Abbey seem to have moved from 0845 to 05511 numbers. Are we moving to another set of numbers to confuse and con the public or are these ok. I tried looking them up on the internet without joy, I did a search here without joy and when I phoned BT they didn't know and have promised to phone me back.

I'm sure the experts here will know 

Most 05511 numbers are charged as g21 (4.89p daytime,2p evening, 1.18p weekend)/min. However, 055 100 numbers are charged in band g6, 5p/min at all times. Is this what Abbey are using?
http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumer/consumerProducts/pdf/SpecialisedN...

055 numbers have been around for a long time. They were originally intended for use by companies with VoIP phones, but with the rapid evolution of services, these are usually provided on standard numbers with no need for special numbers.

This does indeed look like a new strategy to confuse and rip off their customers.

Can we clear this up.

My searches show all local Abbey branches with the memorable number 0845 7654321. There is the usual smattering of 0800, 0845 and 0870 numbers for various services but no reference I can find to 05511 on the public website.

Do we know any anyone who uses 055 numbers for contact with the public?

If so, can we establish whether users benefit from revenue sharing?

If so, do they provide honest price declarations?

Is there simply an issue with some call providers charging excess rates without the justification of revenue sharing?

If there is something to focus on here, then it is important that it is included in the scope of campaigning efforts, but this must be done with clarity and accuracy.

The branch I was dealing with had an 0845 number, which they were crossing thru on their stationery and replacing with hand written 0511 number. I assumed because they were replacing the 0845 number with the 05511 number.

Dave, you say they will be treated as inclusive in packages (by BT) and if the case I'm pleased. However when I enquired for clarification from BT they at first didn't know and then called me back to confirm that the number would be charged at 5p/min and was not included in packages (specifically in my case Option 3).

Call centre numbers I use for them are 0800 (or 0845 which I don't call obviously).

I stand ready to be corrected, but I wonder if we have a subsidiary issue raising its head here.

Many large organisations find that most telephone enquiries are better handled by specialist representatives in a call centre than by interupting the routine of staff at branches.

If this works, which it often does not, it should be more cost effective for the company and also deliver better service to most callers. There are however occassions where one needs to make contact with someone at a branch, e.g. to follow-up on points discussed at a meeting with the person who will recall the discussion or to make particular arrangements that are outside the scope of a central service operation. This can be achieved by qualified publication of "local" numbers, passing calls through or arranging call backs.

It appears that Abbey branches have 05511 numbers, which they release out of frustration with the central call centre, whereas the company prefers all calls to be channelled through 0845 765 4321.

We all hate the process of going through a call centre, however we are equally frustrated by speaking to a branch representative who has neither the breadth of knowledge nor the authority to deal with our enquiry. With counter staff serving a visible queue of customers, back office staff not sufficiently skilled to handle enquiries and management with their own concerns, there is often nobody left to answer the telephone anyway. That is not to say that waiting times at call centres are not often excessive.


There are positive exceptions at both ends, perhaps more commonly at branches, where staff are geared to a closer engagement with customers. The nature of their work however often leaves them little time to dedicate to dealing with customers by telephone.

My view is that one should campaign for higher standards from call centres, rather than trying to resist their continuing growth. For various reasons (some of which have passed into history) non-geographic numbers commend themselves for use by call centres. Now that 03 allows the connection between NGNs and revenue sharing (and the consequent excess call charges) to be broken, adoption of 03 numbers is one way in which this improvement in standards can be achieved. There are many others.

I wait to hear more from those researching 055 in general.

All BT's charges are published on its Price List:

Identify which charge band 055114 numbers are in (g21):

http://www.serviceview.bt.com/list/public/current/Call_Charges_boo/0025_d0e5.htm...

BT Unlimited Anytime Calling Plan (BT Together Option 3) pricing info is here:

http://www.serviceview.bt.com/list/public/current/Cust_Opts_Res_boo/3210_d0e314....

Table 1a identifies the cost of UK geographical calls and the note under it says that these rates also apply to g21 numbers.


Incidently, all 03 numbers are also in band g21:

http://www.serviceview.bt.com/list/public/current/Call_Charges_boo/FrameworkImpl...

Thanks Dave. So to clarify I have no complaint re charging and the number will be foc with BT Option 3 package and my only complaint is the complete pigs ear of a telephone number system that results in staff at Virgin and BT to quote the wrong information even after they take advice before doing so.

If I have to trust anyone regarding the facts it is more likely to be you.

Today, after enquiring with Virgin the cost of calling 005511430*** they had no info on these numbers, but offered to contact Abbey directly, with Abbey claiming it can charge what it likes for it's 005511430*** numbers  Abbey describing their number as "national"   ... that tells me it's equivalent to at least 0870 rate (9.79p per min from 01/10/09, from a Virgin landline) - but, I will not be calling Abbey on that number to find out!  ... in this instance I'll decline to partake of the "Abbey habit"

Hope this is of use to someone