Odd that they recommend the use of 0345 for cheaper mobile calls,but dont extoll the cost  benefits of calling them from landlines and encourage people to call 0845 numbers.

"Use 0345 for cheaper mobile calls
If you are calling from your mobile, use 0345 (instead of 0845) for cheaper calls. (The rest of the number is the same)."



http://www.accentgroup.org/foundation/repairs/Pages/reportarepairbytelephone.asp...

For those who breach the terms of their BT Call Plan by calling whilst it is not in effect, the penalty charge for calling 0845 numbers is less than that for calling geographic and 03 numbers. This could provide a justification for offering two numbers.

The problem is that people mistakenly believe that the situation which applies only to a small minority of BT customers applies to all landline users.

catj wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 6:51pm:

I have never seen or heard anything which means that dual-running is forbidden.

Dual running is an inevitable part of any well planned migration. It is possible that the 0845 numbers are widely advertised on literature that is not frequently renewed. I personally have no problem with an extended period of parallel running. What is being done here is broadly what I have commended to HMRC and DWP. The cost of advising a change of number can be very great. I am very keen that a reluctance to bear such a cost is never used as a reason for failing to offer 03 numbers.

The message for mobile callers is clear; wise landline callers who read the information we can see will undoubtedly recognise that they may use the 0345 numbers (or at least try to use them).

In this case it would be better if it were made clear that the 0345 numbers will be of benefit to some landline callers, whereas for others it will make no difference, but it is far from easy to specify exactly who should call which number, and when. I would rather see the 0345 versions of the numbers presented, with a comment that the 0845 numbers still work. The problem is that if one draws attention to the current minority case, where the 0845 number is cheaper, then it will be hard to withdraw the number.

We will hope that this anomaly will disappear once the "unbundled" tariff is implemented and the BT NTS condition is removed - although there may not be any regulation to prevent BT from setting its "Access Charge" at a level more than 2p per minute below its penalty charge for geographic rate calls made outside the terms of a Call Plan. We have to remember however that BT callers to 084 and PRS numbers have been benefiting from a zero "Access Charge" up to now. If the "Access Charge" were to be introduced at the rate of well over 8.41p per minute, to equate with the penalty charge, Ofcom would be blamed for a considerable increase in the price of these calls! This effect will be exaggerated in appearance if Ofcom is successful in getting the concept of the call setup fee removed, as the old ppm rates, without the setup fee, will be (unfairly) compared with the new compounded rates.