Hi all,
This is my first post and I wanted to congratulate you all on a great site and it's very informative. My only negative feedback would be that its a bit slow, apart from that its great!

I've had issues with HMRC and DWP (tax credits and jobcenter) and looking at the site it seems these two public bodies keep coming up time and again, so at least I'm not alone.
Does anyone know if and when they will be moving to 0300 numbers?

Isn't there one central public body I can complain too, rather than writing to them directly, sure there must be one depeartment thats in charge of all numbers right?!

Thanks
B

Welcome to the forum.

The Prime Minister is "in charge" of everything (no laughing at the back please). In theory the holder of that office could issue an instruction to cease use of 084 numbers which would flow down through the various channels.

In practice, each central government department, devolved national government, local authority, non-departmental body and in some cases departmental agency (e.g. HMRC) is left to make its own decisions about these matters. The separate DWP agencies are fairly well co-ordinated in this respect. Assistance is available from various central agencies including the Central Office of Information, which has actually encouraged use of 084 numbers (and denial of the benefits of revenue sharing) in the past.

There is co-ordination of telephone numbering policy for all of the above through a body called the Contact Council which exists within the Cabinet Office (a central government department) although with representatives from key members of each of the types of body mentioned above. It has already this year issued a well-prepared guidance document and more is hoped for shortly - see this written answer from the then former minister for the Cabinet Office. The extent to which any "guidance" will be followed or pressed is something we will have to wait and see. There are no clear rules and it will probably come down to decisions taken by individuals in various key positions.

DWP is starting to get to grips with the issues (see my blog entry) but has much more to do. HMRC seems to be following a little in its wake.

These things sadly take time, especially when there is not lots of money around to use to create greater fairness. Progress is however being made and all contributions to the effort are welcome.

thankyou for such an enlightening post.

I delighted that there is signs of progress but suprized they are so slow. I thought (naively) that everyone would move over to these 0300 numbers as I even thought (more naively) it was mandated by the government but its seems thats just a recommendation.

Personally my issue was with HMRC and DWP and based on your information it sounds like it could be years before they move to 0300!

Do you feel there will be a 'tipping' point in the near future ie 2010?

B

I am anxious for others to contribute their thoughts to this thread, but I will address the question about the "tipping point".

There was a hope, not entirely extinguished, that once the NHS introduced a clear ban on use of 084 numbers then the issue would be recognised and pressure would build. The Department of Health has got to the point of a decision and then funked it. The key statement ("nobody should pay more than the cost of a geographic call to contact the NHS") has been made, but the presently proposed implementation of that principle actually denies it.

The other point is the cost and complexity involved with changing a large set of telephone numbers. There are already "rationalisation" exercises being planned - this is the key task of the Contact Council. If these come to fruition then it is vital that this opportunity to move away from revenue sharing numbers is taken. How far these exercises will be put aside in order to save money is yet to be seen.

These changes inevitably take time. The present government has run its course and so is unlikely to start a major initiative on a relatively minor issue. A new government will probably be more keen to find ways of saving public money than on giving up the revenue share subsidy on telephone costs for the sake of less well off service users. The idea of placing a greater burden on the taxpayer so that it becomes cheaper to access public services by telephone does not seem to commend itself to the manifestos of those who are likely to form the next government.

getcarter wrote on Nov 26^th, 2009 at 4:16pm:

Isn't there one central public body I can complain too, rather than writing to them directly, sure there must be one depeartment thats in charge of all numbers right?!

Welcome to SAYNOTO0870.COM.

I suggest you write to your MP about this. In general, I think writing to each body (i.e. DWP, HMRC etc) is pretty pointless.

So it sounds as if the MP is the way to go but it also sounds like this is a marathon not a sprint.
I do beleive though that the 'jig' is up and 08 will move to these new ranges. However based on your comments I think this could be another year or two rather than a few months.

getcarter wrote on Nov 27^th, 2009 at 11:03am:

So it sounds as if the MP is the way to go but it also sounds like this is a marathon not a sprint. I do beleive though that the 'jig' is up and 08 will move to these new ranges. However based on your comments I think this could be another year or two rather than a few months.

I certainly think more and more people are getting fed up of the widespread use of these covert-premium numbers.

Where it is a national body under control of central Government, then certainly, go to your MP. If your local council or police force uses one of these numbers, then write to councillors.

I have just spoke to HMRC ( std number)and after telling them my story she said "that I have to ring another dept,shall I give the number".  :'(

I said "is it an 0845 number" she said "yes", I said "can you not give me a direct dial number,because these cost money" she said "this is the only number that I have".  :'(  :'(  :'(

If I find the number for HMRC Limited Company section, rest assured I will post it here. 8-)

In this economic climate you would think they would relax the "084" numbering or even do away with them altogether.

I wonder in this day and age how many people pay for their phone calls. :-?

I myself am on Virgin Media free anytime  :)

Tony
:)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8460182.stm

HM Revenue and Customs 'missed 44 million calls'

<<
HM Revenue and Customs failed to answer about 44 million phone calls last year, Whitehall's spending watchdog says.

The National Audit Office called the performance of 31 customer "contact centres" during 2008/09 "unacceptable".

Despite employing the equivalent of 10,500 full-time staff at a cost of £233m, it still failed to pick up 43% of the 103 million calls received.

HMRC said its performance had improved in 2009-10 and that it was "committed" to providing a better, cheaper service.

During the busiest periods of the year - such as the tax credit renewals peak in July - just one in three calls was actually answered, the National Audit Office (NAO) said.

Callers who did get through had to wait an average two minutes for a reply - or almost four minutes if they were ringing at peak times.

By contrast, the best practice target in the private sector is for 90% of all calls to be picked up within 10 seconds.

Although the latest figures for the first half of 2009/10 have shown some improvement by HMRC, the NAO said that more that 27% of calls were still not getting a reply.

For the Conservatives, shadow chief Treasury secretary Philip Hammond said these failures would affect some of the most vulnerable people in the country.

He added: "This is more evidence of the chaos at HMRC. Every missed call to the Revenue represents someone who has been let down by Gordon Brown's bureaucracy."

An HMRC spokesman said that, while its performance had "significantly improved" in the first half of 2009-10, more needed to be done.

He added: "That's why we've committed to answering 90% of our calls, the industry standard, at 30% less cost by March 2012."
>>

idb wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 1:34am:

<< ... An HMRC spokesman said that, while its performance had "significantly improved" in the first half of 2009-10, more needed to be done. He added: "That's why we've committed to answering 90% of our calls, the industry standard, at 30% less cost by March 2012." >>

If the objective is as simple as stated here, using the type of measurement which is typically employed to measure success in this type of situation, can I recommend adoption of an expensive premium rate number. This would cut down the number of calls, as well as saving on the unit cost of handling those that continue to be made. The cost of a premium rate call would also ensure that callers would have a point worth making and would be most reluctant to give up whilst waiting. It would also ensure that nobody could start offering tales of woe about how they could not afford to pay their tax demand, as their readiness to make a premium rate call would eliminate that excuse.

The point I seek to make is about the way in which these things are assessed. It seems that if you cannot count it, time it, measure it in some way, or if all else has failed, get someone to offer a rating on a scale of 1 to 5 that you can do sums with, then it does not exist, or at least cannot be considered.

SilentCallsVictim, are you seriously suggesting that we should only make telephone calls to the Inland Revenue, on  the seriousness of the call? Who says what is serious and what is not? Is someone owing a hundred pounds to the revenue not as serious as someone owing more? Sometimes what you might think is a trivial call is not so to the person who makes that call. With tax offices closing around the country, the least that the Inland Revenue can do is give out a geographical number or a 03 number. I find your thoughts extraordinary to say the least. :o

SCV, your most recent post here is INCREDIBLE.  A while ago, my daughter had major problems with incorrect tax credits, by some hundreds of pounds.  She had tried writing, everything.  When eventually she managed to speak to them after it costing her an absolute fortune with holding, being cut off etc over a period of weeks, she was told she hadn't received a reply to her letters because they were at least three months behind on dealing with their correspondence.  Nobody calls HMRC just for a chat about the weather, it will be because there is a problem that needs to be resolved.   How would you suggest making contact -ESP???

scubatony wrote on Jan 12^th, 2010 at 3:11pm:

I myself am on Virgin Media free anytime

Sorry to burst your bubble, but your calls are not "free" they are inclusive, you pay a monthly fee to Virgin which includes some calls, if you did not pay the monthly fee, you would not receive any calls via Virgin, and calls to 0845 numbers cost you 10ppm, plus a 10p conn charge See bottom of page 3;-
http://allyours.virginmedia.com/pdf/003669_Residential_Cable_Jan_v5.pdf

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 2:37am:

The point I seek to make is about the way in which these things are assessed. It seems that if you cannot count it, time it, measure it in some way, or if all else has failed, get someone to offer a rating on a scale of 1 to 5 that you can do sums with, then it does not exist, or at least cannot be considered.

Some may have thought that I was trying to make a different point.

If the objective is to save public money (cost to taxpayers, the deficit and all that) then my proposal makes sense.

I think it incredible that if HMRC would be content not to answer 1 in 10 of the calls that are made to it, it ever bothers to answer the phone at all.

Numbers (of both the telephonic and statistical variety) can be misleading and therefore very dangerous if not handled carefully and with both a full understanding of the complex issues and the application of appropriate simple principles.

---

Taxpayers will be distressed to learn that DWP has now done a deal with the major mobile providers (the rest will follow) to pay them for making calls to its 0800 numbers free. I comment on this announcement here.

derrick wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 11:51am:

scubatony wrote on Jan 12th, 2010 at 3:11pm: I myself am on Virgin Media free anytime Sorry to burst your bubble, but your calls are not "free" they are inclusive, you pay a monthly fee to Virgin which includes some calls, if you did not pay the monthly fee, you would not receive any calls via Virgin, and calls to 0845 numbers cost you 10ppm, plus a 10p conn charge See bottom of page 3;- http://allyours.virginmedia.com/pdf/003669_Residential_Cable_Jan_v5.pdf

No problem

My bubble is not burst far from it.

This is what get from Viginmedia:-

• 
  Wireless Broadband (dont use the wireless router)speedcheck just done showing Download @ 9460Kbps & upload at 478Kbps

• 
  XL TV package

• 
  Free calls 24 / 7 days
  i.e all landline calls with std,stay on for 59minutes then hit redial etc etc.
  

• 
  Any call to mobiles or 0870 or 084 chargeable

• 
  
  
  All that for £34.00 per month
  
  Put it this way I am happy and we get a virus checker and anitspam thrown in to boot
  

[quote author=SilentCallsVictim link=1259252180/0#13 date=1263557220]
Taxpayers will be distressed to learn that DWP has now done a deal with the major mobile providers (the rest will follow) to pay them for making calls to its 0800 numbers free. [/quote]


Why should we be distressed? :-/

After all, almost everybody in the land is a taxpayer, so either way we are paying for the calls to the Inland revenue, and I would guess the consensus would be to a preference to a 'free' 0800 number.

The only times I have had to get in touch with the Inland Revenue is because of a 'muck up' on their part, so why should I have to personally pay to get them to rectify it? :-?

sherbert wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 12:21pm:

Why should we be distressed?

Citizens generally refer to themselves as "a taxpayer" when they are unhappy about meeting the cost of public services from which they do not benefit personally. This move represents a transfer of cost from the service user to the taxpayer. This is what also occurs whenever there is a switch from a 084x/087x to a 01/02/03 number by a publicly funded body.


sherbert wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 12:21pm:

The only times I have had to get in touch with the Inland Revenue is because of a 'muck up' on their part, so why should I have to personally pay to get them to rectify it?

This comment touches on the difficult philosophical matter of the relationship between the citizen and the state. I could again write at length from astride my familiar hobby-horse of the misapplication of consumerism.

To avoid going into this too deeply, I will simply pose a question in return that may help make the point:
How much should I have to pay to raise a query about my taxation that may result in me discovering a mistake that I have made, may lead to a change by HMRC or may be resolved by explanation and discussion?

I believe that it should be possible to raise such a query without any charge being made to me by HMRC. That is not to say that HMRC should cover the costs that I incur (in time, materials and incidental expenses such as telephone call charges) by raising the issue. For this reason, I believe that telephone enquiry lines should always be charged at the "normal" rate, i.e. being 01/02/03 numbers, not 08xx. I do not believe that there should be special numbers that are only for use in situations where fault on the part of the body itself can always be shown.

(DWP is happy to meet the cost of "first contact" calls about benefits as these are often lengthy, and it does not wish the incidental costs involved to deter applications from those who may be entitled. It also finds that many applicants would rather go through the process by telephone rather than filling in forms themselves. I believe that this a fair and reasonable approach in this particular situation, especially considering the fact that those who apply are likely to be in need financially.)

I further believe that in the event of a serious and significant error by either party, correction alone may not be sufficient. Appropriate and proportionate compensation for my time and costs should be offered in the one case and a penalty should be payable in the other.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 2:07pm:

For this reason, I believe that telephone enquiry lines should always be charged at the "normal" rate, i.e. being 01/02/03 numbers, not 08xx.

But in your reply #9 you say, quote, can I recommend adoption of an expensive premium rate number. end quote.

Now you are saying what Barbara, myself and others have been saying all along ::)

sherbert wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 3:24pm:

But in your reply #9 you say, quote, can I recommend adoption of an expensive premium rate number. end quote. Now you are saying what Barbara, myself and others have been saying all along ::)

Methinks SCV had his tongue firmly in cheek in the first paragraph of his posting #9 ;) :)

He makes this absolutely clear in the second paragraph where he explains the point he is trying to make. :) :D   I think we are all pretty well on the same side, and I also think some humour and wit is to be welcomed otherwise we could get just a bit too serious. :) :)

sherbert wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 3:24pm:

in your reply #9 you say, quote, can I recommend adoption of an expensive premium rate number. end quote. Now you are saying what Barbara, myself and others have been saying all along ::)

We all have our different views and ways of approaching these issues. That is why it is good to have a discussion forum in which to debate the issues themselves; a matter which I consider to be of greater merit than analysis of who agrees with whom.

My quoted recommendation was preceded by the statement:
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 2:37am:

If the objective is as simple as stated here, using the type of measurement which is typically employed to measure success in this type of situation, ...

Noting his present location, we may forgive idb for any failure to appreciate irony. The quoted example of mine was clearly signposted by this statement, which provided a qualifying context for my "recommendation". I even preceded my subsequent comments with the phrase "the point I seek to make" in the hope of enabling readers to see that I did not actually stand by the "recommendation".

Can we please try to avoid looking for "good guys" and "bad guys" in the forum. The two interests that are opposed in the context of public sector use of revenue sharing numbers are "taxpayers" and "service users". The DWP has just announced support for the latter of these over the former, whilst it continues to take the reverse position by rolling out use of a new 0845 number. It nonetheless damages the interests of taxpayers whilst offering only modest relief to service users by offering to call back to mobile callers after they have got through to an agent.

Today's announcement should make life very difficult for those who seek to offer a simple characterisation of the behaviour of the DWP. We have to be guarded in our welcome, but we must not fail to show some appreciation for the considerable efforts that were involved in taking this unprecedented step that may provide a model for others.

I say that we should applaud the "direction of travel" and its being the first to scale the summit that was marked with a flag today. There is however a clear lack of sure-footedness in the approach to other peaks, which others have ascended with relative ease. I hope that we can offer encouragement and support (and maybe providing the occasional leg-up) rather than throwing down boulders and mocking what has been achieved. To ensure complete confusion, I will conclude by saying that I do not agree with those (including some within the DWP) who suggest that it should wait for a higher authority to come along and remove the remaining obstacles. (More on this latter point will follow.)

P.S. Thanks to Loddon, who posted whilst I was preparing these remarks, even though he and I are totally at difference on my final point.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 4:58pm:

Noting his present location, we may forgive idb for any failure to appreciate irony.

As far as I am aware, my only contribution to this thread prior to this posting was to quote a BBC article, in its entirety and without comment from myself. The ironic aspect must be elsewhere! As with loddon, I fully appreciated the point you made in posting #9.

idb wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 5:08pm:

...  The ironic aspect must be elsewhere! As with loddon, I fully appreciated the point you made in posting #9.

The irony may be seen to lie in my "recommendation". I had hoped that use of this device would not be lost on UK-based members, whereas it is commonly said to fail to traverse the Atlantic. In this particular case, it clearly arrived undamaged and was indeed appreciated.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 5:37pm:

The irony may be seen to lie in my "recommendation". I had hoped that use of this device would not be lost on UK-based members, whereas it is commonly said to fail to traverse the Atlantic. In this particular case, it clearly arrived undamaged and was indeed appreciated.

Very much so.

When I visited my local JobCentre today I was proudly informed that they have just changed their 01xxx number to a new 0845 number "to help serve me better".  I was assured that the call was charged at "local rates" and when I objected was told that I didn't know what I was talking about and that is what "head office" have just instructed them to do.

So much for DWP being in the lead at understanding the problem and changing away from the 0845 numbers!  :'(

olliecox wrote on Jan 28^th, 2010 at 12:40pm:

When I visited my local JobCentre today I was proudly informed that they have just changed their 01xxx number to a new 0845 number "to help serve me better".  I was assured that the call was charged at "local rates" and when I objected was told that I didn't know what I was talking about and that is what "head office" have just instructed them to do.

More on the JobCentre's change to the central 0845 number for branches in this thread.

olliecox wrote on Jan 28^th, 2010 at 12:40pm:

When I visited my local JobCentre today I was proudly informed that they have just changed their 01xxx number to a new 0845 number "to help serve me better".  I was assured that the call was charged at "local rates" and when I objected was told that I didn't know what I was talking about and that is what "head office" have just instructed them to do. So much for DWP being in the lead at understanding the problem and changing away from the 0845 numbers!  :'(

The centralisation of the "front desk" telephone answering function is purely a cost saving measure. Unless the person who normally answers the 01xxx number has long coffee, lunch and tea breaks, cannot answer the telephone and always put calls through to the wrong extension then the new centralised switchboard operators will not be able to "serve you better".

The DWP has been focussing hard on the 0800 from mobiles issue, where it has taken a lead. Automatic offers of a callback to mobile callers on 0845 numbers was in the course of being introduced, whilst someone selected a 0845 number for the new centralised service. This suggests all the hallmarks of a "fowl"-up.

The Call Cost information on the main DWP website is still inaccurate, but it avoids the "local rate" nonsense, which remains all too common. Could there be a similar explanation for this possibly similar occurance?

There's a Number10 petition http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/no2costlynumbers/ to:

"Enable OFCOM to enforce change of 0870, 0845 and similar expensive call cost numbers to all govenment offices to be changed to 01 or 02 geographic STD numbers or local call numbers."

which I assume includes HMRC/DWP.  

The deadline is 13 March 2010.  

btw: Hi - I've just been searching for non-0845 numbers for HMRC - and decided to join the forum.  :)  Put this at the end 'cos I'm not sure how "new posts" are displayed and wanted people to see the petition (rather than me).

fred21 wrote on Feb 8^th, 2010 at 11:44pm:

There's a Number10 petition ...

Welcome Fred.

The general spirit of the petition is to be welcomed, however it fails in two key respects:

1) The present Prime Minister has no plans to introduce the primary legislation that would be required to grant Ofcom the power to direct users of telephones to adopt any particular type of number. If the purpose is as stated, it is odd to demand such a roundabout route - the government going to parliament to change the law to enable Ofcom to tell the government what to do!

2) Many public services are provided nationally, from one or more particular geographic locations that change from time to time. The 03 number range is therefore ideally suited to this purpose.

The minor failings include the failure to recognise that many public services are provided by agencies, not directly by government offices, and use of the obsolete term "STD" and the meaningless term "local call".

For those who value e-petitions, it could nonetheless be worthy of support.

I personally see most purpose in supporting and encouraging the good work already going on in some central government departments and agencies. This needs to be spread around more and provided with more focused assistance from Ofcom. Much more also needs to be done with the other layers of "government" - local, regional and national.

fred21 wrote on Feb 8^th, 2010 at 11:44pm:

There's a Number10 petition http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/no2costlynumbers/ to: […] btw: Hi - I've just been searching for non-0845 numbers for HMRC - and decided to join the forum.  :)  Put this at the end 'cos I'm not sure how "new posts" are displayed and wanted people to see the petition (rather than me).

Hi fred and welcome to SAYNOTO0870.COM.

There's three e-petitions to the PM (in as many years) which we've supported on here...and we're still here campaigning.

The best advice I can give is for everyone to write to their MPs with their experience on this, whether it be ringing HMRC, the Jobcentre or one's doctor. More and more MPs are talking about it, so slowly it is getting through. To see what they have been saying, see the Parliamentary update thread which has links to questions and discussion in Parliament.