I have found that all the geographical numbers (instead of 0845) for them are now blocked even when prefixing with 141.

There are two ways around that, I have found.

1  Take a day trip to Calais  ;D

2  Go through 18185.co.uk  (charged at 1p pm + 5pm connection charge - still cheaper than using 0845).

I tried 18185 from my BT line, prefixed with 141, and it still rejected me when I called 01355 359022 (Taxes Helpline) and 0161 931 9070 (Self-Assessment Helpline).

Thanks for posting about this. I will remove those numbers from the database and replace with a message that they have been blocked.

Dave wrote on Feb 1^st, 2013 at 12:45pm:

I tried 18185 from my BT line, prefixed with 141, and it still rejected me when I called 01355 359022 (Taxes Helpline) and 0161 931 9070 (Self-Assessment Helpline). Thanks for posting about this. I will remove those numbers from the database and replace with a message that they have been blocked.

I'm not entirely sure about this.

I tried the 0161 number via 18185 without withholding my number and it went through. Then a short while later it didn't.

I suspect that calls with 18185 might be routed abroad and then back again, probably at some times.

If HMRC have a system that rejects calls from the UK but not abroad, then this might explain why 18185 works sometimes and not others.

It may well be that it doesn't use CLI to identify whether calls come from the UK as it isn't reliable as one can simply withhold the number.

I used the number 0161 931 9070 (prefixed with 141) from my mobile at around mid-day on Thursday 31 Jan, and it connected to the menu immediately.

I was speaking to a human ( OK, a Scot  ;)  ;D ) within a few seconds, and was not questioned as to where I was calling from.

Have just tried both of the above numbers from my landline which has a permanent number withheld facility, both where answered with an auto message saying I had called from the UK, and informing "this number is for international callers", then gave me the 0845 number to call.

This is totally out of order, a few years ago I obtained various number via a FOI request, at least two of these numbers work as I just tried them and "appeared " to be held in a queue, those numbers are:- 0151 4713010, and 0151 4713012, I don't know where they eventually take you as there was no menu, just music.

Other numbers I have, but not tried are:-
0151 471 3004
0151 471 3040
0151 471 3008
0151 471 3006
0151 471 3009

.

I'm not sure if it's a good idea to remove the blocked numbers.  How do HMRC know whether or not your UK mobile is calling from UK or Europe?  I guess that one can use any inclusive minutes on a mobile contract to call a UK geographical number.

On a previous call to an HMRC geographical number, it was hinted that I would not be able to call that number from the UK in future.  It seems that this is now happening.  However, I just called one of the "blocked" numbers you listed and I got through using a VoIP line.  I wonder if calls via Skype will also go through.

Concerning my previous calls to HMRC, the calls to the 0845 number took a long time to be answered and were frequently cut off - Margaret Hodge MP please take notice.  My calls to the geographic numbers were answered quickly and were never cut off.

derrick wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 1:54pm:

Have just tried both of the above numbers from my landline which has a permanent number withheld facility, both where answered with an auto message saying I had called from the UK, and informing "this number is for international callers", then gave me the 0845 number to call. This is totally out of order, a few years ago I obtained various number via a FOI request, at least two of these numbers work as I just tried them and "appeared " to be held in a queue, those numbers are:- 0151 4713010, and 0151 4713012, I don't know where they eventually take you as there was no menu, just music. Other numbers I have, but not tried are:- 0151 471 3004 0151 471 3040 0151 471 3008 0151 471 3006 0151 471 3009 .

Thank you derrick, 0151 4713010 with 141 prefix as of today 18/4/13.  I got through to an employers help line that would confirm employees tax codes, however since I wanted more than that I was advised to phone the Employers Help line on an 0845 number.  I said I did not want use an 0845 number due to the expense of waiting for the call to be resolved and asked to be put through to a line manager who I asked to put me through to the employers' help line, which she did :o . The call lasted about a quarter of an hour and cost me nothing as all my calls in the UK are included.

As it has not been mentioned in this thread, it may be worth repeating that efforts to find geo rate alternatives to HMRC 0845 numbers will only be of short term benefit, as all HMRC 0845 numbers will be switched to 03 "by the end of the summer".

Good Evening,

Having decided to check on the HMRC site for when they announced they would be changing from 0845 to 03(45) numbers I found some press releases.  Interestingly they are also "closing" some of the HMRC Enquiry Centres and replacing these with potential mobile visits.

As such a Consultation is in progress.  Move info can be found here (Home/Mobile Visits) and here (Consultation)

The Consultation closes 24/05/13.

:)

Despite some on here saying HMRC are going to 0345 numbers, my local one seems to have upgraded to 0844! http://www.mylocalservices.co.uk/Lancashire/HMRC/1428902/Preston_Tax_Office_HMRC_Preston_Inland_Revenue.html

When using the geo one from the database: -  01355 359022, re 0845 302 1478, it tells you to use the national 0845 3000627 number then cuts you off despite me having permanent number withheld on my phone.

I have just dialled 01772 834566 and this took me to the Preston office and a guy called Steve, and whilst he answered my question, (it was only about opening hours), he told me he would not be able to put me through to any other department or person.

.

---

~ Edited by Dave: Surname removed.

Good Afternoon,

Having checked the link you have provided, I am not sure that's an Official number for HMRC.

I found an alternative link: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/enq/
which allows you to search for the Enquiry Centres.  There is also a Excel document detailing the specific opening times of each of the centres.

On a separate note, this may also interest you.. are you are going to a Tax/HMRC office.. they plan to close several of them.. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/supporting-customers-who-need-extra-help-a-new-approach more info via the link...

I hope this helps. :)

derrick wrote on May 13^th, 2013 at 11:04am:

Despite some on here saying HMRC are going to 0345 numbers, my local one seems to have upgraded to 0844! http://www.mylocalservices.co.uk/Lancashire/HMRC/1428902/Preston_Tax_Office_HMRC_Preston_Inland_Revenue.html

I think that this is an example of a third party setting up a 084 number.

A search of the site in question shows other 0844 474 numbers for other, unconnected, organisations.



derrick wrote on May 13^th, 2013 at 11:04am:

When using the geo one from the database: -  01355 359022, re 0845 302 1478, it tells you to use the national 0845 3000627 number then cuts you off despite me having permanent number withheld on my phone. I have just dialled 01772 834566 and this took me to the Preston office and a guy called Steve, and whilst he answered my question, (it was only about opening hours), he told me he would not be able to put me through to any other department or person.

Based on comments by submissions to the database and my cursory experimentation, I believe that the "overseas" numbers are automatically blocked from UK landlines, irrespective of whether a CLI is presented or not.

I called 01355 359022 and 0161 931 9070 from my mobile, without withholding my number, and it went through OK.

I have amended the messages in the database to "This is “overseas” number and will not accept calls from UK landlines, even with a withheld number. Calls from mobiles will probably get through."

Dave wrote on May 13^th, 2013 at 8:43pm:

Based on comments by submissions to the database and my cursory experimentation, I believe that the "overseas" numbers are automatically blocked from UK landlines, irrespective of whether a CLI is presented or not. I called 01355 359022 and 0161 931 9070 from my mobile, without withholding my number, and it went through OK.

I agree with Dave as I have called HMRC today on their geographic numbers from my landline with 18185 and the call is blocked persistently whether I use 141 before dialling 18185 or not.  I believe that the denial method is precisely the same as that used by London 2012 for their 0844 helplines.  Specifically that whether the call is blocked or not depends on whether their incoming call routing equipment detects the call routing path as being from a UK landline and it is not dependent on the presentation of a CLI.

With London 2012 at certain times of day when it is cheaper to route a call to a UK fixed line number via an international path then I could get through to London 2012 but when 18185 decided to use an entirely UK based call routing path at other times of day I could not get through.  Presumably it all depends on the IP address of the Voip path used and them refusing to accept calls from a whole range of IP paths considered to be UK linked.  The fact that they bother to do this at all tells you a lot about the naked and wholly unashamed greed of their telecoms partners.

If we had a more useful Telecoms regulator rather than one (OfCoN) that I can no longer personally be bothered to even find the energy to respond to the consultations of (since I know they will always simply ignore all logically constructed rational argument about failings in their original proposal and proceed with their plans completely and utterly unmodified just as they have always in done in response to all other "consultations") then one would have thought that blocking access to UK landline numbers from within the UK by UK landline callers might be something that OfconN would want to start an "own initiative investigation" in to.  But no they just couldn't give a damn about the call costs of millions of poxy retail consumers but they undoubtedly would initiate an investigation called for by a large call centre operation on the basis that they were getting an inadequate share of the revenue collected by BT on 0845 calls. :o >:( :(

I find HMRC's extraordinary policy of only bringing in 03 numbers line by line over months and months on end to be totally and utterly unacceptable.  Predictably the Capital Gains Tax line I wanted to ring today (0845 300 0627) was still using an 0845 number and the 0345 alternative said it was not yet in service but probably still charged me 5p for the call none the less (since the call appears to have been terminated on their equipment). >:( >:( >:(

I am quite sure whoever the ripoff Telco is working with HMRC will only agree to change over their highest volume ripoff 0845 call lines to 0845 at the end of the changeover process.  And I bet Summer 2013 some how just gets deferred to Summer 2014 due to unexpected technical issues.

You cannot even call HMRC to make a complaint about this without using an 0845 number and they do not accept written correspondence onlin (despite accepting tax returns by that method for many years) but only in the post with a 50p+stamp!!!!!!

I now await the ususal boring and pointless discourse from SilentCallsVictim about how life will be so much better when we have long and complicated announcements about amounts paid to service providers etc on 084/7 numbers to contend with even though the calls will still cost an absolute fortune just as before and it will still be legal for these disgusting telcos to block access to their UK geographic numbers from within the UK.

Regarding the lack of block on mobile callers I cannot believe they do not have the technology to do this so I can only imagine that the telco has been told that the extra costs for mobile callers are sufficiently outrageous that they cannot be expected to continue to get their revenue share for those calls.  For landline calls they hope to run the argument that 0845 calls are cheaper from a BT landline than out of bundle calls to 01/02/03 numbers in the weekday daytime thanks to BT's deliberate cross subsidised pricing of out of bundle 0845 numbers in the hope of keeping the whole rip off empire going for a while longer. >:( >:( >:(

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 18^th, 2013 at 1:22pm:

it may be worth repeating that efforts to find geo rate alternatives to HMRC 0845 numbers will only be of short term benefit, as all HMRC 0845 numbers will be switched to 03 "by the end of the summer".

SCV,

Can you please quote your source for the above statement re the introduction of 03 numbers by HMRC and also please provide HMRC's definition of "end of summer"? ;) :P

Judging by previous seasonal definitions given by Ofcom on telecoms matters (which always involved rearranging time massively in their favour)  I would imagine that HMRC does not consider that summer starts until June 21st or finishes until September 20th, even though many may traditionally consider the summer to be June 1st to August 31st

As of today's date of May 30th 2013 (which is probably still Spring with summer not starting for either two more days or 23 more days depending on which defining method for summer you use) HMRC's main enquiry line on 0845 300 0627 is still very much the only way to call them from a landline with attempts to call 0345 300 0627 being rejected with the message that the number is "not yet in service".  This is a message which I have probably been charged for as it appears to be being terminated by HMRC's telecoms partner (who will clearly stop at almost nothing to earn more money - do we know exactly who they are?)

I would also note that that it took 6 minutes to reach an adviser when I called around 2 minutes of which was made up of exceedingly lengthy announcements and IVR menus and around 4 minutes of which was further call waiting time after navigating throughb the announcements and menu system.

Calls to its geographic alternative number for this helpline of 0135 535 9022 were being blocked from my landline even using 141 and then 18185 to try and make the source number detectable and try and make the routing path look international.

I was able to get through on my mobile phone to the geographic number.  However whether I am wise to do this is another matter as I only have 150 inclusive mobile minutes per month (these are genuively free with www.ovivomobile.com) and calls beyond that cost me 10p per minute whereas calls from my landline to 0845 with 18185 cost 2p per minute plus 5p connection.

Also can you explain under what internal policy document HMRC has decided it is willing to terminate calls to its geographic number from UK mobiles from not UK landlines.  I do not believe that they do not block mobiles because they do not have the technology to do so.  In my opinion it is a policy decision that we know the 0845 number is very expensive to call from mobiles but if you call us on a landline we can say it is either covered by BT Anytime or only costs 2p per minute (whilst not mentioning BT's iniquitous 14p connection charge or whatever it now stands at).

As HMRC has failed to so far introduce 03 numbers for all their high volume call lines for taxpapers it looks to me like their telco partners are still playing for time and hoping to get away with gouging taxpapers for 0845 call charges for another year or two. :o >:( :'(

Thinking about this issue of landline numbers being blocked to HMRC's 0845 numbers from UK landlines (but not UK mobiles which defeats their own argument that these numbers are only for overseas callers) have none of our doubty stalwarts such as Derrick so far tried taking this as a complaint to their own landline phone provider (eg BT, TalkTalk, PostOffice, Virgin Media etc) and then on to Otelo as the Ombudsman if their fixed line telecoms provider can't provide an explanation as to why they are unable to call the number.

Oh well here goes and I will let you know what happens on my complaint in due course.

Also has no one tried taking this as a complaint to HMRC, reaching formal deadlock with them and then taking it to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman via their MP?  Clearly the PHSO should be able to understand the issue and might have more to say about HMRC selectively blocking calls from UK landlines and not mobiles than  it might have to say on whether it is ethical for HMRC to use 0845 numbers at all.

NGMsGhost wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 10:55am:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 18th, 2013 at 1:22pm: it may be worth repeating that efforts to find geo rate alternatives to HMRC 0845 numbers will only be of short term benefit, as all HMRC 0845 numbers will be switched to 03 "by the end of the summer". SCV, Can you please quote your source for the above statement re the introduction of 03 numbers by HMRC and also please provide HMRC's definition of "end of summer"

The fair telecoms campaign news release provides a number of ways of verifying the announcement in context.

The initial introduction of new 0300 numbers in April went ahead as announced. HMRC has not yet published any schedule for the larger task of swapping the bulk of the 0845 numbers to their 0345 equivalent. HMRC and Ofcom are neither more nor less free than anyone else I know in using vague references to timescales in situations where it is not necessary to specify a particular date in advance. Like every other project, theirs are far more likely to be completed later than intended, rather than earlier.

Happily for HMRC, the silly nonsense of having "international access" geographic alternatives at a different rate will soon be a thing of the past. If the blocking of calls from mobiles has been relaxed, then this does create a silly anomaly. Given the decision to switch to 03, I can see no good reason to retain the block on UK landline calls to "international" numbers whilst this is being completed, unless there are genuine technical reasons for this (which I doubt).

I hope that HMRC will very shortly be in a position to publish more detail, or show actual evidence, of the move to 03. It is unlikely that those who will be carrying out the work have committed to a completion date with a degree of certainty that enables senior HMRC personnel to stake their reputation on it being achieved. Noting the poor reputation of its Chief Executive however, HMRC would benefit from offering some further reassurance that all is on track.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 12:03pm:

Happily for HMRC, the silly nonsense of having "international access" geographic alternatives at a different rate will soon be a thing of the past.

Can you clarify what exactly you mean by this statement?  Are you simply referring to the eventual alleged introduction by HMRC of its 0345 numbers?  Clearly changing website designs and leaflets to show the 0345 number instead of the 0845 number might take a little while.  I am not aware of any technical impediment to HMRC activating the 0345 alternatives to its 0845 numbers that will have been reserved for its use all aliong withing a matter of more than a few days.  Everything else is HMRC's disgusting telco partner trying to hang on to its revenue share for as long as possible.

When I called the 0845 number just not using Post Office Homephone without 18185 I got a long and complicated message from HMRC clearly on their calling equipment (i.e. it was terminated and it was not a telephone network message that the call could not be terminated on this number) saying that this was for international calls only and suggesting I redialled their 0845 number.  I have almost certainly been charged a connection fee of 13p or so and for a 1 minute call for calling this number.

You are being extremely naive, just as you always seem to have been about doctors surgeries, if you actually believe that the 0345 numbers will come in to use by the end of this summer.  No doubt they will then use the excuse of the current Ofcom consultation to have to reconsider matters and delay any change yet again for another two years or so.


Quote:

If the blocking of calls from mobiles has been relaxed, then this does create a silly anomaly.

What is "silly" is that these calls cost a particular fortune from Pay As You Go mobiles so the fact they can call it is surely welcome.  However it is extremely "silly" that this so called "relaxation" as you absurdly choose to all it is not also applicable to UK landline callers.

Please explain to me why you think it is legal or acceptable for the owner of a telephone number on the UK telephone network to only selectively terminate calls from certaining originating call sources?

As usual you seem to accept the basic right of the scammers to continue to scam (which you also do by continuing to engage with the current farcical Ofcom consultation suggesting that further disclosure of the harm is some improvement rather than just pursuing the "ban the whole bloody lot" approach adopted by none other than the EU) unlike I, Derrick, idb, Barbara and the various other true campaigners on this site who have not become part of the thoroughly elitist 2 Man Self Publicising Telecoms Campaign and who also do not express the blood boiling rage at the misuse of 084/7 numbers that the rest of us on this website always seem to have suffered ever since we first encountered it around 10 years ago..

If the 2 Man Self Publicising Telecoms Campaign is in any way connected with this website or this discussion forum please remind me where a poll was taken on this site or amongst its registered members about setting up such a camapign or where the discussion thread about its formation took place?  Also who decided who would become the two people involved in the 2 Man Self Publicising Telecoms Campaign?

People like participating in this discussion forum because issues can be properly discussed in full and the discussion is open to participatin by any forum member and is not a 58 character sound bite decided on unilaterally by only two forum members (one of whom I still do not believe fully and thoroughly supports all of the key objectives of the ww.saynoto0870.com campaign due to his inconsistent, unpredictable and often thoroughly ambiguous views on the matter).

I know where I stand with idb, Derrick and Barbara but I never know where I stand in terms of what will be said next by SilentCallsVictim.  As we know he isn't really an anti 084/7 camapaigner at all but merely has an obsession solely with silent calls (in my experience an extremely trivial problem compared to unwanted manned sales calls despite my longstanding TPS registration) and chargeable calls to GP surgeries.  He has show many times before that he does not have a problem with chargeable covert premium rate calls to customer services operations run by the whole of the private sector and also to some parts of the government sector.

NGMsGhost wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 10:12am:

If we had a more useful Telecoms regulator rather than one (OfCoN) that I can no longer personally be bothered to even find the energy to respond to the consultations of (since I know they will always simply ignore all logically constructed rational argument about failings in their original proposal and proceed with their plans completely and utterly unmodified just as they have always in done in response to all other "consultations") then one would have thought that blocking access to UK landline numbers from within the UK by UK landline callers might be something that OfconN would want to start an "own initiative investigation" in to.  But no they just couldn't give a damn about the call costs of millions of poxy retail consumers but they undoubtedly would initiate an investigation called for by a large call centre operation on the basis that they were getting an inadequate share of the revenue collected by BT on 0845 calls. :o >:( :(

I do not think that the regulator should be engaged in actions against parties who do not wish to take telephone calls from particular callers on certain numbers. Telephone suscribers are free to deal with incoming calls as they see fit.

Where a particular telecommunications provider prevents its customers from calling one or more destinations, then that may be a different matter.

The point with HMRC is that it is the receiving party which has requested the block and I do not see an issue with that. Users of telephones are not, and should not be, compelled to answer them in a particular manner, perhaps within a particular time.



NGMsGhost wrote on May 29^th, 2013 at 10:12am:

I now await the ususal boring and pointless discourse from SilentCallsVictim about how life will be so much better when we have long and complicated announcements about amounts paid to service providers etc on 084/7 numbers to contend with even though the calls will still cost an absolute fortune just as before and it will still be legal for these disgusting telcos to block access to their UK geographic numbers from within the UK.

HMRC has already decided to move away from 0845 numbers and so will not be forced to declare its 2 pence per minute Service Charge, as a result of the reform by Ofcom.

Where a Service Provider chooses to impose a Service Charge and provides an alternative for international callers it is reasonable that it would wish to prevent callers from within the UK from circumventing its charging mechanism.

NGMsGhost wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 11:24am:

Thinking about this issue of landline numbers being blocked to HMRC's 0845 numbers from UK landlines (but not UK mobiles which defeats their own argument that these numbers are only for overseas callers) have none of our doubty stalwarts such as Derrick so far tried taking this as a complaint to their own landline phone provider (eg BT, TalkTalk, PostOffice, Virgin Media etc) and then on to Otelo as the Ombudsman if their fixed line telecoms provider can't provide an explanation as to why they are unable to call the number.

What is the objective in that other than to waste one's time?

The caller's provider is responsible for requesting the receiver's connect the call, which it has done, by your own admission:

NGMsGhost wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 10:55am:

As of today's date of May 30th 2013 […] HMRC's main enquiry line on 0845 300 0627 is still very much the only way to call them from a landline with attempts to call 0345 300 0627 being rejected with the message that the number is "not yet in service".  This is a message which I have probably been charged for as it appears to be being terminated by HMRC's telecoms partner […]

NGMsGhost wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 11:24am:

Also has no one tried taking this as a complaint to HMRC, reaching formal deadlock with them and then taking it to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman via their MP?  Clearly the PHSO should be able to understand the issue and might have more to say about HMRC selectively blocking calls from UK landlines and not mobiles than  it might have to say on whether it is ethical for HMRC to use 0845 numbers at all.

The geographic numbers are intended for use by callers from outside the UK. Therefore if they are used as intended then no one will hear any message telling them that their call is blocked.

Dave wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 2:36pm:

The geographic numbers are intended for use by callers from outside the UK. Therefore if they are used as intended then no one will hear any message telling them that their call is blocked.

I am utterly and totally astounded that anyone associated with this website, least of all its leading moderator and co-founder of fairtelecoms, would ever suggest about an 01, 02 or 03 numbet that "if they are used as intended then no one will hear any message telling them that their call is blocked."

Can you tell me exactly since when it has been intended that 01, 02 or 03 numbers should not be able to be called by callers based in the UK and especially when this premise has been accepted by one of the two founders of FairTelecoms (a campaign that is apparently there to act as a covert endorsement of the continued misuse of 084/7 numbers as long as they dish out a bit of service charge and similar information rather than a campaign dedicated to their complete elimination) that UK callers should not be able to expect to call an 01, 02 or 03 number listed by a company from a UK landline.

Even my own mother who I find difficult to persuade to visit this website (since she seems to feel the numbers are unofficial) has no problem at all using the  so called "international" number for her bank and other card issuers usually listed on the back of the cards.  But you now seem to take the line of the revenue share abusers and are being naughty and doing something we shouldn't do if we call any available alternative 01/02/03 number for a call centre to their 084/7 number????!!!!!! :o :o :o :'( :'( :'(

Your idea that there is no cause for complaint to my fixed line provider, Otelo or Ofcom about the fact that a public body is selectively refusing to connect calls to its 01 number from calls from UK landlines totally beggars belief.  Especially when the same body is willingly connecting calls from UK mobiles.  If the number works the same for everybody calling it regardless of how they call it then there is of course no issue.

NGMsGhost wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 12:19pm:

Please explain to me why you think it is legal or acceptable for the owner of a telephone number on the UK telephone network to only selectively terminate calls from certaining originating call sources?

Answering all calls should not be a legal requirement of having a telephone connection. ;D ;D

Dave wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 2:49pm:

Answering all calls should not be a legal requirement of having a telephone connection. ;D ;D

That is a completely different point from discriminating against calls from UK landlines whilst happily accepting them from UK mobiles and overseas numbers.

Especially as highly advanced call source detertion methods are being used to achieve that filtering.

I wonder how somebody with your kind of defeatist attitude to one of the main objectives of this campaign (that all 084/7 call centres should offer a geographic alternative as per Matt Peacock of Ofcom's original suggestion) is really fit to be the moderator of this website. >:( >:( >:(

Also the way in whcih a public body subject to FOIs and the Parliamentary Ombudsman handles its calls is a very different issue from how a private residential subscriber chooses to do so.

A private residential subscriber can not answer someone's calls based on their name, gender, prettyness, what mood they are in or anything else they like (although some of them they would have to keep to themselves as criteria to avoid prosecution for racism or sexism) but the same is not true of the call centre of a government body obliged to treat all callers equally and answer all such calls during their stated public opening hours.  To discriminate against a UK landline caller on the basis that they have not paid enough to call (which is clealry the basis of the selection) is quite outrageous.

What on earth makes you and SilentCallsVictim think you are fit to misrepresent yourselves as being the public spokespersons of this website or discussion forum (which we have never chosen you to be) when your views are so out of step with most other long term members of this forum. >:( >:( >:( :'( :'( :'(

NGMsGhost wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 2:49pm:

Dave wrote on May 30th, 2013 at 2:36pm: The geographic numbers are intended for use by callers from outside the UK. Therefore if they are used as intended then no one will hear any message telling them that their call is blocked. I am astounded that anyone associated with this website, least of all its leading moderator and co-founder of fairtelecoms, would ever suggest about an 01, 02 or 03 numbet that "if they are used as intended then no one will hear any message telling them that their call is blocked." Can you tell me exactly since when it has been intended that 01, 02 or 03 numbers should not be able to be called by callers based in the UK […]

In my statement of 15:36 quoted above, I should perhaps clarify that the intention I referred to was that of HMRC:


Quote:

The geographic numbers are intended [by HMRC] for use by callers from outside the UK. Therefore if they are used as intended [by HMRC] then no one will hear any message telling them that their call is blocked.

A telephone number is a contact point of a user on the telephone network. In more modern terms this might be thought of as the "address" on the network, just like an IP address on the internet. Thus, it is for the user of the number (the receiving party: in this case, HMRC) to publicise it along with its intended purpose.

The number 01355 359022 is, by HMRC's intention, for use by callers from outside of the UK.

Organisations with phone numbers state their use all the time. A particular company may have one number for sales and another for customer services. Someone with a customer service enquiry ringing the sales number may therefore go through to somewhere that isn't customer services and can't deal with customer service enquiries. The purpose of the organisation stating each number's purpose was to try and stop this from happening.

Dave wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 3:01pm:

Organisations with phone numbers state their use all the time. A particular company may have one number for sales and another for customer services. Someone with a customer service enquiry ringing the sales number may therefore go through to somewhere that isn't customer services and can't deal with customer service enquiries. The purpose of the organisation stating each number's purpose was to try and stop this from happening.

Then why on earth do you spend much of your time on this website listing alternative numbers to the ones that the companies and organisations themselves publicly quote as the ones they want to be used to call them.

By your criteria above this is an outrageous subversion of their right to force the caller to pay whatever rate they want to call them using whatever number they want to specify.

How on earth was it that you had no problem listing my Spanish landline number for Vueling as an alternative to its outrageous 76p/min UK wheelchair booking line with the attitudes you now say you have about companies being free to quote whatever numbers they want.

I think you should consider resigning as moderator with the views you have just expressed.  Increasingly you and the other FairTelecomsist seem to be apologists for the misusers of covert premium rate numbers.  Has there been an "Invasion of The Bodysnatchers" at the offices of both www.saynoto0870.com and www.fairtelecoms.org.uk?

Surely the whole premise of www.saynoto0870.com is that if a company has a geographic alternative number that any customer of the company is quite entitled to use it regardless of how they are making that call.  For you to suggest they can use advanced techniques not available to domestic subscribers to avoid answering such calls from UK landline subscribers (even subscribers who have withheld their number) is really quite unbelievable.

The most they are entitled to do is to close down their geographic number.  For a public sector body dedicated to equal treatment of all callers regardelss of who they are to discriminate against the lowest routing cost method of calling them is surely a major competition and trading standards issue

If you don't think like me on this issue for some unfathomable reason then I suggest you need to get a job working for the NTS Call Centre Industry Opposition or failing that for Ofcom (who are generally found to be secretly batting for that side).

NGMsGhost wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 2:56pm:

… the way in whcih a public body subject to FOIs and the Parliamentary Ombudsman handles its calls is a very different issue from how a private residential subscriber chooses to do so.

There you make the clear and important point.

This is an issue for HMRC, which has taken two steps in the right direction, by announcing (and, we trust, completing) a move to 03 and by withdrawing the block on mobile calls to its "international" numbers. I see no justification for retaining the block on calls from UK landlines.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 3:13pm:

HMRC, which has taken two steps in the right direction, by announcing (and, we trust, completing) a move to 03 and by withdrawing the block on mobile calls to its "international" numbers. I see no justification for retaining the block on calls from UK landlines.

For once I see we are in rare agreement SCV.

I can only assume that Dave has had his coffee spiked by or has otherwise been secretly replaced by a clone created by the NTS revenue share abusing call centre industry. :o :o :o

NGMsGhost wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 2:56pm:

I wonder how somebody with your kind of defeatist attitude to one of the main objectives of this campaign (that all 084/7 call centres should offer a geographic alternative as per Matt Peacock of Ofcom's original suggestion) is really fit to be the moderator of this website. >:( >:( >:(

I most certainly do not believe that users of 084 and 087 numbers should have to offer geographic alternatives.

I see the bone of contention as being that they use these numbers innappropriately in the first place. I do not see consumers being given a choice to avoid a premium charge as being a final solution.



NGMsGhost wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 3:08pm:

Dave wrote on May 30th, 2013 at 3:01pm: Organisations with phone numbers state their use all the time. A particular company may have one number for sales and another for customer services. Someone with a customer service enquiry ringing the sales number may therefore go through to somewhere that isn't customer services and can't deal with customer service enquiries. The purpose of the organisation stating each number's purpose was to try and stop this from happening. Then why on earth do you spend much of your time on this website listing alternative numbers to the ones that the companies and organisations themselves publicly quote as the ones they want to be used to call them. By your criteria above this is an outrageous subversion of their right to force the caller to pay whatever rate they want to call them using whatever number they want to specify.

I work on the alternative numbers part of this site because I believe that many applications of 084 and 087 numbers are unjust as their users would not be able to openly stand by imposition of their Service Charges.

The fact remains that if an organisation publishes one number for one purpose and another for another purpose that this is done for a reason. As far as listing such alternatives in the database, if it works out in practice that a customer service enquiry can go via a cheaper sales number then it is fine to list such a number. This doesn't preclude the company's "right" to change that.



NGMsGhost wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 3:08pm:

How on earth was it that you had no problem listing my Spanish landline number for Vueling as an alternative to its outrageous 76p/min UK wheelchair booking line with the attitudes you now say you have about companies being free to quote whatever numbers they want.

I think that the Vueling 0906 number was an excellent example of misuse of a premium number, particularly as it was apparently the only way for wheelchairs to be booked in.



NGMsGhost wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 3:08pm:

Dave wrote on May 30th, 2013 at 3:01pm: Organisations with phone numbers state their use all the time. A particular company may have one number for sales and another for customer services. Someone with a customer service enquiry ringing the sales number may therefore go through to somewhere that isn't customer services and can't deal with customer service enquiries. The purpose of the organisation stating each number's purpose was to try and stop this from happening. I think you should consider resigning as moderator with the views you have just expressed. […]

That quoted above is my opinion of the facts and on this website users are free to express their opinions.

Why else would an organisation state the purpose of each of its phone numbers other than to try and prevent callers from getting through to departments which can't deal with their calls?



NGMsGhost wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 3:08pm:

Surely the whole premise of www.saynoto0870.com is that if a company has a geographic alternative number that any customer of the company is quite entitled to use it regardless of how they are making that call.  For you to suggest they can use advanced techniques not available to domestic subscribers to avoid answering such calls from UK landline subscribers (even subscribers who have withheld their number) is really quite unbelievable.

Customers are entitled to ring geographic numbers published by SayNoTo0870. Such publication does not, however, make companies more likely to take calls on numbers that were originally published (by those companies) for some other purpose.

What techniques they are using is irrelevant. There is an open market in telecommunications services and therefore consumers have choice as to which to subscribe to which meets their needs.

A domestic telephone user can automatically reject anonymous callers if they wish. Indeed they could, at great cost I should imagine, subscribe to a service that will allow rejection of calls from the UK (just like HMRC), but I think that most people wouldn't be interested.

I fail to see why just because the vast majority of domestic telephone users subscribe to services that do not offer the ability to block calls from UK landlines that big organisations should be prevented from subscribing to such services. This is beginning to sound like a call for renationalisation, where subscribers get no choice and must take the standard offering.

Dave wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 3:57pm:

I see the bone of contention as being that they use these numbers innappropriately in the first place. I do not see consumers being given a choice to avoid a premium charge as being a final solution.

Surely the final solution is the full implementation of the draft European Directive completely banning the use of anything other than standard rated geographic numbers or non geographic numbers charged at that rate for customer service applications.

Until and unless that happens this website surely remains dedicated to listing geographic alternatives to avoid the customer being ripped off in having to deal with a company/body's own incompetence in failing to make all forms of interaction with it available online and/or failing to fully and completely answer all possible customers questions in FAQ documents on their website.  Also at least 25% of the population are still not able to conduct their interactions with organisations on the internet due to computer/web illiteracy.


Quote:

I work on the alternative numbers part of this site because I believe that many applications of 084 and 087 numbers are unjust as their users would not be able to openly stand by imposition of their Service Charges.

Would you like to cite for other forum members any possible just applications of the use of 084 and 087 prefixed phone numbers.  Personally I am not aware of any at all apart from numbers used to provide cheaper means of accessing international or Uk mobile calls without using Voip or an Indirect Access Service (eg 18185 etc).  And such just uses of 084/7 could easily be catered for by a new lower class cost of 09 numbers or use of the unused 06 prefix that could not be mistaken as normal priced numbers.

Also charges to 084 and 087 become ever more unjust as more and more traffic to these numbers shifts over to calls originated from mobiles rather than landlines and most mobile companies refuse to include these calls in call bundles and instead charge rates which are deliberately exploitative and completely disproportionate to their own real additional costs in carrying them.

I find it staggering that somebody who puts so much time in to gathering numbers for and maintaining this website does not have a simple consistent root and branch objection to the existence of all forms of revenue share number.  I personally cannot even support the ones used for sex chat services or to ring lawyers etc as they all rely on the premise of stealth charging and  the user not having to make a decision up front on what they are going to pay.  In my opinion if PRS services exist at all on landlines they should all have PIN number protection and work on a separate Pre Pay advance credit loading basis.


Quote:

The fact remains that if an organisation publishes one number for one purpose and another for another purpose that this is done for a reason.

All the advantages that you cite of different numbers for different functions can be done with geographic numbers.  It does not excuse ripoff hidden premium rate charge numbers as a way to filter calls.  Also with advanced IVR menu systems more than one number for a company's customers for voice calls is becoming less and less necessary.


Quote:

Why else would an organisation state the purpose of each of its phone numbers other than to try and prevent callers from getting through to departments which can't deal with their calls?

Alternative numbers from a company's main switchboard geographic number are usualy quoted where they are 084/7 to exploit revenue share out of customers and to get customers to pay for equipment and outgoing calls it should be paying for.


Quote:

What techniques they are using is irrelevant. There is an open market in telecommunications services and therefore consumers have choice as to which to subscribe to which meets their needs.

What a load of old tosh.  There is anything but an open market in telecoms services.  There is actually an aggressive process of landline subscribers having to cross subsidise investment in higher speed landline broadband, even if they only use the phone. The telcos operate as aggressive cartels who copy minimum connection charges and line price hikes from each other.


Quote:

I fail to see why just because the vast majority of domestic telephone users subscribe to services that do not offer the ability to block calls from UK landlines that big organisations should be prevented from subscribing to such services.

Then you seem to be in the wrong job being a moderator on a site with a user base who generally deplore and despise all forms of ripoff of the ordinary domestic telecoms consumer.

In my opinion any service that lets a company block any whole class of users from calling it is quite wrong
and in order to ensure a properly competitive market in telecoms anyone who has an 01/02 number should not be able to discriminate against particular callers calling it depending whether they have called it directly or called it via an NTS service that has rerouted the call to it.

If companies can do this they can then stop callers using the lowest cost route to call them and that is bad for an open and healthy market in telecoms. You apparently seem to only be worried about ensuring an open and competitive market for corporate users to charge their callers as much as they feel like charging.  :-? :-/

NGMsGhost wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 5:31pm:

Surely the final solution is the full implementation of the draft European Directive completely banning the use of anything other than standard rated geographic numbers or non geographic numbers charged at that rate for customer service applications.

The implementation of the EU Consumer Rights Directive will kick into touch a lot of misusers of 084 and 087 numbers.

We know that a lot of the use of 084 and 087 numbers by organisations is because others are doing it. By the same token, as misusers start to move away, perhaps to 03, awareness within organisations of 03 will grow and using a 084 and 087 numbers will become much less the in-thing to do.



NGMsGhost wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 5:31pm:

Would you like to cite for other forum members any possible just applications of the use of 084 and 087 prefixed phone numbers.  Personally I am not aware of any at all apart from numbers used to provide cheaper means of accessing international or Uk mobile calls without using Voip or an Indirect Access Service (eg 18185 etc).  And such just uses of 084/7 could easily be catered for by a new lower class cost of 09 numbers or use of the unused 06 prefix that could not be mistaken as normal priced numbers.

A valid use is any service which can justify a Service Charge. Services that are in addition to those supplied under contract such as technical support may be able to stand by imposition of Service Charges.

I must say that I am highly surprised to see any suggestion that the 06 range be used for what are currently on 084 and 087. This is especially as 07 is for mobile use; it is totally illogical! :o

If a move were to be proposed, I think that it should be to within the 09 range, case closed. However, I don't think that likely to come about and I don't think that the lower class premium numbers (those under 13 pence per minute) will be moved. For that reason I support the Unbundled Tariff which would be needed for 09 even if this were the only 'premium' prefix.



NGMsGhost wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 5:31pm:

I find it staggering that somebody who puts so much time in to gathering numbers for and maintaining this website does not have a simple consistent root and branch objection to the existence of all forms of revenue share number. […]

I have always viewed the issue as being one that the system is flawed because the premiums are not overt. I do not support the abolition of the ability to collect the premiums.



NGMsGhost wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 5:31pm:

Quote: I fail to see why just because the vast majority of domestic telephone users subscribe to services that do not offer the ability to block calls from UK landlines that big organisations should be prevented from subscribing to such services. If companies can do this they can then stop callers using the lowest cost route to call them and that is bad for an open and healthy market in telecoms. You apparently seem to only be worried about ensuring an open and competitive market for corporate users to charge their callers as much as they feel like charging.  :-? :-/

If a service operates from the subsidy provided by a 084/087 Service Charge then a company should be able to take steps to prevent customers from circumventing its charge-collection mechanism, it having declared the charge. This does not preclude the caller from routing the call at least-cost as far as the Access Charge is concerned.

NGMsGhost wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 12:19pm:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on May 30th, 2013 at 12:03pm: Happily for HMRC, the silly nonsense of having "international access" geographic alternatives at a different rate will soon be a thing of the past. You are being extremely naive, just as you always seem to have been about doctors surgeries, if you actually believe that the 0345 numbers will come in to use by the end of this summer.  No doubt they will then use the excuse of the current Ofcom consultation to have to reconsider matters and delay any change yet again for another two years or so.

There are now new 0300 numbers. The Taxes Helpline, 0845 300 0627, is now 0300 200 3300. NI enquiries number 0845 302 1479 has been replaced with 0300 200 3500.

I will get these listed in the database and clear out the other numbers, some of which are "overseas" alternatives and some of which are numbers that go through to destinations other than the IVRs on the published numbers (e.g. they go through to a switchboard or direct to a particular team). Others may be no longer in service.

Quote:

There are now new 0300 numbers. The Taxes Helpline, 0845 300 0627, is now 0300 200 3300. NI enquiries number 0845 302 1479 has been replaced with 0300 200 3500.

I personally find it incomprehensible why HMRC has chosen to replace the 0845 numbers with 0300 numbers instead of arranging for the appropriate and matching 0345 number to be activated.  Could it be that even an establishment such as the HMRC and Government cannot persuade their telecoms provider to arrange this?

I see no other logical reason.

:o

CJT-80 wrote on Jun 13^th, 2013 at 3:24pm:

I personally find it incomprehensible why HMRC has chosen to replace the 0845 numbers with 0300 numbers instead of arranging for the appropriate and matching 0345 number to be activated.  Could it be that even an establishment such as the HMRC and Government cannot persuade their telecoms provider to arrange this?

They managed it for the Tax Credits helpline.

kasg wrote on Jun 13^th, 2013 at 8:31pm:

CJT-80 wrote on Jun 13th, 2013 at 3:24pm: I personally find it incomprehensible why HMRC has chosen to replace the 0845 numbers with 0300 numbers instead of arranging for the appropriate and matching 0345 number to be activated.  Could it be that even an establishment such as the HMRC and Government cannot persuade their telecoms provider to arrange this? They managed it for the Tax Credits helpline.

… and we have yet to see what will be done with the remainder of the numbers.

There is obviously some benefit in having new memorable 0300 numbers; the difficulties of changing can be relieved by taking the 034 option. I am always pleased to see examples of the latter, as these help to counter arguments about the difficulty of changing. I must however live with my disappointment if HMRC chooses the former.

Without knowing exactly how HMRC balanced the arguments to come to the decision to take the 0300 option in the cases done this week, and those done in April, we are obviously unable to understand the decision. This is a point of some academic interest, especially as migration to the equivalent 034 numbers could have been a little more valuable to those of us who are keen to use HMRC as an example to others. It is however of no material relevance to those who call these numbers.

I am not aware of any evidence to show that the new telephone service provider to HMRC, now perhaps a different division of its previous provider, has in any way impeded the possibility of the 0345 option being taken.

---

I believe that there is an important and very closely related relevant current issue that could be worthy of discussion in this forum, however that is a matter for members to decide. Members may only express opinions on issues which are of concern to them.

The fair telecoms campaign does not seek to represent views expressed in this forum any more or less than any other external source of opinion on the matters it covers. It most certainly does not reflect the apparent balance of priorities reflected by postings. It publishes a news feed covering matters that are not discussed here. We hope that those interested in following the matters covered by the campaign find it to be of value, and of assistance to their personal campaigning efforts. That is the primary reason for putting in the work to maintain its presentation and content.

Although I may express an opinion here, like any other member of this forum, it cannot be for the fair telecoms campaign to suggest or limit the issues which members think worthy of discussion in the forum. If people are happy (or prefer) to get simple news postings from a site supported by advertising, then that must be their free choice. The advertisers rely on those who follow the news to make the postings necessary to attract the hits.

Further to my post in February last year, my wife needed to call HMRC this year.  She dialed the 0300 number and was connected to a recorded message telling her to wait.  She waited and waited.  After about 15 minutes, I looked up last year's paperwork and called that same geographic number from my mobile.  I was immediately connected to a live human.  Therefore if you don't like waiting and it's within your mobile minutes, it's quicker to call the geographic number.

HMRC 0845 lines to be de-commissioned 30 June 2015.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/changes-to-hmrc-telephone-numbers

Ian01 wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 7:29pm:

HMRC 0845 lines to be de-commissioned 30 June 2015.

Makes a lot of sense otherwise they would have to declare a service charge. Hopefully a lot of other organisations will follow suit.

HMRC would have to declare the Service Charge wherever the 0845 numbers are advertised.

They stopped advertising these numbers last year.

For the last six months HMRC 0845 lines have played a free announcement advising of the new 03 number.


That's the stage that DWP has now reached.

If my memory serves me correct, the financial industry is not bound by the present law in regard to 03 numbers.

None customer advice line such as financial and some other services may still use 0845 numbers