Dave wrote on Nov 27^th, 2011 at 11:32am:

If that is precisely what she was told, then the statement is true. Neither Daisy Group, nor the number itself, are covered by any NHS regulations.

The practice is in breach of its NHS contract because it failed to recognise that many of those who call it will pay more than the cost of an equivalent call to a geographic number, when it chose to adopt this particular number. The responsibility to make this determination falls on the practice, not Daisy; it is for the PCT to ensure that the practice is in compliance with its contract.

bazzerfewi wrote on Nov 27^th, 2011 at 1:05pm:

You are correct, there is no good reason why there could not have been some agreement with NEG, at is was at the time, to only offer 03 numbers to GPs and migrate all of its existing GP customers onto 03. The bad reason is probably that NEG would not have been prepared to enter into such an agreement on terms that the BMA would have thought acceptable.

After making such a terrible mistake in 2004, by prohibiting specific number ranges, but getting it wrong, the DH was reluctant to be specific about what could, should and could not be done. The contract does however address migration to 03 in non-specific terms.

Those with non-geographic numbers in place on 1 April 2010 are required to "take all reasonable steps" including considering "varying the terms of their arrangement" so as to ensure that "persons will not pay any more to make relevant calls to the practice than they would to make equivalent calls to a geographical number". Without being specific, but noting that it is standard industry practice for telephone service providers to allow migration to 03 at any point during the term of an arrangement, without penalty, this amounts to saying that they must attempt to migrate to 03, if they require, or are obliged to use, a non-geographic number.

The problem is that, because this is so fiercely opposed by both the BMA GPC and NEG / Daisy, it has not been considered appropriate to make it clear that migration to 03 must be considered. If Daisy were to deviate from standard industry practice by refusing migration to 03 on reasonable terms, then there is nothing that could be done about the GPs under the terms of their NHS contract - because this cannot demand unreasonable costs to be incurred under the terms of pre-existing arrangements.

I am assuming that the BMA is opposed to migration, because this would cause its members to incur the absurdly high costs of the Surgery Line solution in full. Likewise I assume that Daisy is opposed because this would make its solution appear too expensive. In both cases, they think it better that callers / patients should subsidise the cost of the Surgery Line system. It is however fair to point out that they both argue that the telephone companies should not pass on the cost of the revenue share to callers; they even pretend that in some cases the cost is not passed on. I totally disagree - and so does Ofcom.

In the case of new Surgery Line customers, the situation is more straightforward - a 03 number would pass the test which practices have to make, a 084 number is bound to fail.


One reason for the confusion is that fact that when this was being done in 2009, Ofcom was considering what to do about 0845 numbers. One of the options being considered was treating them in the same way as 03 numbers - as it had recently (almost) done with 0870. If Ofcom had gone ahead in this way (in fact it has now specifically rejected this option) then 0845 numbers would have passed the test from the date when the changes came into effect.

I have some sympathy with the DH's reluctance to be specific in drafting contracts and regulations. The problem is that those who have to implement and enforce the terms need assistance in understanding what they mean in the world as it exists. When authoritative assistance is only offered by those who are opposed to the intentions of the contract revisions, then it can be of little surprise that implementation is ineffective.

If it helps anyone you can avoid the Lightwater Surgery (Surrey) number 0844 8151127 by calling 0870 1114539

Not perfect I know but it will help many on BT and other plans.

Attention must be drawn to the Earley Neighbourhood Action Group (NAG) which has succeeded in getting local newspapers and local businesses to publish local numbers for a surgery in the area.



The NAG has been on this one for a while, trying to get Brookside Group Practice to move into compliance with the NHS and stop charging patients via its 0844 Business Rate number.

Indeed, it was made absolutely clear to both reporters that the source of the geo numbers was this website.   Well done to saynoto0870, and especially to Dave, for excavating them !! 

The local newspaper story was about this practice, the PCT, the alternative numbers and the Neighbourhood Action Group.

There is also a big national news story - SayNoTo0870 has leapt out from the bits and bytes of a website to take to the streets. I understand that its spirit is to be found on Police notice boards, alongside "wanted" posters, and coming from the pulpit of churches, alongside other messages.

A polite, and enthusiastically welcomed, poster campaign may suit the people of Berkshire, but each community should be encouraged to do whatever suits it best to SAY NO. I am not sure that I could condone spray-painting an alternative number on the outside walls of a surgery, in areas where perhaps that would be the normal way of spreading a message to the local community, but it is for each to act in its own way.

My understanding is that if you have a personal or company loss incure a loss the correct route is through the county court. if on the other hand the action being taken is of a crimminal nature then this is a case for Magistrates Court.