SAYNOTO0870.COM - NHS hospitals on 0844 rip-off numbers

idb

Supreme Member

Offline

Posts: 1,499
Miami, Florida, United States
Gender: male

Re: NHS hospitals on 0844 rip-off numbers
Reply #120 - Jun 12^th, 2010 at 3:00pm

sherbert wrote on Jun 12^th, 2010 at 1:47pm:

idb....what happens in Miami and other places in America?

To provide a little context regarding geography and demographics of this area. The statistical area known as Miami–Fort Lauderdale–Pompano Beach Metropolitan Area is around 6000 sq m in size and has a population of around 5.5m. It includes a number of incorporated places and many unincorporated areas. It includes the major cities of Miami, Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach. Most of the population is located within a strip of about 100 mile by 20 mile area along the ocean. For comparison, the administrative area of Greater London is around 600 sq m with a population of 7.5m.

The four local (to me) hospitals all provide unrestricted free parking, either in lots, parking garages or both. They are generally under surveillance, but no entry tickets or similar mechanisms are in place. There would generally be no reason to park at any of these facilities other than to visit the hospital. Another large hospital I have visited, between Fort Lauderdale and Miami, has a vast parking garage that is free. In addition to hospitals, there are many other medical facilities - surgery centers, diagnostic facilities and labs, to name just three. I have yet to visit one that does not have more than adequate free parking facilities.

A quick look at the Miami Mercy hospital web site shows parking charges are $3 per 24h, valet parking of $5 per 24h.

As to the rest of the country, I really have no idea. I suspect that parking in Manhattan is little different to the situation in central London. The only time I've had to park my car in Manhattan, which was not at a hospital, the charge was around $20 to $30 for a couple of hours.

Back to top

As from November 21, 2013, I no longer participate in the forum and am unable to receive private messages.

IP Logged

sherbert Supreme Member Offline Posts: 2,011 Gender:	Re: NHS hospitals on 0844 rip-off numbers Reply #121 - Jun 12^th, 2010 at 10:45pm Interesting, thanks idb
Back to top	IP Logged

loddon

Supreme Member

Offline

Posts: 599
Reading UK
Gender: male

Re: NHS hospitals on 0844 rip-off numbers
Reply #122 - Jun 13^th, 2010 at 7:23am

idb wrote on Jun 12^th, 2010 at 2:16am:

..... my own position is that, generally, the cost of handling everyday general-purpose telephone calls (banks, transportation, utilities etc) should fall on the recipient and not on the originator unless there is some significant added-value element.

Hear Hear idb. This is absolutely my position and what I submitted to Ofcom for their recent consultation "Review of Non-Geographic Calls Services". See my posting #5 here http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1272746772/0

It seems to me that Ofcom is now in a completely compromised position having banned revenue sharing on 0870 numbers but allowing it to continue uncontrolled on 0843/4/5 and 0871/2/3 numbers. Ofcom is utterly illogical and hypocritical in it's regulation of these revenue sharing numbers. Currently it is encouraging and allowing the disgraceful exploitation of the 0870 number whereby phone companies are overcharging, such as Virgin Mobile which has just announced that it will charge 40p per minute for all calls at all times for calls to 0870. How can Ofcom allow this disgusting rip-off??? Angry

In addition Ofcom is allowing Service providers to exploit the public and profiteer shamelessly. In effect Ofcom is supervising, participating in and encouraging an industry wide scam to deceive and rip-off the general public. In doing so it is failing and abrogating its responsibility to regulate the industry in order to protect the public from rip-offs. Angry

If the current Ofcom review of NGN Services fails to stop revenue sharing on 0843/4/5 and 0871/2/3 numbers and to stop overcharging and exploitation then Ofcom will be clearly seen to be a COMPLETE FAILURE!! Angry

Ofcom MUST regulate properly and rule that 0843/4/5 and 0871/2/3 numbers must be charged at same rate as 03 numbers. If companies and organisations require the benefits, as they see them, of "network services" provided by the use of these numbers then the companies must pay for them and not the caller!

We must watch carefully to see what Ofom say in their report on the current Review and what outline proposals they put forward in the next stage which we understand to be commencing in September 2010.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 13^th, 2010 at 6:40pm by loddon »

IP Logged

SilentCallsVictim

Supreme Member

Offline

aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494

Re: NHS hospitals on 0844 rip-off numbers
Reply #123 - Jun 13^th, 2010 at 2:41pm

(I do not make a point of drawing attention to spelling mistakes in other postings (indeed I miss some of my own). I can however recommend the spell checker which is one of the useful features on the Google Toolbar - many other similar tools are available.)

loddon wrote on Jun 13^th, 2010 at 7:23am:

How can Ofcom allow this dusgusting rip-off??? Angry

Ofcom has clearly failed to take the action necessary to address the issues referred to. We agree on that.

I would not go so far as to say that the provisions it has put in place on pricing for calls to 0870 numbers amount to "encouragement of", "participation in" and "supervision of" a scam. I understand that no complaints about breaches of the relevant regulations have been received. I imagine that any member who had identified such a case would have drawn our attention to it in this forum. Furthermore, Ofcom apparently believes that it now holds stronger powers to address issues such as this, than it did when these very weak provisions were introduced. I propose that these be used in this case and others.

Because the present situation makes use of a 0870 number pointless (with both users and callers paying more), one must assume that over time they will disappear. Announcing that they will be changed to be the same as 03 would give them a new lease of life, including through the period before such a revised regulation came into effect.

I take serious issue with those (notably idb) who suggest that it should be for Ofcom or Phonepay Plus to determine what type of call may be subject to a relatively modest surcharge to the benefit of the recipient. Expecting Ofcom to assess every case to see if there is an "added value element" and if the charge incurred by callers is proportionate and proper, might be easy for NHS providers (for whom no charge can be proper) and a few other cases, but would be a nightmare in many others. I do not believe that Ofcom would be able to reject all such applications, as some may suggest it would. I am not even sure where it could find the statutory basis for the exercise of any such regulation.

Ofcom has a duty to all consumers of telephone service, and that includes users of 084/087 numbers. If they can make a case for continuation of this benefit, then I cannot see how Ofcom can deny it, unless it can be shown to be "unfair" in terms that would survive legal challenge. The fundamental issue at present is the lack of transparency of the surcharge incurred by callers. If Ofcom were able to address that, as I propose that it could, then the situation should be able to right itself.

I do not believe that 0871/2/3 should have been classed as PRS under the present regulatory regime. After all the work that was done to achieve this, however, I cannot see how Ofcom could be expected to change its mind, reverse the situation and take a step in a different direction. I regret the fact that some would therefore see whatever measures it does take as being insignificant in the context of what will be determined to be a "COMPLETE FAILURE".

In the present political climate, we can have little hope for additional sweeping regulatory burdens being imposed on any industry. I believe that we should focus on openness and transparency, as I see this as an achievable objective that would resolve many of our concerns. In particular, I believe that it would nail the issue of NHS providers (GPs, Hospitals and others) using revenue sharing 084 numbers, without having to draw Ofcom into a position of partiality between one group of telephone service users and another.

Back to top

@fairtelecoms (tweets)

IP Logged

Dave

Global Moderator

Offline

Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male

Re: NHS hospitals on 0844 rip-off numbers
Reply #124 - Jun 13^th, 2010 at 3:33pm

loddon wrote on Jun 13^th, 2010 at 7:23am:

idb wrote on Jun 12^th, 2010 at 2:16am:

..... my own position is that, generally, the cost of handling everyday general-purpose telephone calls (banks, transportation, utilities etc) should fall on the recipient and not on the originator unless there is some significant added-value element.

Hear Hear idb. This is absolutely my position and what I submitted to Ofcom for their recent consultation "Review of Non-Geographic Calls Services". See my posting #5 here http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1272746772/0

I totally agree with this quote and the quote within it. It is the way in which the telephone market has played out that has allowed these organisations to move to premium numbers without consumers of their services being aware of this fact. I can't see how it can be the telecommunications regulator's job to police what type of services use what type of numbers.

loddon wrote on Jun 13^th, 2010 at 7:23am:

It seems to me that Ofcom is now in a completely compromised position having banned revenue sharing on 0870 numbers but allowing it to continue uncontrolled on 0843/4/5 and 0871/2/3 numbers. Ofcom is utterly illogical and hypocritical in it's regulation of these revenue sharing numbers. Currently it is encouraging and allowing the disgraceful exploitation of the 0870 number whereby phone companies are overcharging, such as Virgin Mobile which has just announced that it will charge 40p per minute for all calls at all times for calls to 0870. How can Ofcom allow this dusgusting rip-off??? Angry

In addition Ofcom is allowing Service providers to exploit the public and profiteer shamelessly. In effect Ofcom is supervising, participating in and encouraging an industry wide scam to deceive and rip-off the general public. In doing so it is failing and abrogating its responsibility to regulate the industry in order to protect the public from rip-offs. Angry

Ofcom as the regulator works within the rules set out and powers given to it. If there is something which it can do that is within its powers then perhaps we need to identify that and not abhore it for something outside its control.

The fact that the likes of Virgin Mobile has increased the cost of calling 0870 numbers when last August it could have reduced them without loosing out seems to me to be a symptom of the market in that there is no natural competitive forces to achieve this. Likewise, most of the fixed line providers that chose not to pass on savings to callers.

loddon wrote on Jun 13^th, 2010 at 7:23am:

If the current Ofcom review of NGN Services fails to stop revenue sharing on 0843/4/5 and 0871/2/3 numbers and to stop overcharging and exploitation then Ofcom will be clearly seen to be a COMPLETE FAILURE!! Angry

Ofcom MUST regulate properly and rule that 0843/4/5 and 0871/2/3 numbers must be charged at same rate as 03 numbers. If companies and organisations require the benefits, as they see them, of "network services" provided by the use of these numbers then the companies must pay for them and not the caller!

As I said previously, there are consumers at both ends of the chain (i.e. callers and receivers are both consumers) and the regulator must act in the interests of both.

On the basis of where we are now, I cannot see how the regulator can be deemed a "complete failure" if it doesn't rule that 0843/4/5 and 0871/2/3 numbers be charged inline with 03 numbers. It must consider the interests of the consumers of those telephone numbers (banks, insurance companies etc) who will loose subsidy of their services or face the cost of migrating to other numbers.

What's more, these numbers have been in existance for over 10 years now and were born by Ofcom's predecessor, Oftel.

The current regulation is known as the NTS Condition and I explained how this came about earlier this month, although I didn't mention it by name. Basically, the said regulation was introduced in 2003 as BT had been found to be a dominent originating provider.

Essentially, it gave the advantage to receiving telcos (and their customers) at the expense of callers (those not with BT). Perhaps the regulator at the time had no other option but to do this. However, I say that it was then (or prior to it) that it started to go wrong and why we are where we are.

Back to top

IP Logged

loddon

Supreme Member

Offline

Posts: 599
Reading UK
Gender: male

Re: NHS hospitals on 0844 rip-off numbers
Reply #125 - Jun 13^th, 2010 at 9:04pm

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jun 13^th, 2010 at 2:41pm:

I would not go so far as to say that the provisions it has put in place on pricing for calls to 0870 numbers amount to "encouragement of", "participation in" and "supervision of" a scam. I understand that no complaints about breaches of the relevant regulations have been received. I imagine that any member who had identified such a case would have drawn our attention to it in this forum.

I thought they had requested responses to a consultation. That they have not received specific complaints does not mean that there is no problem. Surely it is their job as regulator to monitor what is going on. If they took any notice at all of petitions on the Prime Minister's website, articles and comments in the press and media, comments in Parliament about 08 numbers being a "rip-off", the very existence of this website as well as much of the discussion in this Forum they would realise that there is a big problem with 08 Rip-off numbers and action needs to be taken.

Quote:

Because the present situation makes use of a 0870 number pointless (with both users and callers paying more), one must assume that over time they will disappear. Announcing that they will be changed to be the same as 03 would give them a new lease of life, including through the period before such a revised regulation came into effect.

I agree that 0870 numbers are now pointless except for those phone companies that choose to profiteer shamelessly while they still exist -- so Ofcom should do something about a scam on the public.

Quote:

I take serious issue with those (notably idb) who suggest that it should be for Ofcom or Phonepay Plus to determine what type of call may be subject to a relatively modest surcharge to the benefit of the recipient. Expecting Ofcom to assess every case to see if there is an "added value element" and if the charge incurred by callers is proportionate and proper, might be easy for NHS providers (for whom no charge can be proper) and a few other cases, but would be a nightmare in many others. I do not believe that Ofcom would be able to reject all such applications, as some may suggest it would. I am not even sure where it could find the statutory basis for the exercise of any such regulation..

I think that idb may be referring to dial-up internet access as possibly a valid "added value service" and I accept that maybe some provision should be made for such, but I don't pretend to know what. Some sort of pre-call price announcement could be one of the measures required. Surely Ofcom would not have to "assess every case"? Instead it could just define those added value services which are justified and rule out all others. My point is that most of these numbers are used in a way which does not add value for the caller. All the benefit accrues to the user company and therefore it is they who should pay for it as they do with 03 numbers.

Quote:

Ofcom has a duty to all consumers of telephone service, and that includes users of 084/087 numbers. If they can make a case for continuation of this benefit, then I cannot see how Ofcom can deny it, unless it can be shown to be "unfair" in terms that would survive legal challenge. The fundamental issue at present is the lack of transparency of the surcharge incurred by callers. If Ofcom were able to address that, as I propose that it could, then the situation should be able to right itself.

Provision of transparency would not resolve the fundamental issues with these rip-off numbers, the opportunity for scams, the incentivisation towards inefficiency and the fact that the callers are being forced to pay for a service which they are not receiving. The whole concept is fundamentally flawed and deceitful. Most ordinary people don't know why these numbers are so expensive, do not know that they are paying money over to the receiving company and are given no choice in the matter. Why do you think this website is so popular?

Quote:

I do not believe that 0871/2/3 should have been classed as PRS under the present regulatory regime. After all the work that was done to achieve this, however, I cannot see how Ofcom could be expected to change its mind, reverse the situation and take a step in a different direction. I regret the fact that some would therefore see whatever measures it does take as being insignificant in the context of what will be determined to be a "COMPLETE FAILURE".

Ofcom will be a "COMPLETE FAILURE" if it fails to take action to prevent the phone service industry from continuing to rip-off the public. They are having a review so now is their opportunity to put right a long standing wrong and a continuing scam of the British public.

Quote:

In the present political climate, we can have little hope for additional sweeping regulatory burdens being imposed on any industry. I believe that we should focus on openness and transparency, as I see this as an achievable objective that would resolve many of our concerns. In particular, I believe that it would nail the issue of NHS providers (GPs, Hospitals ) using revenue sharing 084 numbers, without having to draw Ofcom into a position of partiality between one group of telephone service users and another.

I am all for openness and transparency and I am not suggesting increased regulatory burdens. I just want to see Ofcom put right a serious wrong.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 14^th, 2010 at 7:12am by Dave »

IP Logged

idb

Supreme Member

Offline

Posts: 1,499
Miami, Florida, United States
Gender: male

Re: NHS hospitals on 0844 rip-off numbers
Reply #126 - Jun 13^th, 2010 at 10:18pm

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jun 13^th, 2010 at 2:41pm:

I take serious issue with those (notably idb) who suggest that it should be for Ofcom or Phonepay Plus to determine what type of call may be subject to a relatively modest surcharge to the benefit of the recipient. Expecting Ofcom to assess every case to see if there is an "added value element" and if the charge incurred by callers is proportionate and proper, might be easy for NHS providers (for whom no charge can be proper) and a few other cases, but would be a nightmare in many others. I do not believe that Ofcom would be able to reject all such applications, as some may suggest it would. I am not even sure where it could find the statutory basis for the exercise of any such regulation.

I'm not sure that I have advocated, at least directly, that either Ofcom or PPP should be the arbiter of a particular class of call and make a determination as to whether there is 'added value'; perhaps I poorly expressed earlier views, or perhaps they were misinterpreted. I come back to my stated position - the additional costs for general purpose calls requiring 'network services' (using a loose term) should be met by the recipient and not by the caller. I qualified my earlier statement using the value added argument. At the moment, and off the top of my head, I cannot offer any suggestion where there would be added value on a general purpose call (banks, utilities, government, transportation), however such possibilities may exist. There are other services, however, that do offer added value, such as dial up internet, fax services, conferencing and perhaps other 'premium rate' services where a low premium could be justified. Such calls may well be outside the scope of wwhat could be referred to as general purpose calls. I accept that for Ofcom, PPP or indeed any regulatory body to define what is 'added value' would be a difficult task, although PPP does, to some degree, already define classes such as chat, adult services and DQ services. One possible conclusion from my position on general purpose calls is that 084 and 087 numbers are simply prohibited. It was pointed out to Ofcom, as if it needed to be explained, that the removal of revenue share / the NTS Condition would simply mean that those using 0870 would shift to 0844 and 0871. Indeed, prior to Ofcom's announcement of the ending of revenue share, many users had already anticipated the outcome and started to use 0844.

We have to go back to basics. It is my belief that the public is fed up with having to pay a premium to make everyday calls, especially when that premium may be close to 30 or so pence per minute. Whilst transparency may also be an issue, I do not think it is the fundamental issue that you state in a later contribution.

There is now an opportunity for the regulator to get this right, at least in the arena of public opinion. If 0800 calls were treated as free (or inclusive from other networks), plus further progress with 03 numbering, then the UK would be left with a system not too dissimilar to the WATS toll-free network over here which functions very well. Revenue sharing could continue for value added services, possibly using the PRS numbering range, regulated by a body that has customer interest as a priority. The current PRS regulator is simply an organ of the industry, and it needs to be axed as it is utterly pointless in terms of providing consumer protection.

Many customers have call bundles, whether through landline or cellphone. Those bundles should permit typical everyday calls. This is, I suggest, a simple position that most would support. Of course, there would be many underlying issues to address, but it is about time the responsibility for network service cost is shifted away from the customer placing the call.

Perhaps I am oversimplifying things, but the thought of paying £4, or $6, for a ten-minute call to a hospital or to a bank is simply preposterous, and cannot be justified.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 13^th, 2010 at 10:24pm by idb »

As from November 21, 2013, I no longer participate in the forum and am unable to receive private messages.

IP Logged

idb

Supreme Member

Offline

Posts: 1,499
Miami, Florida, United States
Gender: male

Re: NHS hospitals on 0844 rip-off numbers
Reply #127 - Jun 13^th, 2010 at 10:37pm

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jun 13^th, 2010 at 2:41pm:

loddon wrote on Jun 13^th, 2010 at 7:23am:

How can Ofcom allow this dusgusting rip-off??? Angry

Ofcom has clearly failed to take the action necessary to address the issues referred to. We agree on that.

I would not go so far as to say that the provisions it has put in place on pricing for calls to 0870 numbers amount to "encouragement of", "participation in" and "supervision of" a scam. I understand that no complaints about breaches of the relevant regulations have been received. I imagine that any member who had identified such a case would have drawn our attention to it in this forum. Furthermore, Ofcom apparently believes that it now holds stronger powers to address issues such as this, than it did when these very weak provisions were introduced. I propose that these be used in this case and others.

loddon's post points out what was predicted by many here and elsewhere, and anticipated by the end users of NTS, namely that the withdrawal of the NTS condition for 0870 would simply shift the problem elsewhere. It is not the number that is the problem, more the concept.

A typical customer is unlikely to complain to Ofcom about a regulation breach, however a typical customer may make many other representations as to the general disgust with the prevailing system through other means already suggested by loddon's contribution.

Back to top

As from November 21, 2013, I no longer participate in the forum and am unable to receive private messages.

IP Logged

loddon

Supreme Member

Offline

Posts: 599
Reading UK
Gender: male

Re: NHS hospitals on 0844 rip-off numbers
Reply #128 - Jun 14^th, 2010 at 5:31am

Dave wrote on Jun 13^th, 2010 at 3:33pm:

loddon wrote on Jun 13^th, 2010 at 7:23am:

idb wrote on Jun 12^th, 2010 at 2:16am:

..... my own position is that, generally, the cost of handling everyday general-purpose telephone calls (banks, transportation, utilities etc) should fall on the recipient and not on the originator unless there is some significant added-value element.

Hear Hear idb. This is absolutely my position and what I submitted to Ofcom for their recent consultation "Review of Non-Geographic Calls Services". See my posting #5 here http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1272746772/0

I totally agree with this quote and the quote within it.

The fact that the likes of Virgin Mobile has increased the cost of calling 0870 numbers when last August it could have reduced them without loosing out seems to me to be a symptom of the market in that there is no natural competitive forces to achieve this. Likewise, most of the fixed line providers that chose not to pass on savings to callers.

As I said previously, there are consumers at both ends of the chain (i.e. callers and receivers are both consumers) and the regulator must act in the interests of both.

On the basis of where we are now, I cannot see how the regulator can be deemed a "complete failure" if it doesn't rule that 0843/4/5 and 0871/2/3 numbers be charged inline with 03 numbers. It must consider the interests of the consumers of those telephone numbers (banks, insurance companies etc) who will loose subsidy of their services or face the cost of migrating to other numbers.

What's more, these numbers have been in existance for over 10 years now and were born by Ofcom's predecessor, Oftel.

The current regulation is known as the NTS Condition and I explained how this came about earlier this month, although I didn't mention it by name. Basically, the said regulation was introduced in 2003 as BT had been found to be a dominent originating provider.

Essentially, it gave the advantage to receiving telcos (and their customers) at the expense of callers (those not with BT). Perhaps the regulator at the time had no other option but to do this. However, I say that it was then (or prior to it) that it started to go wrong and why we are where we are.

Thanks Dave for your explanations and your support, at least in part, of my position that it is the receivers of the benefits of NTS Services who should pay for them and not the callers.

Your point about Virgin Mobile supports my case for the need for Ofcom action. I am a customer of Virgin Mobile and I would not know about this price increase if it were not for the good people of this website bringing it to our attention. Virgin haven't notified me! Angry

Clearly there is a lack of competition to hold down prices so Ofcom need to take action.

I agree that the regulator must act in the interests of both callers and receivers. I feel that under the present regime callers are not being protected from scams.

"Banks, insurance companies etc" are part of the problem and are being allowed to rip-off callers by taking money from them for which there is no legitimate basis as far as I can see. Where in any phone service contracts does it say that a caller must pay part of the cost of a call over to the call receiver? What choice does the caller have to avoid such a charge or to negotiate the cost in order to get a better service for himself? 08 numbers are a rip-off in concept and should be brought into the same charging mechanism and rules as 03 numbers.

Having been in existence for 10 years a rectification of the current scandal is long overdue. The length of time over which a rip-off has been allowed and encouraged is no justification for allowing it to continue.

Your links to the regulations are interesting but I find it difficult to understand what is written. However, I found no reference to revenue sharing and how it is regulated. It is not the job of ordinary phone service users such as me to read and understand all the regs and machinations of the internal workings of the industry. That is why we have Ofcom who are supposed to be acting to protect us!!

Back to top

IP Logged

sherbert

Supreme Member

Offline

Posts: 2,011
Gender: male

Re: NHS hospitals on 0844 rip-off numbers
Reply #129 - Jul 1^st, 2010 at 12:17pm

sherbert wrote on Jun 12^th, 2010 at 11:56am:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jun 12^th, 2010 at 11:14am:

sherbert wrote on Jun 12^th, 2010 at 7:45am:

Perhaps SCV thinks that is acceptable but I don't.

From the way the situation is described, I can see every good reason not to charge patients or visitors for parking at this hospital.

The provision of a mini-bus to the hospital for access from a nearly point which is more accessible by public transport would seem to be essential, especially if perhaps parking charges had to be generally applied to discourage parking by those not using the hospital. This would also be a issue for the local transport authority. I would be very interested to know why the hospital trust decided to charge in this case, and why the mini-bus was stopped. I assume that there is local campaign on the topic. From what I know, I would be delighted to offer my support.

I do however see this as a local issue (perhaps one of many), rather than the basis for a change in general NHS policy on car parking.

Ok, I appreciate I might be guilty of off going off topic on this thread but continuing with the car parking issue, I think the problems really originated when local hospitals were closed by previous governments and this meant patients and visitors had to travel further. I think, rather than a local issue to me, I reckon those folk who do not live in cities would have the same problem as us in this neck of the woods.

SCV.... in answer to your request about why our local shuttle bus ceased operating I refer you to this link, and if you trawl through it all you will probably understand it better than most.

http://www.crawley.gov.uk/stellent/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&ssDocName=INT13...

A small first step. at least we are getting somwhere at last, althought SCV will probably be disgusted.........

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1290954/Trafford-General-Hospital-Englan...

Let us hope other hospitals will take up this splendid example

Back to top

IP Logged

Dave

Global Moderator

Offline

Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male

Re: NHS hospitals on 0844 rip-off numbers
Reply #130 - Jul 1^st, 2010 at 12:34pm

sherbert wrote on Jul 1^st, 2010 at 12:17pm:

A small first step. at least we are getting somwhere at last, althought SCV will probably be disgusted.........

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1290954/Trafford-General-Hospital-Englan...

Let us hope other hospitals will take up this splendid example

This is an excellent example; let us hope that it works. Perhaps this hospital can help others make necessary changes.

In particular, I quote this paragraph from the article:
Quote:

There will be barrier-controlled entry to the public car parks - but patients and visitors will be given an exit pass entitling them to leave the car parks without paying.

Stalwart campaigners on this matter such as sherbert have stayed silent on how they would realise free (to patients and visitors) hospital car parking.

Indeed, perhaps sherbert would like to propose a more appropriate description of "free" hospital parking, as he has long objected to the use of the word "free" with respect to the NHS being "free at the point of need". It is argued that taxpayers pay for the NHS, thus it is not free.

Likewise, "free" carparking is now a reality at this hospital because there is a barrier system in place and cards are issued for this system. Unless the system cost the hospital nothing and those who administer it are giving their time for nothing, then it cannot be said that the carparking is "free". [This last sentence is made directly in response to those who disagree with the use of the word "free" in respect of the NHS.]

Back to top

IP Logged

sherbert

Supreme Member

Offline

Posts: 2,011
Gender: male

Re: NHS hospitals on 0844 rip-off numbers
Reply #131 - Jul 1^st, 2010 at 1:04pm

Dave wrote on Jul 1^st, 2010 at 12:34pm:

[
Indeed, perhaps sherbert would like to propose a more appropriate description of "free" hospital parking, as he has long objected to the use of the word "free" with respect to the NHS being "free at the point of need". It is argued that taxpayers pay for the NHS, thus it is not free.

Likewise, "free" carparking is now a reality at this hospital because there is a barrier system in place and cards are issued for this system. Unless the system cost the hospital nothing and those who administer it are giving their time for nothing, then it cannot be said that the carparking is "free". [This last sentence is made directly in response to those who disagree with the use of the word "free" in respect of the NHS.]

When we are talking about 'free' 0845, 0870 and other such calls with BT, I admit I am one of the first, who always correct this as incorrect and it should be called 'inclusive' as we are paying for the line rental, so it is not 'free'.

Can you Dave or anyone else, can seriously suggest that since hospital car parking charges came in, (not sure when it was but I can well remember when we did not have to pay) that NHS standards have risen? My answer would be a resounding 'no'. So all that money that has been received must have gone on paying the ridiculous sums of money that is being paid to the Chief Execetives, and their staff and also to NHS quangos. The new government wants these grossly over inflated salaries reduced and to abolish the many quangos, therefore the money that is going to be saved in these areas will be saved and will not have to be funded by (if they were) hospital car parking charges.

As we are paying the NHS through NI and other taxes, then the same word ('inclusive') should apply. So we are still paying for the car parks through our contributions. and the system of operating the barrier system, which will probably be automatic will cost peanuts compared to the sums that are going to be saved, that I have outlined above.

(Money will also be saved on the salaries of the guys who go round looking for out of time tickets and posting penalty notices on the wind screens.)

So, what I am saying is, the level of care in the hospitals will not be reduced by this fall in income, any more that the level of care rose when it was introduced.

I shall still campaign to have these 'taxes on the sick' abolished

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 1^st, 2010 at 1:17pm by sherbert »

IP Logged

SilentCallsVictim

Supreme Member

Offline

aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494

Re: NHS hospitals on 0844 rip-off numbers
Reply #132 - Jul 1^st, 2010 at 1:41pm

sherbert wrote on Jul 1^st, 2010 at 12:17pm:

A small first step. at least we are getting somwhere at last, althought SCV will probably be disgusted.........

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1290954/Trafford-General-Hospital-Englan...

Let us hope other hospitals will take up this splendid example

No disgust at all.

A familiar contributor added a comment to the Daily Mail article at 00:38 this morning.

If the hospital has got the spaces it needs for patients and visitors and can make the scheme work well without too much red tape and without significant abuse, then I am delighted and hope that the wisdom necessary to achieve this can be passed on to others.

I am astonished at the view of the Taxpayers' Alliance, which apparently joins the Daily Mail in proposing that taxpayers should pay for all NHS patients and visitors to have free parking at all NHS hospitals. Given the enormous cost that this would involve for hospitals that simply do not currently have the land, this seems a rather odd position for both to take.

(In respoinse to further comments)

On the semantics, "free parking" means parking without paying a fee. The problem arises because land is not free (in a broader sense) and it is not without cost to operate a system that only permits certain people to use a car park.

In due course it might be interesting to discover the going rate for the car park exit tokens if they are handed out "free" to visitors and patients without them having to prove that they have genuine business at the hospital and that they parked in the car park! I hope that I am wrong, but if it is as simple as is suggested, then these tokens may well have a market price.

I believe it to be generally accepted that NHS treatment has improved considerably over recent years, although not always in direct proportion to the additional amounts of money being put into it. That is the basic law of diminishing returns, which applies anywhere, although any enterprise of its size is bound to be horribly inefficient.

Where proper provision, without charge, is made to provide transport or parking for those unable to use public transport, I will acknowledge a campaign against a tax on car users. Only if those holding, or entitled to, blue badges are required to pay parking fees will I acknowledge hospital car park charges as a tax on the sick. (The other example I would accept as a tax on the sick is where the charges are in excess of the normal rate for parking in the area, although it is hard to think why anyone would pay such a charge).

In conclusion, I celebrate what Trafford has been able to achieve - I am happy to assume that all has been thought through properly. I urge all others to follow this good example, if they can.

Back to top

@fairtelecoms (tweets)

IP Logged

sherbert

Supreme Member

Offline

Posts: 2,011
Gender: male

Re: NHS hospitals on 0844 rip-off numbers
Reply #133 - Jul 1^st, 2010 at 3:08pm

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jul 1^st, 2010 at 1:41pm:

I believe it to be generally accepted that NHS treatment has improved considerably over recent years, although not always in direct proportion to the additional amounts of money being put into it. That is the basic law of diminishing returns, which applies anywhere, although any enterprise of its size is bound to be horribly inefficient.

Could well be up in London SCV but in my neck of the woods it is in a terrible state. Nearest hospitals are 20 miles away (I have mentioned this elsewehre on this thread) and ambulances are queing up outside the hospitals to off load their human cargo. Interestingly the time that the patient is kept waiting outside the hospital does not count towards the target time in sorting out the patient. Once in the hospital patients are left on trollies anywhere where there is a space and recently there was a old lady left on a comode for the best part of an hour and she was not even in a ward. If it was not for her relatives sorting her out, she would probably still be there. She had xrays and they found nothing wrong and two weeks later another xray was performed after she had been discharged and indeed she had broken her femur. This is just one example, (I wont bore you with all the others) and if indeed the NHS has improved as you suggest, I shudder to think what it was like before.

Back to top

IP Logged

sherbert

Supreme Member

Offline

Posts: 2,011
Gender: male

Re: NHS hospitals on 0844 rip-off numbers
Reply #134 - Jul 21^st, 2010 at 8:14pm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7900828/Hospitals-can-continue-to-c...; Angry

Hospitals can continue to charge for parking: Department of Health
Hospital car parking charges are to remain under the new Coalition government – reversing Labour's pledge to scrap them.

By Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor

The previous government said car parking charges for in-patients and their friends and relatives would be abolished within three years.

Hospitals make a total of more than £100 million from charging for parking on their sites, money which the trust keeps.

The charges have been condemned by many as a 'tax on the sick' and cancer patients in particular are hit hard because of the repeated trips to hospital often necessary for chemotherapy.

However the NHS must save between £15 billion and £20 billion over the next four years and some experts had questioned whether this was the right time to abolish the charges.

Parking charges have been abolished in Scotland and are due to be phased out in Wales from next year.

Now under the new Coalition government hospitals will continue to be able to charge as ministers are reluctant to intervene in the 'day-to-day' running of the NHS.

A spokesman for the Department of Health said: "We can't be in favour of decentralisation, and greater autonomy for NHS and then tell them how to run their car parking.

"But it's clear that where parking charges are making it difficult for staff to do their jobs properly, where they are damaging patients access to services, or where they are stopping friends and relatives from visiting — they are too high, and hospital trusts have a responsibility to look at those factors.

"We will publish a response to the NHS Car Parking Consultation in September."

Back to top

IP Logged