For those you have tried, please can you let us know which this works for (and which it doesn't if applicable)? It would be useful to add a note the these numbers to that effect.

When contacting HMRC about my tax return this year both the Self Assessment Helpline geographic alternative number of 161 931 9070 and the Online Helpdesk alternative number of 0161 930 8445 were met with a message saying that you have contacted the number for overseas callers and telling me to call the 0845 number that they claim is the one for UK callers before then cutting you off.  For those of us using 18185 this means our call cost is immediately doubled from 5p to 10p when we are forced to redial adding 141 to the number (the call to the 01 number is then not rejected as having used the wrong number).

When actually speaking to persons on these lines and complaining about them blocking calls to their geographic numbers and asking why they did not have 03 numbers that cost no extra to call and were part of call packages I was in each case met with the response that HMRC is working on the matter and has already brought in 03 number in certain of the benefits related telephone lines it runs.

If one asks them why they did not make the switch three years ago when 03 numbers were launched or how long it can take their telecoms operator to make a simple number switch they do not seem to have a credible answer to offer.

As my calls to 01/02 numbers are free at the weekend I also tried a few individual tax office numbers today and all the calls were met with the response that I had called the wrong number.  If they are genuinely working on bringing in 03 numbers then one wonders why this block on calling the 01/02 number in the UK has only just been brought in to effect.

Dave wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 9:02pm:


Two different advisers on two different enquiry lines offered the defense that HMRC already had some 03 numbers and that it was working on bringing in more 03 numbers when challenged on still using 0845 numbers and blocking calls not using the 141 prefix to their 01/02 numbers.  That suggests to me that this response is now being pre scripted as an answer to complaints about the use of 0845 numbers and/or blocking calls to their 01/02 numbers that are not prefixed with 141.  All the more so since I ring HMRC almost every year and always challenge their use of 0845 numbers and have not previously been offered this excuse to justify their continued use.

Quote:


My tests appeared to show that any HMRC taxation enquiries number which is to a call centre team (rather than to an individual extension of one person) and handled by an IVR system before getting through to an adviser is now playing the message that this line is only for overseas callers before cutting the caller off if the 141 prefix to withhold one's CLI is not used before making the call.  I would therefore suggest it is easier to simply provide a warning for all HMRC geographic alternative numbers that the 141 prefix should be used before dialling the number or otherwise the call will be rejected with an automated message that this number is not for use by UK callers.

I would imagine that all these contact centres at HMRC run call centre systems and software from a single telecoms supplier that has now been reprogrammed to reject calls which it sees as being presented with a UK CLI.  Since adding the 141 prefix before dialling cannot do any harm and since any numbers not presently covered by the UK CLI rejection process may soon be I would suggest that all users of this site who dial numbers at HMRC now withhold their CLI before doing so.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 4:18pm:


And did this little so called "misunderstanding" of the call cost occur before they signed the 0845 agreement where they were offered cheap outgoing phone calls and subsidised phone equipment maintenance or did it continue to occur after they brought them in to use and numerous members of the public made clear their objection to them.

Personally having a few times spoken to the unpleasant conscience and morals lacking business managers who have agreed to these deals with telcos I don't believe there was ever any misunderstanding at all about the call costs.  The problem is that the business managers concerned just didn't care and as long as they could transfer telecoms costs out of their budgets and in to the budgets of their callers and the callers were not able to take their business elsewhere then they were more than happy to see their callers ripped off in this way.

Like the greedy bankers they received large bonuses if they improved their own budgets in this way so they didn't give two hoots about their billls of the average telephone customer, especially as most of these people make their personal calls on a mobile phone paid for by the company they work for.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 7:11pm:


As usual you undermine your focus as a single minded campaigner against telecoms ripoffs by making such an unhelpful statement.

If we cannot be single minded in our purpose here and ignore all of the arguments that our opponents will inevitably always repeatedly put forward to justify continued telecoms extortion then we will never get anywhere.

Whenever the matter of public expenditure is looked at it will always be said that the money for a new bypass or a new landrover in Afghanistan could pay for so many hospital operations instead etc, etc.  Those campaigning for a particular cause must stick just to the righteousness of their cause and must not be distracted by the argument which folk at the Treasury will always run up as a cuonter argument to any form of policy lobbying which will underlyingly cost the government more money.

It is your futile statements to the effect of "but this will cost the government xyz more money so can we afford it" that really drive me to distraction.  After all it is this very argument which was undoubtedly used to introduced the scamming numbers in the first place.

I must note that when it comes to HMRC I am always somewhat more reluctant to email their the top brass over such matters for fear that it will lead to some form of victimisation in the handling of my tax affairs in retribution.  I am sure that I cannot be the only one with such concerns and hence why the noise made at top policy level with HMRC over their ripoff 0845 numbers is not as loud as it perhaps should be.