Hi,

Is it possible whether you can help me. I am looking for a Geographical Number to call for 'London 2012 Get Set.' The website is  http://getset.london2012.com/en/home

Is it possible to find me a geographical number to call them please?

I very much hope it is!

Thank You and I await your reply.

Best Wishes,

George Howell

---

~ Edited by Dave: Thread title amended

The London 2012 Olympic Games comprise 26 sports. ... London 2012. One Churchill Place Canary Wharf London E14 5LN
Tel: 020 3 2012 000

Head Office 020 3 2012 000

Community Relations Team 08000 722 110, 24

Please try these numbers and add them to the database if they are correct

What's the 08 number you have? Or is there not one?  :-?

Dave wrote on Feb 20^th, 2011 at 10:38pm:

What's the 08 number you have? Or is there not one?  :-?

I can't see one on the website

www.london2012.com/contact-us.php - Cached
Relations team about any questions or concerns you have about construction works in general on 08000 722 110

I have not tried the number above because it is in regard to construction but I thought it was worth a try I imagine it will be to a switchboard

I have found an additional telehone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6188; the Committee they may direct you to the correct department

This may be the 0845 267 2012 number but I has not been varified

I have, thus far, added two alternatives for London 2012 number 0845 267 2012 and they are 020 3201 2000 for Head Office and 0800 072 2110 for Customer Relations.

If anyone finds any more or more suitable ones, please advise by posting here and I will amend the listings.  :)

The geographic alternative of 020 7998 1919 for the London 2012 main ticket line number of 0844 847 2012 was previously in the database but has now been deleted.  This may be because I and other callers had reported calls being rejected by the number even when using 141 and 18185 prefixes together.  Today I needed to contact them again (to ask a question about what happens if an under 60 year old replaces an over 60 years old on a concession ticket) and so dialled 1411818502079981919.

The call got straight through without any issue and the very helpful lady adviser I spoke to seemed to have no awareness that I had used the "overseas" 020 number and not the 0844 number to call them.

I have therefore added the number to the Unverified section of the alternatives database with suitable notes about needing to use 141 and 18185 in order to avoid the call being rejected by Tickemaster who run this ticket enquiry line.

I very much doubt that it will work without the use of both 141 and a calling service that presents the call to Ticketmaster as though it is incoming from an overseas call carrier (as calls via 18185 often are but not always presented as being).

P.S.  Its quite clearly a matter of total luck as to how 18185 decides to route your call to this number or the time of day as I tried calling them just now using the 020 number and got the usual message telling me to dial the 0844 number and saying I had "not been charged" for making the call to the geographic number.

I have tried repeatedly now using 1411815 and I can't get through to the London 2012 ticket line and just get the message telling me to call the 0844 number so to be sure I had not imagined things and accidentally dialled the 0844 number when I got through earlier I logged on to my 18185 account and sure enough the call history shows this entry:-

09-05-2012       15:58:31  02079981919  00:13:07  0.0500

At least 18185 haven't charged me for any of the calls where I got the message to call the 0844 number as I feared they might have done given that I also got the "zero p per minute message" on each of these calls before tthen getting the message telling me the number had changed to the 0844 number (a bare faced lie on Ticketmaster's part with the connivance of BT or the telecoms network since the message to call another number is a telephone network originated message).

I'm going to try to remember to call tomorrow before 4pm and see what happens

NGMsGhost wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 4:24pm:

P.S.  Its quite clearly a matter of luck as to how 18185 decides to route your call to this number or the time of day as I tried calling them just now using the 020 number and got the usual message telling me to dial the 0844 number and saying I had "not been charged" for making the call to the geographic number.

I am not sure that it is really worthwhile to add the 020 number with a suitable message that it "might" work with 141 and 18185.

I called the number from my BT line, with the 141 prefix, and got the Opal/TalkTalk Business network redirection message, "This number has now changed to 0844...". So clearly it has been setup at network level to play the redirection message to UK callers.

When 18185 works, the information as to where the call originates is presumably incorrect or missing. Thus, whether one is successful or not (perhaps) depends on how 18185 routes the call.

Dave wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 4:35pm:

When 18185 works, the information as to where the call originates is presumably incorrect or missing. Thus, whether one is successful or not (perhaps) depends on how 18185 routes the call.

Dave,

I'm pretty sure its time of day related with time of day governing which carrier and/or routing path 18185 uses to connect the call (I am being rejected persistently now time after time but got straight through just before 4pm).  If you could always get through before 4pm UK time then it would be pretty worthwhile. 4pm is 5pm which is close of business in Europe so I expect this is how time of day comes in to it.

The fact that a totally misleading network message is played saying the number is changed rather than an honest message saying that the call recipient refuses to accept calls to this number from UK callers is surely a regulatory matter of the highest concern.

Surely refusing to connect calls to a number depending on where you originate the call from is a matter that ought to interest Ofcom and a totally misleading network message saying "the number has changed" also ought to interest them.  HMRC do not claim their UK geographic numbers have changed they just tell you that the number is only available to callers from overseas.  This is an honest and accurate depiction of what is going on.  Although the fact that UK callers have their call rejected to an still existent number should still be a matter for Ofcom.

This is the kind of thing the OFT ought to be getting very stirred up about since it is a blatant attempt to prevent a consumer in the UK using the lowest cost possible method of reaching a still in existence 020 number that they want to call.  Of course it is an established fact that the OFT is completely useless on all matters of competition in the field of telephony.  If not they wouldn't have 0845 numbers themselves which they have extensively misdescribed as "local rate", numbers and these are numbers which they still have in use to this day whilst 03 is now beginning to become widely used by many other governmental bodies for telephone contact.

I don't agree with you that the alternative number should not be in the database with notes.  Fact is that I got through with it today and that I had to use Google to find the number because you had removed it.  Also the fact the number exists but is being rejected by Ticketmaster for UK callers with a misleading network message needs publicising and not hiding.  Since the 020 number that sometimes works costs you nothing if it doesn't work then I see no harm in it continuing to be listed with the right notes of explanation and/or encouragements to email sebastian.coe@london2012.com about the matter.

Can somebody also tell me which telco the 020 range this number is in belongs to so we can then make a complaint about the deliberate misleading network message that "the number has changed".

Here's the entire database for UK 01 and 02 numbers:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/numbering/s1_code.txt

In this list, the initial 0 is missing from each area code.

NGMsGhost wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 4:51pm:

The fact that a totally misleading network message is played saying the number is changed rather than an honest message saying that the call recipient refuses to accept calls to this number from UK callers is surely a regulatory matter of the highest concern.

I don't regard it as being of the "highest" concern; there are things much higher than this.

For example, (I know that it was certainly the case at one time) that some of the smaller telcos that have blocks of numbers that haven't been issued to customers, were classed as connected and therefore metered. They usually play a message saying something like "You've called a non-working «such and such telco» number. The big telcos do not do this and do as they should do: that is return not recognised, unobtainable or similar. If this is still going off, then I regard it as a higher concern. This one sprung to mind when you talked about this telco returning the "misleading" message of state.

Then there's the case of calls to a supermarket chain that are being overcharged by one large landline provider to which the regulator isn't bothered about.

These are two examples. I'm sure we could think of more pressing issues if we put our minds to it.



NGMsGhost wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 4:51pm:

This is the kind of thing the OFT ought to be getting very stirred up about since it is a blatant attempt to prevent a consumer in the UK using the lowest cost possible method of reaching a still in existence 020 number that they want to call. …

By the same token, a withheld CLI to a number where anonymous calls are rejected does not permit onward connection to a subscriber.

Then what has "lowest cost possible method" got to do with it? There can only be one cost for calling one particular number from one particular telephone call provider.



NGMsGhost wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 4:51pm:

I don't agree with you that the alternative number should not be in the database with notes.  Fact is that I got through with it today and that I had to use Google to find the number because you had removed it.  Also the fact the number exists but is being rejected by Ticketmaster for UK callers with a misleading network message needs publicising and not hiding.  Since the 020 number that sometimes works costs you nothing if it doesn't work then I see no harm in it continuing to be listed with the right notes of explanation and/or encouragements to email sebastian.coe@london2012.com about the matter.

I did not say that it "should not" be in the database, I said "I am not sure that it is really worthwhile to add it".

There are two reasons for my position:

1. It has been demonstrated to work only with a particular call provider at some times (and not others).

2. Refer to my comment below. I think that it would be more worthwhile to try and find a number that works more reliably. If such a number cannot be found; for example the generic 0161 numbers don't go to agents who will help, then the possibility of listing the 020 number, with suitable note, can be reassessed.



NGMsGhost wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 4:51pm:

Can somebody also tell me which telco the 020 range this number is in belongs to so we can then make a complaint about the deliberate misleading network message that "the number has changed".

As I said in my posting, the network announcement is a TalkTalk (formerly Opal) one, so that is the provider. It is the same provider as the 0844 number. It is also perhaps worth noting that other TicketMaster 0844 numbers are on the same TalkTalk block.


I suggest that the 020 number is a single number that has been set-up specially for this purpose (one of the requirements being that it is a London number). I suggest that it is essentially a virtual number that directs to another location, much like the 0844 numbers do.

If I was looking for an alternative for this one, I would be looking in the area of the company's numbers. My undertstanding of TicketMaster is that it is based within the 0161 area code and that it has lots of these for each 0844 number to point to. Some answer with a generic TicketMaster message and this would surely be worth a shot as if it does go through to someone who can help with London 2012 enquiries (perhaps the 0844 and 020 both go through to the same place) then it will be a much more reliable alternative than the 020 "overseas" number.

This thread has been running for over a year, and someone has yet to explore this avenue and share with us their findings.

If no one has been that interested to carry out such a simple step, then maybe people aren't that bothered about finding an alternative.

catj wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 5:32pm:

Here's the entire database for UK 01 and 02 numbers: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/numbering/s1_code.txt

I'm not clear how I would make use of this data to identify the telecoms provider for the London 2012 ticketline 020 number.  There just seem to a load of codes and names of telecom provides but they do not seem to resemble UK exchange prefixes or sub-ranges within those various exchange prefixes.

Scroll down to 2079 98 for the details for (020) 7998 xxxx numbers.

Dave wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 5:44pm:

For example, (I know that it was certainly the case at one time) that some of the smaller telcos that have blocks of numbers that haven't been issued to customers, were classed as connected and therefore metered. They usually play a message saying something like "You've called a non-working «such and such telco» number. The big telcos do not do this and do as they should do: that is return not recognised, unobtainable or similar. If this is still going off, then I regard it as a higher concern. This one sprung to mind when you talked about this telco returning the "misleading" message of state. Then there's the case of calls to a supermarket chain that are being overcharged by one large landline provider to which the regulator isn't bothered about. These are two examples. I'm sure we could think of more pressing issues if we put our minds to it.

Your other examples are also of the "highest" importance for regulator intervention and action.  The fact that I used the term highest did not imply that mine was the top or most important example of such malpractice being rife in the industry.

But to try and con people an 020 number does not even exist that does not exist so they they will be forced to call an 0844 number where there is hidden revenue share that does not even have to be disclosed to the caller (nor the fact that the call is much more expensive than an 020 number in many calling situations) is I would have thought one of the worst examples of cynical abuse of the telephone numbering system by the telcos and the karge call centre businesses who they are partners in crime with.


Quote:

There can only be one cost for calling one particular number from one particular telephone call provider.

But two costs for calling the same service using two different phone numbers on the same time and date, which is quite clearly the point at issue here.


Quote:

As I said in my posting, the network announcement is a TalkTalk (formerly Opal) one, so that is the provider. It is the same provider as the 0844 number. It is also perhaps worth noting that other TicketMaster 0844 numbers are on the same TalkTalk block.

Hardly surprising then that a company fined by the regulator for misbilling customers on a regular basis should think nothing of lieing that a number that still exists has been changed to another number.


Quote:

This thread has been running for over a year, and someone has yet to explore this avenue and share with us their findings. If no one has been that interested to carry out such a simple step, then maybe people aren't that bothered about finding an alternative.

No the reason an alternative number hasn't been submitted is because there isn't one that works on any reliable basis.  As this is a very busy number no doubt Opal/TalkTalk go out of their way to make sure a direct permanent alternative cannot be deduced.

I thought we were both on the same side Dave in opposing all these misuses but sadly it now seems more important to you try and show you are Top Dog in the forum.

When we start arguing amongst ourselves we've lost sight of the real goal.

This is this a public forum, widely read by a lot of people. Let's keep it civil.

NGMsGhost wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 7:29pm:

Your other examples are also of the "highest" importance for regulator intervention and action.  The fact that I used the term highest did not imply that mine was the top or most important example of such malpractice being rife in the industry. But to try and con people an 020 number does not even exist that does not exist so they they will be forced to call an 0844 number where there is hidden revenue share that does not even have to be disclosed to the caller (nor the fact that the call is much more expensive than an 020 number in many calling situations) is I would have thought one of the worst examples of cynical abuse of the telephone numbering system by the telcos and the karge call centre businesses who they are partners in crime with.

As a principle, I agree that these things are not right.

However, I think that it is likely that the regulator will not be interested. Seemingly, it intervenes for mass-breaches, but not matters that have minute ill-effect.

I much rather put my effort into a movement that is likely to result in change. The unbundled charging approach is "telling it as it is". It will mean that the revenue share will not be hidden as you say it is. Of the two, this would have a greater impact as it would affect all misusers of 084 numbers and not just this one which is likely not to be in existance in a few months time anyway.



NGMsGhost wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 7:29pm:

Quote: There can only be one cost for calling one particular number from one particular telephone call provider. But two costs for calling the same service using two different phone numbers on the same time and date, which is quite clearly the point at issue here.

There is no charge for the network-based "number changed" announcement given in the UK, so you cannot be referring to it.

Those who are overseas who can call the 0844 number will probably find that it is more expensive than ringing the 020 number. So in that case it could be said that there are two costs for calling the same service. But I don't see this as being a telecoms matter; if a particular party wishes to offer more than one telephone number to be contacted on, then it is free to do so.

A more common example is someone who carries around a mobile phone(s) with connections to more than one network operator. This could be of benefit to callers who have more favourable rates to ring one.


Earlier in the posting you had said that the issue was the fact that the network operator of the 020 number is "lieing" about it being changed to the 0844 number. If this weren't the case, then it would likely go to a recorded message when called from the UK informing callers to ring the 0844 number. This would obviously and rightly be a metered call. It would, however, not be the same service as I understand that the 0844 number goes through to a call centre and not a recorded message directing callers to ring back on the number they have just dialled!




NGMsGhost wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 7:29pm:

Quote: This thread has been running for over a year, and someone has yet to explore this avenue and share with us their findings. If no one has been that interested to carry out such a simple step, then maybe people aren't that bothered about finding an alternative. No the reason an alternative number hasn't been submitted is because there isn't one that works on any reliable basis.  As this is a very busy number no doubt Opal/TalkTalk go out of their way to make sure a direct permanent alternative cannot be deduced. I thought we were both on the same side Dave in opposing all these misuses but sadly it now seems more important to you try and show you are Top Dog in the forum.

I did not make mention of or question why an alternative may not have been submitted. A number which has not been found cannot be submitted. I was referring to the apparent lack of interest in paricipation in finding a possible number. Informing others of numbers that have been tried and don't work may help others home in on an alternative. Why they don't work may also yield useful clues.

I do not agree that a number should be listed which works apparently on an occasional or random basis for a tiny minority of people while ever the most obvious avenue where a more reliable alternative may be found has not been investigated.

Dave I'm not going to respond to your last post as I can see that you seem to be quite happy to both waste time and resources playing Ofcom's game on increased transparency of the scam charges being a solution rather than the solution being to make all of the scamming itself illegal (as none other than the EU has proposed).

Coming back to the original issue I called the London 2012 ticket line 020 number just now (12.50pm on Thursday) using 14118185 and got through with no trouble at all.  So I strongly suspect this number can be used between say 8am and 4pm each weekday but not after 4pm because at that time 18185 switches from using a carrier for numbers to UK geographic calls that presents itself to the UK network as being International to one that presents itself as being UK originated.  When that happens London 2012 start rejecting calls to its 020 ticketline number using 14118185.

If you like I can try in the morning and see if the cutover time when calls start getting through is 7am or 8am.

So it is not true to say the alternative number is useless because it can be used during a significant part of the ticket office's opening hours every single weekday.

Also a large number of users of this website use the 18185, 1899 or 18866 services in the weekday daytime (when they do not have a free calling allowance) so it is relevant to this site's users even if it is less relevant to the universe of telephone users as a whole.

NGMsGhost wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 11:56am:

Dave I'm not going to respond to your last post as I can see that you seem to be quite happy to both waste time and resources playing Ofcom's game on increased transparency of the scam charges being a solution rather than the solution being to make all of the scamming itself illegal (as none other than the EU has proposed).

That is, of course, the aim of the unbundled approach. There will be no more "scamming" because it will be clear for all to see what charge is being imposed for any particular call.

Where tickets are on sale at box offices or through agencies such as is the case here, patrons usually find that the actual cost of attending is greater than the headline ticket price. "Booking fees" and the like are the norm. Another fee to book over the phone is simply another fee. The use of 0844 numbers in this particular field is therefore systemic of a culture of "fees" added to the base price.



NGMsGhost wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 11:56am:

If you like I can try in the morning and see if the cutover time when calls start getting through is 7am or 8am.

It is not for anyone, including me, to request that any particular individual does anything in relation to finding an alternative or clues that may help in a search. People are free to assist in any way they wish.

I have simply offered my ideas of what I would do in an attempt to seek out an alternative. If no one wishes to do any work and come up with an alternative (and this includes finding and sharing clues that might help someone else) then everyone will have to be content to ring the premium number.

Dave wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 1:25pm:

It is not for anyone, including me, to request that any particular individual does anything in relation to finding an alternative or clues that may help in a search. People are free to assist in any way they wish. I have simply offered my ideas of what I would do in an attempt to seek out an alternative. If no one wishes to do any work and come up with an alternative (and this includes finding and sharing clues that might help someone else) then everyone will have to be content to ring the premium number.

I have shared the information I have which will help anyone who is a customer of 18185/1899 wanting to call before 4pm in the week.

If you don't want to make use of the usual more advance techniques you seem to deploy (but I have never used) to discover an alternative then that's clearly up to you.

I suspect you feel that the Olympics is something for well off southerners who are already paying a fortune for tickets and so you don't feel inclined to devote your time and effort in this area to saving them a small amount of money.

While not wanting to become embroiled in this matter over this particular number, I would take issue on one point in Dave's most recent post.  I know that "unbundling" is seen as an advance which in a very small way I suppose it might be BUT it does not mean in my view that there will be no more scamming; people will merely know how much they are being ripped off, it does not provide them with any mechanism to avoid being ripped off if they really need to contact that particular organisation; the only thing which will do that is to prohibit the use of numbers with an additional fee by which I mean 084x & 087X numbers (I see 090 as completely different as they do not seem to be used for basic services).

Barbara wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 1:50pm:

people will merely know how much they are being ripped off, it does not provide them with any mechanism to avoid being ripped off if they really need to contact that particular organisation; the only thing which will do that is to prohibit the use of numbers with an additional fee by which I mean 084x & 087X numbers (I see 090 as completely different as they do not seem to be used for basic services).

Quite correct Barbara because 084/7 numbers are not something a customer has any choice about but that they are enslaved in to using by an advanced big business cartel to bring these numbers in across the board.  And as Ofcom's evaluation of the typical cost of UK phone calls is probably based on a family of four not making any 084 or 087 calls they will still be claiming that for a family of four the cost of running a phone line has gone down.  Meanwhile in the real world for any households of one or anyone who does need to call 0844 and 0871 numbers phone call costs have gone up massively.

Splitting the cost of something up in to its component parts does not bring clarity but merely greater confusion and more customer deception as Ryanair are past masters of demonstrating.  And unlike an airline flight you cannot leave your hold luggage at home or travel on another day.  Your only choice is whether to call or not.

The only reason the costs of making these 084/7 calls is so high is because the consumer has no choice about making them and Ofcom has never clearly evaluated whether there is any possible justification for a business to charge more for receiving a phone call than anyone else.  Instead it just takes it as read that this is fine as long as people are told the amount of the unreasonable fee they are forced to pay.