idb,

Thanks for the useful info.

So clearly NHS England needs to impose a £250,000 penalty on each of these "bad boy" practices if they continue to use 0844 numbers after a specific and clearly given deadline.

The practices will then have no doubt about the fact that switching to 03 numbers will be the more pofitable choice for them to make.

The disgusting greed of some GPs who clearly only care about their next where their next Mercedes and BMW and holiday in the Caribbean is coming from and not about the welfare of their patients is utterly contemptable.

Keith wrote on Jun 1^st, 2013 at 1:02pm:


The GPs still have an easy way out without incurring any undue penalty costs; see this comment under the article :---


"George Kendrick   1 day ago
Fully endorse the comments by "Ian G" and "David".
To put it simply and not beat around the bush the claim of a £60,000 inevitable penalty is untrue.

The simple remedy available to these GPs wrongly using 0844 numbers is to convert to an 0344 number. No penalty is incurred, it can be done without delay, they can retain their existing system without severing the contract. All that will happen is that the subsidy from the calls will cease, and the good news is they will no longer be ripping off their patients. Everyone will be happy."

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jun 1^st, 2013 at 8:00pm:


So you seem to suggest that GPs work rather like bankers then SCV.

That is that if they have managed things badly in their business they look to screw their customers to restore the standard of living they were previously used to.  The bankers do it with derisory interest for deposits and sky high interest rates for most forms of borrowing other than mortgages.

But how will GPs transfer this financial hit elsewhere exactly?  By only running the heating in their surgeries at 15C in the winter, not repainting the marked walls and making patients lie on their backs on ripped couches to be prodded and poked?

I would have thought that in business based on fixed capitation fees and some fees for programs for inoculations etc their options are limited and that if they got a hit in terms of a large fine for their malfeasance towards patience on telecoms that the net profitability of the business which funds their incomes would be the main casualty.

Also if the effect of cancelling their disgusting 084/7 contracts is as small as you suggest and has almost no impact on their vast six figure salaries (for doing a job with no business risk and with no anti social hours as these have all been outsourced) then why haven't they already taken the hit and made the change?

Really it seems thoroughly naive of you to suggest that the whole impact of the loss of this revenue is trivial as if that were true why would NEG have tried so hard to flog phone systems paid for at the expense of patients and not out of doctors budgets in the first place and why would doctors be fighting so hard to reverse their mistake.

What this whole episode though is another longstanding area of cultural mispractice which many parts of the NHS GP medical service have yet to reverse.  And that area is one of an attitude of smug contempt for patients and their rights where all too frequently arrogant GPs ignore the problems patients come to see them with and all too often suggest that health problems are a patient's own fault due to the eating or lifestyle choices that they have made.

If GP's did not rely on cosy little catchment areas with little competition and had to fight for customers by treating them the best with the best attitude and the best quality buildings and facilities (not those vile little council house rabbit huts that the NHS generally knocks up for them) then we might not be in this whole mess in relation to 084/7 numbers to begin with.

NGMsGhost wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2013 at 12:41pm:

Whilst the proper purpose of this forum is to promote free discussion, without any obligation to confront the reality of achieving change in the world as it is, we are now surely going much too far.

As I understand it, the present NHS GP contracts make no provision for financial penalties on account of breaches, as total compliance with the standard terms is expected. The very concept of putting a price on compliance, so that a practice may choose which regulations it wishes to follow, is surely unacceptable.

That was a little far-fetched for one who campaigns for achievable change, however I now find myself being implicitly invited to address the quoted comment. I see little prospect of the NHS being abolished and a market being created in which supply of primary healthcare will significantly exceed demand.


I will continue to work to get NHS GPs off 084 numbers in the world as it is today. It is for members of this forum to decide how far they wish their discussion to roam from current realities.

Keith wrote on Jun 5^th, 2013 at 3:23pm:

I am not sure that exploring the legal complexities of this matter is actually helpful, however …

The loss is not suffered by the party to the contract, NHS England, but by the callers to the practice. The losses incurred are not to the direct financial benefit of the practice, but are consequential losses to the benefit of the caller's telephone service provider or slightly more direct losses to the benefit of the principal providing telephone service to the practice and also their agent. Further monies are assigned to the payment of a lease agreement entered into by the practice through the system provider.

This may be an interesting intellectual discussion, but I am far more concerned about bringing this matter to an end, already far later than it should have been resolved, than putting more NHS money into the hands of lawyers and introducing further delay.

GPs are expected to comply fully with the terms of their contract - there is no half-way house. An outright refusal to comply can have only one consequence - removal of the contract.

Keith wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 10:27am:

As we are both delving into issue of law of which we have no deep understanding, you are right to seek to keep these exchanges, and accusations of error, good-natured.

Given that the funding provided to practices by NHS England is to be used at the discretion of the practice, I was thinking that a court would probably rule that the amount recoverable in the event of a breach of contract would be limited to that which was "improperly acquired", given that NHS England could not show any actual financial loss incurred by itself.

This is however just chit-chat. The NHS relies heavily on the goodwill of GPs and their willingness to provide primary care services under its rules. We may be unhappy at this, but it is a reality that we have to accept. Achieving a resolution of this issue in the real world requires a refined approach.

Formal "legal opinion" ruling that a practice is not necessarily in breach of its contract by continuing to use a 084 number past 1 April 2011 has already been obtained. I personally believe that this is flawed, as indeed it is only an "opinion", but I do not want this issue to become a goldmine for lawyers.

Keith wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 1:30pm:


Yes, easily tested.  Having called the 01276 number I was put through to reception fairly quickly and they told me this number has been made available during the past 2 days and will have equal access to that of the other two numbers.   This is in readiness for a new automatic answering system which is soon to be used and all three number types will continue in operation.

Incidentally the other two numbers are 0844 and 0870 and the fax is 0844.    I seem to remember that 0870 was banned in 2005 --- ah well. 

Point taken Dave. Just grateful for small successes. In fact of course many may well be unaware and just carry on using the 0844 number.

I tested it this morning and it seems to go through to the same queue as the 0844 number (obviously I can't be 100% sure). If so it does mean that people using the Geo No are getting equal treatment.

One might ask then why not remove the 0844 number altogether?