Despite all the negative publicity about them  this local authority seems to think its a good idea to switch to 0843 from a geographical number for its customer services centre. Number is 0843 104 77 88

http://www.ryeandbattleobserver.co.uk/news/local/now-is-the-time-to-sign-up-for-garden-waste-collection-1-5688656

They previously operated via a geographical number
01424 787000,and I assume it still works.
http://www.rother.gov.uk/article/125/Contact-Us

Note. I have now had a chance to check both numbers and they go through to same switch.

Looks like my detailed reply to this has been deleted along with everything else posted after 20:19 on 26th November 2013.

Ian G wrote on Nov 28^th, 2013 at 10:25pm:

Looks like my detailed reply to this has been deleted along with everything else posted after 20:19 on 26th November 2013.

I'm guessing they had to recover from a backup as the site was down for a couple of days.

Wish I could remember what I'd written!   I think it was to CJT-80 about it being a good idea, as a resident, to email ALL the councillors in Rother District explaining why the change to 0843 is so wrong; I explained that councillors generally rubber stamp the recommendations of officers, frequently without question, officers often will just believe what they are told by the telephone provider.   Councillors want to be popular & re-elected so if they are told how bad this move is they might begin to question it, particularly if the local press is made aware that ALL councillors are now aware of the facts and costs to callers!

Good Morning,

Clearly something has happened with the site after the forum was unavailable....

I will find the e-mails I had from RDC and re post them later...

I was basically trying to find out the best wording to use to complain to RDC about introducing this 084 number.

I am not even sure they are replacing the existing 01424 number, or if it is just for certain departments.

It's a bit unclear.  :-?

CJT-80, I refer to my reply above; if you explain that 0843 is expensive, excluded from call packages for both landlines & mobiles, will deter residents from calling the council, that other methods of contact are not always convenient or appropriate, generally all the reasons why we all hate 084 numbers.  Keep it not too technical (remember councillors are lay people from many different backgrounds with widely varying levels of understanding), but emphasise the fact that many poorer and vulnerable residents will now only have mobiles which have particularly high call costs.  I would also draw reference to the NHS not allowing these numbers for GPs (I know they haven't all gone but they should have!) the CRD may not apply to councils but it's an indication of official disapproval of these numbers which should apply to the public sector.   There have also been many official reports over the years (cannot remember chapter & verse but others may) which have declared such numbers inappropriate.   Hope this helps & good luck!

Thank you for the suggestions...

I was trying to locate the original e-mails I have had from RDC regarding this situation... here they are:

Thank you for your email.
The decision to use an 08 number is based on answering as many of our customer calls as we can.  The phone system we had in place was unable to deal with peaks in call volume effectively.  The introduction of an 0843 number, with the option to press 1 etc., is the most effective way for us to distribute calls to more members of staff and to ensure calls are answered as swiftly as possible. The telephone system is a complement to our web and postal services, therefore we feel confident our customers have a real choice if they do not wish to contact us by phone.
Call costs are in line with other landline numbers but can be higher when called from a mobile network. Please see attached link to Ofcom's leaflet regarding call costs http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/files/2010/01/numbering.pdf alternatively you can view the gov.uk's website https://www.gov.uk/call-charges. (20/11/2013)
I trust this answers your question. Please do not hesitate to contact customerservices@rother.gov.uk should you have any further queries.

Additionally:

Please be assured we are reviewing our telephony as a whole not just the delivery. No decision has been made nor is there a view which option is best, therefore your comments are very helpful.

Kind Regards


The second of the e-mails was after I pointed out that 084  numbers are not included in calling plans and are considerably more expensive to call then a standard rate 01/02/03 number.

For now I guess there is not much more I can do except encourage others to voice their complaints IF it turns out the number is being introduced to replace the existing 01424 number.... (so far it's only appeared on a leaflet discussing waste collection)

I shall keep you all posted with any developments.

:)

Thanks; I note they say it's the "most effective way" for them[b][/b]to deal with a large volume of calls!  As a public sector organisation, they should be putting residents and callers first.  I looked on their website & it currently only seems to show the geo no, there is also a comprehensive list of councillors with email contact details AND their home addresses; trust me, it does concentrate the mind if councillors receive personal contact - my husband was both a senior officer for many years & then a councillor!

Barbara wrote on Nov 29^th, 2013 at 6:52pm:

Thanks; I note they say it's the "most effective way" for themto deal with a large volume of calls!  As a public sector organisation, they should be putting residents and callers first.  I looked on their website & it currently only seems to show the geo no, there is also a comprehensive list of councillors with email contact details AND their home addresses; trust me, it does concentrate the mind if councillors receive personal contact - my husband was both a senior officer for many years & then a councillor!

Thanks Barbara for this, I have found two local councillors and I will look to e-mail them and explain my annoyance/displeasure and ask them what they can do in order to make sure this does not become a permanent resolution....

Barbara wrote on Nov 29^th, 2013 at 6:52pm:

Thanks; I note they say it's the "most effective way" for them[b][/b]to deal with a large volume of calls!  As a public sector organisation, they should be putting residents and callers first.

The mistake they make is in confusing two separate issues. I must urge fellow campaigners not to fall into this trap, unless they genuinely oppose the expense involved in deploying more advanced telephony features.

The benefits that are referred to may well require the features of a non-geographic number. These must be paid for. The important question is over who pays.

With a 084 number they are paid for by callers, rather than residents (as taxpayers) in general. In some cases (where specific services are involved), there may be an argument in favour of this approach. Even if this may be justified however, there is the additional issue of the (often excessive) Access Charges imposed by the caller's telephone service provider. This, on top of exclusion from inclusive call packages, makes this method of funding telephone services highly inefficient. It also introduces equality issues as the tendency is for the least well-off to incur the highest Access Charges.

The benefits can however be obtained at the cost of the taxpayer (residents), with no "leakage" of additional revenue to the telephone companies. This is done by choosing 03 or "virtual geographic" numbers, so that calls are charged at the geographic rate. The latter are actually "non-geographic", in that they are not terminated at the local telephone exchange, but they are available on most ranges that begin with geographic area codes, and so may appear to be local.


Having calls dealt with more effectively (given that this is a genuine benefit) is obviously a benefit to both callers and residents. Choosing how to fund the system places the interests of the two groups (insofar as they can be separated) in conflict - which is to come first?

The fair telecoms campaign firmly holds the view that (in most cases) geographic rate numbers must be used - placing callers before residents. There may be exceptional cases where significant additional expense to callers can be justified, enabling imposition of a Service Charge. There may also be cases where significant additional expense to residents can be justified, enabling use of a 080 number.


This council, along with many other users of 084 numbers, has got the issues confused (if we are to believe the statement, which I see as being a credible statement of confused thinking). It has placed residents (taxpayers) first, thinking that the increased cost to callers is purely as a result of unnecessary Access Charges imposed by telephone companies. This disregards the Service Charge, as the primary cause of the increased call cost, and the reality that most landline callers do not pay penalty charges for calling geographic numbers outside the terms of their Call Plan.


These comments are part of a longstanding effort to assist those who support the general objectives of the fair telecoms campaign in understanding the true nature of the situation. I am well aware that many find postings such as this unwelcome in this forum, as they directly challenge comments made by more experienced contributors.

I present the situation as I understand it to be true, and will be happy to engage in serious discussion of the factual basis for my understanding. Exchanges of opinion on policy issues are a separate matter - e.g. should residents or callers pay for enhanced telephone features, or should they be deployed at all.

If we are to work together as a campaigning body, opposing fallacious and incomplete arguments in favour of use of 084 numbers, I see it as important that we do not ourselves present arguments that are fallacious or incomplete.

That's an important point.

Putting some rough and ready numbers on it...

When the user selects an 03 number, they will be paying perhaps 1p/min for the non-geographic call features they require and the caller will pay exactly the same as whatever they pay for calling an 01 or 02 number. In most cases the call will be inclusive - and this applies to calls from landlines and mobiles.

If the user selects an 084 number, the user will generally be paying nothing to run the number. However callers will be paying a Service Charge of between 2p and 7p/min (2p/min on 0845 number) which as well as paying for the non-geographic call features, also allows the call recipient and the non-geographic number provider to make a bit of extra money as well as allowing the caller's telephone company to increase their profit by adding up to 39p/min on top of the call price.

It is far better for all tax payers to be contributing towards the 1p/min running costs of an 03 number than for individual callers to be asked to pay up to 41p/min more for the call, as happens when an 084 number is used instead.

Ofcom's "unbundled tariffs" system will force the caller's phone company to declare their markup or Access Charge for calling 084 numbers and this is likely to lead to a significant reduction in this fee, especially on calls made from mobiles. The new system will also force users of 084 numbers to declare their Service Charge. It will be clear that callers are paying costs that should be met by the call recipient. It is generally improper for callers to be paying a Service Charge to access a service already paid for by taxation.

SCV knows I have issues with his view on this (I believe that the use of 084/087, particularly by public bodies and any other organisation as a point of contact for customers is never justified no matter how the cost is shown).  One point that has been completely missed is that residents in a local council area pay council tax to enable their council to provide services, I think few would argue this would include an adequate telephone service for them to make contact, the cost of an 03 number would, therefore, be part & parcel of service provision in the same way as any other service.   To charge a "premium" by any name is unacceptable and unjustified as it is charging the caller for a service for which they have already paid.

Yes. I am in agreement with you.

In exposing the component parts of the call price for 084 numbers, the "unbundled tariff" system will make it clear that using an 084 number is, in many cases, the wrong solution and it will force users to change to an 03 number.

There are many users of these numbers that think the issue is purely that calls to 084 numbers cost more from a mobile than from a landline. While that is often true, it is not the main issue. These users are focussing on the wrong part of the problem and often use it as an excuse for inaction.

The real issue is that calls to 084, 087 and 09 numbers generally cost more than calls to 01, 02 and 03 numbers from landlines and from mobiles and this is because there is a Service Charge to pay when calling an 084, 087 or 09 number. The number user does have control over this - by changing to a number that does not impose a Service Charge on callers.

Take this price list as an example:

Calls to 01, 02 and 03 numbers - 15p/min
Calls to 0845 numbers - 40p/min

When an 0845 number is called, callers may assume the called party is benefitting to the tune of 25p/min and will be confused when the called party says they "do not make a profit from the number". On the other hand, the called party may be of the opinion that all of the extra 25p/min is merely profiteering by the phone company. Indeed, many users of 084 numbers often try to make an excuse that "call prices from mobile phones are out of their control".

The "unbundled tariff" will expose the reality of who benefits, and by how much.

Scenario 1:

Calls to 01, 02 and 03 numbers - 15p/min
Access Charge on calls to 0845 numbers - 38p/min
and
Service Charge on calls to 0845 numbers - 2p/min

Here, it can be seen that while the caller's phone company is profiteering to the tune of 23p/min on calls to 0845 numbers (which may cause Ofcom to start asking questions of this provider), the fact that the called party is benefitting from the 2p/min Service Charge becomes clear.

Scenario 2:

Calls to 01, 02 and 03 numbers - 15p/min
Access Charge on calls to 0845 numbers - 15p/min
and
Service Charge on calls to 0845 numbers - 2p/min

Here it can be seen that calls to 0845 numbers cost 2p/min more than calls to 01, 02 and 03 numbers purely because of the imposition of a Service Charge.

The "unbundled tariffs" system is not adding additional fees to the cost of calling non-geographic numbers, it is merely breaking existing call costs into their component parts based on who benefits from the revenue.

Once users are required to declare the Service Charge, indeed once users recognise they will soon be required to declare it, it will become a lot easier to force users to stop levying this charge on callers - by changing to an 03 number.

Good Afternoon All,

Firstly I am not 100% sure RDC have fully switched to an 084 number... it was used for a specific purpose in the leaflet we received, and their website continues to publish the 01424 contact number.

Secondly I strongly oppose the use of 084/087 numbers for contacting Councils, Government Departments, Doctor's Surgeries, Hospitals or ANY services that are connected with these organisations.  Why do I strongly oppose these? Simply because we already pay for them in Taxes and National Insurance contributions, and by paying again for them we are effectively being taxed by telephone!

The County council for this area which is East Sussex County Council (ESCC) introduced 03 numbers instead of their original 08 numbers.  If a council or organisation requires the "enhanced" facilities offered by Non Geographic Numbers such as ESCC does then they should foot the bill for these features, NOT the residents/tax payers.

I intend, when time permits, to raise a complaint to RDC of their use of this number and question why it was implemented with NO consultation of it's residents.

I appreciate times are tough for councils and business' alike but why should we have to pay extra in phone calls just to supplement their "bottom line"......

Barbara wrote on Nov 30^th, 2013 at 12:08pm:

SCV knows I have issues with his view on this (I believe that the use of 084/087, particularly by public bodies and any other organisation as a point of contact for customers is never justified no matter how the cost is shown).  One point that has been completely missed is that residents in a local council area pay council tax to enable their council to provide services, I think few would argue this would include an adequate telephone service for them to make contact, the cost of an 03 number would, therefore, be part & parcel of service provision in the same way as any other service.   To charge a "premium" by any name is unacceptable and unjustified as it is charging the caller for a service for which they have already paid.

I think that the only point of difference between us is that I present the potential for imposition of a Service Charge as a valid concept. I do so largely to make the point that this is a positive decision which has been made by those who choose a 084 number, at their discretion. It is therefore for them to recognise that this charge cannot be justified and to take the responsibility for reversing its effect by changing their number.

It is the justification that is demanded by clear declaration of a Service Charge which is the important point, not simply the declaration itself. Reference to third party charges, as at present, does not express the direct accountability for the Service Charge - this is what makes the difference.


We hope that forthcoming Cabinet Office guidance will firmly steer local authorities away from use of 084 numbers. The provisions of the regulations arising from the Consumer Rights Directive will compel businesses to abandon them for enquiries and complaints. The Financial Services sector is exempted from these provisions, but RBS / NatWest has already set an example and others are likely to follow. (See the fair telecoms news feed.)

All of this is prompted by an awareness of what is coming from Ofcom, but bites ahead of it.

I am aware that some are calling for Ofcom's statutory powers to be increased and duties extended, so that it be required and enabled to control choices made by users of telephone services - i.e. to forbid use of 084/087/09 numbers by certain bodies. This will certainly not happen in the near future and I believe that we are having enough success to make this (unlikely) move unnecessary.


With direct reference to the quoted comment, I am pleased to see recognition that the cost of using the advanced facilities has to be carried by residents, rather than callers. Seeking to avoid additional cost falling on the Council budget, by use of a 084 number, is not acceptable.

I have found in the past a letter on the subject from a local resident to the local newspaper editor eg Bexhill Times can get results if they run with it. :)