It would appear not!

I wonder if you can provide feedback on that?

(Goes and looks)

Edit: It seems you can here - https://www.dft.gov.uk/about/contact/form/ - time to write a complaint!

0844 463 0213 is the most extraordinary choice for a telephone number.

It is of type "g9" which yields a revenue share of around 2p per minute, slightly more than that provided by 0845 numbers. All BT customers pay 2.041p per minute at all times, in addition to the call setup-fee of 13.1p. This is just slightly more than they pay to call a 0845 number during the daytime if they do not subscribe to Unlimited Anytime.

Had a 0845 number been selected, then BT and some other landline callers would have been able to benefit from calls being inclusive. As it is they are all paying a sizeable premium for the sake of a tiny subsidy to the provider of the helpline service. Most callers pay a sizeable premium.

My strong suspicion is that this service is provided under contract by an outside agency, rather than by DfT itself. They probably chose this number and believe that all callers are paying "a low rate" of 2p per minute, which is less than what they will claim to be the normal cost of a call to a geographic number. I may be wrong, but I cannot see any other reason for this odd decision. I suspect that DfT officials failed to spot the fact that this is nonsense.

The 0844 463 block of numbers is allocated to Talk Talk Business (formally Opal Telecom), who also provide the g6 (5p) and g11 (4p) numbers used by NEG. I have no reason to suspect that this is anything more than co-incidence.

I too will be writing to Ms Greening and Mr Baker. The message is slowly making its way around Whitehall. The main contact number for DfT is 0300 330 3000 and all of its agencies (including the DVLA) now have 0300 numbers.

CJT-80 wrote on Jan 1^st, 2012 at 12:16pm:

Don't hold your breath for a reply though - they state it'll take 'em 20 days!

Heinz wrote on Jan 11^th, 2012 at 2:48pm:


Indeed

Now we have the Blue Badge feeding off the Disabled, Disgusting  

bazzerfewi wrote on Jan 25^th, 2012 at 6:17am:

Under the present arrangements, one simply cannot give a meaningful indication of call cost, let alone of the cost relative to that of a geographic call, except in the case of a particular tariff from a particular provider.

All that can be said with confidence is that a call to a "business rate" (084/087, excluding 0870) or "premium rate" number will include a service charge to the benefit of the person called. In this case it is equivalent to 2p per minute. In addition to this, the telephone company originating the call will add an "Access Charge" of its own. There is no "Service Charge" on calls to "geographic rate" 01/02/03 numbers.

Call charges are presently "bundled" so the breakdown between the "Service Charge" and "Access Charge" is not apparent, unless the Service Charge is declared. Because BT is presently prohibited from adding an "Access Charge" to the pence per minute rate, the Service Charge can always be determined.


The Ofcom proposal, which we expect to see confirmed shortly, is for the two elements of the charge to be declared separately by the respective parties. The telephone company will have to declare its "Access Charge" and the "Service Provider" (person called) will be required to declare the "Service Charge".

This more transparent approach will mean that each party has to justify its charges, without getting involved in making misleading and false references to the position of the other (as in this case).

If a "Service Charge" of 2p per minute, not to mention the risk of incurring an additional "Access Charge", can be justified in cases such as this, then it will be for the Service Provider to do so. I personally cannot see any reason why Public Service providers could not choose, or be required by the government, to follow this approach ahead of the impostion of regulatory requirements by Ofcom.

Thanks to everyone who has commented.

I would like to point out I have not stated to DfT what the cost of calling the number was, I did point out it was more expensive to call from a landline, and questioned it usage and reasoning.

It's my intention to reply to this e-mail they have sent.

Can anyone come up with a few good responses to challenge their reply?

Would appreciate short and sweet reponses I can include as bullett points.