Welcome to the forum.

The Prime Minister is "in charge" of everything (no laughing at the back please). In theory the holder of that office could issue an instruction to cease use of 084 numbers which would flow down through the various channels.

In practice, each central government department, devolved national government, local authority, non-departmental body and in some cases departmental agency (e.g. HMRC) is left to make its own decisions about these matters. The separate DWP agencies are fairly well co-ordinated in this respect. Assistance is available from various central agencies including the Central Office of Information, which has actually encouraged use of 084 numbers (and denial of the benefits of revenue sharing) in the past.

There is co-ordination of telephone numbering policy for all of the above through a body called the Contact Council which exists within the Cabinet Office (a central government department) although with representatives from key members of each of the types of body mentioned above. It has already this year issued a well-prepared guidance document and more is hoped for shortly - see this written answer from the then former minister for the Cabinet Office. The extent to which any "guidance" will be followed or pressed is something we will have to wait and see. There are no clear rules and it will probably come down to decisions taken by individuals in various key positions.

DWP is starting to get to grips with the issues (see my blog entry) but has much more to do. HMRC seems to be following a little in its wake.

These things sadly take time, especially when there is not lots of money around to use to create greater fairness. Progress is however being made and all contributions to the effort are welcome.

I am anxious for others to contribute their thoughts to this thread, but I will address the question about the "tipping point".

There was a hope, not entirely extinguished, that once the NHS introduced a clear ban on use of 084 numbers then the issue would be recognised and pressure would build. The Department of Health has got to the point of a decision and then funked it. The key statement ("nobody should pay more than the cost of a geographic call to contact the NHS") has been made, but the presently proposed implementation of that principle actually denies it.

The other point is the cost and complexity involved with changing a large set of telephone numbers. There are already "rationalisation" exercises being planned - this is the key task of the Contact Council. If these come to fruition then it is vital that this opportunity to move away from revenue sharing numbers is taken. How far these exercises will be put aside in order to save money is yet to be seen.

These changes inevitably take time. The present government has run its course and so is unlikely to start a major initiative on a relatively minor issue. A new government will probably be more keen to find ways of saving public money than on giving up the revenue share subsidy on telephone costs for the sake of less well off service users. The idea of placing a greater burden on the taxpayer so that it becomes cheaper to access public services by telephone does not seem to commend itself to the manifestos of those who are likely to form the next government.

So it sounds as if the MP is the way to go but it also sounds like this is a marathon not a sprint.
I do beleive though that the 'jig' is up and 08 will move to these new ranges. However based on your comments I think this could be another year or two rather than a few months.

I have just spoke to HMRC ( std number)and after telling them my story she said "that I have to ring another dept,shall I give the number".  

I said "is it an 0845 number" she said "yes", I said "can you not give me a direct dial number,because these cost money" she said "this is the only number that I have".      

If I find the number for HMRC Limited Company section, rest assured I will post it here.

In this economic climate you would think they would relax the "084" numbering or even do away with them altogether.

I wonder in this day and age how many people pay for their phone calls.

I myself am on Virgin Media free anytime  

Tony

idb wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 1:34am:

If the objective is as simple as stated here, using the type of measurement which is typically employed to measure success in this type of situation, can I recommend adoption of an expensive premium rate number. This would cut down the number of calls, as well as saving on the unit cost of handling those that continue to be made. The cost of a premium rate call would also ensure that callers would have a point worth making and would be most reluctant to give up whilst waiting. It would also ensure that nobody could start offering tales of woe about how they could not afford to pay their tax demand, as their readiness to make a premium rate call would eliminate that excuse.

The point I seek to make is about the way in which these things are assessed. It seems that if you cannot count it, time it, measure it in some way, or if all else has failed, get someone to offer a rating on a scale of 1 to 5 that you can do sums with, then it does not exist, or at least cannot be considered.

SCV, your most recent post here is INCREDIBLE.  A while ago, my daughter had major problems with incorrect tax credits, by some hundreds of pounds.  She had tried writing, everything.  When eventually she managed to speak to them after it costing her an absolute fortune with holding, being cut off etc over a period of weeks, she was told she hadn't received a reply to her letters because they were at least three months behind on dealing with their correspondence.  Nobody calls HMRC just for a chat about the weather, it will be because there is a problem that needs to be resolved.   How would you suggest making contact -ESP???

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 2:37am:

Some may have thought that I was trying to make a different point.

If the objective is to save public money (cost to taxpayers, the deficit and all that) then my proposal makes sense.

I think it incredible that if HMRC would be content not to answer 1 in 10 of the calls that are made to it, it ever bothers to answer the phone at all.

Numbers (of both the telephonic and statistical variety) can be misleading and therefore very dangerous if not handled carefully and with both a full understanding of the complex issues and the application of appropriate simple principles.

---

Taxpayers will be distressed to learn that DWP has now done a deal with the major mobile providers (the rest will follow) to pay them for making calls to its 0800 numbers free. I comment on this announcement here.