The new 0345 number 0345 6112970 is now working in tandem with the original main customer service number 0845 6112970.

They dont seem to be promoting it yet.

It's still the 084 number on their website,

I'll keep an eye out for when it changes and see about adding it to the database

:)

CJT-80 wrote on May 15^th, 2014 at 10:49am:

I'll keep an eye out for when it changes and see about adding it to the database:)

CJT-80,

If its working then the 03 number should be added now as the whole purpose of this website has always been as a form of guerilla like direct action movement to provide alternative numbers that avoid having to call the high cost 084/7 number regardless of whether or not the alternative is approved of or authorised by the company.  In fact usually it isn't approved of by the company in any way.

In this case thanks to the EU Consumer Rights Directive on the last possible day in mid June no doubt the Post Office and Royal Mail (as one of the worst and most persistent offenders in using 084/7 numbers bearing in mind their until very recent public ownership and their continuing stake by the government) will grudgingly bring in the 03 alternatives on its website.  But quite probably they will keep 0844 for anything they don't deem as customer service given their past demonstrable bad attitude towards customers on phone call costs.

But there is no reason for to wait for us to make the currently operational number verified on our website.  As long as we have confirmed the 03 alternatives work they should be listed as verified numbers right away.

If there has been some recent change in policy on the website regarding alternative numbers since you took over as being the main moderator (still helped it appears on occasion by bbb_uk) from Dave then please confirm why and how this has taken place?

NGNsGhost, as I don't wish to quote your post in full, I have replied to it this way..

I am not the only forum mod on here, I just happened to reply to the post (in what was admittedly a hurry), and the reply was actually meant to say it would be added once I had been able to verify the additional number.

You will of course be pleased to know I have checked it myself, and it will now be added to the database.

There has been no change in any policy and there will not be.. I apologise if my "quick" reply caused you to think this...  :-?

CJT-80 wrote on May 18^th, 2014 at 4:01pm:

reply was actually meant to say it would be added once I had been able to verify the additional number.

When i point out a working alternative  its normally accepted without vetting.  :-?

Apologies bigjohn,

I hadn't realised you had made the original post..

I wouldn't have checked it if I had know.

:( :( :(

CJT-80 wrote on May 18^th, 2014 at 4:01pm:

NGNsGhost, as I don't wish to quote your post in full

It is possible though to quote only part of someone's post by removing the bits that are not needed between the quote and /unquote remarks surrounded by square brackets.  I often do so as I have done with the part of your post I quoted above.


Quote:

You will of course be pleased to know I have checked it myself, and it will now be added to the database.

I am indeed pleased to know that.


Quote:

I apologise if my "quick" reply caused you to think this...  :-?

I am sure being a moderator here involves a large burden of unpaid work, which can ultimately become too much if not shared widely enough, especially once initial enthusiasm for the role or cause has begun to wear off a little.  I do hope the moderator role here will in future be sufficiently widely shared to prevent one or two campaigners feeling overloaded by the amount of work they have taken on.