I'm not sure why it is taking the poor old Home Office so long to look up a
telephone number or two, but here is its response to my FOI request of Feb
1. Hopefully it will be as forthcoming as the DVLA.

>>

I am writing regarding your information request dated 1 February 2005 in
which you ask several questions about the Home Office's use of 0870
telephone numbers.

I regret that we have been unable to comply with your request within 20
working days, as required by the Freedom of Information Act (the 20 day
period having expired on 1 March). I would like to offer my sincere
apologies for this delay and for any inconvenience that this may cause. I am
also sorry that we had not acknowledged receipt of your request before now.
However I would like to assure you that we are dealing with your request as
a matter of urgency, and that we will send you a full reply as soon as
possible. I anticipate that we will be able to do so before the end of next
week.

If you have any queries about the handling of your information request in
the meantime then please do not hesitate to contact me without delay.

Don't you just love the cheek of these public servants?

They've failed to comply with their own law and are obviously stalling (probably whilst they try to think of an excuse for not releasing the information you requested) and have the utter nerve to end with, "If you have any queries about the handling of your information request in the meantime then please do not hesitate to contact me without delay."

wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2005 at 4:31pm:

I regret that we have been unable to comply with your request within 20 working days, as required by the Freedom of Information Act (the 20 day period having expired on 1 March). I would like to offer my sincere apologies for this delay and for any inconvenience that this may cause. I am also sorry that we had not acknowledged receipt of your request before now. However I would like to assure you that we are dealing with your request as a matter of urgency, and that we will send you a full reply as soon as possible. I anticipate that we will be able to do so before the end of next week. If you have any queries about the handling of your information request in the meantime then please do not hesitate to contact me without delay.

This is just brilliant IDB.

Although I quite clearly also have a real bee in my bonnet over this issue even I have not yet got round to pursuing the FOI angle.  If you do get these geographic numbers, in addition to the DVLA ones, I would put out a press release to all the now interested journalists saying what you did and why and what the geographic phone numbers for these place are.  Yes even a private citizen can put out a press release if the news is something that journalists will want to print - and I am sure they will in this case.

I am sure that this has been delayed awaiting an important policy level meeting with none other than Mr Charles Clarke , Secretary of State.  No doubt his slimey telecoms manager will try to think of reasons not to do it but since the geographic number can be published in addition to the continuation of 0870 I don't see how they can raise any objectons on operational grounds.  Unless of course they try to maintain that these numbers are redirected by VoiP and that the final switch is not a geographic number.  If so I would ask for them to publish their VoiP address.

Since David Blunkett is the guilty man here I am sure Mr Clarke can agree to axe the 0870s without getting any egg on his face.

Have you thought of an FOI request for the geographic phone number to the Labour Party's HQ.  Or are they not covered by the FOI.  I had better go and read a synopsis of the legislation.

I am sure it is actually a secret high level new labour policy to switch to 0870 to increase indirect taxation revenues.

wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2005 at 1:57am:

This is just brilliant IDB.

It is good isn't it. I had a really good laugh once I'd received this.


wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2005 at 1:57am:

If you do get these geographic numbers, in addition to the DVLA ones, I would put out a press release to all the now interested journalists saying what you did and why and what the geographic phone numbers for these place are.  Yes even a private citizen can put out a press release if the news is something that journalists will want to print - and I am sure they will in this case. I am sure that this has been delayed awaiting an important policy level meeting with none other than Mr Charles Clarke , Secretary of State.  No doubt his slimey telecoms manager will try to think of reasons not to do it but since the geographic number can be published in addition to the continuation of 0870 I don't see how they can raise any objectons on operational grounds.  Unless of course they try to maintain that these numbers are redirected by VoiP and that the final switch is not a geographic number.  If so I would ask for them to publish their VoiP address. Since David Blunkett is the guilty man here I am sure Mr Clarke can agree to axe the 0870s without getting any egg on his face. Have you thought of an FOI request for the geographic phone number to the Labour Party's HQ.  Or are they not covered by the FOI.  I had better go and read a synopsis of the legislation. I am sure it is actually a secret high level new labour policy to switch to 0870 to increase indirect taxation revenues

I hadn't considered the press release idea -interesting possibility and I'll give it some thought. Incidentally I wish the moderators/owners of this web site would take you up on your generous offer to provide press releases - you understand this problem well and are able to articulate it. Why has your offer not been taken up?

My view is that the Home Office and IND will *have* to reveal geographic numbers because the precedent was set with the DVLA. I hope I'm right!

I suspect the Labour party is not covered by FOI. My next target is BAA - whilst it is a private company, it has a responsibility to the public. Its regulators, the CAA and AUC, have absolved themselves of any responsibility for dealing with complaints. I'm not yet sure exactly where or how to address a FOI request, but watch this space!

wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2005 at 2:09am:

I suspect the Labour party is not covered by FOI. My next target is BAA - whilst it is a private company, it has a responsibility to the public. Its regulators, the CAA and AUC, have absolved themselves of any responsibility for dealing with complaints. I'm not yet sure exactly where or how to address a FOI request, but watch this space!

So far as New Labour are concerned I should have thought that it was covered by the FOI so long as you became a member of the Labour party first?  Then as a Member you would have the same need to access a geographic number as for a body providing services to all of the general public.  Or are political parties specifically excluded from the FOI requirements?

BAA are a very worthy target of your attentions.  They are one of the biggest exploiters of these numbers and yet effectively are a monopoly supplier of many aspects of vital public service type airport information (putting out an announcement for a lost relative etc).  In fact their head office in Wilton Rd does of course have a geographic number but they seem unwilling to put one through to the car park charges line, the tannoy announcement line etc, etc.

But since you are so committed to the FOI road the people that you must ask the question to next are the BBC regarding both BBC Information and BBC Reception Advice (aka Capita Moneygrubbers Inc of BELFAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSST.)

Since the BBC is basically a public sector body owned by the license payers (aka the taxpayers) they must surely be totally covered by the FOI.  Also the two main 0870 numbers, published in every uk phone directory in a big half page spread must surely receive thousands of calls per week.  And it is a number with which both Dave and DaveM seem to have had no joy at all , either because the staff regime is reminiscent of a concentration camp or because the average member of their call centre staff has such a low IQ that they are unable to comprehend the difference between a geographic and an NGN number and thus unable to feel any outrages about the matter.  My own experiences of their staff would lead me to believe that Capita in fact only employing unquestioning human robots.  Anyone else is sacked in less than about 1 hour.

BBC Information really makes me mad as when you ring them with a burning issue on some program or other the staff will listen to you and then just say WELLLLLLLL THAAAAAANKKYAAAAAAAAAAAA VERYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY MACHHHHHHHHH FOR THATTT and not even then ask for your name and postcode or your address.  Only if pressed that you actually want a response to your complaint do they take your name and address but I have never received any response yet from a member of BT editorial or management staff in response to a complaint.

Its a pure call taking factory that has no interest in soothing irate viewers and just treats them like cannon fodder simply counting one against each call as a certain complaint type.   The complaints are almost never investigated or resolved.

These guys are so unhlepful that the very least we deserve is surely to suffer with them for only 1p rather than say for 100p!

Hi idb,

Any request under the FIA must be in writing, ie letter, fax or email. The request must contain your name and address. A request need not contain a reference to the FIA, but I have found better to head you request “Freedom of Information Act 2000”.  I have made about 10 or so.  Some of the results have been posted on this site, see: “UK Passport ….”.  With the information gained from the first request, I often send a further request for information.  To-date I have lodged one appeal to the Information Commissioner.

wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2005 at 9:36am:

Hi idb, To-date I have lodged one appeal to the Information Commissioner.

Who was that for?

Hi NGM

The answer to your question is: DVLA and Ofcom
(2 not 1 as I said above)

By the way, the BBC and Ch4 do come under the FIA.

I don’t just ask about the equivalent geographical number, I ask them about the decisions made, meeting held etc, documents considered (ie COI), what they are charged and income they receive in total and per minute from 087x and 084x calls. Some of the replies suggest that the organisations who use 0845 numbers are being ripped off by their own providers. A reply received by me this morning, shows that one public organisation is paying MTS (who is Mts ? ), 2.62p/min for 0845 and 6.3p/min for 0800. They also claim that they do not receive any money from 0870 calls.

As any barrister will tell you; ask as may questions as you like, but always ask short questions. If in written form, which they will be, numbered questions are more effective.

wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2005 at 10:22am:

As any barrister will tell you; ask as may questions as you like, but always ask short questions. If in written form, which they will be, numbered questions are more effective.

Hi kk,

Don't these bodies have the right to charge you for any of this information though, especially with regard to their own staff time in compiling it?

I saw something regarding the London Mayor and the Greater London Assembly, suggesting that you could ask FOI questions but that they reserved the right to charge for their staff time in fulfilling them.  It seemed to me to be a minimum of £500 a time?

Presumably you haven't had a suggestion you will be billed in relation to the requests you have made though?

No, I have never been charges, nor do I expect to be.

I think the law is: if the cost of your request, to that organisation, exceeds £400 ??,  the organisation can refuse a request on the grounds of cost.  Under the Act, organisations can make a charge for copies of documents and postage, but the policy is not to charge.  Some information about this is on the DCA  web site. In any event, you must be notified of any charges, to give you an opportunity to modify or withdraw your request.

Another response received from the IND today. This must really be a complex issue for them as it is taking so long to address!

>>>

I am writing to you to apologise for the continued delay in responding to
your request for information, which is taking longer to process than we had
hoped. I would like to assure you that we are working on your request and
will respond to it, as soon as we are able.

IND Information Access Team

Even more dithering from the Home Office. Bear in mind that my original FOIA request was made on February 1, 2005. This latest delay will extend the period to almost seven months. This is unacceptable.

<<

I am writing to update you further on the progress of the review we are undertaking on the information supplied to you following your FOI request about the Home Office's use of 0870 telephone numbers.    

I am afraid the review is still not complete.  I wanted to let you know that a full response will not now be ready by 5 August as I hoped when I wrote to you on 7 July.  I anticipate that a full response should be complete by 26 August at the latest.

I must apologise again for the continued delay and thank you for your patience.

Home Office
Information and Record Management Service
4th Floor
Seacole Building
2 Marsham Street
London SW1 P 4DF

wrote on Jul 27^th, 2005 at 1:25pm:

This latest delay will extend the period to almost seven months. This is unacceptable. I anticipate that a full response should be complete by 26 August at the latest.

They appear to be playing for time so that they do not have to respond until after the new Ofcom policy on this issue is announced.

Why not make a complaint about their response time to the Information Commissioner?

wrote on Jul 27^th, 2005 at 1:42pm:

They appear to be playing for time so that they do not have to respond until after the new Ofcom policy on this issue is announced. Why not make a complaint about their response time to the Information Commissioner?

I'm not sure that the IC will entertain a complaint if the review process is not complete, however I will attempt to make a complaint about the time taken. Probably a waste of time as the IC still has not got around to dealing with my other two complaints (Hertfordshire Constabulary and the UKPA/UKPS) as it is so inundated with other complaints!

wrote on Jul 27^th, 2005 at 1:47pm:

I'm not sure that the IC will entertain a complaint if the review process is not complete, however I will attempt to make a complaint about the time taken. Probably a waste of time as the IC still has not got around to dealing with my other two complaints (Hertfordshire Constabulary and the UKPA/UKPS) as it is so inundated with other complaints!

The Office of the Information Commissioner seem a pretty useless bunch.  I have complained about them not following up on a complaint I filed with the TPS about a call violating TPS fules but now the Information Commissioner claims that the TPS does not provide them with any information on individual complaints.  However a senior manager at TPS maintains that this is a total lie and that the IC has everything they need to follow up an individual complaint that has been passed on  to them by the TPS.  What is lacking at the IC is seemingly the will to do so.

Can I suggest you complain to the Comptroller and Auditor General of the NAO to whom the Information Commissioner reports:-

john.bourn@nao.gsi.gov.uk

Alse email the Information Commissioner himself:-

richard.thomas@ico.gsi.gov.uk

If the Home Office is still not honouring your FOI requests you should raise this urgently with the MP for the constituency where I believe you have indicated you are still on the electoral role.

If an MP writes to them to complain about your FOI request not being honoured this is sure to be dealt with at a very high level.

wrote on Jul 27^th, 2005 at 2:26pm:

Can I suggest you complain to the Comptroller and Auditor General of the NAO to whom the Information Commissioner reports:- john.bourn@nao.gsi.gov.uk Alse email the Information Commissioner himself:- richard.thomas@ico.gsi.gov.uk

Thanks - I will do just that. I will also try my MP, however to date, he has not responded my previous complaints wrt PITO/Home Office/Met.

Home Office/IND timeline

November 27, 2004 Informal request for geographic number to enable access from overseas
November 29, 2004 Home Office (HO) acknowledgement of above request but no other response
January 27, 2005 Second informal request for geographic number
February 1, 2005 FOI request made for, inter alia, geographic number
February 4, 2005 Request for an acknowledgement of my FOI request
February 9, 2005 Second request for an acknowledgement of my FOI request
March 1, 2005 Message sent to HO stating that the twenty day response requirement had not been met
March 2, 2005 First response from HO stating inability to comply with twenty day limit
March 2, 2005 My response to the above
March 3, 2005 Reply from the HO apologizing for the delay
April 5, 2005 Complaint sent to HO regarding no response
April 5, 2005 Reply from HO - looking into matter
May 10, 2005 Further complaint about the time being taken
May 11, 2005 Reply from HO - looking into matter
May 11, 2005 FOI response provided
May 11, 2005 My request for internal review due to avoidance of answering original questions
May 11, 2005 HO acknowledgement of internal review request
May 13, 2005 Another HO acknowledgement of internal review request
May 13, 2005 Further arguments from myself relevant to request
June 20, 2005 Further submissions from myself (Ofcom's FOI statement on international originated calls)
July 7, 2005 Reply from HO extending deadline to August 7
July 27, 2005 Reply from HO extending deadline to August 26
July 27, 2005 My response indicating unacceptable delay

wrote on Jul 27^th, 2005 at 3:36pm:

Thanks - I will do just that. I will also try my MP, however to date, he has not responded my previous complaints wrt PITO/Home Office/Met.

That seems very poor. Who is your MP. MPs are normally very diligent about correspondence.  Have you tried telephoning his secretary during office hours to find out what he has done with your case.

There is of course always the Parliamentary Ombudsman if your MP continues to ignore your letters, although clearly something to use only as a last resort after you have chased the secretary repeatedly etc.

wrote on Jul 27^th, 2005 at 3:55pm:

Home Office/IND timeline November 27, 2004 Informal request for geographic number to enable access from overseas November 29, 2004 Home Office (HO) acknowledgement of above request but no other response January 27, 2005 Second informal request for geographic number February 1, 2005 FOI request made for, inter alia, geographic number February 4, 2005 Request for an acknowledgement of my FOI request February 9, 2005 Second request for an acknowledgement of my FOI request March 1, 2005 Message sent to HO stating that the twenty day response requirement had not been met March 2, 2005 First response from HO stating inability to comply with twenty day limit March 2, 2005 My response to the above March 3, 2005 Reply from the HO apologizing for the delay April 5, 2005 Complaint sent to HO regarding no response April 5, 2005 Reply from HO - looking into matter May 10, 2005 Further complaint about the time being taken May 11, 2005 Reply from HO - looking into matter May 11, 2005 FOI response provided May 11, 2005 My request for internal review due to avoidance of answering original questions May 11, 2005 HO acknowledgement of internal review request May 13, 2005 Another HO acknowledgement of internal review request May 13, 2005 Further arguments from myself relevant to request June 20, 2005 Further submissions from myself (Ofcom's FOI statement on international originated calls) July 7, 2005 Reply from HO extending deadline to August 7 July 27, 2005 Reply from HO extending deadline to August 26 July 27, 2005 My response indicating unacceptable delay

Its hard to be sure if the delay results from total incompetence or is because your requests have provoked a furious debate in the Home Office between those for and against releasing geographical alternatives to 0870 numbers.  I still suspect that waiting for the Ofcom statement on the matter before deciding what they do is the most likely scenario.

Surely if there is an initial deadline under FOI for response then just writing saying they couldn't hit that deadline is not enough.  Surely they must state the exceptional circumstances that mean they cannot comply and what is their new intended compliance date with your request.

wrote on Jul 27^th, 2005 at 4:00pm:

Its hard to be sure if the delay results from total incompetence or is because your requests have provoked a furious debate in the Home Office between those for and against releasing geographical alternatives to 0870 numbers.  I still suspect that waiting for the Ofcom statement on the matter before deciding what they do is the most likely scenario.

Whatever the reasons, the above timeline demonstrates how utterly useless these civil servants are and the contempt that they show for the public.

wrote on Jul 27^th, 2005 at 4:08pm:

Whatever the reasons, the above timeline demonstrates how utterly useless these civil servants are and the contempt that they show for the public.

Have you tried to get a journalist for a national newspaper to cover these delaying tactics by the Home Office?  That ought to embarass them into some action.

The Labour Party GN is 0191 2465100.

I have sent 3 complaints to the Info Comis.
1: Hertfordshire Constab not answering within 20 working days.
2: BBC refusing to answer the NGN questions.
3: Rail Passengers Commtee refusing to provide GN, and also refusing to go to internal review.

wrote on Jul 27^th, 2005 at 4:33pm:

Have you tried to get a journalist for a national newspaper to cover these delaying tactics by the Home Office?  That ought to embarass them into some action.

Unfortunately, as we've already seen, many journalists cannot understand the NGN issue and publish inaccuracies. Probably pointless pursuing this angle.

wrote on Jul 27^th, 2005 at 8:40pm:

The Labour Party GN is 0191 2465100. I have sent 3 complaints to the Info Comis. 1: Hertfordshire Constab not answering within 20 working days. 2: BBC refusing to answer the NGN questions. 3: Rail Passengers Commtee refusing to provide GN, and also refusing to go to internal review.

My complaints to the IC are:

1 - UKPA/UKPS, failure to respond. IC complaint filed June 22. Acknowledgement received July 1

2 - Hertfordshire Constabulary, failure to respond. IC complaint filed July 18. No acknowledgement to date.

3 - Home Office/IND for constant dithering. IC complaint filed July 27. No acknowledgement to date.

wrote on Jul 27^th, 2005 at 8:50pm:

Unfortunately, as we've already seen, many journalists cannot understand the NGN issue and publish inaccuracies. Probably pointless pursuing this angle.

I don't agree with you.

A whole load of people I know who just didn't take the issue seriously before or understand it properly are now beginning to both understand the issue and take me more seriously on it following the coverage by national newspaper journalists of the Police 0870 casualty line scam and now the Patientline scam.

It is only if enough public anger can be accumulated in the next few weeks that Ofcom and the government can be embarassed into abolishing all 084/7 revenue sharing and forcing the scammers to retreat to 09 where they belong.  And because the scam is now exposed and because of all the embrassing FOI requests they have been getting lately (answer them or not they know they are doing something wrong when they start to get these) most companies won't dare to go down that route again.  Obviously Easyjet will but they are basically saying that if you don't have web access then you don't count.

wrote on Jul 27^th, 2005 at 8:53pm:

My complaints to the IC are: 1 - UKPA/UKPS, failure to respond. IC complaint filed June 22. Acknowledgement received July 1 2 - Hertfordshire Constabulary, failure to respond. IC complaint filed July 18. No acknowledgement to date. 3 - Home Office/IND for constant dithering. IC complaint filed July 27. No acknowledgement to date.

It just feels like you are hitting your head on a brick wall at the moment.  If enough people make these kinds of request it is going to get embarassing for them and they will be looking for a way out.

wrote on Jul 27^th, 2005 at 9:08pm:

I don't agree with you. A whole load of people I know who just didn't take the issue seriously before or understand it properly are now beginning to both understand the issue and take me more seriously on it following the coverage by national newspaper journalists of the Police 0870 casualty line scam and now the Patientline scam. It is only if enough public anger can be accumulated in the next few weeks that Ofcom and the government can be embarassed into abolishing all 084/7 revenue sharing and forcing the scammers to retreat to 09 where they belong.  And because the scam is now exposed and because of all the embrassing FOI requests they have been getting lately (answer them or not they know they are doing something wrong when they start to get these) most companies won't dare to go down that route again.  Obviously Easyjet will but they are basically saying that if you don't have web access then you don't count.

Whilst public and media awareness is becoming more apparent, it still has a long way to go. These numbers are now so prevalent that people just accept that they are going to have to pay a premium to call. Of course the publicity given to the idiotic use after the explosions in London is beneficial to the campaign, but this scam needs a high profile exposure even though some well-meaning journalists and others have skirted the edges. So far, the high-level exposure hasn't happened. So many people have their fingers in the proverbial NGN pie that it may be hard to break the stranglehold that the scammers have. The only hope, sadly, is with Ofcom, however their fingers are firmly entrenched elsewhere.

wrote on Jul 27^th, 2005 at 9:10pm:

It just feels like you are hitting your head on a brick wall at the moment.  If enough people make these kinds of request it is going to get embarassing for them and they will be looking for a way out.

I really don't mind how long they take (well I do, but I'll put up with it). All I know is that with each request, with each appeal, with each contact with the IC, the agency is having to put in some tangible effort with consequential expense. Because most agencies have complied with requests, it means that the Home Office will have to do the same. It may take a long time, but it is going to have to comply. That is satisfying in itself. I hope others are also submitting FOI requests with both similar and different questions, but it's difficult to determine the interest. At least one other member here is going down the FOI route.

I note that whilst the agencies are revealing the geographic numbers, they are not putting these numbers on their web sites (despite some promising to do so).

wrote on Jul 27^th, 2005 at 9:52pm:

I note that whilst the agencies are revealing the geographic numbers, they are not putting these numbers on their web sites (despite some promising to do so).

I feel sure you will be chasing them up over this until they comply?  Just remind them that they are otherwise making it impossible for you or anyone else in the USA to call. :o

wrote on Jul 27^th, 2005 at 10:17pm:

I feel sure you will be chasing them up over this until they comply?  Just remind them that they are otherwise making it impossible for you or anyone else in the USA to call. :o

Indeed - once these idiots start to realize how difficult it is for those of us overseas to contact HMG, and correct this, then I'll be happy.

I'm looking into whether I can take any action based upon discrimination. From my initial look at the legislation, I can't see that discrimination based solely on country of residence is an offence, however if anyone knows anything to the contrary, please let us know!