn, then this warrants serious attention.


It may be that confusion is a widespread problem for staff of TfL, a body run by the Mayor of London. I suspect that whoever wrote the line at the foot of the TfL media release, quoted below, is most seriously confused:


Quote:

Customers who dial the 0845 330 9876 telephone number for Oyster enquiries will go through on the new local call rate until the old number is discontinued

One could ask for a list of the telephone companies who are billing calls to 0845 370 9876 as if they were to a 0343 number, and calling it "local rate". It is suggested that all have signed up to this, however one generally finds that those who go to the trouble of making such arrangements are unable to secure agreements with 100% of call providers. (On sight of a most comprehensive list, I would happily withdraw my allegation about the author of the piece.)

As the point has been raised, one could ask how the arrangement will change when the number is "discontinued".  ;)

Having mentioned the Mayor, dare I say that confusion is often used deliberately to disguise a true position.

It was promoted for people attending the London Marathon.

"The easiest way to travel to and from the race is by Tube, Bus, London Overground, Docklands Light Railway (DLR) or Riverboat, however, some stations and roads will be closed, so passengers are advised to plan their journeys in advance by using the dedicated website tfl.gov.uk/marathon or by contacting the 24 hour London Travel Information line on 0343 222 1234. "


http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/27673.aspx

All we need now is for Arriva to shift from their 0844 numbers, as a major player in Greater London and adjacent County suberbs, they owe it to their Passengers to fall in line with TFL.

Boris wants to control our trains and extend the Oyster so how about he puts a foot on Arriva's neck and 'persuade' them to comply.