The Public Accounts Committee, chaired by Margaret Hodge MP, has published its report today on use of premium phone numbers by government Departments.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/news/customer-service-lines-report/

The Rt Hon Margaret Hodge MP today said:

“Customers of Government services should be able to contact those services easily and cheaply. Charging customers higher rates by making them use 0845 or other high rate numbers is not acceptable, especially when the customers are often vulnerable people.   ................................................

There should be low cost alternatives for all services used by a lot of vulnerable people." 

Whilst we welcome most of what is said in this report we find it astonishing that she should only call for alternative numbers to be made available.    The question that should be asked:--- "WHY SHOULD GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS USE PREMIUM NUMBERS AT ALL ???"

The answer is that there is no valid reason at all, so Mrs Hodge MP should be demanding an outright BAN on PREMIUM NUMBERS such as 0844, 0843 and 0845.

Our doughty campaigner David Hickson appeared on Sky News today at 12.30 to discuss the Public Accounts Committee Report.   Again David spoke well but missed an opportunity to make an important point.    The newscaster asked "where does the premium money go to ?   To the organisation called or to the phone companies?"   

David talked about the revenue accruing to the called organisation in some form or other but failed to point out that MOST of the cost accrues as revenue to the phone companies who scandalously overcharge unethically for calls to these numbers.

We need to be clear about this; most of the premium cost of 084 and 087 numbers is charged by the phone companies, soon to be called the Access Charge under Ofcom proposals, whilst the much smaller portion of the cost goes in some form to the organisation called and will be designated the Service Charge under the Ofcom proposals.     We must not concentrate on the Service Charge and omit the major problem of the Access Charge in furthering our arguments.   It is the Access Charge which is the main element in the "Telephone Tax".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24888608


Quote:

More than 100 million calls by the public to government departments were charged at a premium rate, costing people an estimated £56m, MPs said....... Target 'poorest' Half of the lines in Whitehall which charge premium rates "serve the poorest" in society, it said, and there ought to be "low-cost alternatives" for vulnerable people. There was also criticism that calls to government departments took too long to answer. "Customers of government services should be able to contact those services easily and cheaply," Mrs Hodge, who chairs the committee, said. "Charging customers higher rates by making them use 0845 or other high-rate numbers is not acceptable, especially when the customers are often vulnerable people. "Customers spent an estimated £56m on calls using higher rate numbers, from the lines run by the Department for Work and Pensions, to helplines for victim support and the Bereavement Service and the inquiries and complaints line of the Student Loans Company." According to the communications regulator Ofcom, 0843 and 0844 calls cost between 1p and 13p a minute from landlines and, typically, between 15p and 41p a minute from mobile phones. Calls to 0845 numbers cost between 1p and 10.5p a minute from landlines, and from 12p to 41p from mobiles while for 0870 codes, the rates are 2p to 10p and 21p to 41p. The Department for Work and Pensions, which gets more than a 100 million calls from the public a year, has said it will offer a choice between 0845 and 0345 numbers to enable callers to choose the line which is cheaper for them....

Re the quote in post no2, this also misses the very important point when talking about call costs, some as low as 1p per minute, that calls to these numbers are excluded[b][/b]from call packages so the comparison is with 0p per call & Xp per minute + connection charge!

Does anybody have a copy or transcript of the Sky item?

The Daily Mail has reported on this Committee Report, as its main front page story in some editions, and it is on the Mail Online website with the following headings :---

"How the State makes a killing out of premium phone lines: MPs' outrage as 'vulnerable' taxpayers calling for help rack up a £56million bill
Almost two thirds of calls fielded by the Government are premium rate
Victim Support, HMRC and the Department for Work and Pensions use them
Almost half the total was generated while callers waste their time on hold
MPs have demanded that new rules are established to protect callers

By Geri Peev and Matt Chorley"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2498592/How-State-makes-killing-premium-phone-lines-MPs-outrage-vulnerable-taxpayers-calling-help-rack-56million-bill.html?login



There are currently 292 readers comments under the story.  All the comments I have seen are strongly critical of the unjustified use of 084 type numbers -- Ofcom should tale note yet again!   A typical comment is this :---

"ferretman, Bristol, United Kingdom, 1 hour ago
Rip off Britain - it never ends.Some government departments have said they"are investigating" various alternatives to the premium rate numbers. What a load of BS! They set up these premium rate lines easily enough so I am sure that they can cancel them. ....."

This topic continues to generate anger and disgust from the public whenever the opportunity to comment arises.    Ofcom should take note and modify their deeply flawed proposals for non-geographic numbers.   It is clear that the public don't want them and see no value in them.    Ofcom need to recognise that their disingenuous suggestion (claimed finding from their own research) that there is a DEMAND for these non-geo numbers from the public is untrue and Ofcom should change their proposals from introducing access and service charges to instead rule that any additional charges above the cost of a geographic number must be charged to the user of the number.

It is clear that the public hold government and organisations which use these numbers and the telephone industry in contempt and demand that the whole problem is dealt with by a radical change.

The Daily Mail quotes the Student Loans Company which uses the numbers, saying that "doing away with them would cost it £1million in (lost) revenue."

We have made the point many times before :---

For any company to generate £1million in revenue the callers must pay anywhere between £5 million and £25million in their call costs.    Callers using mobiles will be paying up to 41p per minute for their calls out of which the "company" will receive a mere 2p.    Where does the rest of the money go, you may ask?????    The answer is it goes to the Phone Service Industry, companies such as EE, O2, Vodaphone .... all ripping-off the Great British Public with excessive charges.     Ofcom should eliminate this scandal.

The Daily Mail headline should have addressed the major scandal behind this story as follows:---

"How the Phone Service Industry makes a killing out of premium phone lines:"

These numbers have been used by government for years & years, stories have been all over the media, MP's have been lobbied yet it was,(is),allowed to continue, so we now have the Public Accounts Committee joining the debate, but when is someone actually going to put a stop on them?


.

309 comments now on that Mail Online piece on the Link shown on a previous post.

It is expected that the Public Accounts Committee Report will be discussed on "You and Yours" on BBC Radio 4 tomorrow at 12.04pm.

"The Department for Work and Pensions, which gets more than a 100 million calls from the public a year, has said it will offer a choice between 0845 and 0345 numbers to enable callers to choose the line which is cheaper for them."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24888608

When will this happen then ?

I have just read the report in regard to expensive 08 numbers and they have quoted different call rates.

Correct me if I am wrong but they make no mention of the connection charges.

In some cases isn't the connection charge upto 0.15p virgin for example are due to increase connnection charges.

Surely the connection charge is a big issue, and to this end all numbers to public services must start 03 or 0800 for it to have any real impact.

bigjohn wrote on Nov 14^th, 2013 at 6:05am:

… When will this happen then ?

I believe that an announcement will be made within the next month.

I also suspect (and will demand if not) that the 03 numbers will be presented as the "primary" number, with the 0845 "alternative" noted as being for use only by those in the perverse situation where it is cheaper.

bazzerfewi wrote on Nov 14^th, 2013 at 7:32am:

… all numbers to public services must start 03 or 0800 for it to have any real impact.

See the recommendation below the third conclusion from the committee on this page:


Quote:

… ensure that 03 numbers are available for all government telephone lines within 6 to 12 months, prioritising any which predominantly serve vulnerable and low-income groups

The justification for possibly retaining 084 numbers as alternatives is a problem that will be addressed in the coming weeks, as the sinister reason for this (which is not in itself truly a "government" issue) needs to be exposed.

bazzerfewi wrote on Nov 14^th, 2013 at 7:32am:

I have just read the report in regard to expensive 08 numbers and they have quoted different call rates. Correct me if I am wrong but they make no mention of the connection charges. In some cases isn't the connection charge upto 0.15p virgin for example are due to increase connnection charges. Surely the connection charge is a big issue, and to this end all numbers to public services must start 03 or 0800 for it to have any real impact.

The connection charge is payable for 01/02/03 numbers if not in a bundle, and not everyone has bundles, so I don't see it as a big issue as most people will know there is a connection fee to pay.

.

BBC Radio 4 "You and Yours" has just broadcast today (@12.25) its story on the report by the Public Accounts Committee, reporter Natalie .....

They gave an example of a lady who had an elderly relative in hospital and one phone call cost over £15.   Clearly this was to an 070 number and the Hospital trust claimed that it was "Government Policy at that time ..." to install these 070 numbers, but now patients are free to use their mobile phones if they wish.

Theodore Spyrou Chief Executive of the Helplines Partnership was interviewed but I was unable to understand what the purpose was or what message he was trying to impart.   :-/   
He seemed to be saying that the helplines industry was promoting industry standards, but I could not tell if he was for or against 084/7 rip-off numbers.   :-?

I thought there is a connection charge set by the provider for all calls except 0800 and numbers included in call bundles

derrick wrote on Nov 14^th, 2013 at 11:45am:

The connection charge is payable for 01/02/03 numbers if not in a bundle, and not everyone has bundles, so I don't see it as a big issue as most people will know there is a connection fee to pay.

There are a few landline users with providers who do not base their tariffs on calls to 01/02/03 numbers being inclusive, and I am not sure that this odd bunch do pay call connection charges.

The normal cost of a normal call is zero - normal calls are normally covered by the standard monthly charge for telephone service (assuming the the correct tariff has been selected). The call setup fee can represent a significant component of the cost of a call to an "ab-normal" (e.g. 084) number from a landline.

---

After some delay, the fair telecoms campaign news feed now contains images of the two newspaper front pages which drew so much attention to this issue on Monday, 11 November. The full content of the Sun coverage can also be viewed. Links to other media items will be available there shortly.

(P.S. The version of the news feed viewer linked to above is in beta test - any feedback (general.enquiries@fairtelecoms.org.uk?subject=newsfeed) would be welcome.)

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 15^th, 2013 at 8:38am:

derrick wrote on Nov 14th, 2013 at 11:45am: The connection charge is payable for 01/02/03 numbers if not in a bundle, and not everyone has bundles, so I don't see it as a big issue as most people will know there is a connection fee to pay. There are a few landline users with providers who do not base their tariffs on calls to 01/02/03 numbers being inclusive, and I am not sure that this odd bunch do pay call connection charges. The normal cost of a normal call is zero - normal calls are normally covered by the standard monthly charge for telephone service (assuming the the correct tariff has been selected). The call setup fee can represent a significant component of the cost of a call to an "ab-normal" (e.g. 084) number from a landline.

I do not know of any "providers who do not base their tariffs on calls to 01/02/03 numbers being inclusive", if someone has a package the normal base one includes weekend calls, so calling outside of the package,(or if there is a provider that just does landline rental, then all calls),will incur a connection charge and a ppm.

I was with BT until very recently, weekend only package, I would have paid a connection charge had I dialed a number,(excluding freephone), outside this period.

I am now with Primus, evening and weekend, if I call a number, (excluding freephone), outside these times I will be charged a connection fee, I am not one of an "odd bunch" and resent the implication, plenty of people do not wish to have a 24/7 package as they make very few or no daytime calls!

.

derrick wrote on Nov 15^th, 2013 at 10:54am:

… I am not one of an "odd bunch" and resent the implication, plenty of people do not wish to have a 24/7 package as they make very few or no daytime calls!

Indeed, you are not one of those who is used to paying call connection fees on calls to normal numbers - that was my point in response to that made in #14. For most people, call connection fees are only a feature of calls to "ab-normal" numbers. That is why they need to be highlighted when giving an indication of call costs for these numbers. I believe that call connection charges should not be dismissed as being something one expects to pay.

(The "odd bunch" I referred to was those who deliberately choose a tariff which involves paying a call connection charge on calls to "normal" numbers.)

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 15^th, 2013 at 2:11pm:

derrick wrote on Nov 15th, 2013 at 10:54am: … I am not one of an "odd bunch" and resent the implication, plenty of people do not wish to have a 24/7 package as they make very few or no daytime calls! Indeed, you are not one of those who is used to paying call connection fees on calls to normal numbers - that was my point in response to that made in #14. For most people, call connection fees are only a feature of calls to "ab-normal" numbers. That is why they need to be highlighted when giving an indication of call costs for these numbers. I believe that call connection charges should not be dismissed as being something one expects to pay. (The "odd bunch" I referred to was those who deliberately choose a tariff which involves paying a call connection charge on calls to "normal" numbers.)

But my reply was to post #11 where the poster was making a point about conn charges not being displayed to public service numbers, my reply was to say all calls outside a package attract a conn charge, (obviously  not freephone), so not a big issue as most,(all), callers should realise a conn charge exists on these calls, especially as they mentioned calls beginning 03,as these are the same as 01/02 numbers.

Why are they "abnormal numbers? If 01/02/03 these are normal numbers, as are some numbers beginning 0845/0870/0800, and they will attract a conn charge if dialed outside a package, (not 0800), ergo not a big issue!

.

derrick wrote on Nov 15^th, 2013 at 10:54am:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 15th, 2013 at 8:38am: [quote author=derrick link=1384174454/14#14 date=1384429558] The connection charge is payable for 01/02/03 numbers if not in a bundle, and not everyone has bundles, so I don't see it as a big issue as most people will know there is a connection fee to pay. There are a few landline users with providers who do not base their tariffs on calls to 01/02/03 numbers being inclusive, and I am not sure that this odd bunch do pay call connection charges. The normal cost of a normal call is zero - normal calls are normally covered by the standard monthly charge for telephone service (assuming the the correct tariff has been selected). The call setup fee can represent a significant component of the cost of a call to an "ab-normal" (e.g. 084) number from a landline.

I am with Virgin and I have discontinued the calls unlimited package. We all have Virgin Mobiles with minute bundles.

loddon wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 1:03pm:

Our doughty campaigner David Hickson appeared on Sky News today at 12.30 to discuss the Public Accounts Committee Report.   Again David spoke well but missed an opportunity to make an important point.    The newscaster asked "where does the premium money go to ?   To the organisation called or to the phone companies?"    David talked about the revenue accruing to the called organisation in some form or other but failed to point out that MOST of the cost accrues as revenue to the phone companies who scandalously overcharge unethically for calls to these numbers.

I am now happily in a position to quote the question and answer referred to, verbatim:


Quote:

Anna Jones: Is it true that some of that money will get through to the government, some of it to the companies that operate the phone lines? DH: It does precisely that; on a 0845 number 2p a minute applies as a discount to the government on the cost of using those numbers; and that's at the expense of callers.

The interview was focussed on the behaviour of the government and the action it needs to take. The important issue of the secondary rip-off perpetrated by telephone companies when greedy service providers present them with the opportunity to further inflate the cost would have been covered if the issue of the extent of the cost to callers had been raised. A review of the fair telecoms campaign news feed will show that other media interviews have raised that point and the impact of the Access Charge is covered.



loddon wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 1:03pm:

We must not concentrate on the Service Charge and omit the major problem of the Access Charge in furthering our arguments.

The Public Accounts Committee report and the news coverage that day concentrated on the Service Charge. Measures to make the Access Charge transparent are coming, but in the meantime, I believe that our campaigning efforts are best focussed on eliminating improper use of 084 numbers, thereby removing both the Service Charge and the Access Charge from calls where neither should be incurred.

With the government firmly in the dock and the Prime Minister being reported as expressing concern, it would not have been politic to imply that the PM had little or nothing to worry about, because the major fault lies with the telephone companies.


It is also worth noting that discussing the current level of Access Charge can become complex with 0845 numbers, because it is highly variable between providers. e.g. for BT it is effectively negative, for Vodafone PAYG it is less than the charge for a call to a geographic rate number, for Virgin Media it is a combination of an irregular connection charge plus a per minute rate rate greater than that for 0844 numbers, for EE it can be 43p per minute!

The "Telephone Tax" imposed by government on callers is constant (for each type of number) and improper. A variable charge imposed by telephone companies on their customers cannot be described as a "tax".

The guidance document on the use of 08 numbers in the public sector  has now been published and can be read here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/268785/hmg-guidance-customer-service-lines.pdf

It appears that we have government departments on the run, they propose to ban premium rate numbers for the benefit enquirer not before time :) :) http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/phones/2013/12/government-launches-premium-rate-number-ban :)

bazzerfewi wrote on Dec 27^th, 2013 at 1:36pm:

It appears that we have government departments on the run, they propose to ban premium rate numbers for the benefit enquirer not before time :) :) http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/phones/2013/12/government-launches-premium-rate-number-ban  :)

Not just for benefit enquirers your notice if you follow the link i posted above your post. ;)

The Man from Which is still not Happy !

"Richard Lloyd, executive director of consumer group Which?, said: "This guidance is a step in the right direction but it's disappointing no deadline has been set and public bodies will still be able to use expensive 0845 numbers."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25523465

bigjohn wrote on Dec 27^th, 2013 at 6:37pm:

The Man from Which is still not Happy !

I fear this apparent unhappiness derives from not truly understanding the reality of the situation.

Alternatively he is waiting to proclaim a victory for Which? when the actual plans of the particular departments are announced shortly.