"Agents" will generally be professional bodies, e.g. accountancy practices.

This indicates two differences from the situation of citzens. Firstly they will be on business tariffs and secondly there is a question about whether it is fair for them to contribute towards the costs of services provided specifically for them which are otherwise funded out of general taxation.

This is similar to the situation of the Land Registry which offers local geographic numbers for its general offices, but uses revenue sharing numbers for central enquiry lines mostly used by conveyancers.

I do not assert that use of revenue sharing numbers is perfectly acceptable in these cases, however the difference should perhaps be noted.

Hello sir,

Sorry to troubling much by reading below mail, but i need ur support and help.

Can you please provide me the email id for below address:

E Hampshire and Wight Area
Lynx House
1 Northern Road
Cosham
Portsmouth
PO6 3XA
Telephone 0044 23 9240 1194

Actuualy i stay in india and unable to communicate them via phone. can you please try to call and get their email id. I am very happy to send an email to them for my queries.

Regards
Bala

Dave wrote on Nov 10^th, 2008 at 3:15pm:

I put the number of my Tax Office (HMRC, Southend-on-Sea) into your 'Find alternative number box and 08453667813 generated
Company Name:  HM Revenue & Customs (Inland Revenue)
Alternative:  01702 442500
Other Information:  Collections Dept - South Essex Area
When I rang it I got this answerphone message...
Please note that the number called has been changed to...    08450150009 !
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

My partner is trying to get his tax sorted out and tried to call the number on this web site for the Leicester office, 0116 2427200 only to be told, by an automated voice, to use the 0845 number. We did try another office with a geographic number with success, just thought I'd let you know!

I just discovered these comments on the 0845 number issue on the HMRC Employers Bulletin Letters Page on their website at www.hmrc.gov.uk/employers-bulletin/bulletin29/letters.htm

Quote:


So in what way do 03 numbers not provide any of the benefits that HMRC claims are so great about the call routing facilities available on their 0845 numbers?  Or is the taxman in reality unwilling to give up his free swithboard or switchboard maintenance or his cut price outgoing call costs, all paid for on the back of the honest British tax payer through the stealth 0845 hidden revenue share.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Sep 25^th, 2009 at 9:34pm:


Thanks for shooting the campaign in the foot as usual SCV by quoting the sneaky arguments of our satanic opponents when they try to hang on to their greed based numbers.  We all know perfectly well that BT has only cut the call price of 0845 numbers in a desperate last ditch attempt to try to undermine the clear cut logical case for all government services moving to the 03 number range.

The reality is that anyone at home in the weekday daytime for any amount of time either has an inclusive landline call plan or uses their bundled minutes on their mobile phone (for instance someone who normally is out at work at home on the odd day) so they won't be paying for any calls to 01/02/03 numbers but 0845 numbers will cost them extra unless they are on an Anytime landline calls plan on their landline.

The argument that 0845 numbers are in reality cheaper is utterly bogus and I only expect to hear it from the mouth of one of the scamerati (excuse me for dropping in to the language of one of my other campaigning hobbyhorses against New Labour but it seems appropriate in this case just as it is with New Labour motorist crunching Scamera Partnerships) and not from one of the members of our own campaign.

The fact that a tiny number of people who pay per call in the weekday daytime (anyone doing so will be badly off very quickly at BT's new minimum call charges as of 1st October) are better off calling 0845 does not affect the fact that the majority of people are much worse off (not least those calling from BT's own Payphones).  And anyone on a mobile phone is hugely worse off having to call an 0845 number if they have an inclusive calling plan to 01/02/03 numbers.

So staunch campaigners are not fooled by this latest dastardly attempt to dress up something twisted and unpleasant as being something nice by the Scamerati and we will continue to demand that HMRC and the other scammers switch from 0845 numbers to 01/02/03 numbers and that Ofcom also sets a date for the end of revenue share on 0845 numbers and a date when 0844 numbers will also become subject to premium rate regulation pay by PhonePayPlus as 0871 numbers now already are.

Heaven knows we have a hard enough job winning this campaign without constantly being undermined by worried doubters who are supposedly on our own side.

NGMsGhost wrote on Sep 25^th, 2009 at 9:53pm:

I will politely dissent from this position.

With the end of the BT SMP, as recently announced, 0844 has no future, as the regulation of so many different rates is quite meaningless. If I became aware of any significant use of the very low cost and fixed price per call tariffs then I would perhaps think again, but in my view it should go the way of 0870, which it has effectively replaced at the upper end.

I cannot see any continuing valid argument for low-cost premium rate numbers in the market as it is. When there was a dominant market player so that use of advanced technology could be subsidised whilst costs to callers were regulated, there was some sort of dodgy justification for the revenue sharing concept. That is long past. (If PhonePay Plus wants to introduce a lower band within 0871, then fair enough.)

BT has dealt a fatal blow to 0845 by causing package subscribers to pay for the revenue share. (Maybe Ofcom is to blame for allowing this to happen, although one understands that Ofcom was caught off-guard by this move.) 0845 must be put out of its (and our) misery as swiftly as possible. Its loving family of users will however need time to prepare for their grief. I would propose that the level of revenue share (inflated termination fees) be lowered in stages to zero. BT will set the standard (under Ofcom's control) and everyone else will be obliged to follow, as with 0870. Dropping the value in stages will give users time to gradually adjust their costings. This is necessary as, unlike with 0870, they have nowhere to go; their only alternative is the big step up into PRS.

A gradual move will actually put more pressure on the public sector, and others with reputational interests, to move swiftly to 03 to take the credit rather than suffering the growing pain. Providers will be free to adjust their caller tariffs at whatever stage they wish; good for competition. BT should be freed of its limitations immediately, assuming an undertaking not to increase the charge to above that of "ordinary" numbers.

This is not a fully worked through proposal (my ideas continue to develop), but perhaps a thought-provoking response to another proposal, from "we".