Brockworth Surgery has introduced a geographic number to run alongside its 0844 g6 Business Rate number. The Microsoft Word document explaining it says the geographic number is more likely to be engaged.

Here's the table that forms the main part of that page:
Quote:

On the anniversary of the ban, there was a short report in the Sheffield Star in which local MP Clive Betts says that his constituents have written to him about this matter:

Sheffield GPs’ expensive phone numbers

My own feeling is that the only way forward is to challenge this through the judicial system. Unlike the current participants, who all appear to absolve themselves from any responsibility, courts rely on evidence, which in this matter, is overwhelming and demonstrable. I am, however, sufficiently unfamiliar with the UK legal system to offer any suggestion. Perhaps someone who has incurred a large cost when calling from a cellular service could start county court action against a surgery/PCT/some other body, simply as a 'test case'.

bazzerfewi wrote on Apr 7^th, 2012 at 4:35pm:

People can make a test telephone call to one of these numbers in order to demonstrate that their provider charges in accordance with its published pricing information. I would not think that evidence would have to come in the form of many many calls on one's bill where it is necessary to demonstrate that a provider charges in accordance with its pricing information.

bazzerfewi wrote on Apr 7^th, 2012 at 4:35pm:
Indeed, but may be worth racking up a couple of pounds in calls and then put it to the test. The guidelines and advice are clear, even to a lay person.

bazzerfewi wrote on Apr 7^th, 2012 at 4:35pm:
I believe there is not much more that can be done. Parliamentary discussion yielded little, if any, progress. The judiciary is the only way forward that I can see. There has to be a reader of this forum who has a law degree and can advise whether legal options are suitable.

It goes against the grain but I could make a call to all surgeries within the Barnsley area and provide evidence that surgeries are still flouting the law when the bill is produced.

I could then produce the evidence to DAN JARVIS MP - surely then he would have to act on the case.

Maybe other members could do the same

What are your thoughts please

idb wrote on Apr 7^th, 2012 at 5:07pm:

Evidence is in the form of the pricing literature from call providers.

On the basis that we may have to go to the lengths of calling these numbers, it would seem that there are those who do not believe (or will not accept) that call providers charge in accordance to their published pricing information.

idb wrote on Apr 7^th, 2012 at 4:03pm:
… also noting the subsequent comments.

It is a trivial matter to obtain the evidence to show that a call to a 084 number is more expensive for many than an equivalent call to a geographic number. If one is talking about legal action, then the question is about what action can be taken, by who against whom.

I offer a quick outline of the judicial position as I understand it.



GPs using 084 numbers are in breach of the terms of their contracts with the PCT, as published here.
(This covers those with GMS contracts, those with PMS contracts are subject to identical requirements.)

The breach may be occurring in one of three ways:

1. If the practice adopted a 084 number after 1 April 2010, it failed to properly satisfy itself about the cost of calling this number ("having regard to the arrangement as a whole"). It probably disregarded a significant number of callers.
    
2. If it was using a 084 number on 1 April 2010, it failed to properly consider the cost of calling this number ("having regard to the arrangement as a whole"). It probably disregarded a significant number of callers.
    
3. In the second case it may have completed the consideration of the costs properly, but failed to adequately consider the option of varying the terms of its contract (e.g. by arranging migration to a 03 number from the same provider) and failed to take a "reasonable step" open to it.

With regard to the third item, I have made a Freedom of Information request to cover any evidence of "unreasonable" charges being proposed for migration to 03. Not one PCT holds any such evidence.

If a PCT wishes to take action against a practice in breach of the terms of its contract, there is a procedure to be followed. I am not aware of any way that a third party (i.e. a patient) may themselves pursue enforcement of a contract between a practice and the PCT.



PCTs are under a statutory duty to enforce the terms of the GP contracts and in doing so to "have regard to the NHS Constitution". I believe that any PCT which fails to take appropriate action to enforce the terms of the GP contract is failing in that duty.

The only formal way in which legal action against a PCT could be instigated is through the process of "Judicial Review". This must be based on the damage caused to one or more specific individuals by the action of a public body.



A better alternative, although not itself a legal action, is a complaint to the Health Service and Parliamentary Ombudsman. Complaints against a NHS contractor or body fall into the simpler process, which does not require the involvement of the complainants MP.

I am aware of two cases where such complaints are in process over this matter, with nothing positive to report at this stage.



The BMA claims to believe that GPs may take an assurance from an interested party as being adequate to discharge their duty to make a determination about call costs.

NEG claims to believe that a highly selective approach can be taken to making the call cost determination and guides its customers accordingly.

The DH is confident that the terms of the contract are enforceable and that the interpretation offered in its Further Guidance is a fair expression of how the issues would be judged by a court (if necessary).

It is for each PCT to determine whether or not to pursue an action against a GP. Many have stated the view that those using 084 numbers are not in breach. Others have determined that if they have obtained an assurance that existing contracts will not be renewed then they have taken adequate action.



I believe that all those who use 084 numbers are in breach of their contracts and that this undermines a vital principle of the NHS - that it is funded by us through our taxation, not through charges imposed as we access NHS services. Because of the importance of that principle, especially in the light of current reforms, it is vital that no tolerance of its abuse be shown.

I am keen to support anyone who wishes to pursue an effective complaint to the Health Service Ombudsman. This could be against a particular practice, but it would have a wider impact if against a PCT.

Likewise, if anyone can find a lawyer willing and able to undertake a JR case against the Chief Executive of a Cluster of PCTs on a pro bono basis.

Contributions from other interested parties may be helpful, but I firmly believe that any action must originate from one or more patients who continue to incur unacceptable charges for contacting their GP. This may not be strictly necessary under the law, but it will make a successful outcome far more likely.