The National Audit Office has produced a report which is still critical of HMRC service levels but fails to criticise the use of 0845 numbers!   It states :--

Most of HMRC’s numbers are still 0845 numbers which result in high call charges for some customers. It is investigating alternatives as it negotiates its new telephony contract. HMRC estimates customers would save £13 million annually if all 0845 numbers were replaced with cheaper 03 numbers.

http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1213/hmrc_customer_service.aspx

This lame statement that there are high charges for some customers and that it is investigating alternatives falls woefully short of the mark

It fails to state how many years HMRC has been messing around ineffectually and incompetently and failing to move to geo or 03 numbers.   It is merely reporting that HMRC is looking at the issue.

Its about time the NAO started to do their job properly in this regard.

This topic is reported in the Daily Mail and has generated 220 comments so far which indicates the level of public anger about this although as usual some comments confuse the issue with misinformation.   

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2249713/Hanging-phone-taxman-costs-millions-Taxpayers-query-HMRC-premium-rate-bills.html

Perhaps the FairTelecoms campaign should write to the NAO reinforcing our complaints and asking them to apply pressure to HMRC to stop procrastinating and get on and change their numbers.???

I believe that one has to take a very extreme position to claim that the NAO report is not critical of HMRC.

Supporters of the fair telecoms campaign, may be interested to follow its news feed.

There will be more to follow.

The NAO report will be used by various parties to out pressure on HMRC. There is enough there about the 0845 / 03 issue to enable proper pressure to be applied, if those applying it are properly briefed. This is where the matter lies, not with the NAO itself.

---

Having now had the time to catch up and read the report, I am not sure how the relevant recommendation may be aligned with the topic of this thread:

Quote:

HMRC should ensure when agreeing its new telephony contract that the contract provides for alternatives to 0845 numbers, to reduce costs to customers, in line with previous Committee of Public Accounts’ recommendations.

If, as has previously been suggested, negotiation of a new telephony contract will begin in the coming weeks, then the opportunity to migrate to 03, which has now existed for many years, will be delayed a little longer.

Because the 0845 numbers will have to remain in place for a time, as part of the transition process, it now seems inevitable that the cost of porting them to a new provider will have to be considered as part of the cost, assuming that a new provider is selected.

We must remember that the Ofcom announcements will be made shortly, so there can be no question of HMRC entering into a new telephony contract based on the imposition of a "Service Charge". It was always going to happen eventually - we now know that it will not be long.

Lets just hope HMRC dont get into bed with Daisy  ::) Otherwise they will be fooled into running a Geo. Line alongside, the same as GP 2 Tier System. I hope there are some savvy people in the Provider Selection Office, I will believe that savvy people exist in Government Offices when I see the 0300 or 0345.  :P

Readers may wish to note that this particular issue is also being discussed, within a wider context, in the "Who gets the Money?" thread, starting at this posting.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 18^th, 2012 at 2:05pm:

I believe that one has to take a very extreme position to claim that the NAO report is not critical of HMRC.

I disagree SCV.   Contributors to this Forum and others have been campaigning for at least seven years about the disgraceful exploitation of 0845 and other rip-off numbers by government Departments and Agencies and especially criticising the HMRC (Inland Revenue as it was) for its hypocritical practice of offering normal geo numbers to employers and organisations whilst insisting that ordinary taxpayers must call 0845 and other rip-off numbers.   I recall that much campaigning went on with letters to Ministers and Prime Ministers (Blair) which were largely ignored.

I think it is valid to criticise the NAO for not specifying when the Parliamentary Select Committee asked the Inland Revenue to  stop using rip-off numbers and not criticising HMRC for dragging their feet over this matter for years.   The NAO have pointed out that this delay by HMRC is very costly to the country in terms of actual phone call costs and also in waste of callers time for which they should be commended, but why have they fallen short of explicitly criticising HMRC on this point and only offered implied criticism?

It is interesting that the NAO reckon the rip-off numbers cost callers an additional £33 million whereas HMRC estimate the cost to customers at only £13 million annually.    HMRC fiddling the figures or being economical with the truth?

I just wish the NAO had been clear about how long HMRC have been wasting in looking at changing their numbers and how much this waste has actually cost in terms of HMRC internal costs and the total costs to callers at a rate of £33 million per year.   This is where the Fair Telecoms campaign could have an effect.

loddon wrote on Dec 21^st, 2012 at 7:14am:

I think it is valid to criticise the NAO …

The alleged discrepancy in the numbers is between two different figures.
[list bull-blueball]

£33 million is given as the cost incurred in 2011 whilst callers were waiting to be answered. [list bull-blueball]

£13 million is given as the saving in call costs if the 0845 numbers were replaced with 03. The fair telecoms campaign briefing expresses doubt about the second figure.


I cannot see the alleged absence of dates.

One of the reference to the Treasury Committee states

Quote:

In July 2011, the Treasury Select Committee concluded that …

This comment is accompanied by an annotation referencing
"House of Commons Treasury Committee, Administration and effectiveness of HM Revenue & Customs, Sixteenth Report of Session 2010–2012, HC 731".

Digging into the papers of this enquiry will reveal the evidence presented by a member of the fair telecoms campaign.


One of the references to the Public Accounts Committee states

Quote:

In January 2010, the Committee of Public Accounts reported that …

This comment is accompanied by an annotation referencing, amongst other items,
"HC Committee of Public Accounts, HM Revenue & Customs: Handling telephone enquiries, Twenty-fourth Report of Session 2009-10, HC 389"

The point about moving from 0845 to 03 was apparently discussed during an oral evidence session; it was not an explicit recommendation of that report. It has however been picked up by the NAO as an implicit recommendation.


It is not my role to defend the NAO, however I have read its report with some care.

---

We are touching on very fine points of detail here, by digging up history.

I am not sure if readers of the forum would welcome us now getting into a deep debate about how criticism of the actions of Officials and Ministers is the responsibility of the Comptroller and Auditor General, as against the two Select Committees (Public Accounts and Treasury), which have the role of using the evidence provided in her reports to parliament. I can see no grounds for alleging significant failure by the former and note that strongly worded comment has already been made by the Chairman of one of the latter.

Our campaigning focus is on the action that HMRC (along with other public and private bodies) takes in future. This may be informed by what has happened in the past, however that cannot now be changed. The Select Committees will be taking the NAO report forward and will be in receipt of further briefings from the fair telecoms campaign - any citizen is free to make representations.

There is also a tactical reason for sometimes not dwelling long on the scale of past failure. If we want someone to do the right thing, we may make it harder if seeking to stress that taking action now would invalidate previous reasons for not taking the same action, and thereby invite criticism. If we genuinely seek change for the better, then we sometimes have to forget the past and simply look to a better future.

I think we agree that the there is something at odds, if not completely conflicting, about the two cost figures quoted, £33M v £13M.   The former is said to be the estimated call cost of queuing, not including the time needed to answer and deal with the taxpayers enquiries, whilst the latter is the saving to callers which could be achieved by HMRC adopting 03 numbers (I agree with you that this figure appears to be unduly conservative).  One would expect the saving to be far greater than the £33M which would accrue if callers (mostly) were able call using the inclusive minutes within their call packages.  All those waiting minutes would not cost anything at all if they are within callers packages.  It would be helpful to see exactly how both the HMRC and NAO have calculated and justified their figures – are HMRC being economical with the truth?.

Neither the Press release nor the Summary within the NAO report mentions the year nor the elapsed period in which the Parliamentary Select Committee asked HMRC to stop using rip-off numbers and you, SCV, have had to burrow deep to find reference to dates – note that January 2010 is almost three full years ago.  I notice that none of the press or media have bothered or perhaps been competent enough to do the same.  This supports my contention that the NAO has ducked the issue -- important matters must be covered in summaries.

History is not irrelevant if it is apparent that an organisation is refusing to take corrective action over a long period without justification, is causing unnecessary and excessive costs to taxpayers and needs to be pushed hard to take long overdue action.   HMRC has been negligent in this regard and it would have been proper for NAO to point this out forcefully in its report.   The NAO is always likely to be more effective than any amount of campaigning by the likes of us.

Bear in mind that I welcome this NAO report and value the comments and criticisms which it does offer whilst also being prepared to prompt it not to withhold or omit further relevant and valid criticism.   Whilst I value your efforts in campaigning on these matters I do not not always agree with your tendency on occasions to act as apologist and justifier for the ineffectiveness of officialdom.

One of the problems with "officialdom" is that it is tied up in red tape, and if you make their life difficult or get too critical, they go all bloody-minded and go out of their way to find even more red tape to prolong doing the right thing.

At every step, people have to justify their actions and cover their backside. If a new policy is going to be a U-turn on a previous policy, then they have to be careful as whoever set the old policy in motion may be in a greater position of power.

Policy changes aren't always about people wanting to "do the right thing". They often happen when points can be scored against political opponents, however it's rare for anyone to admit that a previous decision or policy was "wrong".

Have you ever watched "Yes, Minister"? Those aren't light entertainment programmes, they're leaked training videos.

I am sure that the NAO is well aware of all the "red tape" and takes it into account when conducting audits.

It is our role to state clearly and unequivocally what is the right path and to put forward the appropriate facts and arguments.  We cannot be beholden to red tape of which we are likely to be unaware.   I am not ignorant of that environment having worked within central government, local government and nationalised industry as well as in commerce and industry and am acutely aware of the internal politics of each.

There is no point in us mollifying our message or campaign if we hope eventually to succeed.   We need to be forthright and positive.

I believe that we should not get too tied up in the past. I don't believe that the case for an organisation moving away from use of 084 number(s) is greater where it has been engaged in the practice for a longer period.

---

I read the parts of the report which contain "0845". There is one thing which jumps out at me:


Quote:

Cable & Wireless provides HMRC’s phone service and receives a proportion of the call charges borne by the customer. HMRC has chosen not to receive a share of the revenue and does not know how much Cable & Wireless receives because it has no contractual access to this information. In return, HMRC receives additional services which Cable & Wireless says are worth £4.7 million.

It cannot be right that users of 084 (and other 087/09 non-geographic) numbers do not know how much revenue their phone provider receives as a direct result of their choice of service (number).

Consumers of services should know what the charges are, whether these be paid by them or their customers.

The system at present is flawed because users of these numbers don't have an appreciation for the charges that their providers impose and so benefit from. The Unbundled Tariff will address these issues.

Users of these numbers do not appear to be calling for such openess. Indeed, users weren't calling for the introduction of a neutral range (which is now available in the form of 03 numbers).

loddon wrote on Dec 21^st, 2012 at 12:07pm:

There is no point in us mollifying our message or campaign if we hope eventually to succeed.   We need to be forthright and positive.

I am disappointed by this apparent criticism of the approach of the fair telecoms campaign, as reflected in its published news release and subsequent briefing.

Neither of these, nor will the subsequent representations to the Committees, adapt any negative tone in criticising the NAO, nor avoid the main point by addressing the question of whether dates should have been presented more clearly in its report. I read them as being forthright and positive.

I cannot see how the message, that HMRC should switch to 03 as soon as possible and is damaging the interests of citizens by not having done so sooner, is any way "mollified" there.



loddon wrote on Dec 21^st, 2012 at 12:07pm:

We cannot be beholden to red tape of which we are likely to be unaware.

Insofar as one can be aware of the proprieties of how public bodies conduct themselves (red tape), one approach is to respect it and seek to work within it, so as to be effective in changing public policy. That is the approach which I tend to follow with such bodies.

The brick-throwing approach, which seeks to shame officials into admitting their failures and shortcomings, by drawing attention to them, may be an alternative way of achieving the same objective. It is my view that the two approaches cannot be combined.

I struggle to see how one may ask someone to do something whilst asserting that they are wholly ineffective and wrongly motivated. Without any democratic mandate, we can only seek to persuade. In the absence of sufficient popular support to overthrow the regime in power, one has to respect its authority and methods if seeking to influence its behaviour.

My previous posting was in response to the comments by catj and advocated that we should not mollify our messages and was not criticising the two particular documents you have linked -- which I support.

It is totally misrepresentative of you to suggest that I have advocated "...  extreme positions ... brick-throwing … shaming officials ….asserting that they are wholly ineffective and wrongly motivated … seeking to overthrow the regime in power ...” when nothing of the sort has been said.

To advocate valid criticism, asking for officials to explain and justify figures and calculations quoted in their reports, seeking specific dates for events that are quoted and highlighting official negligence is a long way from “brick throwing” in my book and I would have thought you would agree with these type of requests.

Your unfair arguing is way over the top and not worthy of you SCV.   I would hope for fair, balanced and more reasoned responses.   It is a pity because we are both on the same side really and I have sought to support and strengthen your resolve. 

I still believe in the case for valid criticism, seeking for officials and reports to explain themselves and putting forward our messages in a forthright manner.

For what it is worth, I did not start the fight. I have only sought to explain and defend the position of the fair telecoms campaign.

It began with "the FairTelecoms campaign should write to the NAO reinforcing our complaints and asking them to apply pressure to HMRC". I see no grounds for complaint against the NAO, nor any basis from which a campaign group can suggest action on the part of the NAO.

It continued with an allegation that the NAO report had omitted dates, and that two quite separate figures were alternative versions of the same value. Reference to the report itself clearly quashes such allegations.

A suggestion was made that the NAO report had not indicated that HMRC was preparing to switch to 03 numbers. In fact this is what it will be doing next year; this was both reported and reinforced by a specific recommendation.

The discussion then moved on to consider whether campaigners had to be "beholden" to "red tape". My response indicated that one can either work within the realities of the status quo or seek to overthrow it.

I took use of the words "us" and "we" to refer to the fair telecoms campaign. I cannot see which other group may have been meant.

---

I maintain that there are no grounds for criticism of the NAO. I see the repeated, very serious allegation, of "negligence" on the part of Ms Morse, to be unjustified, as well as being of no relevance to the fair telecoms campaign.

As I prepare to brief the members of the Select Committees in readiness for their consideration of the report, I am (politely) seeking some further explanation of the basis for the figures reported. I have already received a preliminary response and hope for more. The calculation of a meaningful average call cost, which is necessary to understand the scale of the fault, is far from easy. I suspect that the absence of a detailed explanation of the calculations was fully justified.

---

I had hoped that this discussion would be brought to an end by the most significant point which has been made in this thread.


Dave wrote on Dec 21^st, 2012 at 12:31pm:

The Unbundled Tariff will address these issues.

It is the fair telecoms issues that will be addressed. Those with political points to make can continue the discussion endlessly.

The subject has just received 2 contrasting appearances on Radio 4. Moneybox with a serious interview and News Quiz which was a lot more entertaining. On neither programme did anyone try to make out that 0845 was a local rate number.

And saynoto0870 got a couple of decent plugs on Moneybox.

The fair telecoms campaign blog has a comment on the Moneybox item with quotes and links.

The blogging is at http://www.fairtelecoms.org.uk/1/post/2012/12/hmrc-promises-03-numbers-in-2013.html.

To follow this blog and other fairtelecoms news visit http://www.fairtelecoms.org.uk/news-feed.html.

I am surprised to see you SCV describing this as a fight because I thought this is a Forum where civilised discussion and debate can take place, hopefully between friends, and that we can all remain friends both during and at the conclusion of any discussion.   There is nothing wrong with any of us expressing our views and no-one should be attacked for endeavouring to put forward and develop them.

Unfortunately you persist in misrepresenting what I have said and inventing things I haven't said and to create arguments where none exists.   I had hoped for reasonable, fair, factually based and civilised discussion but you continue to disappoint.   Why do you treat a friend and supporter in such a way?   Goodness only knows what others think of you.

Why have you misquoted me in your second sentence?    You omitted the first and crucial word which set the tone for what was clearly a tentative suggestion.   It is unfair of you to misrepresent me by omitting the word “Perhaps ..” which clearly indicated that I was suggesting that this was a matter which might be worth considering or discussing.    I did not make nor imply any complaint against the NAO; I made it plain it was about HMRC and the possibility of NAO or Select Committee applying pressure.

It is true that the date of the Parliamentary Select Committee quoted was omitted and gave the distinct impression that the Committee had recently asked HMRC whereas you showed that it must have been 3 years previous.   I clarified that the two cost figures were related and, given the stated scope of each, one would expect the HMRC figure to be greater than the NAO figure.   Surely that raises quite legitimate and valid questions and that is why I believe it is valid to ask for explanation of the basis and calculations of each. 

I see “us” as embracing all of the contributors to this Forum who are concerned by or wish to avoid being compelled to dial rip-off numbers, many of whom have been campaigning for some years  and may well continue to do so and also including the members of Fair Telecoms, which has only been formed in the past few months, who contribute to this Forum.   

The fair comment about negligence was made in this Forum in a non-formal way and did not refer to any individual so why have you made things up again and tried to attribute them to me?.   

I find your attitude to “digging up history” surprising as my understanding is that an Audit is by its nature looking at history.   It is usually an evaluation of an organisation, system, process, product or project and must look at what has happened in the past.   This thread is devoted to comment on a recent Audit by the NAO and so comment on what has occurred is entirely to be expected.   Organisations can learn how to improve and correct things by looking at what has happened and thereby decide on appropriate actions for the future, that is the purpose of audits.   Audits usually contain recommendations for future action and this one is no different.

You say there are no grounds for complaint against the NAO but I have not suggested making such complaint.   I have pointed out a failure by NAO to make a justified criticism of HMRC and suggested taking that up in an appropriate way and I have pointed out a major discrepancy between calculated costs published by NAO and HMRC and suggested that we seek clarification.   Your approach, SCV, should be more balanced and truthful.   I trust that we can remain good friends and fellow campaigners after all this.

I am disinclined to continue this discussion because of your utterly unreasonable attitude and so ask you to desist at this point.    However, you raise another point which I feel should be debated in another thread which I expect to open shortly.

Which?  has published its own Audit of of how easy it is to contact HRMC by phone and snail mail in its January 2013 edition, page 42.

It is interesting to compare the Which? report – based on responses from 1373 members -- with the recent NAO Audit.    Members were found to be considerably less satisfied about their dealings with HMRC compared to dealings with their bank or energy company, indicating, as reported by NAO that there is considerable room for improvement, although it says it is getting better.  Reference to support for the findings of the 2011 Treasury Select Committee is made.   Long waiting times for an answer on the phone and the lengthy menu procedure are criticised.

Disappointingly, Which?  fails to criticise HMRC for its use of 0845 numbers nor to mention that it could, and has even been asked to, move to 03 numbers.   The report quotes the self-assessment and PAYE 0845 numbers without any comment which is surprising as Which?  has often reported on the rip-off nature of such numbers and has on several occasions published advice on how to avoid them including advice to members to make use of the excellent “saynoto0870.com” website!

Which?  does however comment on the fact that email to HMRC is “not encouraged” other than for change of address.   In my knowledge HMRC never make any email addresses available forcing taxpayers to either make contact by snail mail (where the target response time is 15 working days and HMRC fall well short of even this target) or to use the dreaded 0845 numbers.   The implied suggestion of increased availability of email contact is a good point which is not mentioned, as far as I know, in the NAO report.

loddon wrote on Dec 24^th, 2012 at 5:25pm:

Which?  does however comment on the fact that email to HMRC is “not encouraged” other than for change of address.

I am not sure of the full detail of the HMRC policy on email, but it could be taking a better balanced approach to the use of online vs. telephone access than others.


As I understand it, HMRC encourages use of information published online as a way of finding answers to questions which are very commonly the sole purpose of a telephone call. Similarly, information that is commonly offered by telephone can be entered online. For those with internet access and the competence necessary to find information about often complex issues, it is right to encourage this means of contact.

General use of email (outside the secure government network) presents problems with authenticity when important and personal information is being covered. For simple questions and answers it loses out badly over a telephone conversation, because the provider of the information is unable to determine immediately if their point has been understood and cannot directly address a related further question.


I hope that Which? has served its subscribers with an adequate explanation of this point and am disappointed to hear that it has once again fallen short by failing to pick up on the 0845 issue.

I am not however surprised, as it conducted a major campaign and conversation on the topic of use of 084 and 087 numbers for complaints and enquiries whilst the BIS consultation into the implementation of the CRD was running. Despite this consultation receiving some publicity (including on You and Yours) Which? made no reference to the CRD in connection with this campaign. Which? did however crow over another CRD provision, which it took credit for having secured, although it appears to failed to secure UK implementation of this provision by the end of 2012.


I have often expressed my concern about an organisation, which rightly exists to serve its customers, getting involved in public issues and pretending to serve a wider interest group. Its avowed (anarchistic or excessively libertarian) principle that every individual should be as powerful as the organisations with which he or she engages may be simply misguided when it comes to machine machine manufacturers and retailers. When it places state institutions and public bodies within its focus, this principle, along with its name, place Which? in a very odd position.

I am very happy to campaign alongside others when we share only a few objectives, and am delighted when Which? can utilise the power of its membership to achieve worthwhile results. By its nature, it does however seem to have a problem in dealing with any issue that cannot be expressed in simplistic populist terms. That is fine in itself, however it does mean that there may be some issues on which the involvement of Which? could do more harm than good.

Put simply, perhaps it would be best if Which? stuck to comparing competing products and services and kept out of public services and politics.

I see HMRC are finalists in the Mail worst customer service awards again.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-2244071/Wooden-Spoon-Awards-Vote-company-worst-customer-service.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

HMRC's Chief Executive went before the Public Accounts Committee today and she said that the department will be switching to 03 numbers later this year. You can watch the video on Parliament TV.

It was also discussed the length of waiting times.

Dave wrote on Jan 28^th, 2013 at 6:57pm:

HMRC's Chief Executive went before the Public Accounts Committee today and she said that the department will be switching to 03 numbers later this year.

BBC News article

This part of the article isn't great:

Quote:

Some 03 calls should count as part of inclusive minutes in a phone contract and are charged at the same rate as 01 or 02 numbers. They can cost 2-10p per minute from a landline, but are free with some packages.

Could have been much simpler and more accurate.

Dave wrote on Jan 28^th, 2013 at 6:57pm:

HMRC's Chief Executive went before the Public Accounts Committee today and she said that the department will be switching to 03 numbers later this year. You can watch the video on Parliament TV.

The Daily Telegraph today, in its report on the Select Committee hearing, seems horrified that HMRC helplines make six-figure profits for Cable and Wireless.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/9832821/HMRC-hotlines-make-six-figure-profits.html#dsq-comments

It goes on to quote the NAO :---
“National Audit Office found last year that taxpayers spent £33 million calling premium-rate tax helplines during 2011/12”


“Lin Homer, head of HMRC, said Cable and Wireless make “less than £1 million” in profit on the premium-rate numbers ...”

“They make a small amount of profit,” she said. “It is considerably less than a million,”
“Despite repeated questions from MPs on the committee, Mrs Homer refused to give more details of the profits on the contract.”

So C&W make less than one million from a total call revenue of £33million --- pull the other one.  :-? ::) OK the revenue is shared with the originating call providers but this claimed small level of profit is just not credible.   It would be interesting to know the true costs and profits figures.

Looking at the way Homer and Owen conducted themselves at the Select Committee would cause many a typical business man to weep into his beer at the display of incompetence and lack of knowledge.   We can hardly expect that their “negotiations” over the contract for the new 03 based service will be any more competent or beneficial for the taxpayer.   :( :'(