loddon wrote on Apr 26^th, 2013 at 7:56am:

The relevant news story, with comments from the practice, is now published. It features at the top of the fair telecoms campaign news feed



It is hoped that the story will be developed to cover the involvement of NHS England.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 26^th, 2013 at 10:20am:

Hopes have been fulfilled -

bigjohn wrote on Apr 27^th, 2013 at 4:49am:

I hope that readers of this public forum will understand why one has to wait until statements from involved parties have been provided to journalists and published before the full picture can be discussed.

Readers of the printed and early online editions of the Mail article may notice an error. As I type this, I can say that this is currently being corrected - I hope to shortly be able to revise this comment (so please do not quote this sentence, if replying). A copy of the erroneous version of the article has been retained for reference, but I hope that we will be able to focus only on the main point of the story.

The Mirror have published a superficially critical story on GPs using high cost phone lines (numbers) to fleece their patients here :--
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nhs-patients-calling-doctor-paying-1857870

Some of the content is good and they seem to have done a certain amount of basic research for themselves instead of the lazy journalism that pervades most articles on this subject.  They took the trouble to test call 80 to see how long they had to wait to be answered and worked out the cost of these calls as an indication of the rip-off problem.

There are several strange aspects to this story however, firstly the reference to 0855 numbers.   This is a new one on me and the Mirror doesn't say which surgeries are using this number type.

Secondly the Mirror only allows comments to be made via facebook which prevents many of us from commenting or even reading others comments -- why do it that way?   Ludicrous discrimination.

They quote certain authorities without comment or apparent question as to the truth of those comments such as, "Health Department guidelines issued in 2010 said GP practices should phase out phone lines costing more than local rates. But many are locked in long-term contracts with thousands of surgeries still using the premium-rate lines."    Well are they really "locked-in"; are there not options which could be taken such as migrating to 03 numbers or cancelling their contracts ( maybe at a cost which could be mitigated or eliminated be certain actions)?

There is a hypocritical comment from Former Labour minister John Healey, "who successfully ­campaigned for GPs to drop these lines in his Yorkshire constituency", said: “No one should be forced to use these rip-off numbers. Guidelines created by Labour ruled out this practice. The Government needs to enforce the rules.”  John Healey seems to forget that his Labour Government did NOTHING to eliminate this scam.   Secretary of State Alan Johnson said that he would stop GPs using these numbers as quoted in his local paper in Hull but in the end he did NOTHING and proved himself to be useless, ineffective and hypocritical.   The Labour government presided over a whitewash of a "consultation" on the subject followed by a ridiculous report leading to the hopelessly incompetent Statute and amendments to the GPs NHS contract and "guidance" to other NHS organisations resulting in the shambles and chaos we still suffer from, with GPs and, source of all these problems "Daisy Surgery Line", continually making untrue statements like "NHS regulations permit their use (084 numbers)" when it has always been clear that the rules, when interpreted correctly and honestly, do nothing of the sort.   It is apparent that Daisy and Riley don't know the meaning of words like correct and honest.   And John Healey MP needs to learn how governments should make clear and unambiguous rules and how they should enforce them.

Overall this article is very much a "curates egg", only good in parts.

The fair telecoms campaign news feed now reflects another newspaper item which has appeared online for publication in tomorrow's paper.

http://www.whtimes.co.uk/news/patient_fumes_over_welwyn_garden_city_surgery_s_co...

Patient fumes over Welwyn Garden City surgery’s ‘costly’ phone system

<<
An elderly patient has hit out after being forced to use a cash generating phone number to book a doctor’s appointment.

The woman, who wanted to remain anonymous, says she is now £4 out of pocket due to the 0844 number used by The Garden City Practice, in WGC.

She said: “I don’t think it is right for us to pay this money, £4 is a lot of money for pensioners.”

The Garden City Practice has three branches in the town and a partner for the practice has acknowledged the problem with the line.

Dr Peter Shilliday said: “We are aware of the problem. It is not just us, there are other surgeries, it is a bit of a national issue. We are looking into it.

“We are stuck in the contract and I am aware we will not be renewing it.”

A spokesman for commissioners NHS England said: “NHS England supports and upholds previous guidance from the Department of Health, which states that GPs should always commission services that represent the best value for money for their patients.

“If a call to a geographical area code number is cheaper for patients, then GPs are strongly advised that this should be the preferred option.”
>>
Welwyn Hatfield Times
By Ewan Foskett, Saturday, April 27, 2013

bigjohn wrote on Apr 28^th, 2013 at 7:55pm:


Of course; it was just my little joke 

loddon wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 5:38am:

The practice of double-charging, unless by communications providers, falls outside Ofcom's remit. The specific issue raised by 'whyohwhy' is being addressed by BIS through implementation of the provisions of the Consumer Rights Directive. (It is however probably worth considering the possibility that someone who submits comments to the Mail Online under this nickname will, by virtue of their chosen identity, never be satisfied by any answer to the questions which they pose.)


loddon wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 5:38am:

If "the fundamental problem" is the fact that the telephone bill can be used as a way of collecting money to be passed on to a third party (the person called), then Ofcom is doing nothing to stop it. Indeed, Ofcom seeks to allow this to work more effectively. Its provisions cover all the relevant ranges: 084, 087, 09 and 118. All of being treated in the same manner, notwithstanding additional regulation that already applies to the latter three.


Many of us see the "evil" as lying in the fact that the "Service Charge" is not visible to those who pay it, nor, according to Daisy, to those who benefit from it. When the value passed on to the benefit of the third party is openly declared, along with the charge retained by the caller's telephone service provider, one "fundamental problem" will have been addressed.

---

I understand that the article dated Sunday 28 April at 10:48 may have only appeared on MailOnline. If anyone can confirm that it appeared in either the Mail on Sunday or today's Daily Mail - please let me know.