Source: Kenilworth Weekly News

http://www.kenilworthweeklynews.co.uk/letters-to-the-editor/Why-calling-the-coun...

Why calling the council will be better and easier

Published Date: 31 July 2008
By Andrew Jones, Warwick District Council

WARWICK District Council recognises that customers are often confused about which council to contact for which council service: the district council or Warwickshire County Council (Courier, last week).

Working together, the two councils are trying to remove the confusion by joining up their customer service centres. To do this the district council is considering changing from its current 01926 number to an 0845 code used by the county council.

Making a ten-minute daytime call to the 0845 number will be cheaper for most customers and will be of particular benefit to those who have an out-of-area code. However, the council does recognise that for some BT customers on an 'anytime' plan and for Sky and Virgin customers, the call will be marginally more expensive.

The 65p charge for Sky and Virgin users referred to in last week's article compares to the current charge of 47p. As 99 per cent of callers are dealt with within five minutes, the increased cost for these customers will be minimal. The district council believes that as all enquiries will be able to be dealt with via a single number, the change is positive for the vast majority of local residents.

Finally the district council wishes to make clear that a final decision has yet to be made as council officers are still examining all the options. - Andrew Jones, head of revenues and customer services, Warwick District Council.
>>

irrelevant wrote on Aug 6^th, 2008 at 12:21am:

They are simply out of date.

These comments reflect the position before "local rate" was abolished for most residential callers and before the 03xx range was introduced to provide the obvious option for this type of situation.

To be fair, we are a particularly well-informed bunch. I find that most people still think that "local rate" is a term with some meaning and are unaware of 03xx.

I would urge campaigners to politely bring all of those involved in this decision up-to-date.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 6^th, 2008 at 1:11am:


And how long ago was that.  More than three years ago.

Anyone making these kind of statements at a council is clearly mindlessly handing out lies put in from of them by unscrupulous telcos like Windsor Telecom and Network Europe Group and should be sacked for basic dereliction of duty in properly checking out the competence of their suppliers.

It is the members of the Cabinet who carry the can for checking that the facts they and their staff give out are true.

I still find it utterly staggering how many cretinous councils have been conned in to switching to 084 and 087 prefixed numbers.

Anyone living in one of these council areas would be well advised to follow the official council complaints procedure through to deadlock with its Chief Executive and then pursue the matter further at that stage with the Local Government Ombudsman.

See www.lgo.org.uk

It would be very interesting to see a test decision by the Local Government Ombudsman about a council switching to use of an 084 or 087 number, especially for those councils that are also telling lies to the effect that it is no more than the cost of a local phone call.............

Unfortunately I see that the LGO Advice Team still lists an 0845 number to reach them though at www.lgo.org.uk, even though at www.lgo.org.uk/contact.htm they then also list a geographic alternative alongside the 0845 number.  It seems yet another Ombudsman who is clueless about the use of telephone numbers.  I note that I still await the response of my my complaint of several weeks ago to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman about their use of an 0845 Contact Centre number.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 10^th, 2008 at 11:27pm:


No they won't because Council Tax Payers are also in the main service users of one sort or another.  That is precisely why the vast majority of councils (especially the vast majority of borough and district councils compared to county or unitary councils who are the main 084/7 using offenders percentage wise) have not switched to using 084/7 prefixed numbers.  The argument you are pursuing is a bit like that of those daft councillors who say that Council Tax payers would always rather see vast rises in car park charges than an increase in Council Tax whilst ignoring the fact that many Council Tax payers are also motorists who have to pay the exorbitant fees to park in the car parks.  Not to mention the regressive nature of such flat rate charges on those on lower incomes.

Your argument is a bit like saying that doctors who want to maximise available funding for their practice will always use 0844 numbers.

Sometimes I wonder if you ever check for the internal logical consistency of your own arguments before you spring to make another post in the forum SCV.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 11^th, 2008 at 12:36am:


Deliberate and systematic deceipt of the technologically illiterate by unscrupulous shysters in the telecoms industry is at the root of the problem.  Although behind that is the shocking incompetence and ineffectiveness of the so called UK telecoms regulator that in turn has made that commercial duplicity and double dealing possible.

None of this excuses the duty of councillors as intelligent lay people to see through all the lies and to understand what are still actually relatively straightforward issues before they sign any contract (not to mention the duty of the so called telecoms and IT experts on their own staff to advise them properly)

I am slowly firing myself up to take Surrey County Council to the Local Government Ombudsman over their repeated failure despite many promises over several years to ditch their 0845 number.

And so to bed.  These British swimming women who insist on winning themselves gold and bronze Olympic medals in the same race at odd hours of the morning have a lot to answer for.

The following briefing is being circulated.

Quote:

Source: Warwick Courier

http://www.warwickcourier.co.uk/newsl/Up-to-65p-a-minute.4435608.jp

Up to 65p a minute to talk to council?

<<
Plans to charge up to 65p per minute to call for help with services like housing and rubbish collection are back on the agenda this week.

Moves to change Warwick District Council's 01926 telephone code have been challenged by its Liberal Democrat group, which has asked the authority's scrutiny committee to take a closer look at the controversial idea.

The group says the 0845 prefix wanted by officials is a 'premium rate' number for many people.

And they say a change would hit the less affluent, who may need services most, the hardest.

For those with 'inclusive' call deals with companies like Sky or Virgin, or who use 'pay as you go' mobiles, 0845 calls could cost several pounds.

Officials want the switch so district and county councils can share a number, but a decision was delayed earlier this month amid heavy criticism.

Coun Bill Gifford (Lib Dem, Milverton) said then: "It doesn't make sense that the people who can least afford it are going to bear the brunt."

This week national campaigner David Hickson also entered the debate - questioning the decision not to opt for an 0300 code, which must be included in cheap deals.

He claims the decision is contrary to advice from Ofcom, the telecommunication regulator, and a government report.

Mr Hickson suspected the crux of the issue is that features such as call-holding and automation must be paid for by someone.

He says that if an 0845 number is used the caller pays for the extra facilities - and the council benefits from a reduction in the bill it pays to its phoneline provider. An 0300 code means the council pays for the automation.

Calling the choice of 0845 "sinister" he said: "In presenting its report, the council is perhaps keen to conceal that callers are subsiding it when calling 0845 numbers.

Councils should not be subsidising services by indirectly imposing premium charges, especially if this policy is not declared."

The matter will be discussed at a scrutiny and overview committee meeting at Leamington Town Hall on Tuesday, from 6pm.

Coun Alan Cockburn, Warwickshire County Council cabinet member for resources, denied the authorities stood to profit from 0845.

He stressed a variety of options were being considered and that "value for money and service to customers" were the key criteria.

He admitted costs could "vary between providers", but said: "Neither authority stands to generate any revenue from using an 0845 telephone number."

He added: "Mr Hickson presupposes the service provider would share revenue with the council, but this is an incorrect assumption.

"The provider will be selected on the value they offer customers. Callers will not be 'subsidising' the county council".

He said the authority's openness in publishing the entirety of its report were hardly the actions of anyone whose motives are 'sinister'."

A spokesman suggested 0300 "did not offer the best service for all customers".

Last Updated: 28 August 2008 10:22 AM
>>

---

Absolute rubbish!

The payments for the 0845 number and associated services come from the caller, via their provider. This amount is set by virtue of selection of the 0845 number.

The amount BT pays to connect calls to 03xx numbers operated by other telephone providers (when someone calls them from a BT line) is generally in line with the termination charges associated with geographical calls. The inter-operator (termination) charges for 0845 numbers are higher than this.

So if the council intends not to take a cut of these higher "termination" charges, then its provider will be retaining more of the payment for its service (which originates from the caller).

Choose how much the service is considered "value for money", the amount paid to the 0845 telephone service provider is greater than with a geographical ("local") number so we must conclude that the caller is indeed subsidising the service.