NHS organisations will be banned from setting up new premium and national rate telephone numbers for patients contacting local services.
GP practices currently using national rate phone lines will be expected to switch to low rate numbers.

The move, which comes into effect from April, was announced on Thurdsay by Health Minister John Hutton.

Full details: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4293789.stm

But it says they will be allowed to use 0845 or 0844 numbers. Can we expect some of the lines to switch to (for example) 0844 49 numbers (5p per min at all times - actually more expensive than 0870 in the evening or weekends!)

So, NEG (who have bought numerous 0844 numbers in advance of this 'ban') win!

The 0844 numbers they will use will cost 5p per minute (at all times) to call and are therefore 66% MORE EXPENSIVE than a national rate call on BT (3p per minute during the day).

The 0870 numbers currently used cost from 7p to 10p per minute to call depending on the service provider the caller is using - at least 133% more expensive than a national rate call on BT (3p per minute during the day).

In fact, for those of us usiing 18866 to make any 01 or 02 call at any time for a total of 1p, the reduction to having to pay 5p per minute will be still be yet another stealth tax.

Roll on May 5th.

More here from to Department of Health and here from Number 10.

All that has happened is that one scam, 0870, has been replaced with another - 0844. The DOH simply doesn't "get it". Why can't these public servants understand this issue - it isn't *that* complex. 084 or 087 mean callers, nearly always, pay more. What should happen now is:

*Once 0844 is introduced, use FOI to request geographic equivalent;
*Point out to DOH that 0844 termination from overseas is difficult and often impossible and yes, people do contact GPs from abroad, and in certain circumstances, the inability to get through could have severe consequences;
*Get as much media exposure as possible, explain that people are still being ripped-off;
*Use the call-box rip-off aspect - this could be a useful tool to get rid of 0844;
*Keep campaigning against rip-off merchants such as NEG.

The Department of Health's e-mail address is dhmail@doh.gsi.gov.uk.

In addition to idb's points above:

• Weekend and evening rates to NEG's 0844 numbers will cost more than 0870. This will generate them extra revenue at those times.
  
• The 0844 numbers cost more to call from BT Payphones than 0870.
  
• Those on inclusive call packages will always have to pay to call these numbers.
  
• Some people, especially the elderly, may be confused by having to remember a new 11 digit number.

As soon as jrawle highlighted the fact that they would be using 0844 or 0845 I emailed The Department of Health.

I think we need to ensure they are fully aware.

Now that the DoH has banned 0870 numbers for GPs but suggested that 0845 and 0844 numbers would be allowed, the tack should be changed.

GPs have until April to get rid of their 0870 numbers. They may have been duped by NEG but after all the publicity they probably have some understanding of the issues involved by now.  Pressure should be brought to bear on them revert to their old geographical numbers rather than change to 0845 or 0844.

0844 numbers are a jungle, call rates vary from 0.5p to 5p/min depending on what digits follow 0844.  There is little doubt that those GPs who signed up with NEG will try to use numbers with the top 5p/min rate at any time rate.

Apart from the cost there are two important concerns with 0845 and 0844 numbers:

1.
0870, 0845 or 0844 numbers cannot be called from a number of countries. Even from countries from which they can, not all telecom service providers are able to route these calls. This means that doctors attending to people who may have been involved in an accident or suffer illness while abroad may not be able to contact the person's GP.  The lack of access to medical records could be damaging or even life threatening to the patient concerned.  

2.
Patients, especially old people, on small fixed incomes may not have their own phone lines and may be forced to use payphones. Calls from payphones to a geographic 01 or 02 number cost 30p for 15 minutes.  An 8 minute call to an 0844 top rate number would cost £1.22 from a payphone.

For the record, BT payphone charges are:

01 or 02 numbers: 30p for 15 minutes

0845 and 0870 numbers: 10p connection charge + 10p for every 55 seconds

for the top rate 0844 numbers, e.g. 084441, 0844441, 0844443: 10p connection charge + 13.9p/min

A report in today's Daily Telegraph headed "Doctors' premium rates phone line banned"......  

I quote an excerpt: "The ban will also apply to NHS dentists, opticians and out of hours GP services.

Around £500 will be provided to practises that have to switch to lower rate numbers".

Bludy 'ell!  They are being paid for being greedy now!

:(

wrote on Feb 25^th, 2005 at 10:35am:

2. Patients, especially old people, on small fixed incomes may not have their own phone lines and may be forced to use payphones. Calls from payphones to a geographic 01 or 02 number cost 30p for 15 minutes.  An 8 minute call to an 0844 top rate number would cost £1.22 from a payphone. For the record, BT payphone charges are: 01 or 02 numbers: 30p for 15 minutes 0845 and 0870 numbers: 10p connection charge + 10p for every 55 seconds for the top rate 0844 numbers, e.g. 084441, 0844441, 0844443: 10p connection charge + 13.9p/min

I'm not sure the payphone argument is such a strong one. If it's a call to book an appointment, it might only last a minute, so this could cost 20p on a non-geographical number, compared to 30p for a geographical call.

In this instance, the real rip-off is the BT payphone tariff. They claim 30p for 15 minutes is a good deal, while knowing very well that the vast majority of calls from payphones last less than a minute. It was the change in pricing of payphones that finally made me decide it's worth getting a mobile phone!

But if they do change to 0844, the increase in cost from payphones is certainly significant.

Re above

"0844 numbers are a jungle ........"

I agree, but Mr Chapman, of NEG, said he would use, in the future, the 5p/min range of 0844 numbers.  That is 5p/min at all times - 24 hours a day - 7 days a week.

Compared to the maximum cost universal - all UK destinations -  BT call rate from a residential phone of 3p/min, a call to a Doctor using an  NEG system (0844) will cost at least 66% more than a patient using a normal geographical number.

A call to a 0844 number from a payphone has an astronomical premium of over  900% compared to telephoning a 01 or 02 number from a pay phone; and even cost more than telephoning a 0845/0970 number, which are bad enough at over 700%.

Previously, with 0870 numbers NEG and doctors made patients pay at least an extra 133% premium.

The “new improved scheme” using 0844 numbers, NEG and doctors will make patients pay at least an extra 66% premium.  In some cases calls to 0844 cost more than to 0870 number.

The 0870 scam has been exposed.  The government’s solution is to substitute it with another scam and pretend that the “new improved scheme” (or should this be “new improved scam” plus £500 bonus for the doctors from the taxpayer) is just the same as a so called “local rate” call.

Remember the new rule: 3p = 5p (George Orwell and all that…)

Today jrawle wrote:

I'm not sure the payphone argument is such a strong one. If it's a call to book an appointment, it might only last a minute, so this could cost 20p on a non-geographical number, compared to 30p for a geographical call.

From personal experience: a short while ago I called my GP on his new 0870 number and for 8 minutes I was listening alternately to music and a recorded message without the receptionist answering.  After 8 minutes I put the phone down

wrote on Feb 25^th, 2005 at 12:32pm:

Today jrawle wrote: From personal experience: a short while ago I called my GP on his new 0870 number and for 8 minutes I was listening alternately to music and a recorded message without the receptionist answering.  After 8 minutes I put the phone down

That's impossible - as NEG's own statements prove:

The 0870 number is simply a mechanism that enables them to fund a state of the art switch board offering a better service for patients and reduced waiting times,” explains Richard Chapman, CEO of NEG.

“Before a practice introduces the 0870 number, patients may find it almost impossible to get through at peak times of the day because the phone is permanently engaged.

After installation of the system, the patient can always get through, and is actually able to halve the amount of time that they spend on the phone to their surgery.  The 0870 number actually saves the patient both time and money.”

For those of a confused disposition, the purple text above is an estract from an article online in 'The Country Doctor'.  Most will realise it's taken almost word-for-word from one of NEG's spin documents - one of Alistair Campbell's contributions perhaps?

???

wrote on Feb 25^th, 2005 at 10:35am:

Apart from the cost there are two important concerns with 0845 and 0844 numbers: 1. 0870, 0845 or 0844 numbers cannot be called from a number of countries. Even from countries from which they can, not all telecom service providers are able to route these calls. This means that doctors attending to people who may have been involved in an accident or suffer illness while abroad may not be able to contact the person's GP.  The lack of access to medical records could be damaging or even life threatening to the patient concerned.

Your above point is important and needs to be stressed.

For those that do decide to contact the DOH about the changeover from
rip-off 0870 to rip-off 0844, a useful aspect, helpfully provided by Ofcom,
is one I have previously mentioned - the inability or difficulty in
terminating calls to 0844 from overseas. Ofcom's "Calls to 0845 and 0870
numbers: review of retail price and numbering arrangements", which at
present can be found at
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/0845/0845.pdf (Ofcom has an annoying
habit of moving documents - this one wasn't where I had bookmarked it last
year), and contains at paragraph/annex E17 the following:

"In some cases there is limited access from abroad to UK 0844/0871 number
ranges. Whilst this is beyond Ofcom's powers to influence, it seems likely that
international access represents a very small proportion of calls to these numbers, particularly
in the case of NTS numbers used for internet access, since calls are typically long, and
international call rates tend to be expensive."

It really doesn't matter that the proportion of calls may be low - what matters is that there is no *guarantee* that a call will be terminated to a surgery from overseas whereas with the old arrangement of using geographic numbers, it is virtually certain that any given foreign carrier will terminate the call. In matters with potentially serious consequences from the inability to call, the telephone number used must be one that has the widest chance of being connected. Imagine what would happen if someone, in an undeveloped country and not speaking the language, had to grapple with a strange phone system that kept playing a message, in an odd language, that "calls to this number are not possible" all because the surgery and NEG scumbags are so greedy that the 3p/minute revenue overrides the ability of the poor individual trying to get some information on say a prescription or some other illness. In summary, because 0844 termination from overseas is sporadic it should not be used in potentially life/death, or at least serious illness situations.

Regarding post #5

The Department of Health's e-mail address is dhmail@dh.gsi.gov.uk.

The "o" has now been removed from "doh"

David Colin-Thome (National Clinical Director for Primary Care) said on yesterday's You and Yours (listen here) that the reason they're banning 0870 is because they've had "valid feedback from the public."

What he really means is that more people are becoming aware of the scam. The fact that the GP's shouldn't have implemented this in the first place doesn't seem to matter.

When quizzed about what would happen if these numbers were banned, he sounded a bit nervous. I think it's gonna be deeply embarassing for the NHS when it gets out.

He wll give them £500 to keep quiet.

Would Cruz who posted on page 1. of this thread please be good enough to explain just how the duration of the call to the doctor is halved by using an 0870 number...Does the doctor have more staff to deal with the patient's queries or do they speak twice as fast.Does he/she mean that the time to connect to the number is shortened as there is no engaged signal but is put in a queue at one's own expense.Does Cruz by any chance have any connection with NEG?

Sorry it's me again. I have just drafted the following note to email to the dept. of health. Please comment and tell me what I have missed out

I hear that you are about to ban 0870 numbers from the NHS but are allowing 0844 and 0845 numbers to go ahead. Are you aware that although these numbers may in some instances be cheaper to call than 0870 they are still premium rate numbers in that they are excluded from most inclusive packages offered by the telephone companies. Although the subsciber is not sharing the revenue from the calls the numbers providers are making a profit on these numbers at the expense of the callers. Why cannot we stick with the geographic numbers. These are the normal landline telephone numbers which all begin with either 01 or 02. I am informed that perfectly uptodate and modern telephone systems with the ability to divert calls can be run from these geographic numbers.I am also reliably informed that all of these nongeographic numbers,ie 0870 0845 0844 actually connect to a normal geographic number. I would urge you to reconsider very carefully.

There could actually be a revenue share.
We have one client using 0845 for its helpline where the modest charge funds the system necessary for the fairly complex call handling (not merely to a single location, but switched to different volunteers' homes), which could not yet be done on geographic numbers without costing the charity much money. That is money for kit and specialist programming and control. But I am working on this one! Oh and it is only available to callers in the evenings. This charge also covers the 0800 costs of the volunteers logging in and so on.
Another client receives a small inpayment from its 0845 calls.
Just a thought.

wrote on Feb 26^th, 2005 at 11:21am:

Would Cruz who posted on page 1. of this thread please be good enough to explain just how the duration of the call to the doctor is halved by using an 0870 number...Does the doctor have more staff to deal with the patient's queries or do they speak twice as fast.Does he/she mean that the time to connect to the number is shortened as there is no engaged signal but is put in a queue at one's own expense.Does Cruz by any chance have any connection with NEG?

Cruz may be connected there, but I think it's rather more likely that he/she is ironically contrasting NEG's truthfulness with lompos' delusional, possibly even psychotic, memory of having spent that much time on the phone. After all, anybody calling the doctor may well be ill; how can we trust the word of such consequently deranged people?

wrote on Feb 26^th, 2005 at 11:35am:

Sorry it's me again. I have just drafted the following note to email to the dept. of health. Please comment and tell me what I have missed out

You need to point out that allowing 0844 numbers creates a loophole. Some 0844 numbers actually cost msot than 0870 numbers at certain times of day.

wrote on Feb 25^th, 2005 at 10:35am:

0870, 0845 or 0844 numbers cannot be called from a number of countries. Even from countries from which they can, not all telecom service providers are able to route these calls. This means that doctors attending to people who may have been involved in an accident or suffer illness while abroad may not be able to contact the person's GP.  The lack of access to medical records could be damaging or even life threatening to the patient concerned.

Does this sound realistic? How often does this happen?

What would the legal implications be should this happen? Would the patient's family be able to sue the NHS/GP surgery?

I do not expect there are any statistics about calls to doctors from abroad. However, I personally witnessed such a call when during a consultation with a doctor a patient called in from Nigeria for some advice. There are also regular press reports of road traffic accidents abroad where British people are injured.

Legal action against doctors with telephone numbers inaccessible from certain locations abroad and who thereby cause harm to patients may exercise some legal brains but they are unlikely to be readers/contributors to this Forum.

My point is that this needs pointing out to the DH. Are they that dim?

Hi Reggie – reply #20

0870, 0845 and 0844 numbers (and many more) are revenue sharing numbers.   All of this shared revenue is provided by the caller; who receives this revenue is determined by the contractual arrangements between the various parties.  In the case of surgeries, doctors may not receive this revenue directly in cash, but they nonetheless receive it in kind.

Has anyone noticed that in the text of the 24 February DoH press release, under 'Notes to Editor', para 2., there is the following statement:

GP practices currently using national rate telephone lines will be expected to change these to ‘lo-call’ numbers, under an arrangement between the Department of Health and the principal supplier.

Does this mean that the DoH are in cahoots with NEG (=the principal supplier)?

Hi lompos

The answer is yes.  Listen to the link privided by Dave in reply #17 above.

Further info:
The man interviewed at the end of the clip, from the Department of Health, is Dr David Colin-Thome, National Clinical Director for Primary Care.

GP leader responds to ban on higher rate telephone numbers:

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=7964

>>>

Responding to the Department of Health (England) announcement banning the use of higher rate telephone numbers within the NHS, Dr Hamish Meldrum, chairman of the BMA's General Practitioners Committee said:
"The BMA is sympathetic to the view that patients should not be charged over the odds for contacting their family doctor. A relatively small number of GP practices use 0870 numbers, as do some other NHS bodies. Some of the GP practices involved were encouraged to switch to 0870 systems by their primary care organisation. By introducing 0870 telephone systems, practices will have benefited from improved equipment installed with the aim of ensuring patients were able to get through to the practice quickly, deliver their message or request speedily, and in general spend less time on the telephone than with previous systems. We welcome the Government's intention to fund the cost of the change back to lo-call rate systems and this should apply to all affected practices, whatever their telephone system supplier. We look forward to talks with the Department about implementing the new policy in a workable time-frame."

The quote in idb's post comes from Dr Hamish Meldrum chairman of the BMA's general practioner committee.

Does anbody know how to contact this guy?

Like the DOH he does not appear to know that all 08xx numbers (except 0800) are a scam and that the lo-call numbers are in some situations worse than 0870 numbers. In addition he appears to have fallen for NEG's propaganda  on call answering being quicker with their system.  Call answering is only as quick as the people who answer - I do not exoect that NEG or any Gps are employing extra personnel to man the equipment.

wrote on Feb 25^th, 2005 at 3:57pm:

David Colin-Thome (National Clinical Director for Primary Care) said on yesterday's You and Yours (listen here) that the reason they're banning 0870 is because they've had "valid feedback from the public."

So what the DoH now need is more valid complaints from members of the public regarding the hazards of 0844, especially when calling on Saturday, from a Payphone or overseas.  When they get enough of those valid complaints then they will have to revert to a geographic number.  If they had changed to 0845 it would just about have been tolerable as although a con its a very widely practiced con and still universally cheaper than 0870, except from a BT Payphone.

I recommend you all email the doctor interviewed on You & Yours pointing out why 0844 is not the solution to the problem.

wrote on Feb 27^th, 2005 at 3:02pm:

If they had changed to 0845 it would just about have been tolerable as although a con its a very widely practiced con and still universally cheaper than 0870, except from a BT Payphone.

Also don't forget that the official BT response to the Ofcom NTS Options for the Future consultation recommends abolishing revenue sharing on 0845 and 0870 and reverting them to costing no more than geographic uk calls.  But BT still suggests that revenue sharing be retained on 0844 and 0871.  This is another reason why changing to 0844 by NEG is not acceptable.

And what's all this rubbish some of you spout about NEG buying up blocks of 0844 numbers at great cost?  If you are a telecoms carrier in the business of flogging 084x and 087x you will already own large blocks of these numbers that you can reallocate as you see fit.  And the costs of acquiring these blocks are not at all substantial.  Also assuming they don't just fleece doctor's surgeries at NEG they undoubtedly need the 0844 numbers anyway for other parts of their NGN misselling operations.

So don't give me all the bleeding heart stuff about poor old NEG having had to specially buy up large blocks of numbers at great expense.  They no doubt also own great blocks of 0845 numbers and could change the doctors surgeries to one of those tomorrow at the drop of a hat if they wanted to.

Does anyone have an email address for Dr David Colin-Thome?

wrote on Feb 27^th, 2005 at 5:57pm:

Does anyone have an email address for Dr David Colin-Thome?

Here are his biographical notes from the Department of Health website:-

David Colin-Thome - National Clinical Director for Primary Care

Or if that doesn't work just type "dr david colin-thome" into Google.

A bit of trial and error was required on the email address front but I eventually tracked it down:-

david.colin-thome@dh.gsi.gov.uk

You may therefore like to give Dr Colin-Thome your opinion of the even greater scam involved in calling 0844 numbers.

Edited by Dave: Corrected link

wrote on Feb 27^th, 2005 at 3:09pm:

And what's all this rubbish some of you spout about NEG buying up blocks of 0844 numbers at great cost?  If you are a telecoms carrier in the business of flogging 084x and 087x you will already own large blocks of these numbers that you can reallocate as you see fit. ....

A check of Numbers administered by Ofcom shows that they don't appear to have any 08 numbers at all. So I presume they sub-contract another provider's services.

Hi NGM

Thanks for the info.

An email will soon be on its way.

kk

wrote on Feb 27^th, 2005 at 8:02pm:

Hi NGM Thanks for the info. An email will soon be on its way. kk

An email will also soon be on its way from me too and I hope also from some of the other participants in this particular thread.

It might also be nice if some of you could email the producer of You & Yours - dan.saladino@bbc.co.uk - asking if they haven't allowed NEG and the NHS to perhaps escape rather too lightly by suggesting that 0844 are an entirely acceptable substitute for the present 0870 number range used.

Pointing out that 0844 numbers are not the same price at all as the much longer established and also one priced "local rate" 0845 numbers would be helpful as would pointing out that from a BT Phonebox that 0844 numbers (at 13p per minute compared to 11p for 0870 at all times) cost more to call than 0870.

Its also worth pointing out that the BT submission to Ofcom on NTS recommends returning 0870 and 0845 to normally priced calls at the same rate as geographic calls but that BT proposes that revenue share and high call prices can continue unabated on 0844 and 0871.  Indeed in the future there may even be allowed what Ofcom likes to call increased pricing "granularity" (to you or me that means yet higher prices and more lying and cheating of telecoms customers) on 0844 and 0871 numbers.

It may also be worth making these points in your email to the good doctor.

Today it has been suggested that NEG are in cohorts with HMG.

I have thought so for ages, but does anyone have any evidence?

Does Alistair Campbell who works for both have any idea?

All ideas welcome.

And NGM, please moderate your langauge a little, it was I who suggested that NEG have "Spent a fortune".

It was someone else who had the "Bleeding Heart" theory.

Some of the time we are wrong, sometimes we are right, but we all are out for the same thing, if you alienate people with that sort of talk you will see the membership of this forum go down fast.

I have written to ALL of the people listed, and I mean written, on headed notepaper with a first class stamp.

8)

wrote on Feb 27^th, 2005 at 8:55pm:

Some of the time we are wrong, sometimes we are right, but we all are out for the same thing, if you alienate people with that sort of talk you will see the membership of this forum go down fast. I have written to ALL of the people listed, and I mean written, on headed notepaper with a first class stamp. 8)

Juby,

Your energy in actually sending these people a traditional physical communication is greatly admired.

Depending on who one is communicating with this can be an effective tactic in giving one's communication more gravitas but on the other hand letters are often intercepted by secretaries, whereas emails can quite often still reach senior people directly.

Apologies if my response on the 0844 "bleeding heart" stuff was a little OTT as I did not mean to offend such a valued contributor to this forum as yourself.

I think I had wrongly imagined that it was the bastardos at NEG who had suggested that the 0844s were costing them lots more money to implement.

When you say "Alistair Campbell works for NEG" do you mean the "Alistair Campbell" of Blairite spin doctor fame?  If so no wonder he imagines he can spin people into believeing a premium rate 0870 call costs no more than a standard geographic national rate call.

Of course, apart from the way NEG has been allowed to profit directly from patients, the revenue generated is proportional to the volume of call traffic. It is a 'pay as you go' service!

Indeed, if it's that good, why doesn't the DH have a national contract with NEG (to make it cheaper per practice)? Oh, I forgot, it's free anyway.  ::)

I am concerned about the £500 payment mentioned in the official press release issued by the Department of Health. This does not sound right to me  - to say the least.  Maybe the National Audit office should get involved.

Now you raise a interesting point, is it the real AC or is a lookalike?

The Y&Y progamme on which that person was interviewed was certainly convinced.

I am not certain however, therefore I am reluctant to commit.

I did however publish this (modified) page on my web site on the day it was broadcast.

http://www.pervance.com/html/0870.html

Can anybody please help - Is he the real thing?

wrote on Feb 27^th, 2005 at 10:25pm:

I am concerned about the £500 payment mentioned in the official press release issued by the Department of Health. This does not sound right to me  - to say the least.

Make sure you send an email to david.colin-thome@dh.gsi.gov.uk to let him know that you think the £500 payments are quite wrong and are also at the expense of responsible doctors surgeries who have not entered into these reprehensible arrangements.

Tel Dr Colin-Thome that you think the doctors concerned shoud actually be paying each of their patients £5 (so about £10,000 in total) in compensation for the additional costs that each of those patients have been forced to incur through their telecoms policies.

Also point out that 0844 numbers to be used by NEG will cost more than 0870 in the evening and at the weekend from home phones and at all times from BT Payphones.

Hi NGM

Yes, all the points you made have been included.

I may expand on the £500 issue.

kk

and perhaps copies to Ofcom and to your MP - to maintain the pressure.

I agree - I sent one to my MP on Friday plus three others.

wrote on Feb 27^th, 2005 at 9:07pm:

When you say "Alistair Campbell works for NEG" do you mean the "Alistair Campbell" of Blairite spin doctor fame?  If so no wonder he imagines he can spin people into believeing a premium rate 0870 call costs no more than a standard geographic national rate call.

I think this Mr Campbell is entirely different to the one who used to work for the government:

http://www.idealmarketingcompany.co.uk/contacts.php

He seems to work for a company known as "The Ideal Marketing Company"

Re reply #41 etc

Alistair Campbell of NEG, in not the same as the one at No 10

wrote on Feb 28^th, 2005 at 11:45am:

Re reply #41 etc Alistair Campbell of NEG, in not the same as the one at No 10

You mean he is not the same as the one who used to be at No 10? ;)

Dan Saladino, of You and Yours, is on Holiday this week.

Any emails can be sent to:

YouAndYours@bbc.co.uk

wrote on Feb 28^th, 2005 at 3:47pm:

Dan Saladino, of You and Yours, is on Holiday this week. Any emails can be sent to: YouAndYours@bbc.co.uk

Does this mean that you work for the BBC then kk?  Or just an avid listener of the program?

melanie.abbott@bbc.co.uk and winifred.robinson@bbc.co.uk are probably also relevant people at You & Yours to email at the moment.

youandyours@bbc.co.uk only seems to get read by classic customer service department types.

No, I do not work for the BBC. I just telephoned them and they said Dan Saladino was on holiday.

The following contact points may be of interest to members.

David.Colin-Thome@dh.gsi.gov.uk

DH fax number: 0207 210 5523  and 0207 210 5454

dhmail@dh.gsi.gov.uk

Phone storm surgery must scrap number

Source: http://www.rochdaleobserver.co.uk/news/index/articles/article_id=21875.html

>>>


THE surgery at the centre of a telephone storm is being forced to scrap its national rate phone.

The Edenfield Road practice ditched its 01706 number in favour of an 0870 number which cost patients almost seven pence a minute a call instead of the previous four pence.

Doctors said they had changed numbers in response to patient complaints over the old phone system but the move angered patients.

The practice will now have to change back to a local rate number this spring after the Department of Health announced a ban on GP surgeries, NHS dentists and opticians using national or premium rate numbers.

The government will also make about £500 available for practices currently using the national rate systems to switch back.

Dr Richard Verity, one of the GPs at the surgery, said: “If the government has decided to ban the numbers then we will go along with it.

“But the Department of Health have done a complete u-turn because, at the time of us introducing the new number, they were suggesting this was a good thing and they use the numbers themselves for helplines.

“We introduced the new system in good faith and, so far, we’ve had as many people in support of the new system as those against.

“We’ve signed a five-year contract with the company so it will be a case of negotiating the change.”

Clive Entwistle, a patient at the surgery, said: “The ban is excellent news. Common sense has prevailed and this is a victory for the patient.

“I suspect the surgery didn’t understand or think through the implications of the system when they signed up to it.”

Health Minsiter John Hutton, who announced the ban on Thursday, said: “Sick people and their families should not be asked to pay over the odds to contact local NHS services. The use of premium and national rate telephone numbers is an unfair additional cost for many NHS patients.”

Ian Mello Baron, associate director of primary care, said: “Rochdale Primary Care Trust  commends the Department of Health for banning GP practices from introducing telephone numbers that charge the public national rates instead of local ones.

“We welcome this announcement, which supports our initial advice to GP practices in the area to avoid using numbers with the premium rate ‘0870’ prefix.

“The PCT believes the ban will protect Rochdale patients from being charged over the odds to call NHS services in their local area.”

But 0844 x pensive is not returning to an ordinary "local" call.  Its 233% more expensive than making an 0870 call on a Saturday morning.

Doh, whats the use.  When the majority of the population and of journalists are apparently such financially illiterate morons they probably deserve everything they get.

wrote on Mar 1^st, 2005 at 1:13pm:

But 0844 x pensive is not returning to an ordinary "local" call.  Its 233% more expensive than making an 0870 call on a Saturday morning. Doh, whats the use.  When the majority of the population and of journalists are apparently such financially illiterate morons they probably deserve everything they get.

e-mail to the Rochdale Observer 1330 1/3/05:

Quote:

I read with interest your 'Phone storm surgery must scrap number' article. Unfortunately, you have been misled about what is to happen now.  The practice will NOT now "have to change back to a local rate number this spring after the Department of Health announced a ban on GP surgeries, NHS dentists and opticians using national or premium rate numbers."   They are to be made to change to an 0844 number - which is NOT 'local rate' (BT scrapped the differentiation between local and national calls on 1/7/04 and standardised the cost of calling any number with an STD code starting 01 or 02 at 3p per minute during the day, so the expression is meaningless).  The range of 0844 numbers chosen are charged at 5p per minute at all times from a BT residential landline. Although a reduction from 7.51p per minute (for 0870 numbers) to 5p per minute is welcome, how can it be acceptable to make patients pay 5p per minute to call their GP when a normal call (to the former 01706 number) would cost a maximum of 3p per minute?   Indeed, many people use a provider called call18866.co.uk and pay 1p per call (NOT per minute) for a call of any length, at any time, to any UK 01 or 02 number. A well-kept secret is that charges from BT call boxes to 0870 and 0845 numbers are exactly the same - 10p connection and then 10p for every 55 seconds - with a minimum charge of 30p.  Even a 5 minute call at such prices would be excessive for many people on low incomes or pensions. BUT IT GETS WORSE STILL. Charges from BT call boxes to 0844 numbers are 10p connection and then 10p for every 43 seconds - with a minimum charge of 30p.  A 5 minute call costs an incredible £1.50 - EVEN MORE THAN FOR A CALL TO AN 0870 or 0845 NUMBER!  It seems NEG (the supplier), the NHS and GPs are determined to penalise the poor. It is bad enough government departments and agencies using 0870, 0845 (and even 09xx) numbers but allowing the NHS to do so is a scandal.   Mr. Hutton's announcement has done nothing to correct this extension of 'rip-off Britain'.

I begin to feel the same as Non-Geographical man about this. I feel this is the root of the problem with the whole NGN abuse issue, not just by GPs. Most members of the public can't seem to understand how they are being conned, or their level of basic mathematical understanding is so low (or both) that they are totally apathetic to the whole issue.

There are some people you just cannot help. Just as the majority of the people in this country get the politicians they deserve because of their own ineptitude, so they will be targeted by those who have determined that they are such simpletons that they are easy prey for scams of all types!

Members of this site are in a distinct minority and we have to ask the question - can the majority of telecoms consumers be helped out of their own lethargy; do they want any help. The answer may well be  "NO".

wrote on Mar 1^st, 2005 at 1:01pm:

Phone storm surgery must scrap number Source: http://www.rochdaleobserver.co.uk/news/index/articles/article_id=21875.html >>> ... Ian Mello Baron, associate director of primary care, said: “Rochdale Primary Care Trust  commends the Department of Health for banning GP practices from introducing telephone numbers that charge the public national rates instead of local ones. ...

What does he mean by ‘local’ and ‘national’ rates?

I suspect that the issues here haven't been drawn and coloured in clearly enough.  ::)

Don’t be disheartened dorf. I met two people over the weekend who commented about the doctors scam – one from the Daily Mail and one from You and Yours.  The word is definitely spreading.

A well drafted and clear message pud. No doubt you have sent an copy to all and sundry.   Below is a list of organisations that I have sent a similar email, it may be of use to other member.

Here is my list of contacts that may be of use to members complaining about the 0870 and 0844 scam by some doctors surgeries.  And about 087x and 084x numbers in general.

Dan.Saladino@bbc.co.uk (You and Yours producer)
Melanie.Abbott@bbc.co.uk (You and Yours reporter)

David.Colin-Thome@dh.gsi.gov.uk (Director of Primary Care NHS)
dhmail@dh.gsi.gov.uk      (Dept of Health – Address it to the Minister)
ReidJ@parliament.uk (John Reid - Minister in DH)
HuttonJ@parliament.uk (John Hutton - Minister in Dept of Health)

Your own MP  (very important in an election year)

S.Poulter@DailyMail.co.uk  Sean Poulter reporter
Nic.Fleming@Telegraph.co.uk  Nic Fleming reporter

Headquarters National Audit Office  
Sir John Bourn
157-197 Buckingham Palace Road
London SW1W 9SP
Telephone +44 (0)20 7798 7000
Fax +44 (0)20 7798 7070
enquiries@nao.gsi.gov.uk (mark email for the attention of Sir John Bourn)

If you don’t think The Department of Health or Ofcom have spent your money wisely or the operations of those bodies (and any other public body) is found wanting, you can ask the audit office to investigate.

And as it is near an election:

Conservatives.
Phone 020 7222 9000
Fax 020 7222 1135
Leader@Conservatives.com

UKIP
Phone 0800 587 6587
Fax 0121 333 1520
webmail@ukip.org

Labour
Phone 08705 900 200
info@new.labour.org.uk

Lib Dem
Phone 020 7222 7999
Fax 020 7799 2170
info@Libdems.org.uk

From juby: Don't forget The General Medical Council
Motto "Protecting Patients, Guiding Doctors"
2nd Floor, 350 Euston Rd, NW1 3JN
rspringer@gmc-uk.org
Standards Section.
gmc@gmc-uk.org

Thanks kk,

I will try to remain hopeful.

Correction: re my reply  above
"Nic Fleming" only has one “m”

wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2005 at 11:12am:

Thanks kk, I will try to remain hopeful.

I Just received an email from 1899.com about their new free calls facility using VOIP.  Its currently only being offered as a beta test to their existing registered customers.

I do hope we will all not turn out to have been wasting our lives with our 0870 anger and campaigning given that new technology may simply make our concerns redundant?

Of course I am sure the it may be at least 3 years before the DVLA or the Passport Agency actually have a VOIP number

wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2005 at 11:01am:

And as it is near an election: Conservatives. Phone 020 7222 9000 Fax 020 7222 1135 Leader@Conservatives.com UKIP Phone 0800 587 6587 Fax 0121 333 1520 webmail@ukip.org Labour Phone 08705 900 200 info@new.labour.org.uk Lib Dem Phone 020 7222 7999 Fax 020 7799 2170 info@Libdems.org.uk

Very enlightening.

The political party which has allowed this to spiral out of control has an 0870 number!

Who mentioned stealth taxes?

Also UKIP has a free number!

Don't forget The General Medical Council

Motto "Protecting Patients, Guiding Doctors"

2nd Floor, 350 Euston Rd, NW1 3JN

rspringer@gmc-uk.org

Standards Section.

gmc@gmc-uk.org

Nice one juby.

Another member mentioned the inability of patients, or the doctors treating them outside the UK, being unable to contact the patient’s home GP for information – possibly life saving information.  As in most cases 0844 number are not accessible from outside the UK.  All normal 01 and 02 numbers are.

I will be making that point when I contact the email address you provided for the GMC.

I made a request to the local NHS Primary Care Trust under the FOI Act asking them to disclose the number they are using for contacting the GP who recently changed his number to 0870.

To my surprise they said that they, too, are using the 0870 number.

Double whammy.  NEG are also profiting from internal NHS calls!

Has anyone tried to obtain a GP's geographic number directly from the GP under the FOI Act and if so with what result?

Received a reply from Tom Duke at Department of Health
today.

I guess it is a standard reply so will only give you the final paragraph;


[The only special service numbers the NHS will be able to use in future are
'freephone' numbers, or those that offer patients a guaranteed low rate
call, such as '0845' or '0844' numbers.

We have noted your concern about these "0845" and "0844" prefix numbers.
Thank you for contacting the Department of Health about this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Tom Duke
Customer Service Call Centre
Department of Health]

At least he was quicker than anybody else to reply.

juby

wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2005 at 4:55pm:

Received a reply from Tom Duke at Department of Health today. I guess it is a standard reply so will only give you the final paragraph; [The only special service numbers the NHS will be able to use in future are 'freephone' numbers, or those that offer patients a guaranteed low rate call, such as '0845' or '0844' numbers. We have noted your concern about these "0845" and "0844" prefix numbers. Thank you for contacting the Department of Health about this matter. Yours sincerely, Tom Duke Customer Service Call Centre Department of Health] At least he was quicker than anybody else to reply. juby

As expected to be honest. 0844 is here to stay. The DOH is probably afraid of taking action against NEG rip-off merchants in case it ends up being subject to litigation due to contract termination or something similar. It also probably still believes that these 'local' calls cost more or less the same as any true call to someone in the same area. The response simply demonstrated the standard of public servants within the UK. The scams will continue until someone with enough clout exposes the rip-off. Ofcom could of course do this, but it looks like it won't - after all, when was the last time it put customers' interests first?

wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2005 at 11:58am:

Very enlightening. The political party which has allowed this to spiral out of control has an 0870 number! Who mentioned stealth taxes?

Geographical alternative for Labour: 020 7802 1000

Anyone care to try it?

The following email was sent today to the DOH, John Hutton, the conservative and libdem health spokesmen, the gmc, the bbc and the telegraph:

There have been several inaccuracies and ambiguities in Health Minister John Hutton's announcement on 24 February 2005 entitled "National and Premium Rate Phone Numbers Banned From April", as reported by the Department of Health in their press release 2005/0074 on the same day:

1.

BT no longer make a distinction between local calls and national calls, therefore the use of the term 'national rate number' was incorrect. 'National rate' numbers do not exist any more.

2.

Some GPs have changed their telephone numbers to numbers starting with 0870. These numbers are 'premium rate' according to BT's terminology and cost 7.5 p/min from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. on weekdays.

ref: Pricing Information Service  

3.

The statement that "Premium rate telephone numbers start with the digits 09'" was misleading as other numbers not starting with 09 may also be premium rate, if premium rate means that they are more expensive than calls to normal geographic numbers starting with 01 or 02.  

4.

According to John Hutton's announcement GPs will be allowed to use numbers starting with 0844.   It was misleading of John Hutton to say that these are 'guaranteed low rate', as they cost 5 p/min at all times.  This compares with the cost of calling normal geographic numbers starting with 01 or 02 of 3 p/min (Bt Option 1) down to 0 p/min (BT Option 3 and others), with a whole range of other providers offering UK calls at 1 p/min.  

The term 'guaranteed' implies that only the cost of these calls can be known with certainty which of course is not the case as all call charges, whether they are high or low, are 'guaranteed' by the service providers such as BT.

5.

In the 'Notes to Editors' at the end of the press release it is stated that 'GP practices currently using national rate telephone lines will be expected to change these to ‘lo-call’ numbers'.  It was unfortunate to use the term 'lo-call', as this does not mean 'low cost" if numbers starting with 0844 are included.

6.

There was no mention in John Hutton's statement of the cost of calls to 0844 numbers from payphones which people who cannot afford their own phone lines are forced to use and which cost several times more than calls to numbers starting with 01 or 02.  

I strongly recommend that the above inaccuracies, ambiguities and omissions are corrected and clarified in a further press release and also that the possible use of 0844 telephone numbers by GPs after April is reviewed.

wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2005 at 5:03pm:

after all, when was the last time it (Ofcom) put customers' interests first?

Never.

OFTEL was and Ofcom now is almost entirely the creature of the telecoms companies and the comments made in most of its so called consultations are virtually all oriented towards the business needs of the industry and not towards any of a host of genuine and valid consumer concerns.  This despite what is written in Ofcom's Charter.

New Labour seems to like to be tougher on crime than the Conservatives but also even softer on business than the Conservatives ever dared to be.

e-mail reply just received:

Thank you for your email to the Department of Health regarding the ban on 0870 numbers for GP surgeries.

Under these changes announced by John Hutton, from April NHS organisations will not be able to set up new premium and national rate telephone numbers for patients contacting local services.  GP practices currently using national rate telephone lines will be expected to change these to 'lo-call' rate numbers, which offer patients a guaranteed low call charge.  These changes should be completed by the spring.

In the interests of clarity, numbers that start with the prefix:

087 are national rate numbers, which will be banned;

09 are premium rate numbers, which will also be banned; and

0845 or 0844 offer patients a guaranteed low rate call, and will be allowed.

The only special service numbers the NHS will be able to use in future are 'freephone' numbers, or those that offer patients a guaranteed low rate call, such as '0845' or '0844' numbers.

I hope this information is helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Gerry Howell
Customer Service Call Centre
Department of Health

Gerry.Howell@dh.gsi.gov.uk


'lo-call' rate numbers ?

'a guaranteed low call charge' ?

'a guaranteed low rate call' ?

Is there nobody in government who can see through NEG's spin?

My reply:

You appear to have been well and truly duped by NEG.

The expressions you use, 'lo-call' and 'guaranteed low call charge', imply that call charges are the same as calls to 'ordinary' (01 or 02) numbers - 3p per minute during the day from a BT residential landline.

They will not be.  The charges for calls to the 0844 numbers NEG intend to use will be at least 66% more expensive than that - 5p per minute at all times from a residential BT landline and, from a call box, (remember those? - they are still used by the less well-off members of our society, like pensioners) calls are MORE EXPENSIVE than those to 0870 or 0845 numbers and VASTLY MORE EXPENSIVE than calls to 01 or 02 numbers.

In both cases, the charges mean that patients will have to pay at least 66% more to call their GP than they did before the  introduction of these '08' numbers.

Some would say that amounts to yet another stealth tax.  

Personally, I just say it proves the 'free at the point of use' mantra is a lie.

The only numbers that are "lo-call" (in BT parlance) are 0845 numbers. 0844 numbers are termed "special service" numbers.

It's slightly incorrect to say that 0844 numbers cost 5p/min - they can cost anything between 1p and 5p/min (no prizes for guessing which the 0870 numbers will be changed to...) However, the point about payphones is a very good one.

Rather then believing "spin" from NEG, could it be a threat of legal action if they drop revenue-generating numbers (losing 0870 numbers will deprive dotors of their share of the revenue, but NEG will continue to generate an (albeit smaller) revenue from 084 numbers).

An idea would be to inform the national press (particularly papers that covered the 0870 ban in depth) that the new rules will still be ripping off people contacting their doctor - which is actually more scandalous than the original use of 0870 numbers, seeing as it's officially sanctioned by the government!

wrote on Mar 4^th, 2005 at 11:36am:

e-mail reply just received: [color=Brown][i] 'lo-call' rate numbers ? 'a guaranteed low call charge' ? 'a guaranteed low rate call' ? Is there nobody in government who can see through NEG's spin?

In my opinion customer service people should all be deported on the B Ark as suggested by Douglas Adams in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.  A customer service person is by definition a person of almost no creative or questioning bone in their body who merely believes whatever PR spin/lie they are fed by the usually cynical but entirely non customer facing management level.

How can 0844 be "local rate" when "local rate" was abolished by BT on July 1st and when 0844 is 233% higher in price than an 0870 call on a Saturday and Sunday?

I suggest you forward this reply from the Department of Health to geoff.ofcom@org.uk;stephen.carter@ofcom.org.uk;kip.meek@ofcom.org.uk;matt.peacock@ofcom.org.uk as an example of just how widely NTS continues to be misunderstood and to bamboozle most members of the population.

wrote on Mar 4^th, 2005 at 11:54am:

It's slightly incorrect to say that 0844 numbers cost 5p/min

These NEG 0844 numbers will cost 5p per minute at all times though and thus 233% more than most 0870 numbers on a Saturday and Sunday.

All of this merely goes to show that NTS is actually built on a lie of quite breathtaking proportions.

0845 nunbers are called "BT Lo-call"
0844 numbers are called "BT ContactCall"

Search the "www.bt.com" web site with "0844" in the search box at the top right hand corner, produces information on BT ContactCall 0844.

The result:

"BT ContactCall   0844  enables callers to ring you at any time, from any part of the UK - for just 5p a minute"  

The range NEG said they are to use.

..... and further information on 0844
(print out a copy in case they move it)

wrote on Mar 4^th, 2005 at 2:19pm:

0845 nunbers are called "BT Lo-call" 0844 numbers are called "BT ConectCall"

So they are using BT 'brand-names' to describe these numbers, rather than a generic title, and using it incorrectly at that.

wrote on Mar 4^th, 2005 at 2:35pm:

So they are using BT 'brand-names' to describe these numbers, rather than a generic title, and using it incorrectly at that.

Clearly any possible pretence at 0845 still being Lo-Call on the BT front went out the window on 1st July 2004.  Although obviously in reality it had clearly been a contemptuous lie for many years before that, and most especially ever since the launch of all inclusive calling plans such as BT Option 3.

This from the Bexhill Observer today. The punch-line is in the last paragraph. Who was that said that NEG had already got its 0844 numbers lined up? The DoH are obviously hoping that it has produced a sufficiently opaque smoke-screen!!

BEXHILL doctors will no longer be allowed to charge their patients more for
calling the surgery.

Health Minister John Hutton has announced a ban on expensive telephone numbers that charge
patients premium and national rates to call their local NHS heaithcare services, saying sick peo-
ple should not have to "pay over the odds".

Calls cost approximately eight pence per minute.

The surgeries in Little Common and Old Town are among 300 nationwide to adopt the
new-system - much to the fury of local residents.

One patient told us: "My own objection was that this was done under the counter.
I have spoken to so many other people and none had any idea whatsoever that this number
was so expensive, they didn't twig that this system is costing them so much more."

"That is why I was so against it - it was underhand and iniquitous."
"I don't think the surgery should get away with it; it's morally wrong, and I don't want to have to listen to that music."

National rate telephone numbers start with an 087 prefix, while premium rate telephone num-
bers start with 09.

The only special service numbers the NHS will be able to use in future are freephone num-
bers or those that offer patients a guaranteed low rate call, such as 0845 or 0844.

It is now expected that GP practices will change over to these numbers, a switch which
should be completed by spring.

Around £500 will be provided to each surgery to help cover the cost of changing over.

A spokesman for two surgeries said; "We will be acting within recent government guidelines
and it is envisaged that the surgery telephone numbers will be changed to 0844 numbers by the
end of April. We understand from our system supplier that the matter is in hand and we are awaiting
their further advice."

wrote on Mar 4^th, 2005 at 2:19pm:

0845 nunbers are called "BT Lo-call" 0844 numbers are called "BT ConectCall" Search the "www.bt.com" web site with "0844" in the search box at the top right hand corner, produces information on BT ConectCall 0844. The result: "BT ConnectCall   0844  ...   5p at all times"

I'm sure the numbers NEG will use will cost 5p/min, but my point was that not all 0844 numbers are the same. I sometimes use 2p/min 0844 462 numbers to call abroad. You can see the full pricelist (how are customers supposed to remember all these?!):

http://www.bt.com/Pricing/pis_info.jsp?PRICE_OPTION=Residential/PIS_Specialised_Numbers/innertext/&showsub=PIS_Residential&showsub2=PIS_Specialised_Numbers&c_index=08

ConnectCall is the name of a particular service BT offers businesses, that uses 5p/min 0844 numbers, and they say it "offers the potential for shared call revenues"...

Lo-call used to be a BT trademark, but I'm not sure it still is. If so, couldn't NEG get into trouble for using it?

Another e-mail to the Department of Health:

Dear Mr. Howell

Not only have you allowed NEG to pull the wool over your eyes, you also appear to have ignored COI guidance on this matter.

Two paragraphs of their guidance are particularly relevant:

3.45 Based on your primary target audiences, you should also consider the cost of accessing the service. Not only does this make sure that citizens on low income can afford to contact you, but it also encourages citizens to call by removing the cost barrier.

"3.49 You should always clearly communicate the cost to customers on publicity materials (see paragraph 3.75) and this should not use any misleading terms such as ‘local’, ‘national rate’ etc."

Hi jrawle

During the day (starting at 6am!)

01 or 02 numbers cost at most 3p/min and at best zero p/min (to ANY part of the UK)
0870 numbers cost between 7p/min to 10p/min
0845 nunbers called "BT Lo-call" cost between 3p to 4p/min
0844 numbers called "BT ContactCall" cost 5p/min at ALL times (24/7)


NEG said they are to use the 5p/min range of 0844 numbers.  

Calling an 0844 number cost 5p/min at all times, which is at least 66% more than telephoning an 01 or 02 numbers.  

Calling an 0844 from a Pay Phone cost 946% more than an 01 or 02 call from a Pay Phone at all times.

Calling a doctor using a 0844 number from outside the UK may cost your life - as the call can not be made.

Yes, I agree with kk. Thats the reality!

The following email was sent today to Islington Primary Care Trust:

Dear Ms Percival

Thank you for your prompt reply to the questions under the FOI Act concerning the St Paul's Road Medical Centre.

It was interesting to learn that even to the PCT they did not reveal the geographic number underlying their 0870 number and Islington PCT is compelled to use a 0870 premium rate revenue generating number when making internal calls to the St Pauls Road Medical Centre.

Another noteworthy item disclosed in the correspondence was the unsubstantiated and wildly exaggerated claim by the practice manager, Mr Simon Wills, in his email to Bianca Kokkolas of the PCT on 1 February that a new telephone system would cost in excess of £35,000. This bears no relation to reality and only shows that Mr Wills has either no understanding of the cost of telephone systems or he has been duped by the sales promotion of NEG, or both.  He would do well to seek independent advice on a subject about which he has little knowledge rather than accept advice from a commercial organisation which has a vested interest in selling telephone systems.  The concept of competitive bidding does not appear to be known to Mr Wills.

The partners in the practice decided to fund a new telephone system from revenue generated by patients' telephone calls to the surgery without consulting them.  I wonder if in future they will also ask NHS patients to contribute to the cost of redecorating the surgery, computers and sphygmomanometers?  

The St Paul's Road Medical Centre seems to be oblivious of GMS regulations:

483      The Contractor shall not, either itself or through any other person, demand or accept from any patient of its a fee or other remuneration for its own or another’s benefit-

Hi Lompos

[this is better posted here than under "BT Telephone ..."]

The more reporting you do the better, all types of pressure help.

You could report the Practice to the GMC, at the same time.  

In the end, the doctors may well come to the conclusion that the 0870 – 0844 number scam in not worth the hassle.

Pretending that an 0844 ContactCall at 5p/min, at all times, is the same as the price you or anybody would pay for a local/national call (at most 3p/min.) is  misrepresentation.  Which is  against the GMC code of conduct and would be a disciplinary offence.

You could also point out to the GMC, that with the new proposed 0844 numbers, (and with non-geographical numbers in general), you could find yourself in a life threatening situation.  If you became ill outside the UK, doctors may not be able to contact your own GP for essential information.  

A good point Lompos about surgeries calling each other. Or will they have a separate line(s) with a geographical number?

In common with many other respondents, I received what appears to be the 'standard template' reply from the DHS:

Dear Mr xxxxx,

Thank you for your recent email to the Department of Health regarding the use of premium rate numbers to contact NHS services in the local area.

On 24 February, John Hutton (Minister of State for Health) announced a ban
on the use of NHS service providers requiring patients to use premium and
national rate telephone numbers to call NHS services in their area.  Under
these changes, from April NHS organisations will not be able to set up new
premium and national rate telephone numbers for patients contacting local
services.  GP practices currently using national rate telephone lines will
be expected to change these to 'lo-call' rate numbers, which offer patients
a guaranteed low call charge.  These changes should be completed by the
spring.

In the interests of clarity, numbers that start with the prefix:

·     087 are national rate numbers, which will be banned;

·     09 are premium rate numbers, which will also be banned; and

·     0845 or 0844 offer patients a guaranteed low rate call, and will be
allowed.

The only special service numbers the NHS will be able to use in future are
'freephone' numbers, or those that offer patients a guaranteed low rate
call, such as '0845' or '0844' numbers.

I hope this reply is helpful, and clarifies the action the Department has
taken.

Yours sincerely,


Steven Walker
Customer Service Call Centre
Department of Health

Here is what I wrote in reply. I will look forward to an answer with great interest!

Dear Steven

Thank you for your reply to my recent email.

However, I must take serious issue with some of your statements.

There is now no such thing as a 'national rate' or 'local rate' call. All 0870, 0945 and 0844 numbers are
listed by British Telecom as 'premium rate numbers'. 0845 and 0844 numbers are NOT 'low rate' as you claim.
Indeed, for many people in the UK who purchase an inclusive call plan from their telecommunications
provider for all normal 'geographic calls', calls to these non-geographic premium rate numbers are
specifically excluded. 0844 calls are charged at 5p per minute at all times. Even without an inclusive
call plan, the most expensive rate for a normal call is 3p per minute to a normal number (commencing 01 or
02). At best, with an inclusive plan, such calls are 0p per minute! So, how can you claim 5p is a 'low
rate'? It is still a premium rate! Indeed, with many suppliers, a subscriber can actually call subscribers
in Australia or the USA for less than half that price!

There are even more serious implications if you are unfortunate enough to be one of the millions of people
who do not have a personal phone, and must resort to a public call-box. Calls to 0845 and 0844 numbers
from a call-box attract an even greater premium than they do from a normal phone. Calling an 0844 number
from a call-box cost 946% - yes, nine hundred and forty six percent more! - than an 01 or 02 call from the
same call-box at all times! This is a huge imposition to place on the poorest and most seriously
disadvantaged members of our community.

As if this is not enough, it is almost always impossible to place a call to the non-geographic numbers
from telephones outside of the United Kingdom. Recognising this fact, many organisations who have chosen to use profit sharing numbers such as 0870 and 0845 do provide a geographic alternative for their
customers who are overseas. This could be a life and death situation if a patient were on holiday and was
unable to get in contact with their GP. Let us be absolutely clear about this. It would be because the GP
had chosen to enter into a dubious commercial agreement with a provider of telephone services that used an 0844 number to provide a revenue stream to that provider from the patients' calls.

It is not enough for the Minister of State for Health to ban "premium and national rate telephone numbers
to call NHS services in their area." The ban MUST also include ALL non-geographic numbers in the ranges
including 0845 and 0844. The only acceptable numbers for any GP should be either an 0800 (free-phone)
number, or, more realistically a geographic (01 - 02) number that can be called for 0p from many phones; a
normal - and real -low rate from a call-box, and can also be called from overseas. Anything else is a
dangerous and expensive sham and completely misleads the British public.

I look forward to a favourable reply from you.

Of course, I realise that 'Steven' is only some lowly paid clerk. Perhaps I should send the reply to the Minister. Anyone know his email address?    :)

Keep up the rage!

Hi Mikeinnc

See my reply #61 (page 5).  Reid  and  Hutton (Ministers)

Your own MP is a Must.

Ask some questions under the Freedom of Information Act.  You could send your letter to some of the other addresses on the list.

The reply you received is only a copy of the DH press release 2005/0074.

Keep up the good work.

kk

wrote on Mar 8^th, 2005 at 6:13pm:

In common with many other respondents, I received what appears to be the 'standard template' reply from the DHS: Perhaps I should send the reply to the Minister. Anyone know his email address?    :)

Here are a few email addresses you could send your very good letter to:

huttonj@parliament.uk (the Health Minister)
david.colin-thome@dh.gsi.gov.uk (responsible for primary care in the DoH)
dhmail@dh.gsi.gov.uk (the general DoH email address, mark it for the personal attention of John Hutton),
your MP: surnameinitial@parliament.uk

lansleya@parliament.uk (Conservative health spokesman)
dombeyr@parliament.uk (Libdem health spokesman)

rspringer@gmc-uk.org (General Medical Council)

newsfeedback@dailymail.co.uk
Nic.Fleming@Telegraph.co.uk

wrote on Mar 9^th, 2005 at 9:02am:

Here are a few email addresses you could send your very good letter to:

Done!

:)

The following letter to Islington Primary Care Trust may be of interest.  It has been copied to David Colin-Thome of the DoH, the local MP, the GMC and Islington Trading Standards:

Dear Ms Percival

You expressed the view that "the St Paul’s Road Medical Centre acted in good faith in putting in a telephone system that they believed would benefit their patients in terms of improved speed of answering, etc."

I think this is a pretty naive view. Rather than being a matter of good or bad faith, it was a commercial decision by the partners of the St Paul’s Road Medical Centre to instal a new telephone system and fund it by imposing a levy on their patients through changing their phone number to an 0870 premium rate revenue generating number charged at 7.5 p/min.  

It transpired from the information released by the PCT under the FOI Act that the practice thought it would generate in excess of £35,000 from patients this way and, by definition, save the same amount from its budget at the patients' expense.

Those patients of limited means who do not have their own telephones and are compelled to use payphones are particularly hard hit.  Also the practice is endangering patients who require medical treatment abroad because 0870 (and 0844) numbers are not accessible from all overseas locations.

As to “the improved speed of answering“-  it is true that calls are answered immediately with a recorded message or music, but then the caller has to wait for a receptionist to actually come on line and the caller is being charged 7.5 p/min in the meantime. This is what revenue generation is all about.  There is no way a service can improve merely by the installation of new equipment if the same number of staff handle calls as before.  In fact, from a patient’s perspective, there did not seem to be anything wrong with the phone system of the practice prior to their change to the 0870 number.

Unfortunately the Health Minister’s 24 February 2005 guidance is unclear in a number of respects.  Representations have been made both to John Hutton and David Colin-Thome to issue a clarification.  The GMC is also aware of the situation

John Hutton’s announcement has been the result of a nationwide campaign against the use of 0870 numbers by GPs. The campaign continues because by allowing the use of premium rate 0844 numbers instead of 0870 numbers all that will happen is that the 7.5 p/min charge will reduce to 5 p/min.  This would undoubtedly be an improvement but 5 p/min is still a substantial surcharge over the cost of calls to geographical numbers beginning with 01 or 02.  Revenue generation would continue under the proposed new regime although the revenue generated will be somewhat smaller.

There is also the principle embodied in para. 483 of the GMS regulations that a GP  shall not demand or accept from any of its patients a fee or remuneration for its own or another’s benefit.  

By accepting remuneration from patients for new telephones the door is being opened to doing the same for other things necessary for GPs to practice.  There is no difference in principle between charging patients for a new phone system and charging for, say, redecorating the surgery, new computers or new blood pressure meters.  

The taxpayer adequately funds GPs both in terms of their personal income and the reimbursement of their expenses necessary to provide the service.  GPs are contractors to the NHS, they have to organise their businesses themselves whilst abiding by the terms of their contracts.  There is absolutely no justification for them to try to generate revenue from patients either for themselves or for others, e.g. NEG.  This may well be unlawful as well as unethical.  Remember, the NHS is a public service.

Islington Trading Standards have also been informed and may take action because of the misleading NEG poster displayed in the surgery which, contrary to COI guidance, does not disclose the actual 7.5 p/min cost of calls to the surgery’s 0870 number.  The claim on the poster that these calls are charged at the national rate is equally misleading since calls via BT to any UK number, be it local or national, have been charged at identical rates since 1 July 2004, and this rate is considerably less than 7.5 p/min.  The same applies to other telephone service providers, too.

Interestingly, an identical poster has been removed from the surgery’s street window on 24 February following John Hutton’s announcement but the one in the reception area remains.

PS.

I think you ought also to reflect upon Islington PCT currently being charged premium rates when calling the St Paul’s Road Medical Centre, for all intents and purposes an internal call, and ask the practice to let you know the 0207 geographical number underlying their 0870 premium rate number.  Public funds should not be wasted this way!

wrote on Mar 13^th, 2005 at 3:44pm:

... The campaign continues because by allowing the use of premium rate 0844 numbers instead of 0870 numbers all that will happen is that the 7.5 p/min charge will reduce to 5 p/min.  This would undoubtedly be an improvement but 5 p/min is still a substantial surcharge over the cost of calls to geographical numbers beginning with 01 or 02.  Revenue generation would continue under the proposed new regime although the revenue generated will be somewhat smaller. ...

0844 increases call costs in the evening and at the weekend. Also, I presume that revenue generated will be significantly higher than with 0870 at E&Ws.

I haven't found any adverts for 0844, but for 0871s charged at the same rate at all times, some pay more at E&Ws than daytime. Although I cannot say for certain (maybe someone can clarify this), it probably goes back to the idea that the originating communications provider (ie, the telco one calls from) can only retain a fee for carrying the call. Presumably this is less during E&W. Not all providers distinguish between daytime and E&W with 0871, maybe those who don't, keep the extra revenue for themselves. An example is Telecoms World Plc.

An excellent letter lompos.

Hi Dave

BT do advertise 0844 on the BT web site, the number range to be used cost 5p/min at ALL times.  


Quote from BT website:

"BT ContactCall 0844

ContactCall 0844

BT ContactCall 0844 enables callers to ring you at any time, from any part of the UK – for just 5p a minute. The service offers the potential for shared call revenues….  "

End quote.

0844 from a Pay Phone cost 10p for 43 seconds.
0870 or 0845 from a Pay Phone cost 10p for 55 seconds.
01 and 02 from a Pay Phone, cost 10p for 7.5 minutes.
(both subject to a 10p connection charge and a minimum charge of 30p)

KK

Another excellant letter Lompos.

Well done.

I sent this e-mail to my local paper & they printed it verbatim:

I am writing to you about the article relating to the 0870 telephone number for the Coleford Health Centre on page 13 on the Review, w/e 11/03/2005.

I was outraged when I rang the doctor & found out that the number had changed to an 0870 "Non Geographic Number".  I wrote to the practice manager & received a fairly standard reply.  However on one occasion when the nurse rang me back, the local number which the 0870 number is routed to was displayed on my phone, so I now use this when either myself of my Fiancée have to telephone the surgery.

The change from 0870 to 0845 or 0844 is a con.  BT is apparently recommending to Ofcom that 0870 & 0845 number be reduced to the same price as geographic calls whilst abolishing revenue sharing.  BT suggests that revenue sharing be retained on 0871 & 0844.

Due to modern call packages, which do not clearly state how much they will charge you to call a "Non Geographic Number", everyone will still be paying over the odds to call the doctor.

Basically the cost are roughly as follows:

01 or 02 numbers cost at most 3p/min and at best zero p/min (to ANY part of the UK)
0870 numbers cost between 7p/min to 10p/min
0845 numbers called "BT Lo-call" cost between 3p to 4p/min
0844 numbers called "BT ContactCall" cost 5p/min at ALL times (24/7) - Weekend & evening calls to 0844 numbers can even cost more than 0870

NEG said they are to use the 5p/min range of 0844 numbers.

Calling an 0844 number cost 5p/min at all times, which is at least 66% more than telephoning an 01 or 02 numbers.  

Calling an 0844 from a Pay Phone cost 946% more than an 01 or 02 call from a Pay Phone at all times.

Calling a doctor using a 0844 number from outside the UK may cost your life - as the call can not be made from many countries.

I have got some of my information from this internet forum: http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?board=news;action=display;num=1109244938;start=0

8)

wrote on Mar 21^st, 2005 at 10:48pm:

However on one occasion when the nurse rang me back, the local number which the 0870 number is routed to was displayed on my phone, so I now use this when either myself of my Fiancée have to telephone the surgery.

A very good letter although a shame that you failed to mention that according to Leicester trading standards anyone who suggests that an 0844 or 0845 number is local call rate is committing a criminal offence.

I do hope you also added the geographic phone number for your doctor's surgery to  the list on this website.

I definitely have added the number to this site - just looking forward to people being able to get it from the front page search, even before it is verified.

I didn't actually expect it to be published in it's entirety as a letter, just thought they would clarify their piece in the previous weeks paper.  Also shame they printed such a long url, but I guess most people can work it out.

Sorry missed the bit about the Leicester trading standards.

wrote on Mar 21^st, 2005 at 11:14pm:

I didn't actually expect it to be published in it's entirety as a letter, just thought they would clarify their piece in the previous weeks paper.  Also shame they printed such a long url, but I guess most people can work it out.

You fail to allow for how desperate most local newspapers are to fill up all those blank column inches every single week.

Quote:

Sorry missed the bit about the Leicester trading standards.

In an earlier OFTEL run consultation on NTS 0845/0870 numbers Leicester City Council Trading Standards made a submission that stated "...we reached the conclusion that any price indication given to consumers, which suggested that an 0845 call would be priced in line with a local call or that an 0870 call would be priced in line with a national call, was misleading within the meaning of Part III of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Any person giving such price indications, or giving advice that such price indications may be used, is in our view guilty of a criminal offence under that legislation"

Since then the basis of Leicester City Council Trading Standard's conclusions have only been further strengthened because on 1st July 2004 BT abolished any reduced rate local call charge for geographic phone numbers that start 01 or 02.  However they still charge more for 0870 numbers than 0845 and also exclude both these codes from the way geographic calls are priced under BT Options 1, 2 and 3.

wrote on Mar 21^st, 2005 at 11:14pm:

I didn't actually expect it to be published in it's entirety as a letter, just thought they would clarify their piece in the previous weeks paper.  Also shame they printed such a long url, but I guess most people can work it out.

Yes, I have found that in local papers they do tend to publish letters verbatim, so it's important to make sure it's written exactly as you want it published. They must get so few letters, as things almost always seem to get included.

National newspapers are quite different. They do miss bits out and reword what you've written - if the letter is published at all!

wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2005 at 9:16am:

Yes, I have found that in local papers they do tend to publish letters verbatim, so it's important to make sure it's written exactly as you want it published. They must get so few letters, as things almost always seem to get included.

Your letter is about 6 times more likely to appear in the local paper if you email it as a Word document attachment that they can cut and paste it from.  Then they definitely won't bother with the detail of too much of what is in it, whereas they may do if they have to retype your letter because it is handwritten.  Even posted typewritten letters can of of course be scanned in through OCR.

But don't forget that only about 200 people (usually local worthies of various forms though) will probably actually read your letter in the typical local newspaper.  So its not that big a deal.

I have found that if you e-mail your letter they are more likely to publish it. This is because they do not have to type anything into a file again.

hi, i have just found this in tonight's oxford mail.

http://www.thisisoxfordshire.co.uk/oxfordshire/news/NEWS2.html

i wonder if the practice manager still has a job after her comments.

Maxwell.h

Hopefully not, since according to her comments she was clearly instrumental in choosing to change over to an 0870 number?

Quote:

From link posted by Maxwell.h: "We never realised it would cost patients so much more and are trying to work out the exact figures, but I think it could cost up to 13p per minute, compared to 5p or 6p before.

They really have no idea.  ::)

Let's hope that this will help prove that the villains (NEG) mislead the practice. How can someone in such a position make such a stupid decision?

Clearly it never occurred to her that they should check tariff listings to see what rates people will be charged compared to a geographical number.

wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2005 at 5:54pm:

They really have no idea.  ::) Let's hope that this will help prove that the villains (NEG) mislead the practice. How can someone in such a position make such a stupid decision? Clearly it never occurred to her that they should check tariff listings to see what rates people will be charged compared to a geographical number.

Or to ask NEG how a telephone system which 'answers' calls by dumping them in a queue can cost the caller less than one which gives the engaged tone if there's nobody available to answer?

wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2005 at 5:25pm:

i wonder if the practice manager still has a job after her comments

Mrs McGuigan sounds like my kind of women i.e. a plain talker and not a corporate careerist PR merchant type.

It is clear that they were totally lied to by NEG although it is unfortunate that they were not bright enough to research the actual phone costs before signing up. But obviously the support of the government minister for 0870 might not have helped here.  Clearly it was New Labour stealth tax by getting patients to fund the NHS costs of buying a more elaborate switchboard instead of it coming out of the main NHS budget and therefore income tax.

Mrs McGuigan I note quotes 13p per minute as the highest rate so she is clearly also aware of the costs of using NEG's 0844 numbers in place of 0870.  These are higher at all times from a BT Phonebox than for 0870 and higher than 0870 at the weekend and in the evening.

The new reporter on You & Yours (Melanie Abbott - melanie.abbott@bbc.co.uk) is much brighter and more experienced than Paraic O'Brien so we need to try and get across to her that 0844 will actually be even worse than 0870 a lot of the time.

wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2005 at 5:54pm:

Hopefully not, since according to her comments she was clearly instrumental in choosing to change over to an 0870 number?

Dorf,

You are much too hard on her.

At least she has admitted that they were conned rather than coming up with the usual corporate PR flannel to try to justify the totally unjustifiable.

Personally I would give this woman an OBE for plain speaking.

Yes that's the point. The move to 0844 is much too sly, and just an extension of all the deceipt.

Sorry NGM,

our lines crossed. I was evidently posting a reply to your previous post, whilst you were posting a reply to my post.

In reply to your last post I do not feel I am being too hard on the Practice Manager! This is a classic example of the current government-related spin, which has now rolled off into all sectors of the NHS. When caught out they attempt to claim they "did not know!" It is their job to know or find out. A Practice Manager so called is supposed to be one competent to run the admin. for a GP practice.

Management is about making decisions based on the facts. If you do not know the facts then you need to ascertain what they are before making any decision!

wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2005 at 6:10pm:

In reply to your last post I do not feel I am being too hard on the Practice Manager! This is a classic example of the current government-related spin, which has now rolled off into all sectors of the NHS. When caught out they attempt to claim they "did not know!" It is their job to know or find out. A Practice Manager so called is supposed to be one competent to run the admin. for a GP practice.

But at least she now admits that a mistake has been made and also admits herself what the full nature of the current scam is.

That is a damn site better than we have got out of the other 300 practice managers who made the same mistake.

Most of them have kept up the same corporate nonsense that their patients are better off due to shorter queuing times.

This woman made a genuine mistake and has now owned up to it so cut her some slack for heavan's sake.  She is clearly also on our side now and as outraged about the whole scam as we are.

This woman has now actually come on side with us against NEG so we need to give her our support.  It is the practice managers who keep on lieing who we should be shooting at.

Also if anyone needs to be sacked here it should be the GP Partners of the Practice for not checking up on whether or not what their Practice Manager is recommending is also good for their patients as well.

Well I take your point NGM but I still think it was her responsibility to check the facts, certainly not the GP's responsibility to do so. After all that is what they employ a Practice Manager for surely, so that they can devote their time to medical practice?

OK I agree that she now deserves an acolade for admitting that she was wrong and misled, compared against the other Practice Managers who do not make that admission.

When I visited the doctor before I wrote my letter to them, I asked her what was the crack with the appalling 0870 number change scam.

She told me that she found the new phone system to be troublesome at best.  She said that I should write to the practice manager to complain, who replied to me with a standard b****x letter.

Which minister is on the board of NEG, or is receiving an enviable back hander?

Hi coolsparx

Regarding your last line; I sent a request for information under the terms of the FOI Act to the DH on that very point.

kk

wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2005 at 7:12pm:

Which minister is on the board of NEG, or is receiving an enviable back hander?

These days that sort of thing is just not allowed and if what you claimed was true the minister would definitely lose his job as a minister, be banned from the house of commons either permanently or temporarily and have to hand all the money back.  And that is the best he could hope for.  They might end up in court and in prison.

But what is clear is that the whole move to 0845 and 0870 by government departments is yet another new Labour stealth tax and was probably dreamed up by none other than Gordon Brown, Peter Mandelson or Alistair Campbell

The Minister of Health was actually endorsing the use of these 0870 numbers as a good way to fund more investment in doctors surgeries through hidden taxation through phone calls.  So how you can blame the poor saps who are practice managers who have a hundred other things to deal with every day and who are generally only in this role because they like to think they understand business when actually they don't (the salaries are so poor for these jobs that no one who is any good at business would actually become a practice manager) is beyond me.

If the Minister of Health says its a great thing then inevitably a modest number of toe the corporate line types in the doctors practices are going to go with the flow.  The villians here are OFTEL, who allowed the hidden revenue sharing system, BT who ruthlessly missold it by claiming that calls were just the national and local rate when they never were and the Minister of Health for actively supporting the scam.  The Practice Managers are just the dummies at the bottom end of a chain of very elaborate, deceit, lying and deliberate disinformation of which even Saddam Hussein would have been proud.

The fact that most doctors surgeries have not joined this scam says that most of them actually have more integrity but but when someone like The Samaritans has an 0845 number in the new BT Phonebook you can see that these doctors practices are hardly the only inappropriate people using such numbers.  It says a lot for the integrity of most doctors surgeries that they resisted the scam despite it being pushed so hard by the Department of Health.  Also doesn't pretending that your call being answered by a machine more quickly then makes your queuing time shorter just sound so classically New Labour in terms of fiddling the targets.

Anyhow enough said as these Practice Managers are only at the bottom of the food chain.  Your anger should be directed towards those like Mr Ben Verwaayen at BT who have spent years actively condoning and growing this whole con.

There was an Alistair Campbell "on the board" of NEG, sadly it was a namessake.

I believe that that evil lot trawled the net for him and used him as another pawn in the scam.

He was the main spokesman on the first "You and Yours" piece about 0870 and doctors.

He has learnt the error of his ways!

:(

wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2005 at 10:56pm:

He was the main spokesman on the first "You and Yours" piece about 0870 and doctors. He has learnt the error of his ways! :(

Was he not also the spokesman for NEG on You & Yours another couple of times too after that?

It seemed to me that he was actually incapable of learning the error of his ways.  A prime requisite in almost anyone who actively missells 084x/087x numbers.

wrote on Mar 21^st, 2005 at 11:36pm:

In an earlier OFTEL run consultation on NTS 0845/0870 numbers Leicester City Council Trading Standards made a submission that stated "...we reached the conclusion that any price indication given to consumers, which suggested that an 0845 call would be priced in line with a local call or that an 0870 call would be priced in line with a national call, was misleading within the meaning of Part III of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Any person giving such price indications, or giving advice that such price indications may be used, is in our view guilty of a criminal offence under that legislation"

A rather milder approach from Islington Trading Standards in March 2005:

Thank you for bringing to our attention the concerns you have over the cost of a call to the St Paul's Medical Centre.

I have spoken to the surgery about the poster that indicated calls were charged at the national rate and followed this with a letter of advice which was posted on Thursday.   My advice reflects that of the Central Office of Information, namely that call charges should be made clear to avoid misleading the public.

The other side of the coin.  

Quote from a letter to Islington Primary Care Trust:
 
I would advise you to read the briefing put out by your own organisation about health inequalities in Islington:

Many Islington residents remain cut off from the greater wealth and opportunities that other local people take for granted. Simply put, the poorer someone is, the greater the chance that they will not access health and social care services…

Do you think that using premium rate telephone numbers in primary care is conducive to reducing or eliminating health inequalities in Islington?  

If you have any influence at all I would suggest that you use it to try to persuade the St Paul’s Road Medical Centre to revert to their former geographic phone number.  This would be one way in which you could promote and represent the interests of the many thousand Islington residents who are registered with this practice.

This was in reply to an email in which they said:

"I am confirming that the PCT is supporting St Paul's Road Medical Centre to change from an 0870 number to an 0844 number in the next few weeks.  This is in line with recent NHS guidance"

wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2005 at 12:06pm:

This was in reply to an email in which they said: "I am confirming that the PCT is supporting St Paul's Road Medical Centre to change from an 0870 number to an 0844 number in the next few weeks.  This is in line with recent NHS guidance"

I don't see how that reply is 'the other side of the coin'.  It just shows how they, like government ministers, have been duped by NEG with their 'local rate' garbage about the cost of 0844 calls.  

It is extensively recorded in this thread how much MORE than an 0870 call a call to an 0844 number from a phone box will cost (i.e. for those poor people you mentioned who have to use a phone box).

In any case, the 0844 numbers NEG will be supplying will (at all times) cost 5p per minute to call from a residential landline - 66% more than a call to an 01 or 02 number, even for those still using BT.

Where do mobile telephone numbers fit into this ban from the department of health?  Does it also mean that GPs and Dentists cannot use a mobile number as a contact for their patients?
Thanks

The Department of Health guidance is silent about mobile numbers, I suppose it is assumed that GPs and dentists are essentially non-mobile when on duty and working.  They would probably be reluctant to give out their mobile numbers to patients anyway for obvious reasons.   There could however be exceptional circumstances, e.g. when a rural GP travels extensively, or for emergencies, or for calling from abroad, and I see no harm if they gave out their mobile numbers but only as an alternative.

Also, ordinary mobile numbers don't generate revenue for the called party (the principal objection to premium rate numbers) but if there are equivalents to  0870  etc. in the mobile world one should of course condemn the use of these by GPs and dentists.

wrote on Mar 24^th, 2005 at 12:16pm:

...   There could however be exceptional circumstances, e.g. when a rural GP travels extensively, or for emergencies, or for calling from abroad, and I see no harm if they gave out their mobile numbers but only as an alternative.

But mobile phones can be in areas without coverage, especially in some rural areas. Their batteries can also go flat.

What if they use a mobile for the patients to ring to be seen in Out of Hours. It is not a personal mobile but one used for a particular service (e.g OOH) so that staff can answer when they are not sat at  a desk all the time.

I have also posted this reply in another post on this site about the election, but I thought it should also be posted here, as this is the thread that initiated it. Notice that there are no promises - just vague possibilities and consultations for the future - and well after the election, of course!


Quote:

Our ref: DE6010185 Dear Mr xxxxxx, Thank you for your further email of 8 March to the Department of Health about the charges for telephone systems for NHS GP services. In your letter, you raise several points about 0844 numbers.  The Government shares your concerns about the cost of these numbers.  The Office of communications (OFCOM) is currently reviewing the use of these numbers as part of a consultation on the future of all number translation services.  The result of the consultation will be published in the summer and we will be considering what further action to take on the use of 0844 numbers in the light of this. Yours sincerely, William Frost Customer Service Centre Department of Health

I guess we should at least be grateful that they are beginning to realise the extent of anger in the community about this scam.  ;)

Two replies I received today:


Quote:

Dear Mr. xxxx, Thank you for your email to the Department of Health. We are committed to ensuring that patients do not have to pay over the odds to access local services and that is why on the 24 February it was announced that we are banning NHS organisations providing local services from adopting national and premium rate numbers.   The ban will come into force later this month. In the interests of clarity the numbers which will be banned are: ·     0870 numbers which are charged at standard national rate; ·     0871 numbers which are charged at up to 10p a minute; and ·     09x numbers which are premium rate numbers. We share your concerns about the cost of 0844 numbers.  The Office of Communications (OFCOM) is currently reviewing the use of these numbers as part of a consultation on the future of all number translation services. The result of the consultation will be published in the summer and we will be considering what further action to take on the use of 0844 numbers in the light of this. I hope this reply is reassuring. Yours sincerely, Gerry Howell Customer Service Centre Department of Health

Quote:

Dear Mr xxxx, Thank you for your email of 4 March to the Department of Health about the charges for telephone systems for NHS GP services. In your letter, you raise several points about 0844 numbers.  The Government shares your concerns about the cost of these numbers.  The Office of communications (OFCOM) is currently reviewing the use of these numbers as part of a consultation on the future of all number translation services.  The result of the consultation will be published in the summer and we will be considering what further action to take on the use of 0844 numbers in the light of this. Yours sincerely, William Frost Customer Service Centre Department of Health

wrote on Apr 6^th, 2005 at 4:08pm:

I guess we should at least be grateful that they are beginning to realise the extent of anger in the community about this scam.  ;)

If Ofcom pick the brave solution of abolishing all 084x and 087x revenue sharing and returning these numbers to geographic call rates (Ofcom Option 4) then everything else takes care of itself.

If Ofcom do not do this then organisations having to move everything off their 084x and 087x call centres is going to be a lot more messy for everybody.

Sure a few 084x and 087x telecoms service providers like NEG are going to go bust if Ofcom make this major change but people are going to cry about that as much as they would about a heroin dealer going out of business.

If the Conservatives win the election we had better concentrate on bringing people on that side of world up to speed that 084x/087x does not represent free market competition but merely an anticompetitive form of monpoly exploitation.

After all exactly what added value service are the Police providing if I now have to call then on an 0845 number about my dog having got lost.

wrote on Apr 6^th, 2005 at 4:20pm:

Two replies I received today:

"0870 numbers are charged at the standard national rate."

Try reporting them to the TSO for that statement.

juby

I agree, a complaint should be made to the TSO.  Inform the writer of the letter that you intend to report this flagrant misleading statement to the TSO; ask them to comment.

wrote on Apr 6^th, 2005 at 5:27pm:

I agree, a complaint should be made to the TSO.  Inform the writer of the letter that you intend to report this flagrant misleading statement to the TSO; ask them to comment.

Point out to your local Trading Standards Office the previous comments of Leicester Trading Standards on the matter in their submission to Ofcom.

Yes, but even though they have a "Customer Help Line" they are not under the auspices of the TSO because they are not "trading".

They are an organisation set up purely to help the general public.

How dare you suggest otherwise??

(How can they have customers if they are not trading, and how can they trade if they do not have suppliers)

juby

wrote on Apr 6^th, 2005 at 8:30pm:

Yes, but even though they have a "Customer Help Line" they are not under the auspices of the TSO because they are not "trading". They are an organisation set up purely to help the general public. How dare you suggest otherwise?? (How can they have customers if they are not trading, and how can they trade if they do not have suppliers)

Juby,

So am I correct in now realising that TSO is short hand for Trading Standards Ombudsman?  I didn't know there was even a Trading Standards Ombudsman!  I thought you mean Trading Standards Office or Officer when you said TSO

These Ombudsman guys are really two a penny aren't they and almost as useless.  From what I have seen most of them want to get involved as little as possible while still being allowed to pick up their nice fat salary cheques?

Leicester City Council Trading Standards were the guys who came to the opinions that anyone claiming 0845 and 0870 were local and national rate was commiting an offence under one of the various consumer protection acts.  And that was before BT made their local and national geographic rate the same on July 1st 2004.   So Leicester Trading Standards are actually the good guys here.

Are you feeling alright Juby.  I do hope you did not by any chance miss your train or something this evening?  ;D

Yes OK thanks, and I did miss the train, had a few jars on the way home.

Just trying to inject a bit of humour into the procedings.

My point was that Leicester TSO has no jurisdiction whatsoever against the department of health (lower case to show my respect) they are powerless.

But you are right in that the only means of redress is the Ombudsman (small elf like creature found in Danish folklore).

juby

wrote on Apr 6^th, 2005 at 9:19pm:

Yes OK thanks, and I did miss the train, had a few jars on the way home. My point was that Leicester TSO has no jurisdiction whatsoever against the department of health (lower case to show my respect) they are powerless. But you are right in that the only means of redress is the Ombudsman (small elf like creature found in Danish folklore).

Juby,

I knew that trains would figure somewhere in the proceedings if it was you.  Do you own a car by the way? :D

You are right right that for a government department or local council Trading Standards have no jurisdiction so we instead have to rely on the latest advice from the Central Office of Information.  But equally for commercial companies the COI have no jurisdiction so we must rely on the view of Trading Standards.

But really it helps to point out the view of both bodies as this helps creates the overall impression that the use of these numbers is discredited.

If by some chance the Conservatives win the next election we must immediately try and get across the view that 084x and 087x was another New Labour stealth tax and that thus the free market thing is to abolish these numbers and return to honest price competition on geographic numbers where the customer is genuinely in charge of the price of the call.

Interesting (but not particularly helpful) reply to one of my e-mailed queries to the NAO received this morning:

Quote:

Dear Mr Smith Thank you for your e-mail message of 2 March 2005 to Sir John Bourn, the Comptroller and Auditor General, on the use of 0844 telephone numbers. As the Director responsible for value for money examinations of Ofcom, the regulator of communications, I am replying on Sir John's behalf. I have consulted my colleagues dealing with health matters, who have spoken with the Department of Health. 0844 numbers were introduced in January 2000 by the Office of Telecommunications (Oftel), Ofcom's predecessor, to help provide users with a clearer idea of what calls to these special services will cost. To make proper choices between alternative telephony services, and between telephony and other methods of communication, consumers need to be well informed about costs. 0844 numbers help in this regard in that calls to these numbers are capped at 5 pence per minute.  Unfortunately, however, one of the key findings from our July 2003 report on Oftel was the lack of consumer awareness about telephone tariffs.   Oftel was aware of the public's concern about the potential adverse affects on consumers from the increasing use of non-geographical numbers like 0870 and 0844, and began a major review of the use such numbers. Ofcom has been progressing this matter and its latest public consultation closed on 7 January 2005. It expects to make a further statement in the second quarter of 2005. Another important development took place in January 2005 when COI Communications, the Government agency that provides advice to the public sector on matters related to communications, issued further guidance to Government contact centres on the use of non-geographic telephone numbers. In particular, this guidance stresses that 0870 numbers are not recommended as these have become expensive to the caller relative to a geographic call, which can act as a barrier to communicating information. About 300 (3 per cent) of the 9,000 or so NHS surgeries in England have been using revenue sharing numbers, mostly 0870. The Department of Health has allowed NHS surgeries to use such numbers so that they can recover their expenditure in respect of telecommunications equipment, notably rental and service costs. This reflects its policy that, except for emergencies, the public should use their own resources to access the NHS. Having become aware that 0870 numbers were likely to provide individual NHS surgeries with a level of revenue in excess of costs, the Department sought to make changes that should result in a closer alignment. But the Department is mindful of the wider developments that are taking place in respect of revenue sharing numbers, and intends to revisit their use by NHS surgeries once Ofcom's work has been concluded later in 2005. My colleagues responsible for health issues are keeping this area under review. My own team has been keeping the general issue of non-geographic numbers under examination and will continue to monitor Ofcom's initiative as part of our ongoing review of developments in the telecommunications market.   Thank you again for raised this matter with us. Ed Humpherson Director, Regulation Value for Money Ed.Humpherson@nao.gsi.gov.uk

Typical towing of the party line I feel. They attempt to claim that there is nothing wrong with the abuse of NGNs, as if "revenue-sharing" on non-09 NGNs is quite above board and OK.

The reality of course is that its continuance is not only a contravention of the National Numbering Plan, but also is a gambit to continue to avoid the ban on queueing with revenue generating numbers!

What about 0844 costing 13p per minute from a payphone (that's £2.05 for a quite plausible 15 minite call including queuing time) compared to only 3p per minute from home in the day.  Or 45p for 15 minutes.  And what about the fact that BT Option 3 callers could make the call free if the number was geographic.

Also what about 0844 being widely barred from overseas because its main intended use was in domestic PAYG dialup ISPs and not for critical voiced based health calls to one's doctor.

Also what about far higher call costs to 0844 from PAYG mobile phones.

You should write back making all these points and also pointing out that the use of these numbers amounts to regressive taxation, impacting most heavily on the poorest members of the community.

Hi dorf and NGMan
Remember to send a copy of your excellent comments to Ed.Humpherson@nao.gsi.gov.uk  et al.

Yes NGM,

This is the greatest injustice of this whole debacle; it is the poorest who are hit hardest by this scam, and often as demonstrated by the statistics because they are poor they become ill more often .........Catch 22.

A slightly different situation has just arisen as my local surgery in Pocklington has issued a new number to dial for evening ( 6pm to 8am.) & weekend (Fri 6pm-Mon 8am.) emergency calls 0845 !!!!
Any comments would be welcome as I can't seem to get my head round this one.
I will certainly be commenting on the fact that the new number is not published anywhere & I was told will be given to you when you dial the surgery normal number. Very dangerous I think especially if calling from a phone box with no more cash or if you don't have pen & paper!!  Thats a start.

Tony.

8) 8) 8)
This is the exactly the same situation that has arisen in Dorset for out of hours Doctors Service.The NHS seems to have chosen the 0845 route .Probaly to make some revenue!!!

wrote on Apr 12^th, 2005 at 10:39am:

Any comments would be welcome as I can't seem to get my head round this one.

Tony this is possible to get your head around although it has nothing directly to do with the NEG free switcboard 0870/0844 scam.  It does however depend on the "we are providing a value added service when you just think its a normal call" scam.

Basically out of hours the 0845 number probably forwards the call to either a geographic or mobile number of one of the on call doctors.  Alternatively the 0845 number is a number permanently redirected to a call centre for out of hours doctor support in a specific NHS area.

If the the 0845 number is being used to redirect your call to the home or the mobile number of the on call doctor in the practice then they will claim the advantage is that they do not have to change their answerphone message giving a new phone number every day but that instead the 0845 will redirect automatically to the on call doctor which could probably have been programmed with the 0845 servic provider several days or weeks beforehand as a once a week or once a month operation.  They will claim they are also saving you work by not having to dial another number and that its only "local call rate".

In reality we all know that 0845 numbers are bad for us because they are excluded from BT Option 3 and cost 60p per hour instead of 5.5p per hour offpeak for BT Option 1 customers.

The excuse of the doctors will be that setting up a manual call diversion on their line every day costs them loads of money in forwarded call cost whereas they get 0845 calls forwarded to another 01/02 number for free! (that is free to them but not to you).  And although they could leave the real geographic number on the surgery answerphone each day they might forget to change it each night.  By contrast these 0845 numbers can even be programmed to ring round hunt a group of several different doctors until it finds one that answers the call.

Alternatively the 0845 number is redirecting permanently to a fixed NHS out of hours call centre for the whole region on an underlying fixed geographic numbe in which case the use of 0845 numbers is pure scam as there is no call redirection involbed and no doubt the call centre will probably have simply got its switchboard equipment cheaper by using an 0845 phone number.

The main issue is that BT has always charged horrifically high fees for redirecting calls on a geogaphic number while offering so called "free" call redirection of 0845 number at the caller's expense.  Again the main culprit here if Ofcom who should have forced call diversion prices to become much cheaper and also subject to more competition as the years rolled by.

8) 8) 8)

I can only speak about my area Dorset and  SouthHants.In both cases Doctors in these areas have opted out of providing evening and weekend cover.When you phone them out of hours there answering machine message tells you to ring the appropriate 0845 no for your area.These numbers are provided by the local Nhs Trust that deals with GPs.In Dorset the calls are answered in a call centre based at Dorset Ambulance HQ in Ferndown. In Southampton and South Hants the calls are answered in the North of England somewhere!!! Having said that i understand the Nhs are  thinking of moving the Southampton Call Centre into the area it covers.Particularly in the case of Dorset there is no good reason why the Nhs use an 0845 no other then a cheap eqpt,revenue sharing one.Dont hold your breath i understand the Nhs are rolling this out throughout the UK!!! One good thing Dorset Police were going to do the same thing but decided to get around it by offering two normal access no,s 01202 222222 and 01305 222222.If the police can do it why cant the Nhs?

wrote on Apr 13^th, 2005 at 12:38am:

8) 8) 8) ...222222.If the police can do it why can't the NHS?

I fear for the same reason that Cheshire Police Force (whoops, sorry, service) uses 0845 - they are still not very good at telecoms and complicated technical things, nor - sorry, off topic.
Far too many people paid to look after telecoms systems and services are not doing their (possibly well paid) job properly.

Right, thanks you guys, I'm over the hangover & battling on once more.
So:-
1/ From home after hours &  @ w/ends the first call costs you 5p (to surgery GN ) to be given the 0845 No. to ring for emergency service or the 0845 No. to ring for advice from NHS Direct. The second call then costs from home 1p per min (minimum 5p) rather than up to an hour for 5.5p ON TARIFF 1. and on Tariffs 2 & 3 the second call would not be included as free.

2/ From a phone box the first call would be 30p & last less than 1 min.
Assuming that in the case of an emergency you remembered to put pen & paper in your pyjama pocket to note down the new number you would not have to waste a further 30p ringing back to confirm the new number. You then have to pay 10p connection & 10p per 55 secs to speak to whoever eventually answers the 0845 call.

By this time the patient is dead & your heart ain't too good after all the faffing about. Off subject but a friend of mine had to wait 7 HOURS before the emergency doctor arrived, he is in fact very lucky to still be here.

In conclusion then the cost element does come into the argument against the use of these numbers, but I feel very strongly that the physical imposition of delay could be life threatening.

Tony

There are different grades of "emergency". For a real emergency you dial 999 which is of course free!
Or you drive to your A&E.

wrote on Apr 13^th, 2005 at 1:06pm:

There are different grades of "emergency". For a real emergency you dial 999 which is of course free! Or you drive to your A&E.

For non emergencies Surrey Police now give people on BT Option 3 or other inclusive calling plans three different choices:-

A. Ignore the Police's advice to only use 999/112 for emergencies and call using this number regardless.  Also hope that you won't be prosecuted for wasting police time.

B. Call on their 0845 number and incur additional phone call costs at £1.80 per hour (BT landline) or £6.70 per hour (BT Phonebox) that you would not have incurred on the geographic 01483  number formerly used, especially if you are a BT Option 3 or a call18866 customer.

C. Conclude that the Surrey Police are no longer interested in hearing from those who do not want to pay their premium phone rate and so not make the call thus also improving their reported crime statistics at the same time.

Hey NGM,

You may have hit upon it! That is the real reason the Police are so keen on these Premium numbers. Just imagine the improvement in undetected crime figures which will be a direct result, because so many people will be detered from reporting crimes if it is going to cost them.

I think that is such a good point that  I think you should deliver it to Michael Howard or Charles Kennedy to give political publicity to at this crucial time.

wrote on Apr 13^th, 2005 at 7:21pm:

Hey NGM, You may have hit upon it! That is the real reason the Police are so keen on these Premium numbers. Just imagine the improvement in undetected crime figures which will be a direct result, because so many people will be detered from reporting crimes if it is going to cost them. I think that is such a good point that  I think you should deliver it to Michael Howard or Charles Kennedy to give political publicity to at this crucial time.

Dorf,

Clearly amongst those aware of the high cost of calling Surrey Police on 0845 there will now be a bias towards only those callers who actually believe that their crime has a high chance of being detected by the boys in blue.

And as for residents who are burgled while overseas they aren't even going to be able to get in touch with the Police to discuss it even if they want to, especially as there is no 999 to call for the uk police from abroad.

As you say it could also be worth trying to persuade Messrs Howard or Kennedy that the whole 084x/087x is New Labour stealth tax and get a commitment from them to abolishing higher call charges to these numbers, in the event that should they be elected.

I have read back a fair while before sending this:
Does anybody know who is coining it with regard to the police?
It is well known that NEG are in bed With the NHS, could it be that the police are similarly tucked up?
I know that NGM said it has nothing to do with the NEG scam. But..
Are you sure?

juby

wrote on Apr 13^th, 2005 at 9:24pm:

I have read back a fair while before sending this: Does anybody know who is coining it with regard to the police? It is well known that NEG are in bed With the NHS, could it be that the police are similarly tucked up? I know that NGM said it has nothing to do with the NEG scam. But.. Are you sure?

Juby,

All I can tell you is that the Surrey Police 0845 project was led from the front by none other than the Chief Constable (at that stage Dennis O'Connor QPM) who extolled with pride at a presentation just how much better it would be for their call answering times, centralised modern database access etc, etc.

This was 2 or 3 years ago and although I was already still a vigorous opponent back then of the dreaded 0870 and 0845 I had not been emboldened in quite the manner brought about by meeting those of a like mindset in this forum.

No one company is coining it with regard to the Police nationwide as every force is a separate authority and will do their own thing and as there are only 60 authorities altogether I doubt there is one company dedicated to flogging switchboards to just the Police.  But of course I'm sure that the people selling the equipment for the Surrey Police call centre are none other than precisely the same kind of people selling to the Inland Revenue, the DVLA, the Passport Agency etc, etc.

I have a complaint running with Surrey Police Authority currently regarding  their 0845 number but a formal response is taking a while.  Then following the outcome of this complaint with Surrey Police Authority I shall be writing to the Chief Constable of Surrey Police as well.

Surrrey Police are one of the worst offenders.  They have abolished all contact numbers of all kinds  in favour of the 0845 call centre.  Other forces have still retained geographic phone numbers for some areas of their activity.

NGM, in reply to your earlier point, I doubt whether even all of those who suffer or witness a crime and believe that there is a good chance of the police detecting the perpetrators will call, when they know it is now a disguised Premium number they have to call, which will cost them for being a public-spirited citizen.

So even if only some do not I still believe the overall effect will be fewer crimes reported, therefore fewer crimes for the police to solve and an apparent reduction in the crime rate resulting from this which the government will claim is because of their efforts in reducing crime!

It is all smoke and mirrors. but this is particularly attractive to government and police because it offers both an apparent reduction in the level of crime and a stealth tax!

Dorf,

Also do not forget that there will be reduced call centre queuing times as well due to the people no longer prepared to call.  So another target will be met. ;)

NGM,

That's another good point!

It shows you just what a real scam this all is. Out of what is predominantly deceipt and extortion they turn all of the resultant effects into apparent statistical advantages to deceive those fooled into paying.

What better way is there to milk fools of their money?

Working Lunch had a small item concerning this abuse with GPs included in their programme today. However, as usual they treated the whole issue as if it was really all OK, and the principal conclusion was that the situation was different in Scotland, where 0870s have not yet been banned for this specific application for GPs! They seem to consider that changing to the use of a lower rate Disguised Premium number (0844) instead of 0870 seems to make it all OK for GPs.

Either they are towing the government line, or they are just plain ill-informed! If they continuously cannot get their research on this issue of NGN abuse correct it makes you wonder how much of the other stuff which they propogate about Financial matters is correct or reliable? For example today they actually claimed that high-speed lathes cutting metal have the piece part sprayed with "WATER", whereas of course it is actually a special lubricant to protect the cutting tool and cool down the piece part and cutting tool!

Ms. Gillian Lacey seems to have a quiet appreciation for 0870 abuse particularly, and expressed that she was quite surprised that so many viewers seem to be so incensed by them, as if she could not understand why anyone could be upset! Also she specifically stated that 0870s are charged at the NATIONAL RATE -- STILL! Which world does she live in?

It is this mis-information deliberately peddled by the media that ensures that the deception is continued.

wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2005 at 2:57pm:

Either they are towing the government line, or they are just plain ill-informed! If they continuously cannot get their research on this issue of NGN abuse correct it makes you wonder how much of the other stuff which they propogate about Financial matters is correct or reliable? Ms. Gillian Lacey seems to have a quiet appreciation for 0870 abuse particularly, and expressed that she was quite surprised that so many viewers seem to be so incensed by them, as if she could not understand why anyone could be upset! Also she specifically stated that 0870s are charged at the NATIONAL RATE -- STILL! Which world does she live in?

Dorf,

I wonder how many regular contributors to this site either work from home or are retired or part retired and so actually have to pay most/all their own phone call costs?  I suspect the vast majority of regular contributors to this site fit this profile?

The problem is that the typical busy media person has all their phone call costs, including those on their own behalf to 0870/0845 numbers, paid by their business either via the use for personal calls of their business fixed line numbers or via their business mobile phone for which the entire bill will be paid by the business - in this case the BBC.

Because they don't pay their own phone bill and don't see the huge difference for call costs to 087x and 084x numbers like we do they don't seem to believe the scam exists.  This in turn is mainly because over the last 10 years BT and Cable & Wireless's salesemen have maliciously and cynically peddled a lie of quite breathtaking proportions which the useless Kipping folk at OFTEL and now Ofcom actually allowed them to perpetuate.

The cynical lie was that these 0870 and 0845 calls were ordinary local and national rate calls and because the lie is being told even now most unquestioning members of the public (that is about 92% of them) just take it all at face value.

The lie here is almost as breathtaking in its success as the lie perpetrated by Saddam Hussein, Stalin, the Generals in Argentina or Hitler about what happened to all those missing people.  The fact is that if you tell a lie often enough and repetitively enough with the full backing of the government apparatus (in this case OFTEL) that in the end you will be successful in making most people believe your lie.  This is quite clearly what has happened in this case.

Yes NGM, that is the problem, and if the media such as the BBC keep peddling this lie it is no wonder the general public just do not wake up to what is going on.

In the past Working Lunch have also propogated an additional part of the lie - that no entity using 0870 (including high volume receivers) get more than 2 p per minute in Premiums!

wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2005 at 4:52pm:

In the past Working Lunch have also propogated an additional part of the lie - that no entity using 0870 (including high volume receivers) get more than 2 p per minute in Premiums!

Given that Working Lunch is another BBC program one can only assume that the journalists and/or producer on Working Lunch are much more careerist types wanting only to please the 0870 profit seeking senior BBC management instead of embarassing them.  And as we know the BBC is one of the worst abusers of 0870 numbers out there.

Clearly You & Yours does not give much of a damn but then they operate with the input of the redoubtable John Waite who is reknowned for his independence of mind and extremely hard hitting consumer reports.  Also the whole of Your & Yours seems to be built on asking politically incorrect questions that no else in the media dares to ask.

There was a time when You & Yours seemed to lose its way be endorsing all forms of aggressive speed enforcement but I think we probably have some of the female presenters of the program to thank for that.

Not wanting to appear to be a spanner in the works, but when NG numbers were introduced (0345 & 0645), none of us had these nice cheap call packages, so they were in fact local & national rate.

Unfortunately I believe that when the UK telecoms market was opened up & BT was no longer the only option, they (our phone call providers) saw "the scam" of how they could charge us extra for these NGN's.  This way they could tell us we were getting free calls, but failed to tell us that they were funded by the expensive NGN's.  OFCOM/OFTEL should have nipped it in the bud then, but must do it now.

Telephone call charges are an absolute minefield, which I understand, but the 92% don't.  There are so many different packages, that most people (myself included sometimes) either aren't clever enough or can't be bothered to try to work out which one is cheaper for them.

To make it worst, the British media (especially newspaper press) never give the truth or both sides of an argument, only what suits them.

wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2005 at 6:23pm:

Not wanting to appear to be a spanner in the works, but when NG numbers were introduced (0345 & 0645), none of us had these nice cheap call packages, so they were in fact local & national rate. Unfortunately I believe that when the UK telecoms market was opened up & BT was no longer the only option, they (our phone call providers) saw "the scam" of how they could charge us extra for these NGN's.  This way they could tell us we were getting free calls, but failed to tell us that they were funded by the expensive NGN's.  OFCOM/OFTEL should have nipped it in the bud then, but must do it now.

Coolsparx,

Sorry to correct you but it is not the cheap call carriers who are the source of the 0845/0870 ripoff.  The villains are BT, Cable & Wireless and the ever complacent and incompetent Ofcom.

The reason that the other call companies charge even more than BT for 087x and 084x calls is because Ofcom recently changed the rules to let BT and Cable & Wireless charge their rivals even more for terminating calls to their customers running 087x and 084x call centres than they charge their own BT Residential customers for these calls.  This was apparently done in the name of deregulation and light touch by Ofcom.

The reason that 0870 and 0845 aren't available any more cheaply anywhere else is because the call recipients get a rake off of up to 4p per minute and all of the rest of the extra profit nearly goes to BT and Cable & Wireless who terminate 90%+ of calls to 0845 and 0870 numbers.

If someone like 18866 could find a way to carry calls to 084x/087x cheaper than BT does and yet still make a profit on it I am quite sure that they would be only too delighted to do so.

Absolutely correct NGM, except that my research shows that the high-volume scam merchants are making as much as 4.6 p per minute from 0870 and more from other NGNs like 0871 and 07 PNS.

As you say it is the actions of Ofcom which continuously make things worse, and what really needs to be looked at in detail is why Ofcom and Oftel before them do these things, which clearly continuously favour the position of BT. One of the reasons is that there are ex-BT people at senior levels within Ofcom who clearly still have some sort of continuing relationships with BT, and as a result Ofcom clearly fails to meet its responsibilities under the acts for an unbiased and neutral position of regulation; it could be also of course that certain individuals within Ofcom have an even more substantive interest in maintaining the Status Quo or even adjusting it to be more in the interest of BT instead of ensuring that free unrestricted competition may take place.

Then of course there is the government pressure, since now they have got their snouts heavily into the trough and don't want the revenue flow into the Exchequor to cease with all of their other fiscal difficulties.

wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2005 at 6:55pm:

As you say it is the actions of Ofcom which continuously make things worse, and what really needs to be looked at in detail is why Ofcom and Oftel before them do these things, which clearly continuously favour the position of BT. One of the reasons is that there are ex-BT people at senior levels within Ofcom who clearly still have some sort of continuing relationships with BT, and as a result Ofcom clearly fails to meet its responsibilities under the acts for an unbiased and neutral position of regulation; it could be also of course that certain individuals within Ofcom have an even more substantive interest in maintaining the Status Quo or even adjusting it to be more in the interest of BT instead of ensuring that free unrestricted competition may take place.

4.6p per minute you say Dorf?  That means poor old BT may have to now make do with only 3p per minute for carrying the call compared to the mere fractions of a penny for the whole call they would earn if I routed a call to one of their customers via a geographic number with call18866.  Unless of course the call is from a Phonebox to an 0870 in which case BT Wholesale gets over 6p per minute for their trouble, even at the weekend.  For 0845 the BT Wholesale Phonebox rakeoff is probably around 9p to 10p per minute.  This is due to a highly anticompetitive contract between BT Wholesale and BT Phonebox division.  Sadly BT Phonebox division who provide the boxes doesn't seem to get any of the extra financial benefit of these quite exorbitant 0845 and 0870 charges.

Regarding Ofcom I get the distinct impression that Geoff Brighton, who is coordinating the work on NTS Options for the Future, could well be a former BT employee.  Of course I could equally be quite wrong but as Ofcom don't post their senior staff CVs on their website I can't actually be sure either way.

On Today at 1:55pm dorf wrote:


Quote:

One of the reasons is that there are ex-BT people at senior levels within Ofcom who clearly still have some sort of continuing relationships with BT, and as a result Ofcom clearly fails to meet its responsibilities under the acts for an unbiased and neutral position of regulation

and NGN replied:


Quote:

Regarding Ofcom I get the distinct impression that Geoff Brighton, who is coordinating the work on NTS Options for the Future, could well be a former BT employee.

Here, I think, is the hub of the problem. If these people are ex-BT employees, (and like NGN, I expect most of them are) then they probably have managed to maintain their BT Pension plan. Understandably, they are not going to do absolutely anything which jeopardises that little pot of gold! It would appear that a bloated and monopolistic organisation like BT would disappear up it's own orifice if it wasn't for the revenue stream from NGN. If it did - goodbye pension!

In any other environment, such an obvious conflict of interest would be sufficient to contemplate criminal charges against the proponents. Unfortunately, the crooked and criminally irresponsible ex-BT managers who now inhabit the lofty portals of Ofcom will continue to take the attitude made famous in the movie.... "B***r you Jack, I'm alright".

Hey, but this is Rip-Off Britain, right?    ;)

Absolutely right, Mikeinnc!

Email received from Dept of Health:


Dear Mr xxx

In your letter, you raise several points about 0844 numbers.  The
Government shares your concerns about the cost of these numbers.  The
Office of Communications (OFCOM) is currently reviewing the use of
these numbers as part of a consultation on the future of all number
translation services.  The result of the consultation will be published in the
summer and we will be considering what further action to take on the use of
0844 numbers in the light of this.

Yours sincerely
William Frost
Customer Service Centre
Department of Health

Reply sent:

Dear Mr Frost

Thank you for your email.

May I suggest that the issue is not to do with OFCOM or any particular telephone number.

The primary question for the Department of Health and the Government to consider and decide is whether GPs should be allowed to use any revenue generating telephone number at all, and thereby:

a) derive a profit, directly or indirectly, from NHS patients;

b) increase rather than reduce health inequalities in the country;

In my view this would be wrong and all GPs should use geographic telephone numbers.  Furthermore, Part 18, Clause 483 of the Standard Medical Services Contract states that:

The Contractor shall not, either itself or through any other person, demand or accept from any patient of its a fee or other remuneration for its own or another’s benefit-

The use of revenue generating numbers is clearly contrary to this provision because it means the acceptance of a remuneration be it for the doctors’ or NEG’s benefit.

My MP, Mr Jeremy Corbyn (IslingtonNorth) wrote to me on 31 March with regard to a local GP surgery, the St Paul’s Road Medical Centre:

I agree with you it is obviously wrong to profit from patients. I am taking the matter up with the Practice and the PCT.

There is no technical reason for GPs to install revenue generating numbers, all facilities they need are available through geographic numbers.

I enclose for your information a comparison of actual call costs for 0870, 0844 and geographic numbers, from home and from payphones, and using different service providers.  

http://uk.msnusers.com/Premiumratetelephonenumbers/shoebox.msnw?Page=1

The note for the * in the table (previous posting) was accidentally left off.  It reads:   * 5p/min, as announced by NEG

wrote on Apr 24^th, 2005 at 8:29am:

The note for the * in the table (previous posting) was accidentally left off.  It reads:   * 5p/min, as announced by NEG

Well done on this Lompos although I wonder if you shouldn't have tried to keep the geographic and NGN call price comparison within the same table?  May be just doing the comparison for BT Option 1, BT Option 3 and BT Payphones is enough given that the BT Option 3 result for greographic calls is 0p per minute at all times and BT Payphone to 0844 is a fortune at all times?  But an additional table for weekend (Saturday morning) call costs to draw out the fact that NEG 0844s will be much more expensive than 0870 at that time would also be helpful?

But very well done on the doctors contract stuff.  Do you work in the health service in some capacity?

Well done indeed.

juby

Yes some really excellent points, lompos. Very well done.

And don't forget to mention about the abolition of BT Standard and the impact it has had on the whole 084/087 NGN fiasco.

Sorry Dave but IMHO, THIS BBC NEWS LINK is more likely to be believed than the one you gave.

In fact, the two little greyed boxes on the right of the main text there are excellent summaries for anyone with little or no knowledge of the subject.


Quote:

New BT Together Option 1 charges Line rental £10.50 per month Evenings and weekends 5.5p for up to an hour per call, 1p per minute thereafter Daytime 3p per minute, 5p minimum call charges apply Source: BT (Standard rate customers are being migrated to Together Option 1)

Quote:

Standard rate charges Line rental £9.50 per month Weekday evening calls 3.9p per minute (national) 1p per minute (local) Weekend calls 1.5p per minute (national) 1p per minute (local) Daytime calls 7.91p per minute (national) 3.95p per minute (local) Source: uSwitch

wrote on Apr 24^th, 2005 at 7:28pm:

And don't forget to mention about the abolition of BT Standard and the impact it has had on the whole 084/087 NGN fiasco.

Dave,

Surely this is more of a point to be made to those meekly kipping at Ofcom than to anybody in the Health Service.

The abolition of BT Standard per se mainly impacted on line rental costs by costing those of us routing most of our calls away from BT (apart from the £6 call allowance) another £9 per quarter.

The fact that this then highlighted the longstanding ripoff concerning 0845 and 0870 call charges, that had in fact been going on for 6 to 7 years, is surely slightly incidental, although it is most definitely a case of BT shooting itself in the foot big time.

I am a little concerned that you only seem to believe that 0845 and 0870 were a ripoff after July 1st 2004 when the reality is that a geographic weekday daytime national rate phone call had cost only a quarter of the price of an 0870 call for several years with the cheapest call providers and ditto a geographic weekday daytime local rate call had only cost half the price of an 0845 call for several years.

It would be quite wrong to let people like the doctors off with the excuse that 0845 and 0870 only became a ripoff on July 1st 2004 when as the Ofcom submission from Leicester Trading Standard shows the ripoff actually goes back very much further.

You are of course correct NGM, but I feel you are being a bit hard on Dave.

As far as I can see he did not actually claim that it had all started wef BT's abolition of their Standard Rate, he suggested that this had made the whole 084/087 fiasco worse?

wrote on Apr 25^th, 2005 at 4:21pm:

You are of course correct NGM, but I feel you are being a bit hard on Dave. As far as I can see he did not actually claim that it had all started wef BT's abolition of their Standard Rate, he suggested that this had made the whole 084/087 fiasco worse?

Dorf,

But one of the Dave's has stated previously that he only really became outraged about the cost of 0870 calls after the BT Standard Line Rental abolition last year when 0870 calls began to cost more than BT's charges for all other national geographic calls for 99.9% of their customers

This seemed to me odd given that the 0870 scam has been going on for at least 5 to 6 years and I have been fuming about it and complaining to the BT Chairman's Office for all of that time period.

But as I thought I was on my own then I lacked the heart to campaign at quite the level which I am now doing.

wrote on Apr 25^th, 2005 at 10:09am:

Sorry Dave but IMHO, THIS BBC NEWS LINK is more likely to be believed than the one you gave.

What is your point? Are you saying that what is in that link I gave is wrong?

If you search for bt standard in Google, that thread comes up first! Someone must have been reading it!


wrote on Apr 25^th, 2005 at 2:37pm:

I am a little concerned that you only seem to believe that 0845 and 0870 were a ripoff after July 1st 2004 when the reality is that a geographic weekday daytime national rate phone call had cost only a quarter of the price of an 0870 call for several years with the cheapest call providers and ditto a geographic weekday daytime local rate call had only cost half the price of an 0845 call for several years.

I never said that.

My point: Oftel were happy to let 0845 and 0870 be called 'local' and 'national rate'. It appeared that the likes of the Advertising Standards Authority were happy with that. Now some nine million people have been forced off BT Standard, there is, in reality, no tariff which has these types of calls aligned with geographical calls. That is apart from the Light User Scheme and some other non-mainstream tariffs.

Thus, the reason that the misleading titles were allowed to be used (by Oftel/ASA) in the first place is now no longer.

Oh, and dorf, you are right! ;-)

An excellent post, lampos (see reply # 170). As you say, the primary responsibility is with the Department of Health and doctors surgeries, they should not try to shift the blame on others.

Re you first table (and apologies for being pedantic)  Pay Phone charges should be rounded UP to the coin size- 10p.

Thanks for the correction kk.  

It is not pedantic and if the table goes anywhere else I shall change it.  As you say, the smallest coin accepted in BT payphones is 10p although there are some payphones which accept credit cards but these are the exception rather than the rule (also as far as I remember for credit card payments a minimum charge applies).

One thing I notice looking at those still contributing to this thread is that its mainly the same old suspects.  That is Juby, Dorf, KK, Dorf, Dave and myself.  Plus a rarer guest appearance by Lompos.

It kind of makes me wonder where the 2 million householders who have reputedly signed up to CPS have got to?   Surely some of those people must be at least vaguely price aware too?   They can't all have been slammed surely.

What I can't get over is the incredible stupidity of the British public in thinking its all about an argument only a few pence.  But if they checked their phone bill they would find an average extra 35p a day for these calls is £31.50 a quarter or £126 a year on top of what they should have paid for their so called inclusive uk calls plan.

Now does £126 a year still sound like something that involves just a few pence! :o

Yes NGM,

I also have made this point before. The problem is one of total apathy. That is what is at the root of it, as with an increasing number of things.

Just noticed NEG have a statement on their website regarding the ban on 0870 numbers for GP surgeries. See here.


Quote:

We are aware of the concerns that patients were being charged too much to call their GP on 0870 numbers. In fact, less than 1 in 300 patients at the practices involved objected to the use of 0870 numbers, whilst the majority of patients appreciated the improved service that the 0870 numbers were able to fund.

...they are aware some of the patients have found out about their scam, but more than 299 in 300 don't care and/or (more likely) aren't aware of it.

Really, in Alistair Campbell speak that means that nearly 400 people complained directly to NEG about the scam.

Of these 400, all were perfectly fit, had not had an accident, were not very worried about their loved ones, and generally happy with paying out so much money to be put on hold to listen to music!

Nobody else complained to anyone, that 'saynoto0870' lot didn't complain because they realised a long time ago that complaining to Ofcom, the government, ICSTSIS, their MP, their doctors etc., was a waste of time.

"You and Yours" did not say word!

All the rest of them (The Majority) wrote in and told you that they were very pleased with the improved level of service?

Eat your heart out NEG!

juby

Juby,

I do believe you may have been quaffing a glass or two of your favourite tipple this evening?

What, me Sir?  No Sir! ;D

Well just a bit!

juby

The First Practice Management forum is worth a look. Messages from practice management.

http://archive.mail-list.com/fpm-forum

Do a search for 0870 or neg.

First Practice Management: http://www.firstpracticemanagement.co.uk/

I don't think this has been posted before, even though it dates from March 2005:

From our 'friend' Mr Campbell

http://www.hoolet.org.uk/44hoolet/0870.htm

They've just said no to 0870 - so what happens now?
After much heated debate, the use of 0870 numbers in GPs' surgeries has now been effectively banned from use across the whole of the UK. On February 24th the Department of Health in London issued a statement saying that the use of 0870 numbers would no longer be allowed. In total, around 300 GPs currently use 0870 numbers, including several in Scotland - so where does this leave them and their patients following the Government's decision?

The first question is - what about the GPs who have already signed up for the 0870 numbers? Well, whilst the Department has stopped this number range, it is happy to endorse the use of 0844 numbers as a replacement - and actually mentioned them in the official statement. The new 0844 numbers are charged at a 'lo-call' rate, so are much cheaper to call than the 0870 prefix. At fractionally over 4p a minute, the cost of calling numbers with this prefix equates to the standard rate charged by BT between 6am and 6pm. This means that the vast majority of patients will see no difference in the charges they pay for calling their doctor. On the contrary, there is growing evidence that, because call durations are decreased, many patients may actually see an overall cost saving. In fact, one surgery in Wales who had concerns over call charges to patients found that the combination of the 'lo-call' number and reduced call lengths had halved the average patients' call charge.

But why on earth would a GP want to change their phone number in the first place? What's wrong with the local number that everybody in the community knows? The original reason that so many made the change is due to the benefits offered by a new system, Surgery Line, developed by a company called NEG. The company devised a way to fund new switchboards, telephones, panic alarms, reception based display boards and 24 hour patient self booking and touch screens - amongst other things. The GP pays nothing for the new kit, but instead receives a few pence from each call coming into the surgery if the number is switched to a selected non- geographic number. Non-geographic numbers include 0870 numbers charged at a national call rate, and 0844 numbers - which are charged at a 'lo-call' rate.

Some media reports seem to imply that GPs are making money out of the national call rate systems. Richard Chapman, CEO of NEG Plc, explains that this isn't an option. "It is impossible for a GP to make money out of a Surgery Line system. The money that comes in from calls helps towards the funding of new equipment which provides a better service for patients. In some cases there is a surplus - if this happens then the money goes towards reducing the surgery's phone bill. But the notion that they are introduced as a money making scheme is pure fantasy."

In a statement issued by the NHS in Lanarkshire, this point was reinforced when one of their surgeries explained why they had opted for Surgery Line. "We would like to emphasise that we introduced the new telephone system purely in the interests of improving the efficiency and quality of service for patients. We have found that after the initial settling in period, many patients are now commenting favourably on the new system. Whilst the cost per minute is slightly higher than a local call, due to the reduced call time, the average overall cost is broadly similar to before. The practice is not profiting from the new system."

Interestingly, from studies carried out across 100 GPs who did switch to non-geographic numbers, less than 1 patient in 400 had issues about the perceived increased cost of calling their GP. This research was carried out before the more expensive 0870 numbers were banned. It is therefore fair to conclude that 0844 numbers will prove less controversial as they cost half as much for patients to call.

Hitting re-dial

So, aside from the new equipment - which it could be argued mainly benefits the GPs because of the money it saves them - what's in it for the patients? The main advantage is probably in the speed with which calls are dealt. Calls are routed directly to the relevant department and processed more quickly because staff know more or less what the patient will ask for. Again, the survey of 100 surgeries showed that, by improving the efficiency of call handling, Surgery Line systems were able to roughly halve the average call duration. Further analysis also shows that calls are more consistently spaced over the day so that the traditional call peak of 8.30am to 10am is not as high, and that more people call the surgery at less busy times. A spin off benefit for patients is that they are significantly more likely to get through to their doctors first time without having to hit the re-dial button because calls are spread more evenly and dealt with more efficiently.

...

...

Kay Danks, Practice Manager of the Cander Centre in Stonehouse commented that they introduced the Surgery Line system "to provide a more time efficient service for patients. At peak times, patients complained of continually getting an engaged tone and we had concerns that emergency calls could not get through. Patients now get an answer every time they call, although there may be a delay in dealing with calls at busy times." Staff at the surgery also feel that the system helps them cope more easily with incoming calls. "As a Practice Manager, I would say that staff like the new system: they think their stress levels have come down - with the use of headphones to answer all calls, the constant ringing of a phone has all but ceased."

"Most of the surgeries I have spoken to decided to go ahead because of one of two reasons. Half saw the opportunity of receiving state of the art telephone equipment without having to directly fund it. The rest were concerned about how long it was taking patients to get through to speak to a member of staff, and wanted a way to speed up this process," says NEG's Scottish representative, David Anderson.

Despite the change to the phone numbers, and the change of policy, the Department of Health has made it clear that it does not have an issue with the Surgery Line system itself, or the company behind it. "We are working closely with the company (NEG) on this issue and we are also working with the practices who, with the best intentions, were trying to get a more effective telephone system," said Dr David Collin Thom, National Director for Primary Care. NEG is currently installing systems across Scotland and is pleased that, with the issue of 0870 numbers behind them, patients will be able to benefit from modern phone systems funded by 0844 numbers, without having to pay any more for the overall cost of their call.

For research purposes I have spoken to over 20 Practice Managers about their experiences with NEG Plc and their Surgery Line system. Two things have struck me. The first is that the surgeries all report that their average call lengths have come down, and the engaged tones that patients used to suffer from have all but disappeared. The second is that it seems strange that so much fuss has been made in the media over a system that has improved the majority of patients' experiences when calling their GP. With the introduction of 0844 numbers, in almost every case, patients will pay less to call their GP than before. Surely the media will start to pick up that Surgery Line is a British success story that benefits everybody, including patients, doctors, reception staff, practice managers - and because of the way it is self-funding - ultimately all taxpayers.

Alastair Campbell David Anderson - NEG's senior representative in Scotland can be contacted on 01268 461 547 / 07966 389 877 or by e-mail at davida@negplc.com. Special thanks to the various Practice Managers who helped me with my research especially Kay Danks.

What do you think of 0844 numbers. Write to hoolet and the best reply wins a free telephone.

end