I know that we should expect to read a lot of nonsense on the web and that headline writers can get carried away with picking out minor points of detail from statements, BUT

- is there any evidence of any services being switched from 0800 to 0300?

- is there any evidence of a significant fall in usage of the services as a result of this switch?

There is no question that the switch from 0845 to 0345 (not from 0800 to 0300) will incur costs for DWP. It has however been claimed that this cost will be covered by the saving made when there is no longer any need to pay exceptional fees to mobile companies to deliver 0800 calls as free to caller.

There is also no question that the "digital by default" policy will cause transactions conducted by telephone to switch to on-line means. This will inevitably have an effect on levels of call centre employment.

There are many issues tied up in this story. I am disappointed that SayNoTo0870 carries a thread with so controversial a title without any attempt to test the veracity of the stated claim and without use of qualifier "allegedly".

The fact that SERCO is a 'stakeholder' and may therefore be presenting a biased viewpoint is implied by the use of the word Allegation but to go further in the title would be difficult.

bigjohn wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2014 at 10:40am:

Sorry if my comment caused any offence. As you suggest, a PM would perhaps have been better to cover the lack of the word "allegedly" in the title. I am very sensitive to the danger of bad publicity around the 03 range. This forum has long been rightly encouraging people to treat "unusual" number with suspicion, but with 03 we face the opposite task.

There are however some interesting points for discussion raised by this item. The switch from 0845 to 0345 does put pressure on call centre costs and could potentially lead to the withdrawal of services, even though the amount of subsidy lost is marginal. The "digital by default" policy should also lead to a reduction in "transactional" telephone services.

It is disappointing that so much of the content of these discussions is over what has been said, rather than the issues raised. I am delighted at, and grateful for, the change in the title of this thread and must apologise if the tone of my comment was found offensive. Although this forum is intended for the discussion of issues, it does provide a valuable service in drawing attention to relevant news items.