I thank you for your reply of 7/3/06.

Although clearly a pro forma response designed to deal with Stage 1 of a complaint, I have studied it carefully.  I have come to the conclusion that Essex County Council personnel based their decision to introduce 0845 telephone numbers only on 'business' telephone usage rates and failed to realise or take into account the fact that the vast majority of the people who need to call are members of the public - who pay residential telephone rates.

I note that your opening paragraph includes the assertion that, "....but this decision was determined on the basis of consistency and fairness for all the people of Essex from wherever their call is made...." and you then attempt to justify that statement by stating later that, "There are only five areas in Essex that have a local call rate to Colchester if using the geographical 01206 numbers.  These are Clacton, Braintree, Maldon and Sudbury and Colchester itself."  The latter, of course, is factually incorrect - and has been for getting on for 2 years now - so the former is demonstrably untrue.  In any case, I am one of 'the people of Essex' and the decision is not fair to me because (see below) it will result in extra cost to me when I telephone my Council.

In case you are genuinely unaware, your 'five areas' statement ceased to be true when, on 1st July 2004, BT eliminated the differentiation between local and national calls (i.e. calls to geographic numbers - STD codes starting 01 or 02) for residential customers and standardised their charges for such calls at 3p per minute peak (and 5.5p for up to an hour off peak).  In other words, the historical designations 'local call' and 'long distance call' disappeared when BT decided to charge for all such calls identically.

Hence, using my BT residential landline, I can now call a Chelmsford, Exeter, Glasgow, Belfast or London (or any other) UK 01 or 02 number for 3p per minute during the day.  I could also make such a call (with a standard time allowance of 15 minutes) from a telephone box for the standard minimum charge of 30p.

Because I manage my limited resources carefully, I use an alternative provider instead of BT for most of my calls and so such a 15 minute (or 4 hour for that matter) call would cost me a total of 3p (not 3p per minute).  However, because their prefixes are non-geographical, I have to pay BT rates to make 08xx calls and, in the case of one of your 0845 numbers, it would therefore cost me fifteen times as much, 45p, for that same 15 minute call.

You clearly have not considered the extent to which you are penalising less-fortunate members of our society (those who cannot afford a home telephone and who have to make their few calls from telephone boxes) by changing to exclusive use of 0845 numbers.  As I explained above, the minimum telephone box charge of 30p pays for a 15 minute call to an 01 or 02 number.  To an 0845 number though, that same 30p pays the connection charge (10p) and two 'connected time' periods, each of only 55 seconds.  That same 15 minute call would, therefore, cost £1.74

I fail to see how publishing geographic numbers with equal prominence would 'cause confusion for customers' as you put it.  On the contrary, it would offer callers a choice.  Ofcom, for example, initially did just that and, now, have ceased using non-geographical numbers completely.

I am also particularly concerned that you chose to state in your reply, "The cost of a call to a 0845 number is charged at the local rate from anywhere in the UK if called from a BT line" when use of such terminology is specifically contrary to the Central Office of Information's advice on the subject.  In case you are not in possession of such advice, I append two relevant extracts therefrom hereunder:

3.53  0845 in particular has been known as ‘local rate’ – however with increased competition in the marketplace and resultant changes in tariff structures, these rates will often be in excess of normal local rates that citizens might be charged on their package. 0845 (and 0844) costs through phone boxes and some mobile tariffs can also be expensive to the citizen and this should also be considered.

3.57  You should always clearly communicate the cost to customers on publicity materials (see paragraph 3.75) and this should not use any misleading terms such as ‘local’, ‘national rate’, etc.

The Advertising Standards Authority is of the same opinion and has offered the same advice - http://www.asa.org.uk/cap/advice_online/ad_alerts/Advertising+0845+and+087+numbe...

Indeed, one enlightened local Council has recently made the decision to abolish its 0845 numbers after they were introduced by staff apparently without the facts being considered by/receiving the approval of Councillors.  http://www.molevalley.gov.uk/media/pdf/1/s/Council_Minutes_190705.pdf (see Page 5 & 6).

I have no knowledge as to whether Essex County Councillors were consulted regarding the introduction of 0845 numbers but, because it is clear whoever made the decision regarding their introduction did so on wrong and/or based upon incomplete information, I ask that you put the full facts to Councillors at the very earliest opportunity so that, in the public interest and to ensure "fairness for all the people of Essex from wherever their call is made", they can consider reverting to geographical numbers as a matter of urgency.

Good reply but ask for it to be considered at Stage 2 of their complaints handling process by a Council Director rather than by a customer services drone at Stage 1 who will always be programmed to make up pathetic excuses to try to justify the cynical actions of their customer services centre.  I would also suggest that you say that if you do not get responses which consider the points you have made directly and indiviudally (rather than sending a stock out of date propaganda based response from their telecoms supplier) that you intend to take matters on to the Local Government Ombudsman after reaching deadlock withe their Chief Executive at Stage 3 of the complaints handling procedure.

Although the document title contains the word "Guidance" this was published by the Cabinet Office and therefore carries significant weight. It could effectively be taken as "policy".

Indeed, non-compliance with its contents must be explained in writing to the Minister for Civil Society, Nick Hurd.

The Guidance covers central government departments and their agencies and contractors.

The reach of this Cabinet Office guidance does not directly extend to local government. However, there is a pretty large hint as to what is wanted in the wording of the introduction...

"The guidance is aimed at central government departments, public bodies that fall within their organisational hierarchy and also services provided by external private partners on behalf of the parent department. It may also be helpful for other bodies across the public sector landscape."

In the six months since publication, the 084 and 087 lines that have been changed over to new 030 and 034 numbers account for more than 90% of all the expensive calls made to government.

I'd say the guidance has been pretty effective. DWP, Environment Agency, Student Loans Company, Student Awards Agency for Scotland, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Police Service of Northern Ireland, NHS24, Lancashire County Council, Devon County Council, Rochdale Borough Council, Calderdale Council and others have made the switch.

Laggards include Somerset, Hampshire, Essex and a few others.

It will not be long before Ofcom starts making more noise about the "unbundled tariff" system. Once the requirement to declare a Service Charge becomes more widely known, remaining government departments and agencies and the various councils and authorities will have to move at greater speed to fix this issue.