have just received this from Environment Agency:

I have had a reply to the FOI to the Environment Agency, it is as follows:

Dear Mr **********

Thank you for your email regarding Floodline. I am sorry you feel cause to complain about the Floodline number being charged at the local rate.   

Part of the reason for using a non-geographical number is that we operate our Floodline contact centres over a number of sites.  By using an 0845 number we can re-route incoming calls more easily and have more flexibility when managing calls from our customers.  This is especially important during flood events when there are high call volumes.   

0845 numbers are not reliant on a geographic location and therefore not at risk of local failures.  It is also a safeguard if there is a fault on certain networks and lines.   

The local rate number used for Floodline* is provided to the public at the lowest cost possible.  The Environment Agency does not profit from the number and pays additional charges to cover the difference in cost between a local and a national rate call for our customers.   

Some telecommunication service providers and mobile networks block calls to 0800 numbers. This would reduce public accessibility to the service making it highly unsuitable for Floodline.

Despite calls to the Floodline service being charged at local rate, The Environment Agency does provide a free flood warning service (Floodline Warnings Direct) which contacts the public with advance warning of flooding via landline, mobile, text, email fax and pager.

Yours sincerely

Liz Hills

Flood Warning Systems Support Officer

Flood Warning & Information Services Team

Hope this answers a few questions re the 0845 number

James Bond

Wow, Liz clearly has NO idea about how the telephone systems work...

Sadly Liz's understanding is (at best) long out of date.

The "advantage" of a "local rate" is not available with 03, because there is no "local rate" any more. Given that the 03 number itself and the ultimate point of termination was at a location not susceptible to flooding then the intended advantage (the lowest rate for all callers) would indeed be provided.

As stated elsewhere however, the cost of a 03xx number, without the benefit of revenue sharing, would mean that less money was available for projects or that taxpayers would have to provide a bigger budget.

Should those who are not at risk of flooding pay more tax for the sake of those who are? The reaction to suggestions of general increases to insurance premiums following recent incidents could give some of the answer to this question.