Looks like my detailed reply to this has been deleted along with everything else posted after 20:19 on 26th November 2013.

Wish I could remember what I'd written!   I think it was to CJT-80 about it being a good idea, as a resident, to email ALL the councillors in Rother District explaining why the change to 0843 is so wrong; I explained that councillors generally rubber stamp the recommendations of officers, frequently without question, officers often will just believe what they are told by the telephone provider.   Councillors want to be popular & re-elected so if they are told how bad this move is they might begin to question it, particularly if the local press is made aware that ALL councillors are now aware of the facts and costs to callers!

CJT-80, I refer to my reply above; if you explain that 0843 is expensive, excluded from call packages for both landlines & mobiles, will deter residents from calling the council, that other methods of contact are not always convenient or appropriate, generally all the reasons why we all hate 084 numbers.  Keep it not too technical (remember councillors are lay people from many different backgrounds with widely varying levels of understanding), but emphasise the fact that many poorer and vulnerable residents will now only have mobiles which have particularly high call costs.  I would also draw reference to the NHS not allowing these numbers for GPs (I know they haven't all gone but they should have!) the CRD may not apply to councils but it's an indication of official disapproval of these numbers which should apply to the public sector.   There have also been many official reports over the years (cannot remember chapter & verse but others may) which have declared such numbers inappropriate.   Hope this helps & good luck!

Thanks; I note they say it's the "most effective way" for them[b][/b]to deal with a large volume of calls!  As a public sector organisation, they should be putting residents and callers first.  I looked on their website & it currently only seems to show the geo no, there is also a comprehensive list of councillors with email contact details AND their home addresses; trust me, it does concentrate the mind if councillors receive personal contact - my husband was both a senior officer for many years & then a councillor!

Barbara wrote on Nov 29^th, 2013 at 6:52pm:

The mistake they make is in confusing two separate issues. I must urge fellow campaigners not to fall into this trap, unless they genuinely oppose the expense involved in deploying more advanced telephony features.

The benefits that are referred to may well require the features of a non-geographic number. These must be paid for. The important question is over who pays.

With a 084 number they are paid for by callers, rather than residents (as taxpayers) in general. In some cases (where specific services are involved), there may be an argument in favour of this approach. Even if this may be justified however, there is the additional issue of the (often excessive) Access Charges imposed by the caller's telephone service provider. This, on top of exclusion from inclusive call packages, makes this method of funding telephone services highly inefficient. It also introduces equality issues as the tendency is for the least well-off to incur the highest Access Charges.

The benefits can however be obtained at the cost of the taxpayer (residents), with no "leakage" of additional revenue to the telephone companies. This is done by choosing 03 or "virtual geographic" numbers, so that calls are charged at the geographic rate. The latter are actually "non-geographic", in that they are not terminated at the local telephone exchange, but they are available on most ranges that begin with geographic area codes, and so may appear to be local.


Having calls dealt with more effectively (given that this is a genuine benefit) is obviously a benefit to both callers and residents. Choosing how to fund the system places the interests of the two groups (insofar as they can be separated) in conflict - which is to come first?

The fair telecoms campaign firmly holds the view that (in most cases) geographic rate numbers must be used - placing callers before residents. There may be exceptional cases where significant additional expense to callers can be justified, enabling imposition of a Service Charge. There may also be cases where significant additional expense to residents can be justified, enabling use of a 080 number.


This council, along with many other users of 084 numbers, has got the issues confused (if we are to believe the statement, which I see as being a credible statement of confused thinking). It has placed residents (taxpayers) first, thinking that the increased cost to callers is purely as a result of unnecessary Access Charges imposed by telephone companies. This disregards the Service Charge, as the primary cause of the increased call cost, and the reality that most landline callers do not pay penalty charges for calling geographic numbers outside the terms of their Call Plan.


These comments are part of a longstanding effort to assist those who support the general objectives of the fair telecoms campaign in understanding the true nature of the situation. I am well aware that many find postings such as this unwelcome in this forum, as they directly challenge comments made by more experienced contributors.

I present the situation as I understand it to be true, and will be happy to engage in serious discussion of the factual basis for my understanding. Exchanges of opinion on policy issues are a separate matter - e.g. should residents or callers pay for enhanced telephone features, or should they be deployed at all.

If we are to work together as a campaigning body, opposing fallacious and incomplete arguments in favour of use of 084 numbers, I see it as important that we do not ourselves present arguments that are fallacious or incomplete.

SCV knows I have issues with his view on this (I believe that the use of 084/087, particularly by public bodies and any other organisation as a point of contact for customers is never justified no matter how the cost is shown).  One point that has been completely missed is that residents in a local council area pay council tax to enable their council to provide services, I think few would argue this would include an adequate telephone service for them to make contact, the cost of an 03 number would, therefore, be part & parcel of service provision in the same way as any other service.   To charge a "premium" by any name is unacceptable and unjustified as it is charging the caller for a service for which they have already paid.

Good Afternoon All,

Firstly I am not 100% sure RDC have fully switched to an 084 number... it was used for a specific purpose in the leaflet we received, and their website continues to publish the 01424 contact number.

Secondly I strongly oppose the use of 084/087 numbers for contacting Councils, Government Departments, Doctor's Surgeries, Hospitals or ANY services that are connected with these organisations.  Why do I strongly oppose these? Simply because we already pay for them in Taxes and National Insurance contributions, and by paying again for them we are effectively being taxed by telephone!

The County council for this area which is East Sussex County Council (ESCC) introduced 03 numbers instead of their original 08 numbers.  If a council or organisation requires the "enhanced" facilities offered by Non Geographic Numbers such as ESCC does then they should foot the bill for these features, NOT the residents/tax payers.

I intend, when time permits, to raise a complaint to RDC of their use of this number and question why it was implemented with NO consultation of it's residents.

I appreciate times are tough for councils and business' alike but why should we have to pay extra in phone calls just to supplement their "bottom line"......