The National Audit Office has produced a report which is still critical of HMRC service levels but fails to criticise the use of 0845 numbers!   It states :--

Most of HMRC’s numbers are still 0845 numbers which result in high call charges for some customers. It is investigating alternatives as it negotiates its new telephony contract. HMRC estimates customers would save £13 million annually if all 0845 numbers were replaced with cheaper 03 numbers.

http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1213/hmrc_customer_service.aspx

This lame statement that there are high charges for some customers and that it is investigating alternatives falls woefully short of the mark

It fails to state how many years HMRC has been messing around ineffectually and incompetently and failing to move to geo or 03 numbers.   It is merely reporting that HMRC is looking at the issue.

Its about time the NAO started to do their job properly in this regard.

This topic is reported in the Daily Mail and has generated 220 comments so far which indicates the level of public anger about this although as usual some comments confuse the issue with misinformation.   

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2249713/Hanging-phone-taxman-costs-milli...

Perhaps the FairTelecoms campaign should write to the NAO reinforcing our complaints and asking them to apply pressure to HMRC to stop procrastinating and get on and change their numbers.???

Lets just hope HMRC dont get into bed with Daisy  Otherwise they will be fooled into running a Geo. Line alongside, the same as GP 2 Tier System. I hope there are some savvy people in the Provider Selection Office, I will believe that savvy people exist in Government Offices when I see the 0300 or 0345. 

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 18^th, 2012 at 2:05pm:


I disagree SCV.   Contributors to this Forum and others have been campaigning for at least seven years about the disgraceful exploitation of 0845 and other rip-off numbers by government Departments and Agencies and especially criticising the HMRC (Inland Revenue as it was) for its hypocritical practice of offering normal geo numbers to employers and organisations whilst insisting that ordinary taxpayers must call 0845 and other rip-off numbers.   I recall that much campaigning went on with letters to Ministers and Prime Ministers (Blair) which were largely ignored.

I think it is valid to criticise the NAO for not specifying when the Parliamentary Select Committee asked the Inland Revenue to  stop using rip-off numbers and not criticising HMRC for dragging their feet over this matter for years.   The NAO have pointed out that this delay by HMRC is very costly to the country in terms of actual phone call costs and also in waste of callers time for which they should be commended, but why have they fallen short of explicitly criticising HMRC on this point and only offered implied criticism?

It is interesting that the NAO reckon the rip-off numbers cost callers an additional £33 million whereas HMRC estimate the cost to customers at only £13 million annually.    HMRC fiddling the figures or being economical with the truth?

I just wish the NAO had been clear about how long HMRC have been wasting in looking at changing their numbers and how much this waste has actually cost in terms of HMRC internal costs and the total costs to callers at a rate of £33 million per year.   This is where the Fair Telecoms campaign could have an effect.

I think we agree that the there is something at odds, if not completely conflicting, about the two cost figures quoted, £33M v £13M.   The former is said to be the estimated call cost of queuing, not including the time needed to answer and deal with the taxpayers enquiries, whilst the latter is the saving to callers which could be achieved by HMRC adopting 03 numbers (I agree with you that this figure appears to be unduly conservative).  One would expect the saving to be far greater than the £33M which would accrue if callers (mostly) were able call using the inclusive minutes within their call packages.  All those waiting minutes would not cost anything at all if they are within callers packages.  It would be helpful to see exactly how both the HMRC and NAO have calculated and justified their figures – are HMRC being economical with the truth?.

Neither the Press release nor the Summary within the NAO report mentions the year nor the elapsed period in which the Parliamentary Select Committee asked HMRC to stop using rip-off numbers and you, SCV, have had to burrow deep to find reference to dates – note that January 2010 is almost three full years ago.  I notice that none of the press or media have bothered or perhaps been competent enough to do the same.  This supports my contention that the NAO has ducked the issue -- important matters must be covered in summaries.

History is not irrelevant if it is apparent that an organisation is refusing to take corrective action over a long period without justification, is causing unnecessary and excessive costs to taxpayers and needs to be pushed hard to take long overdue action.   HMRC has been negligent in this regard and it would have been proper for NAO to point this out forcefully in its report.   The NAO is always likely to be more effective than any amount of campaigning by the likes of us.

Bear in mind that I welcome this NAO report and value the comments and criticisms which it does offer whilst also being prepared to prompt it not to withhold or omit further relevant and valid criticism.   Whilst I value your efforts in campaigning on these matters I do not not always agree with your tendency on occasions to act as apologist and justifier for the ineffectiveness of officialdom.

I am sure that the NAO is well aware of all the "red tape" and takes it into account when conducting audits.

It is our role to state clearly and unequivocally what is the right path and to put forward the appropriate facts and arguments.  We cannot be beholden to red tape of which we are likely to be unaware.   I am not ignorant of that environment having worked within central government, local government and nationalised industry as well as in commerce and industry and am acutely aware of the internal politics of each.

There is no point in us mollifying our message or campaign if we hope eventually to succeed.   We need to be forthright and positive.

loddon wrote on Dec 21^st, 2012 at 12:07pm:

I am disappointed by this apparent criticism of the approach of the fair telecoms campaign, as reflected in its published news release and subsequent briefing.

Neither of these, nor will the subsequent representations to the Committees, adapt any negative tone in criticising the NAO, nor avoid the main point by addressing the question of whether dates should have been presented more clearly in its report. I read them as being forthright and positive.

I cannot see how the message, that HMRC should switch to 03 as soon as possible and is damaging the interests of citizens by not having done so sooner, is any way "mollified" there.


loddon wrote on Dec 21^st, 2012 at 12:07pm:

Insofar as one can be aware of the proprieties of how public bodies conduct themselves (red tape), one approach is to respect it and seek to work within it, so as to be effective in changing public policy. That is the approach which I tend to follow with such bodies.

The brick-throwing approach, which seeks to shame officials into admitting their failures and shortcomings, by drawing attention to them, may be an alternative way of achieving the same objective. It is my view that the two approaches cannot be combined.

I struggle to see how one may ask someone to do something whilst asserting that they are wholly ineffective and wrongly motivated. Without any democratic mandate, we can only seek to persuade. In the absence of sufficient popular support to overthrow the regime in power, one has to respect its authority and methods if seeking to influence its behaviour.

For what it is worth, I did not start the fight. I have only sought to explain and defend the position of the fair telecoms campaign.

It began with "the FairTelecoms campaign should write to the NAO reinforcing our complaints and asking them to apply pressure to HMRC". I see no grounds for complaint against the NAO, nor any basis from which a campaign group can suggest action on the part of the NAO.

It continued with an allegation that the NAO report had omitted dates, and that two quite separate figures were alternative versions of the same value. Reference to the report itself clearly quashes such allegations.

A suggestion was made that the NAO report had not indicated that HMRC was preparing to switch to 03 numbers. In fact this is what it will be doing next year; this was both reported and reinforced by a specific recommendation.

The discussion then moved on to consider whether campaigners had to be "beholden" to "red tape". My response indicated that one can either work within the realities of the status quo or seek to overthrow it.

I took use of the words "us" and "we" to refer to the fair telecoms campaign. I cannot see which other group may have been meant.

---

I maintain that there are no grounds for criticism of the NAO. I see the repeated, very serious allegation, of "negligence" on the part of Ms Morse, to be unjustified, as well as being of no relevance to the fair telecoms campaign.

As I prepare to brief the members of the Select Committees in readiness for their consideration of the report, I am (politely) seeking some further explanation of the basis for the figures reported. I have already received a preliminary response and hope for more. The calculation of a meaningful average call cost, which is necessary to understand the scale of the fault, is far from easy. I suspect that the absence of a detailed explanation of the calculations was fully justified.

---

I had hoped that this discussion would be brought to an end by the most significant point which has been made in this thread.

Dave wrote on Dec 21^st, 2012 at 12:31pm:

It is the fair telecoms issues that will be addressed. Those with political points to make can continue the discussion endlessly.

The fair telecoms campaign blog has a comment on the Moneybox item with quotes and links.

The blogging is at http://www.fairtelecoms.org.uk/1/post/2012/12/hmrc-promises-03-numbers-in-2013.h....

To follow this blog and other fairtelecoms news visit http://www.fairtelecoms.org.uk/news-feed.html.