This Petition runs until Feb 15th 2008 and I believe we should give it all the support we can.   Vote now!

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/NGN-use-by-GPs/

General Medical Practioners are being persuaded, by telephone equipment suppliers and service providers, to change from the use of local 01 and 02 geographic numbers to a non-geographic 0844 number to book an appointment and 0870 numbers for calls from overseas countries. The patient has to remember a 11 or 12 digit number as againt a 5 or 6 digit local call number. These numbers are also revenue sharing numbers and generate an income for the doctors surgery and/or the telephone service provider and encourage the queing of calls to generate extra revenue. It is not possible to make a 0870 call from most overseas counties and therefore you or a hospital will not beable to contact your doctor for information. After hours doctor services are also using the 0870 number for incoming calls This practice penalises the poor, elderly and other persons who do not have access to a home phone and must rely on a public phone box and is additional un-neccessary burden and cost on illness.

Still only 277 signatures tonight, scarcely any more than when I signed it yesterday.  So clearly only hardcore members of this forum have so far signed.  Depressing.

What this needs is for a couple of major mass circulation papers like The Sun and The Daily Mirror to give the link for the petition in an article about the NEG scam, whilst also clearly the Daily Mail, Daily Express, The Times, Telegraph, Independent Guardian etc mentioning it would all be nice but won't get nearly as many signatures as The Sun and The Daily Mirror.  We need to get it on Page 1 by signatures of the PM petitions website and after that the signatures will snowball as site visitors always look for other interesting popular petitions to sign.

As a start though if Daniel could use the box on the home page of this website that normally mentions government consultations to link to the petition it would be a start and if Martin Lewis would also give the petition a plug in his weekly MoneySaving email it would obviously be worth several thousand more signatures.  In fact posting the link in any popular very busy web forum (i.e. unlike this one) you belong to would help.

loddon as you are an NEG patient why not start talking to the news desks at the tabloids to see if you can get them interested.

Its clear that people having to pay extra to call their doctor is a lot more emotive than people being ripped off about calling Sky or the BBC, which they at least in theory have some nominal control over deciding whether or not they need to do.

NGMsGhost wrote on Jul 27^th, 2007 at 9:27pm:

. As a start though if Daniel could use the box on the home page of this website that normally mentions government consultations to link to the petition it would be a start .

I agree with you entirely.  I did ask for this on April 16th in the Doctors Surgeries Topic.   So could our Global Moderator pick this up now and get it onto the home page???  Please!!!  

I have always felt that this Topic would be a weak point for the NTS industry, and therefore a good tactical point for attacking the universal evil of 087/084 numbers.   And now we are getting some momentum with not only National newspapers covering this story, but also a growing number of Local papers.   This is most encouraging.

You can be assured that I am continuing to talk to the press and finding extremely varying levels of interest in this issue.    Certainly there is more interest in this doctors surgery issue than the wider NTS issue at the moment.   Anyway I would hint that you should keep a watchful eye out for something appearing on Monday -- not certain but a good chance.   And I have already asked for this Petition to be given a mention.

While the Sun and the Mirror are not my natural field of play I will be trying.

loddon wrote on Jul 27^th, 2007 at 9:52pm:

While the Sun and the Mirror are not my natural field of play I will be trying.

The reporters are still pretty bright people on these tabloid newspapers.  Its just that the style of reporting is, how shall we say, rather different in its approach.

The main obstacle is to get the editor to make space for a serious story ahead of one about tv celebrities or footballers.  Also even if you get a reporter interested your story is still more in danger of being squeezed out by the Editor suddenly deciding that coverage of one of the aforesaid areas is more important.

But I think "doctors are scamming their poor, elderly sick patients" would rate pretty highly on the list of emotive serious stories that they are usually fond of running.

0844 are also a weak spot for Ofcom and the NHS since the code has no historic link to local rate like 0845 and Ofcom's only justification for failing to transfer them to ICSTIS regulation was that they thought an up to £3 per hour ripoff didn't involve a serious level of consumer detriment.

NGMsGhost wrote on Jul 27^th, 2007 at 9:27pm:

In fact posting the link in any popular very busy web forum (i.e. unlike this one) you belong to would help.

I've shared the link on one of my online profiles with a plea to all my friends to go out and sign the petition. That should hopefully get us a few more votes :).

Still under 300 signatures unfortunately but I see that a Peter Bone has now signed.  Could this be the same Peter Bone who is MP for Wellingborough I wonder and if so perhaps he is also well known to one of our other existing forum members. ;)

NGMsGhost wrote on Jul 29^th, 2007 at 1:41am:

Still under 300 signatures

Well over 400 now and starting to accelerate.

Many thanks to our website managers for putting the message on the home page!

Passed 500 now.

One mention in the Daily Mail or the Daily Express and it would be 200,000 before you can say knife.

Or 'Princess Diana' in the case of the Express.

The Petition is now comfortably past 1000 votes!!!!!!!!! ;D

Its added over 500 in the last 3 days purely because of the message on the home page -- thanks.    People are now learning of its existence and it seems immediately signing.

And now we have exceeded 1500 votes!!  ;D ;D

That's 500 in less than 3 days!!! :)

Woo! :D Seems it has really picked up speed in the last few days, and hopefully will persuade the government to get off its backside and do something about it (although I suspect NEG and all other associated providers will be "convincing" the government otherwise).

Also, there seem to be a few Dr. entries which is always good - nice to get some support from GPs!

More than 2000 votes!!!! :) :) ;D

When it gets to 4000 we get onto the front page of Petitions by size!  Then it may start to really take off.

Has anyone any further suggestions for publicising this Petition?

loddon wrote on Aug 9^th, 2007 at 8:06pm:

Has anyone any further suggestions for publicising this Petition?

1. Get it mentioned with the URL in any national newspaper

2. Track down discussion forums patronised by doctors, nurses or health professionals and post the link there in existing threads or a new thread

3. Track down more general discussion forums on health issues and post the URL there and background to the petition.

4. Acquire a national press release list of all national and local newspapers and email a press release containing details on the petition and its URL.

5. Acquire the name of trade magazines connected with the health professions and send a press release with the URL of the petition website to those.

6. Organise a demonstration to go to the Houses Of Parliament on a weekday (basically Tuesday to Thursday) during the Parliamentary session and for all the members of the website on the demonstration who have an NEG doctors surgery to ask to see their MPs at the House of Commons.

The snag is that Mr Whitehouse himself (any relation to Mary) does not seem to be an active member of this forum so we cannot directly say it is the www.saynoto0870.com petition against the use of 0844 numbers by doctors surgeries.

Its now place 122 out of 8707 still live on the site in terms of number of signatures.

3734 signatures needed to reach Page 1 by size at the present time.

By the way why did this separate thread get started on the NEG petition issue.  That means all those subscribed to the original thread including that nice lady at NEG may not be reading this.

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 9^th, 2007 at 8:23pm:

By the way why did this separate thread get started on the NEG petition issue.  That means all those subscribed to the original thread including that nice lady at NEG may not be reading this.

I don't understand the question, NGM.    This is a Petition to No.10 and is nothing to do with NEG, directly; so it deserves a thread in its own right.    There are many doctors using 0845 and certainly some still using 0870 (even though 0870 was officially banned by DoH in 2005).

I don't care whether that "nice " lady reads this really.   She's gone away now hasn't she?   She couldn't be bothered to answer the last question to her so I'm afraid she's a waste of space.    Lets concentrate on getting the numbers up on this Petition.

Thanks for all your suggestions, I will certainly do all I can on the press front.   If a dozen people hit the forums (fora?) and everyone writes to their MP citing the Early Day Motion 1989 we will be sailing!    OK so Parliament's in recess.   If there are a mountain of letters waiting for them on their return it should give them pause for thought!

I suggest that anyone who knows of a forum or bulletin board we should be using, they identify it here.   Anyone who posts to it should also mention it here and let us know of any reactions/responses they get.

loddon wrote on Aug 9^th, 2007 at 8:42pm:

I don't understand the question, NGM.    This is a Petition to No.10 and is nothing to do with NEG, directly; so it deserves a thread in its own right.    There are many doctors using 0845 and certainly some still using 0870 (even though 0870 was officially banned by DoH in 2005).

Both this thread title and the detailed wording of the 10 Downing Street petition make it clear that it is the use of 0844 numbers that is opposed.  Hence specifically the use of NEG Surgeryline (although not mentioned by name) and not any wider and less frequent use by doctors of 0845 and 0870 numbers.

The NEG thread already had a lot of participants and I believe that thread was the most appropriate place to mention this 10 Downing Street petition.

I've reposted my request for people to sign this petition on one of my online profiles. I've also re-worded it to include the advice by the DoH regarding NGNs and the 03 number range.

I see your point -- so what should we do?   I did mention this Petition on other threads previously but it didn't seem to get any real attention.   Now it is something we can specifically refer to and follow.    Surely all experienced participants can find this OK and newcomers will know exactly what we are talking about.

Perhaps I am being a little pedantic.

The key things is to try to get the petition on page 1 of the petitions website by size, after which it will probably be spotted by national newspaper journalists and also be signed by other casual visitors to the 10 Downing Street website.

How about contacting our GPs (for those who have not opted for a premium number)? I know my surgery has spoken with NEG and decided against it.

I think that is a great idea.   Try to find out what the selling pitch was, how they assessed/evaluated their proposals, why they rejected them and what alternatives they considered.    We could then consider how we could get the message to all the other doctors in the country.

Maybe this is another good petition to sign?

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Listen2aPetition/

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Actually act on one of these petitions instead of sending us pitiful excuses.

Sounds like we aren't the only ones who seem to be getting no reasonable results from the PM :).

Only 12 signatures so far I see.

How did you come across this particular petition so early in its life?  You wouldn't be John Adams would you by any chance? ;) ::)

LOL no. I was checking up on the status of this petition, and decided to pop onto the home page to see how many more votes we needed before we got there. It is the second petition listed under "Five most recent petitions" :).

The Health Message Boards contain much chat on health topics.   I have started a thread on the topic of doctor surgeries pointing people to the Petition here : -----

http://www.healthboards.com/boards/showthread.php?p=3149480#post3149480

I seem to have managed to start rather a well participated thread on the subject of the anti 0844 doctors surgeryline petition over in the Pie & Piston forum section of www.pistonheads.com  This forum section of the Pistonheads forum is specifically for off topic non motoring related discussions as you can see from many of the other threads posted.

This is a very busy forum with a lot of members with strong views (i.e. petrolheads) and in just a couple of hours it has prompted a large number of responses already and I am sure has added quite a few signatures to the petition.

There have been several strong posts defending 0844 number use and NEG.  Some of these are from people brainwashed in to believing anything beginning 084 is "local rate" but at least two seem to be from a possible NEG employee (a Rich Burley) who is demanding to have me banned from the forum and another is from a guy who seems to probably be a GP or a GP Practice Manager as he seems to know exactly why doctors surgeries started using the NEG system.

Anyhow you may care to look at it as there are strongly expressed views on both sides and quite a few forum members seems to have signed the petition.  Its now on P2 of the 10 Downing Street petitions site with over 2,500 signatures.  Only 800 or so more are needed to get it on Page 1

See the pistonheads discussion at www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=141&t=425682&i=0

To remove the posts themselves would remove the logical flow of the thread unless Simmond001 was to agree to also remove all their posts as well in response.

--Admin edit 13/08/07 18:52 - Posts by Simmond001 also removed regarding this misunderstanding.

simond001 wrote on Aug 13^th, 2007 at 1:01pm:

Regarding you request as to when an 087 or 084 NGN offers a benefit to the user, i would direct you to a post on saynoto0870.com http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1185069189  rather ironic that this website does support the use on NGN's where it suits them.

There is a slight difference between covert NGN profit (such as a certain "travel information line" which is being discussed elsewhere on this forum, and corporations who can afford to use geographic numbers - even 03 numbers - but choose to use NGNs because they want to profit from your calls, whether or not they claim that to be the case), and acceptable and genuine uses of NGN profit for services such as cheap calls to abroad.

jgxenite wrote on Aug 13^th, 2007 at 1:23pm:

and acceptable and genuine uses of NGN profit for services such as cheap calls to abroad.

These 084 and 087 call thru numbers are about the only legitimate example of value added 084 and 087 services to the consumer that I can think of.  Also all the companies that operate them clearly state the pence per minute for calling, unlike the plethora of other ripoff merchants who operate 084 and 087 numbers and who frequently still try to pretend the numbers are charged at local rate or national rate.  Or they have inconveniently failed to educated their call centre staff out of this misapprehension which is inherent in the deliberately double dealing way Ofcom have allowed the cost of calling these numbers in comparison to other UK numbers to change without any efforts at publicising the fact on their part.

Its now at 3,002 signatures and Captain Duncan Tee was the 3,000th signatory. [smiley=beer.gif]

At this rate it will be on Page 1 by size (top 50 petitions by signature) before we know it. [smiley=thumbup.gif]

It now has 3,642 signatures and is in position 2 on the second page ordered by size of live 10 Downing Street petitions.  That's position 52 overall as there are 50 petitions per page.

It is about to move on to Page 1 where it will start to pick up a lot more signatures from people who visit to sign other popular petitions in the top 50 and come across this one.

I would be interested to know if most of the signatures have been generated just by traffic visiting this website and seeing the link on the home page?  Perhaps Daniel can reveal how many unique visitors a day this website now typically receives?

Has anyone thought how many signatures we could get for this petition if we could identify all the NEG surgeries that use them and then picket them during surgery hours by handing out leaflets outside that give the detalls of the 10 Downing Street EPetition against these numbers.

We could also give out details of the www.saynoto0870.com website at the same time.

Is anyone else up for this idea.  I am prepared to have a go with some of my nearby NEG surgeries in Crawley.

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 18^th, 2007 at 11:39am:

Has anyone thought how many signatures we could get for this petition if we could identify all the NEG surgeries that use them and then picket them during surgery hours by handing out leaflets outside that give the detalls of the 10 Downing Street EPetition against these numbers. We could also give out details of the www.saynoto0870.com website at the same time. Is anyone else up for this idea.  I am prepared to have a go with some of my nearby NEG surgeries in Crawley.

That'll go down well with people looking for privacy whilst visiting a doctor.

Still amazed that you (in you mind) appear to associate a single company with this practice against all of the advice you have been given. Do you have a petty grievance with NEG or is it ignorance?

simond001 wrote on Aug 18^th, 2007 at 12:01pm:

That'll go down well with people looking for privacy whilst visiting a doctor.

We won't be asking what's wrong with them will we though and I don't think being ill is in itself a shameful matter.  A doctor's surgery is hardly in the same category as a VD or AIDS clinic is it.


Quote:

Still amazed that you (in you mind) appear to associate a single company with this practice against all of the advice you have been given. Do you have a petty grievance with NEG or is it ignorance?

My understanding is that NEG accounts for the vast majority of doctors surgeries that have switched to using 0844 call systems but anyhow the 10 Downing Street petition is generic so we could simply our focus in opposing the use of 0844 numbers by doctors at 5p per minute and the fact they are excluded from calling packages and also cost a fortune from mobile and especially BT Payphones.

As you are such an expert on the UK phone systems and NGN number termination perhaps you can tell me why BT needs to charge a 1200% mark up on calling 0844 numbers from BT Payphones compared to only a 66% markup from a BT landline compared to the cost of calling an 01 or 02 number? :o

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 18^th, 2007 at 12:13pm:

...we could simply our focus in opposing the use of 0844 numbers by doctors at 5p per minute and the fact they are excluded from calling packages and also cost a fortune from mobile and especially BT Payphones....

but yet NEG would have their customers (surgeries, etc) and ultimately us patients believe that 0844 is local rate and costs from mobiles aren't that much different (I think I remember NEG mentioning that in a case study or something)!!!

bbb_uk wrote on Aug 18^th, 2007 at 12:32pm:

but yet NEG would have their customers (surgeries, etc) and ultimately us patients believe that 0844 is local rate and costs from mobiles aren't that much different (I think I remember NEG mentioning that in a case study or something)!!!

Yes it is the fact that NEG are blatant, bare faced and unashamed liars about the cost of these calls that mark them out for the special attentions of this campaign.

Also the fact that  the numbers are used for calling your doctor when you are ill.  This means you have no choice about calling the number and no choice of switching to another doctor instead at that point.

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 18^th, 2007 at 12:13pm:

simond001 wrote on Aug 18th, 2007 at 12:01pm: That'll go down well with people looking for privacy whilst visiting a doctor. We won't be asking what's wrong with them will we though and I don't think being ill is in itself a shameful matter.  A doctor's surgery is hardly in the same category as a VD or AIDS clinic is it. Quote: Still amazed that you (in you mind) appear to associate a single company with this practice against all of the advice you have been given. Do you have a petty grievance with NEG or is it ignorance? My understanding is that NEG accounts for the vast majority of doctors surgeries that have switched to using 0844 call systems but anyhow the 10 Downing Street petition is generic so we could simply our focus in opposing the use of 0844 numbers by doctors at 5p per minute and the fact they are excluded from calling packages and also cost a fortune from mobile and especially BT Payphones. As you are such an expert on the UK phone systems and NGN number termination perhaps you can tell me why BT needs to charge a 1200% mark up on calling 0844 numbers from BT Payphones compared to only a 66% markup from a BT landline compared to the cost of calling an 01 or 02 number? :o

As i have stated (many many times) I do not approve of all aspects of the telecoms industry. It is abhorant that Bt charge a minimum 40pence charge for using a public payphone, especially when the callmay go to an automated nswer. I am not talking a surgery line here, but a general observance that call charges from payphones are far too high. BT will state that the cost of maintaining payphones has increases exponentially over the last 15 years, and the revenue collected from each payphone doesnot cover the cost. BT stated long ag that they would prefer to remove payphone from the majority of the UK, but are unable to under Government regulation.

Whether the individual surgeries can justify the use of 084's is not for debate here as we are not offering them to right to respond. It is surely up to them to decide whether it will negatively or positively affect their business. Patients do have the option to move doctors if they wish, and as GP's incomes are based partly on the number of patients they have this would be an effective way for patients to show their dissatisfaction.

I again believe however that if there is a benefit to using the system (on phone appointment booking, checking in at surgery, auto divert to out of hours servics/surgeries etc..) that the cost of a phone call is a very small price to pay. The aspect of not being able to call internationally could be very easily solved by offering a central geo number that transfers the call or takes  message for the individual surgeries and passes this on within a short timeframe (2 minutes  by email would be simple to set up). The individual surgery could then respond directly to the hospital / doctor that is requesting information. This could also be easily set up to via a telephone translation service that would remove the issue of language.

Of course, this all has to be paid for, but as with everything, quality service costs.

..although it is clear that common sense will not prevail here as the dominant force behind this post has issues with anybody of a higher standing than himself.  

simond001,

I enjoy your intelligent posts such as your last one more than your rather patronising or belittling ones.  Clearly you know your subject, even though I am pretty sure we are still not on the same side.

Taking your point about paying for the service so who pays for the uneducated urchin from the council estate or the gypsy child that needs a heart transplant.  The NHS pays for all of it does it not.  They are not thought to be too unvaluable to the economy to be worth saving compared to a company director such as perhaps yourself are they. Even though goes against normal market economics.

With this being so and taking in particular your shared dislike of BT's obscene costs for calling NGNs from Payphones, compared to their resonable costs for calling GNs (provided the call lasts around 10 minutes and so covers the 40p connection charge) then how can you justify using 0844 for the doctor when this may mean the crippled 80 year old with a sick wife on the councill estate and who has had their BT line cut off (due to their poverty) having to go round the corner to the phone box on a freezing December night to find they do not have the £1.70 in change that may be needed for a 10 minute call to 0844.

Shouldn't the same principle of the poorest members of the community not being denied access to their doctor due to their income apply?  This is done for prescriptions but the charge is not waived for pensioners who need to call 0844 numbers.

You seem to want it have both ways in clearly earning a living that in part depends on the NGN calls system without then being prepared to accept that problems such as the ones I have highlighted above then become inevitable.

I would respectfully suggest that if those earning over £50k per annum pay 50% income tax that this would be a more acceptable way to fund enhanced phone technology at the dotor, without ending the use of 01/02 geographic numbers and normal calling rates.

Its now on Page 1 of the 10 Downing Street Petitions website listed by size at position 50 with 3,737 signatures.  Many thanks to all those who have signed so far. [smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=beer.gif] [smiley=dankk2.gif] [smiley=tekst-toppie.gif]

Expect signatures to accelerate from this point on now that casual visitors to the 10 Downing Street website or signatories to other petitions on the website are likely to come across it.

Also national newspaper journalists and the Department of Health are likely to start to take notice of it.  Not to mention the odd GP using these 0844 numbers.

Thinking further on the question of encouraging patients of these surgeries to sign up to the petition I suppose the answer would be to leafelt all homes within say a mile of any 0844 using doctor's surgery.  That is far more likely to get a big response rather than picking off only those small number of patients visiting their doctor on any given particular day.

It now has 4,009 signatures and is in Position 45 by size.

Hopefully it should pick up even more signatures once people are back from summer holidays in a couple of weeks.

We really need to get coverage for the petition in a newsletter aimed at doctors and nurses.

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 20^th, 2007 at 10:02am:

We really need to get coverage for the petition in a newsletter aimed at doctors and nurses.

Is there such a newsletter?  If there is, can someone possibly point us in the right direction?

bbb_uk wrote on Aug 20^th, 2007 at 8:47pm:

Is here such a newsletter?  If there is, can someone possibly point us in the right direction?

Every profession out there has a trade journal and GPs are bound to have one if not several.

I see the latest petition signatory is Claudia Francesca Cameron.  No relation I suppose except that Francesca is a rather upmarket kind of a name.

I have been impressed by the number of female signatories on the petition in view of the lack of much regular female participation in this forum apart from Barbara.  On the other hand women do tend to visit the doctor rather more often..............

Just for the record ----- the Petition has now reached 6050 votes!!

The association for all doctors is the BMA. Their joural is the BMJ which they all read (wife is a doctor).

Editors email editor@bmj.com
Tel 020 7387 4499

The Petition is now over 7000 votes!!

BBC Radio Gloucestershire are intending to broadcast a story/debate about doctors using 0844 numbers tomorrow morning, Tuesday 11th September just after 7 am.   A doctor is apparently lined up to put his side of the case and the BBC will no doubt be seeking views from other people.   The link to Radio Gloucestershire is : ----  
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/gloucestershire/    
 
On the righthand side of the home page is a button to use to listen to the broadcast live over the web.   No doubt those living in the area will be able to tune in on their receivers.  
 
Of course, there is never any guarantee that such a feature will actually be broadcast due to editorial considerations, but we believe there is a very good chance that this item will make it on to the airwaves.  
 
Good listening.

[edit]Discussion on this broadcast is here.[/edit]

~ Edited by Dave: Link to discussion thread added

Now on 8000.

Now at Position 20 with 8169 signatures.

Did the BBC mention the petition in on its Points West program?

Now if only we could get Martin Lewis or a national newspaper to also give the petition a mention.

NGM,

Yes.  BBC Points West made the Petition a key point in their report.   By the way, have you not seen the private message I sent you?   I have given a link you can use to still see this piece.   It lasts about 2 minutes.   Just go to BBC News 24 website and search for "Doctors surgeries under fire" and it is the first result you get on the right hand side.   Just click on the "video" button.

I have written several times to Martin Lewis about this but have had no reply.   I cannot understand why he will not endorse this Petition.    Perhaps someone else could be more persuasive.   Why don't we all write to him about it?   Maybe then he will take notice?

HORSHAM'S Courtyard Surgery is the latest in the town to switch to a new phone system designed to make it easier for patients to contact their GP.

As of Tuesday September 25, the number that patients need to call will change to 0844 815 1157.

Explaining the reasons for going ahead with the new system, despite negative reports in the local press, Janet Yeo, Practice Manager at Courtyard Surgery, said: "We are keen to stress to our patients that, despite what has been reported in some news articles, we will not be making a profit from our new phone system.

"It has been introduced solely to ease problems with call congestion.
"Call costs have also been exaggerated and misrepresented and we would like to assure our patients that it should cost them around the same to call the surgery with the new system."


More porkies and inaccurate as has been said before, it did not cost anything before on the call plans.


[edit]by bbb_uk: Source: West Sussex County Times. Also mentioned on Courtyard Surgery's website.[/edit]

Over 9000 votes including at least 58 who have signed themselves "Dr".    Some of these have also added "(GP)".

Professor Peter Ivey has signed.

loddon wrote on Sep 17^th, 2007 at 9:58am:

I have written several times to Martin Lewis about this but have had no reply.   I cannot understand why he will not endorse this Petition.

Strange that.  You'd have thought he'd champion the campaign instead of ignoring such communications.

Five doctors have signed in the latest block of 500 signatures.

Its good to know that there are at least still some ethically sound doctors out there. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Assuming of course that these doctors are medical ones and not the academic sort like our very own dorf. :-/

!0,000 votes reached today!!!    This number includes at least 80 doctors!

loddon wrote on Oct 1^st, 2007 at 1:00pm:

!0,000 votes reached today!!!    This number includes at least 80 doctors!

I see that quite a few of the petitions still ahead of us in terms of signatures are ones that I have signed:-

Allow The Red Arrows To Fly At the 2012 Olympics
Repeal The Hunting Act
Give All Gurkhas and their families British Citizenship
Have A Referendum on the EU Constitution
Make Jeremy Clarkson Prime Minister
Abolish All Faith Schools
Scrap all plans for road tolls or congestion charging
Reject proposals to restrict or ban the use of older cars
Make St George's Day A Public Holiday

In fact that makes 9 out of the 16 petitions that are ahead of stop doctors 0844 numbers. :o :-[

Still with this government there are so many different causes that one needs to keep lobbying about.............................

Doesn't the Jeremy Clarkson one for Prime Minister  say it all.

If such a flippant  nonsense can get more support than this, what hope is there for most of these petitions being taken seriously.

Give the masses a chance to sound off, so they'll feel better, and think we're a listening government.... Ha... Ha...

joe65 wrote on Oct 5^th, 2007 at 5:40pm:

Doesn't the Jeremy Clarkson one for Prime Minister  say it all. If such a flippant  nonsense can get more support than this, what hope is there for most of these petitions being taken seriously. Give the masses a chance to sound off, so they'll feel better, and think we're a listening government.... Ha... Ha...

The Jeremy Clarkson petition has been running for a very long time so has to be judged in that context.  Also there is a very big pro motoring lobby in this country and most keen motorists regard this speed camera loving and non road building and congestion charging allowing Labour government as about the worst there has ever been.

Voting for Jeremy Clarkson as Prime Minister is therefore a way to express the contempt felt by most keen motorists for their treatment by the Labour government.

The anti doctors 0844 NEG petition now has 10,667 signatures and is in 16th place but the petition to allow the Red Arrows to fly at the 2012 Olympics that only started a couple of weeks ago now have over 100,000 signatures.  It is clearly being orchestrated by those with the ability to communicate with the armed forces and by the various pro motoring lobby groups that were behind the anti road tolls petition I would say.  I am suspicious that petitions to this signature are not actually being fiddled by some elaborate means as I was also very suspicious with the anti road tolls petition.  Of course all the names and addresses are real names and addresses but have all the people concerned really actually signed the petition.  It may be that organisations which have members who would support the cause are signing up all their members to the petition en bloque whether they have actively consented or not.

Much though we may get stirred up about the 084/7 scam like it or not there are other causes that the population at large get even more stirred up about.

I think it's great that people are able to find out about this petition, it may not seem a HUGE amount of signatures but it's a lot more than other worthwhile petitions like saving our post offices, so this website must take a lot of credit.

One of the biggest petitions on there is the one to repeal the anti hunt laws and i'm sure that's all to do with the sadistic toffs being organised

So best of luck and keep up the good work!

Yes it would be great if we could get through to the press, unfortunately so much of what they write is hateful divisive rubbish and important things like this often get ignored, but ya gotta try!

11,630 votes now, me included.

just read and signed  :)

13,000 votes today!!

14,000 votes today.

 My surgery have introduced this 0844 range, but I have recently discovered that they have lied in claiming it is a "Lo-Call" the same as 0845. Unlike 0845, 0844 does not offer peak and off peak, and the charge, even from a BT line, is not the same as 0845. Any argument surgeries may have in favour of 0844 fail because they could just as easily moved to 0845, which is less of a rip-off due to historic associations with local rate. 0844 was introduced initially for Dial Up internet, and was specifically designed as a system to charge a premium over the cost of a geographic call which went to the ISP, surgeries have effectively misused this facility to generate revenue as though their patients were connecting to the internet.
   Further to this scam, my surgery will NOT allow me to book an appointment for tomorrow in person, I have to PHONE the next day. Naturally, EVERYONE is told this, and the result is an avalanche of calls queued at 8:30am, all of which generate revenue even though it takes a while for the receptionists to book the appointments while at the same time dealing with visitors who find the receptionist "on the phone" when they arrive to attend. I have been told that for each surgery day, only FIVE slots per doctor can be booked in advance, all the rest are "emergency" on the day only. In fact, patients who are actually that ill on the day cannot manage the stress of battling through a call queue, and would find it easier to book at a quiet time. If they fail to get through in time, all the "emergency" slots are taken by the non-emergency patients who could not pre-book and had to fight it out on the day. In effect, "emergency" appointments are allocated on those most able to navigate the calling system, not on the basis of clinical need as would be the case before, where a visitor or caller could get an appointment the next day if they had an illness that was unlikely to "go away overnight".
    Unfortunately, no-one can actually make a valid complaint to the regulators unless they are personally affected, or are complaining on behalf of another affected individual. Anything else is "feedback" and gets a polite reply (sometimes) and gets filed in the waste paper basket.

vinylweatherman wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2007 at 6:30pm:

My surgery have introduced this 0844 range, ... Unfortunately, no-one can actually make a valid complaint to the regulators unless they are personally affected, or are complaining on behalf of another affected individual. Anything else is "feedback" and gets a polite reply (sometimes) and gets filed in the waste paper basket.

Vinylweatherman -

Your local Primary Care Trust should respond properly to the valid complaint that you have to make about the operation of this surgery. You can look up the details at [url=www.nhs.uk[/url]]www.nhs.uk[/url].

Many PCTs have been contacted to point out that surgeries using 0844 numbers are breaching the terms of their contract, which prohibits them from accepting remuneration from patients, including "through any other person".

You may not wish to identify the practice here, but if you would like to give the name of your PCT then I am sure that they (and all local MPs and media) will receive a briefing similar to that which has caused other PCTs to start getting to grips with this matter.

 Thanks, It is only recently that I discovered that 0844 is NOT the same as 0845, which is now actually CHEAPER that the geographic numbers to call. If my surgery had gone over to 0845 I would be thanking them!
   The original problems were with surgeries using 0870, and I thought the 0844 trick was a way around these regulations. It seems it is not, as all I would have to show is that their 0844 number is charged at a premium to an equivalent geographic number, such as my dentist.

   One possible concern I have is whether complaining could get me "struck off" by the surgery. Although it shoudn't happen, it is often a case of an organisation doing something it can't by law, and the aggrieved party having to pursue redress. This is similar to the way banks victimise customers who excercised their right to challenge illegal bank charges (they were thrown out and told to bank elsewhere with little notice).

 The fact is that surgeries have done this under the noses of the primary care trusts, AGAIN! long after they were made to ditch their 0870 numbers after complaints.

  Since the summer, I have seen an explosion in this rip-off, which I thought was finally going to be brought to an end come March 2008.

What you have to remember is that a lot of landline and mobiles come with 'free packages' for the goegraphical numbers. So dialing your doctor is actual fact more expensive by dialing the 08 number, as dialing the geographical number does not cost anything up to an  hour with these deals.

sherbert wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2007 at 8:21pm:

What you have to remember is that a lot of landline and mobiles come with 'free packages' for the goegraphical numbers. So dialing your doctor is actual fact more expensive by dialing the 08 number, as dialing the geographical number does not cost anything up to an  hour with these deals.

You are spreading another telephone myth. It is not just "free" packages that 0845 is more expensive on.

Dave wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2007 at 8:57pm:

sherbert wrote on Nov 2nd, 2007 at 8:21pm: What you have to remember is that a lot of landline and mobiles come with 'free packages' for the goegraphical numbers. So dialing your doctor is actual fact more expensive by dialing the 08 number, as dialing the geographical number does not cost anything up to an  hour with these deals. You are spreading another telephone myth. It is not just "free" packages that 0845 is more expensive on.

Sorry :-[

The Petition now stands at over 16000 votes and is tenth largest.

Just as a matter of interest, have any of the Downing Street petitions ever been acted on and if so how many have gone in favour of the Great British public? Or do they just get ignored and nothing is ever done?

The Petition is now eighth on the leaderboard.

sherbert wrote on Nov 14^th, 2007 at 3:20pm:

Just as a matter of interest, have any of the Downing Street petitions ever been acted on and if so how many have gone in favour of the Great British public? Or do they just get ignored and nothing is ever done?

A good question.  I think the answer is Yes in a few cases.    The PM's website states that all petitions which gain 100 votes or more will receive a reply.    In practice some seem to be ignored but most popular petitions do receive a Government Response.   The Responses are published on the website with each petition and most closed Petitions have their Response.   A few live petitions get a Response before their end date (e.g. "Allow the Red Arrows to fly at the 2012 Olympics" which still has 10 months to run), as you can see, and I have seen a few which attracted a Response within 2 days of starting.    

It would be a matter of opinion whether, or to what extent, some Responses indicate that Government policy was influenced by a petition.

In one notable case a petition was publicised by this website  regarding NGN numbers : ---
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/saynoto0870/
and initially was ignored by the Gov't despite gaining over 43000 votes.    Following correspondence with the PM about this snub to 43000 people a Government Response was posted, which became heavily criticised.   This is still the subject of correspondence with 10 Downing Street and, just maybe, has had and will have significant influence on Government action and policy.

My view is that it is up to the initiators and supporters of a petition to try and make something happen.    If we don't like the Response then we should follow it up with positive and purposeful arguments.   We may or may not get some results, but at least we can try.

loddon wrote on Nov 16^th, 2007 at 12:29am:

sherbert wrote on Nov 14th, 2007 at 3:20pm: Just as a matter of interest, have any of the Downing Street petitions ever been acted on and if so how many have gone in favour of the Great British public? Or do they just get ignored and nothing is ever done? A good question.  I think the answer is Yes in a few cases.    The PM's website states that all petitions which gain 100 votes or more will receive a reply.    In practice some seem to be ignored but most popular petitions do receive a Government Response.   The Responses are published on the website with each petition and most closed Petitions have their Response.   A few live petitions get a Response before their end date (e.g. "Allow the Red Arrows to fly at the 2012 Olympics" which still has 10 months to run), as you can see, and I have seen a few which attracted a Response within 2 days of starting.     It would be a matter of opinion whether, or to what extent, some Responses indicate that Government policy was influenced by a petition. In one notable case a petition was publicised by this website  regarding NGN numbers : --- http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/saynoto0870/ and initially was ignored by the Gov't despite gaining over 43000 votes.    Following correspondence with the PM about this snub to 43000 people a Government Response was posted, which became heavily criticised.   This is still the subject of correspondence with 10 Downing Street and, just maybe, has had and will have significant influence on Government action and policy. My view is that it is up to the initiators and supporters of a petition to try and make something happen.    If we don't like the Response then we should follow it up with positive and purposeful arguments.   We may or may not get some results, but at least we can try.

Well, thanks very much for that Loddon, very interesting and I appreciate the trouble you took in your reply. I think your last sentence is correct, if you don't have a go, you have not got a right to moan; at least people can say they tried to do their bit when they have tried to make something happen. Another thought, I wonder how many MPs have a financial interest in these companies that supply these systems to the doctors surgeries etc.   ;)

sherbert wrote on Nov 16^th, 2007 at 9:06am:

if you don't have a go, you have not got a right to moan; at least people can say they tried to do their bit when they have tried to make something happen.

Many of us are involved in this campaign because we seek for something to actually happen, and believe that we could succeed. We are not looking for some modest justification for a sense of dissatisfaction in having failed. These efforts, often unseen, are proving to be effective, although there is still some way to go. The petition has a place in this.


sherbert wrote on Nov 16^th, 2007 at 9:06am:

Another thought, I wonder how many MPs have a financial interest in these companies that supply these systems to the doctors surgeries etc.   ;)

Inertia is generally a far more likely reason for inaction on any point than hidden interests. The campaign is supported by a sizeable, and growing, list of MPs.

The financial interest of concern here is not of any personal nature, it is the fact that payments by patients are used to avoid spending from taxpayer-funded budgets.

David

Good news - our local paper reports the DoH has issued guidance to doctors saying they should not enter into new contracts for 0844 type services and calls should cost no more than a local call.

tjfs wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2007 at 6:52pm:

Good news - our local paper reports the DoH has issued guidance to doctors saying they should not enter into new contracts for 0844 type services and calls should cost no more than a local call.

What area is that?

Petition is now 18000.   It continues to add a steady 1000 per week.

The point that I made in my first post is that this is now being taken up by hospital services, certainly in the mental health field and if the lid is not put on it, likely to be taken up by many more health services than just gp surgeries.

Its not just the doctors but other services also. I tried to telephone Parcel Force today with costs of 10p per minute so my service provider said. All I wanted to do was to find out why a requested parcel delivery had not been made.

It is madness and not customer service to force payment and I will be very interested to see what eventually happens to the 0870 petition even though initially rebuffed.

It makes a mockery of those inclusive telephone deals which are bypassed with these numbers

Well I must really cool down now......................................ARRGGGHHHH!

For those interested, there is a letter in my local paper about this.  It can be accessed at www.ilfordrecorder.co.uk and scroll down to post bag.  My concern is that many of the people most affected namely people on a pension are unlikely to be users of the web and may not be able to sign the petition.

There are now 20274 signatures, and this link,(from the OP), now goes straight to the petition;-

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/NGN-use-by-GPs/

Don't forget the deadline for signing is 15th February 2008.

21000.

It is now in the 8th place with 22091 signatures. A number of petitions above it are due to expire during January so that should push it up to well within the top 5 by the end of the month.

Just over three weeks to go and there are now 25,139 signatures.

I was just on the petition site, as i got an email about a response to another one I had signed, and this one is now at #5 on the front page!  25693 signatures.

Nearly 27 thousand signatures and less than two weeks to go!

Deadline is tomorrow.

Yet again the Prime Minister has ignored a Petition asking for action to be taken about  exploitation of the public by the telecoms industry.

I have sent the following letter to the PM by email and post.   I believe everyone who reads this Forum should send a similar message to the PM.  It is an outrage and a disgrace that the PM again ignores such an important Petition.  Please write to the PM asap and make sure a copy goes to your MP.



Dear Prime Minister,  

The Petition to prevent GPs using 0844/5 numbers finished several days ago.   Where is the Government response?  It is very very disappointing that yet again an important question of a publicly funded body or group exploiting the public by means of the telecoms industry which has attracted many thousands of signatures has not been answered.  It appears that the Government is dismissing public opinion and denigrating the public in favour of the telecommunications industry.

This Petition has been receiving about a thousand signatures per week recently so there is undoubtedly massive public concern with this issue.  An answer should have been available as soon as the Petition closed if not before as this matter needs very urgent attention.   The Secretary of State for Health, Alan Johnson said in the House recently that he believes that GPs are in breach of their contract by using these numbers to generate fees for their NHS services.  67 MPs have signed the EDM 108 "calling on the Secretary of State to put an end to it with immediate effect."

Please provide an answer immediately.

[quote author=loddon link=1185566187/90#93 date=1203150858]Dear Prime Minister,[/quote]
It may be that the proper procedure, preparing a response to all signatories once the petition is closed, was only started when the petition closed yesterday. That is however no reason not to press the points as suggested, so as to ensure that the response is comprehensive.

One may add that this case is different to others which are simply exploitation, as it breaches the fundamental principle of the NHS being "free at the point of need" - a point that was sadly missed from the text of the petition and the additional detail.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 16^th, 2008 at 1:11pm:

It may be that the proper procedure, preparing a response to all signatories once the petition is closed, was only started when the petition closed yesterday.

There have been several other petitions that the Prime Minister's office was more confident could be easily kicked in to touch that have received patronising responses several weeks or months before they closed.

I suppose one could hope the delay is because when the response comes it will propose concrete action but somehow I very much doubt it given the government's previous record in tacictly endorsing all of these 084/7 abuses.

Still no reply as yet from stonwall Brown I take it?

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 26^th, 2008 at 12:37am:

Still no reply as yet from stonwall Brown I take it?

A response at this time would be likely to simply refer to the fact that the Department of Health is "collecting evidence" and will publish a report at the end of March, as has been reported.

I have been told that evidence directed for the attention of Ivan Lewis, Under-Secretary of State at the Department - dhmail@dh.gsi.gov.uk, will receive attention. It is too much to hope that each signatory will be invited to submit evidence. It was initially solicited only from MPs.

I have been waiting to see if the other 9 SHAs will follow the example of South East Coast SHA in commissioning an on-line patient survey on use of 084 numbers.

Given that something is likely to emerge at the end of March, the next few weeks should be used as an opportunity for those who believe in the possibility of some sort of positive outcome to seek to apply political pressure.

It looks like the PM is ignoring this one.  >:(

Dave wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2008 at 1:37pm:

It looks like the PM is ignoring this one.  >:(

Are you really surprised, considering the government is the biggest abusers of 08xx numbers?

Dave wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2008 at 1:37pm:

It looks like the PM is ignoring this one.  >:(

What a surprise!

Too busy filling in his expenses claim forms, no doubt.

Do they actually take any notice of petitions?
I would rather doubt it.

sherbert wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2008 at 2:06pm:

Do they actually take any notice of petitions? I would rather doubt it.

It would appear to me that only petitions that seem to be obviously critical of the government or "public services" (such as the BBC) get a response. Ones from "crazy radicals" (like us  ;D) don't really bother them.

jgxenite wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2008 at 2:11pm:

It would appear to me that only petitions that seem to be obviously critical of the government or "public services" (such as the BBC) get a response. Ones from "crazy radicals" (like us  ;D) don't really bother them.

I wonder what happened to loddon's letter to the PM.

I hope he has not last heart after the disappointing outcome at the Information Tribunal re NHS Direct.

A reply today would report that the Department of Health has undertaken an evidence gathering exercise which concluded three das ago. This is currently being considered and advice of the action that is to be taken is expected shortly.

If anyone doubts that the petition is not being considered as part of this "evidence" they should contact the PM, the Department of Health or any of the three DoH Ministers who have referred to this (Johnson, Bradshaw and Lewis).

The government's response to the petition is now being sent by email.  

It contains the expected "IT'S THEM, NOT US, HONEST" weasel words:


Quote:

Responsibility for provision of local health services now rests with local NHS organisations as they have the specific knowledge and expertise that makes them best placed to plan, develop and improve services according to the needs of the local population. The provision of telephone services for patients and the public is therefore a matter for the local NHS. However, the message from the Department of Health has made it very clear to NHS organisations that patients should not be expected to pay more than the equivalent of a local call to contact their GPs. NHS organisations have a duty to ensure that they provide the best possible service to their local populations. We expect Primary Care Trusts and GPs to ensure locally that telephone systems do not place a financial burden on patients.

I have just also received the same load of meaningless waffle from the 10 Downing Street website in response to my signature of the petition.  What an insult considering the number of signatures involved. :o >:(

They say:-


Quote:

However, the message from the Department of Health has made it very clear to NHS organisations that patients should not be expected to pay more than the equivalent of a local call to contact their GPs.

I fear the problem is going to be with the definition of a local priced call and that BT and others are currently manipulating their call rates specifically to make the price of a daytime call to an 0844 doctors number and an 01/02 number for BT Option 1 customers much closer together.  Also note they are abolishing the 5.5p for one hour evening period in favour of per minute charge for geographic numbers to pay for "free" weekend calls.

Where they have more difficulty weedling out of it is on BT Option 3 or equivalents with other companies that huge numbers of phone customers are now on where 01/02/03 clearly has no marginal call cost and 0844 costs 5p per minute plus connection.  Ditto  on mobiles 0844s are never inlcuded in bundled minutes in calling plans.

I expect there will be some pathetic excuse made like these "discount plans" not being the standard price of a local call etc, etc.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2008 at 5:19pm:

A reply today would report that the Department of Health has undertaken an evidence gathering exercise which concluded three das ago. This is currently being considered and advice of the action that is to be taken is expected shortly.

Well it appears you were wrong SCV as the 10 Downing Street response makes no mention of the evidence presently being considered by the DH.

I fear the problem is going to be with the definition of a local priced call and that BT and others are currently manipulating their call rates specifically to make the price of a daytime call to an 0844 doctors number and an 01/02 number for BT Option 1 customers much closer together.  Also note they are abolishing the 5.5p for one hour evening period in favour of per minute charge for geographic numbers to pay for "free" weekend calls.


If you sign up for a year you get free evening calls as well (Up to an hour)

sherbert wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 4:37pm:

If you sign up for a year you get free evening calls as well (Up to an hour)

And OfCoN calls this competition rather than the incumbent abusing their dominant market position.

I wonder why BT has yet again increased the line rental to those of us who do not actually make any calls with them - could it possibly be so that we pay for their customers "free" weekend calls!  Also note this line rental increase then ripples through to all their competitors who supply WLR phone services products  :o >:( >:( >:(

NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 4:47pm:

sherbert wrote on Apr 8th, 2008 at 4:37pm: If you sign up for a year you get free evening calls as well (Up to an hour) And OfCoN calls this competition rather than the incumbent abusing their dominant market position. :o >:( >:( >:(

I have just become aware that the next step in this game is that these (for BT Together Opt2 at least) will now be "rolling" contracts whereby after the 12 months (or 18 months) the contract must either be renewed for 12 months or go elsewhere, or possibly they will allow you to step down to Option 1 and, yes you guessed it, even though it won't be a rolling contract, at that point you will have to sign up for 12 months.

See this thread on MSE:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=843751

Heinz wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 4:01pm:

Quote: ... a matter for the local National Health Service.[/b]

Is that the Health Service for the Nation of England, the Nation of London or the Nation of the Borough of Ealing?

Outside of Kingston upon Hull, does anybody know where in the UK telephone charges vary?

NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 4:13pm:

Well it appears you were wrong SCV as the 10 Downing Street response makes no mention of the evidence presently being considered by the DH.

Indeed. It quotes the familiar re-iterated part of Mark Britnell's letter of 3 March but fails to refer to the fact that Britnell indicated that further guidance to PCTs may follow shortly.

There is a danger that this response may indicate that it is all over for now and we have to return to educating PCTs in a subject on which they are alleged to have specialist local knowledge. I believe that PCTs may be persuaded to demand something clearer to support the action they would need to take.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 5:13pm:

There is a danger that this response may indicate that it is all over for now and we have to return to educating PCTs in a subject on which they are alleged to have specialist local knowledge. I believe that PCTs may be persuaded to demand something clearer to support the action they would need to take.

And I believe unscrupulous forces making hundreds of millions a year in the NTS industry have once again been at work lobbying their New Labour friends telling them how this vital "value added" industry cannot possibly be brought to an end.  They have no shame and no morals and so despite the fact that the game would appear to be up (given the level of Parliamentary lobbying and exposure the issue now has) they will attempt to keep their snouts in the trough for as long as possible using any underhanded techniques at their disposal.

Perhaps we should ask, Ian Livingston, the newly announced CEO designate of BT, if he plans to honour the views he expressed a little while ago in The Scotsman newspaper that 084/7 NTS number hidden premium rate charging should be got rid as soon as possible?  Conveniently I see that The Scotsman web page that carried this article no longer exists.  It seems New Labour's revisionists friends have once again been at work.  :o >:( :'(

EDIT:-  I see the Livingston article is still on The Scotsman website but the URL has changed:-

See http://business.scotsman.com/business/BT-calls-on-Ofcom-to.2642029.jp

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 5:01pm:

Outside of Kingston upon Hull, does anybody know where in the UK telephone charges vary?

So far as I am aware the numerous UK telecoms operators mainly all charge the same call prices for calls to all parts of the  UK even though each provider has their own varying car tariffs.  However the BT Light User Scheme and In Contact Plus charge artificially inflated prices for calls to 01/02 and 03 numbers for longer distance calls (over 56km) which they then discount back to a lower rate for calls to 0845 numbers.  Of course no one who makes any number of calls per quarter is on these plans, especially given that most outrageously of all you cannot have one of these plans if you also have broadband on the phone line.

The key point which the 084 NTS charlatans cannot avoid is that 01/02/03 numbers qualify for unlimited free calls (up to 60 minutes) with numerous major telecoms provides including BT on numerous popular tariffs and the same is true that they qualify for free bundled minutes with all contract mobile phone operators.  Whereas 084/7 numbers are always excluded from such plans because they are far more expensive to the phone companies at a wholesale level and so they cannot possibly afford to inlclude them in their unlimited calls or bundled minutes calling plans.

As a vast percentage of UK phone customers (especially elderly and disabled people based at home and thus making  lots of phone calls from home) now have unlimited call plans it is self evident that calling an 0844 number costs most of these people 5p per minute +6p connection compared to nothing per minute if the number began 01 and 02.

The comparison of 0844 against BT Option 1 is a red herring.  The comparison must be done against call plans that provide unlimited 01/02/03 calls from landlines or a set number of minutes to 01/02/03 from mobiles in order to give the true picture of the real cost of 0870.

Vodafone recently texted me to tell me that they are increasing the minimum call charge on my Pay As You Go tariff to 15p from 10p on June 1st (before that there was no minimum charge 18 months or so ago) but that is the last reminder I will ever get of that fact because as a Pay As You Go mobile phone customer Ofcom allows a regime to exist where I am not entitled to any access to itemised call charges, even online where there would be almost no marginal cost to Vodafone in providing the service. :o >:(

NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 6:31pm:

As a vast percentage of UK phone customers (especially elderly and disabled people based at home and thus making  lots of phone calls from home) now have unlimited call plans...

It would be handy if we had or could get a figure on that.  I know it's not possible without asking all major telecos of which they probably wouldnt respond but a figure from BT as to how many of its customers are on an all-inclusive (ie not evening & weekend) plan.

Does anyone think they could possibly get this information from BT?

bbb_uk wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 8:00pm:

Does anyone think they could possibly get this information from BT?

I think this needs to be the subject of an FOI to Ofcom, who I feel quite sure can put their hands on the requisite breakdown.

It also seems self evident that BT's latest marketing policies are designed to virtually blackmail all their customers to move on to a plan that includes some free calls.  This has been done by making the minimum connection charge on a non inclusive calls plan 80% higher than it was a year or so ago. :o >:(

Shouldn't the DofH reported by now on the use of 0844?

Still haven't had a reply from my PCT re the use of 0870 by Dr while abroad - have chased.

I disagree with all stealth-tax (or stealth-revenue) numbers. To me, they are "premium-rate" numbers. Seems to me the Trades Description Act lost its teeth along the way.

Why not a petition to ban ALL public-sector and commercial usage, except for premium-rate services? Is there such a petition out there?

Can't see the point behind a piecemeal approach like just going after doctors.

SAYNOTO0870 website is awesome!!!

outvilespot wrote on May 14^th, 2008 at 12:54pm:

Why not a petition to ban ALL public-sector and commercial usage, except for premium-rate services? Is there such a petition out there? Can't see the point behind a piecemeal approach like just going after doctors.

There was a petition which asked for all organisations to publicise equivalent geographic numbers which achieved over 43000 votes in a relatively short time. See

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/saynoto0870/

There was a great deal of discussion about the Government response on this site, see ;

http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1179767154/0

Note that this Petition did not call for an outright ban of 084/7 numbers but perfectly reasonably asked only for alternative numbers to be compulsorily made available.  Note that not even Government Departments are doing this.   To get a ban would be vastly more difficult.   I would suggest that you write to the Prime Minister about this and to your MP in order to add to our general campaign.

outvilespot wrote on May 14^th, 2008 at 12:54pm:

Can't see the point behind a piecemeal approach like just going after doctors.

If you study this site in more depth you will see that a great deal is being done on a wide front in order to combat the menace of 084/7 numbers.  I recommend that you spend a few hours or even days perusing the threads in this Forum to get an inkling of the scope of our activities which include making freedom of information requests, persuing the inadequate responses to such requests, and writing to all sorts of organisations including Doctors, NHS and PCTs.  

The campaign against doctors using 0844 and 0845 is a focussed component within the overall campaign and is rendered particularly relevant because of the effects of 0844/5 on the sick, ill, old, and impoverished.   The use of 0844/5 by doctors undermines one of the fundamental tenets of the NHS, to be "free at the point of need" and such doctors are in breach of their own contracts with the NHS, clause 483.   If you read the following threads you may learn more about what is going on and then we would welcome any input or assistance you could give to this or the wider campaign : --
http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1160182005

http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1116613395

http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1141253021

http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?board=gov/120

http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1138919352

http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1120745205

http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1209729452

http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1175720862

http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1117029043

outvilespot wrote on May 14^th, 2008 at 12:54pm:

Can't see the point behind a piecemeal approach like just going after doctors.

It is indeed important that the wider point is not lost in pursuing the particular issue with GPs (and other parts of the NHS).

If however there is some chance of getting this addressed by the Department of Health before the many other central, national and local government departments, as well as non-departmental bodies, do the same, then this is worth focussed campaigning. There are particular issues in respect of the NHS, as pointed out by Loddon, that make this a worthy area of focus.

Some campaigners may focus on areas of particular interest to them, where they feel that their efforts could make a difference.

On the issue of the public sector in general, Ofcom does not have the necessary powers. The Cabinet Office, through the CoI and the Contact Office, has influence but no authority over other departments and public bodies. Even the response to this petition suggests (wrongly) that this is purely a matter for local NHS organisations. PCTs commonly (wrongly) suggest that this is a matter for individual GPs.

The argument is rightly made generally, however corrective action can (sadly) only be expected to occur on a piecemeal basis.

tried to sign the petition but its closed, our District Nurses now use an 08 number i think it is stupid

mcr wrote on Jun 10^th, 2008 at 7:58pm:

tried to sign the petition but its closed, our District Nurses now use an 08 number i think it is stupid

From the OP on the first page; -
"This Petition runs until Feb 15th 2008"


No wonder you could not sign it,as it closed nearly 4 months ago!

derrick wrote on Jun 11^th, 2008 at 10:39am:

No wonder you could not sign it,as it closed nearly 4 months ago!

Yes but mcr was hardly to know that were they given that they are a new forum member.

We should be commending them for their enthusiasm in wanting to sign this petition opposing these numbers.

loddon wrote on May 15^th, 2008 at 12:51pm:

outvilespot wrote on May 14th, 2008 at 12:54pm: Why not a petition to ban ALL public-sector and commercial usage, except for premium-rate services? Is there such a petition out there? Can't see the point behind a piecemeal approach like just going after doctors. There was a petition which asked for all organisations to publicise equivalent geographic numbers which achieved over 43000 votes in a relatively short time. See http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/saynoto0870/ There was a great deal of discussion about the Government response on this site, see ; http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1179767154/0 Note that this Petition did not call for an outright ban of 084/7 numbers but perfectly reasonably asked only for alternative numbers to be compulsorily made available.  Note that not even Government Departments are doing this.   To get a ban would be vastly more difficult.   I would suggest that you write to the Prime Minister about this and to your MP in order to add to our general campaign.

I missed this petition! Just read part of the respnse though:

'You might also be re-assured to know that the Government advised two years ago all its departments and agencies against their own use of 0870 numbers.

By no means all Departments did use 0870 numbers, but where they did, they should now have been replaced with either geographical, 0845 (local rate) or 0800 numbers.'

Why then did the DVLA make over a million punds from its 0870 numbers in the last year alone?

Why the current trend towards 0844 numbers with the NHS?

And why, to park in Westminster do you now have to call an 0870 number instead of using a meter (stealth tax times two!!)

Dont worry about commercial organisations, the simple answer is to boycott those who refuse to publish geographical numbers.

What I suggest is that we petition the government to publish geo numbers for every publically funded body

Quote from response to government petition:

'By no means all Departments did use 0870 numbers, but where they did, they should now have been replaced with either geographical, 0845 (local rate) or 0800 numbers.'

Are the government breaking trading standards laws by stating 0845 to be local rate numbers?

Fusion wrote on Jun 18^th, 2008 at 2:32pm:

... What I suggest is that we petition the government to publish geo numbers for every publically funded body

There is a thread on such a petition here.

I will summarise comments I have made on this point.

Why have alternatives? Where there is some genuine public benefit in using a non-geographic number this can now be from the 03xx range. 084x and 087x numbers should be replaced with geographic or 03xx numbers, whichever is most suitable.


On the broader issues.

In those rare cases where it is appropriate for a public body to charge users for a service delivered by telephone, the charge should be clearly declared. One could argue that the cost of accepting payment of parking fees by credit card should be borne by those who use this service, rather than others who park or council tax payers. The stealth is however unacceptable.

Whether the government has committed a technical breach of trading standards legislation is neither here nor there. This use of "local rate" was simply a stupid mistake which is made repeatedly by civil servants. All possible efforts must be made to find the most effective way of getting them out of this habit.

Please sign the new e-petition to the Prime Minister on this subject. The deadline is 4 April 2009:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Healthtelephone/

I complained   about   the  change  in   my  doctors  number  to  0844 to  my  local  mp  Yvette Cooper who  as  always  looked  into  it  for  me  the surgerys  reply  was  that  patients  prefered this  number rather   than  getting   the  engaged  tone this   is  not  the  case with  the  engaged tone  you  dont  get  charged  with the  0844  number  you  get  charged  for  being  in  a que  also  I  previously  got   free calls   to  my   doctors   as  it  was  classed   as   a  land  line  although  the   0844  is  still  a  land  line  because   it  is  an   0844   it  is  no  longer  classed  as  a  landline  so  i  am   now  charged for  calls everybody  is  complaining  about the  change   in  the number  even   the  recepcenists  say  its  a  waste of  time   and   its   not  only   the  doctors   numbers  thats   been   changed  its  calls  to  Hospitals as  well   this   is  causing  more  expense   on  the  most   vunrable   the  sick  and   elderly  and   it   needs   changing   back   to   the   old   fairer  system.   Thankyou  Molly

Welcome to the SayNo forums.

I think you are deluding yourself if you think Yvette Cooper will actually do anything.

Remember, she's the wife of Ed Balls who, in response to David Cameron's, "Under Labour, Britain is more taxed than at any point in its history" statement during the 12 March 2008 budget debate in the House of Commons said (from a sedentary position on the government front bench), "So what?'

If that doesn't tell you the contempt with which he (and probably his wife) regard 'the people', I don't know what would.

I thought you chaps might be interested to read this (I get it as a ex practice manager)

http://www.managementinpractice.com/default.asp?title=BTscrapschargesfor0845and0870calls&page=article.display&article.id=15210

Sounds like good news?

But this has been discussed at great length here

http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1231409039    ::)

dreamteamgirl wrote on Jan 14^th, 2009 at 1:07pm:

Sounds like good news?

No, it does not mean that 0845 calls will be included in packages from other telephone providers any time soon.

0844 calls will continue to remain as they are.

Dave wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2008 at 10:44pm:

Please sign the new e-petition to the Prime Minister on this subject. The deadline is 4 April 2009: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Healthtelephone/

I would like to remind everyone that there is a petition to the Prime Minister which runs until the beginning of April. As yet it has only accrued 113 signatures.

I would like to express my appreciation to Forum Admin and Dave for adding the links to the latest Petition on the Home and Search pages.   Already the number of signatures have nearly doubled overnight to 233.

I am sure the Petition originator, 16 year old Guy Mayhew will also be very pleased and grateful for these links.

Can I ask all Forum readers if they know of, or have access to, other popular websites that they immediately ask, persuade or influence those sites to place a message about this Petition and a link to it on their Home pages.

Hi there,

I would like to say thanks to the website administrator for placing a link to my petition on both the site homepage and forum pages, and also everyone that has signed it so far.


Thanks

Guy

Now up to 518.   Added 400 in one day -- not a bad start.

Now over 1000.

Now over 2000.

Contacted the No. 10 web team about getting the petition extended and this was their reply;

"Dear Mr Mayhew,

As stated in the guidance on our website, we only host petitions for up to 12 months.  Therefore your will only be extended to 28 November 2009.

Downing Street Webteam"

So I have managed to squeeze them for the most time avaliable, hopefully increasing the amount of signutures the petition accumilates, and the over effect.

Thanks
Guy

                                                       

                                                            3000 !!!

                                                                NOW 4000  !!!

Hi all,

I have managed to get some space on the swalecliffe.com server to create a mini-site outlining the info. on NEG and local PCT's.

You can see it by going to;

www.nhsphone.co.nr       or      www.swalecliffe.com/NHSPhone


Obviously it stiill needs a lot more work, but at least it's a start.


Take care

Guy

                                                  5000

6712 - number 15 by size

More effort is needed, now that the BMA has declared its opposition to a ban for GPs.

                                                                 7072

                                                      9084

This petition has added exactly 2000 votes in the last 14 days.   As with earlier petitions it continues to add a cosistent 1000 per week.

If anyone would like to go along to the consultation event on Thursday, then please drop them an email. Details here.

The event is at Bonhill House, 1-3 Bonhill Street, London, EC2A 4BX from 1.30pm to 4.30pm.

:-[  I tried to sign this petition, but was not sent a confirmation email... checked my spam... not there.
So I went back to the petition & tried to sign again... it accepted and again said check my email - but same again...after 1 hour still no confirmation email sent...
I tried to complain, but the Contact Us link does not lead to a place where I can tell them -
...So consequently, although I Want To Sign - I CANNOT SIGN !!!
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr  >:(

The magic      10,000     is reached!!!!!

Actually at 10,072 at this moment.

Dave wrote on Mar 13^th, 2009 at 9:08pm:

If anyone would like to go along to the consultation event on Thursday, then please drop them an email. Details here. The event is at Bonhill House, 1-3 Bonhill Street, London, EC2A 4BX from 1.30pm to 4.30pm.

Unfortunately I have only just read this as I was not subscribed to the thread and anyhow the forum is unreliable about sending update emails, even to those who are subscribed.

I wish loddon or SCV had contacted me about this by email as I would certainly have been up for going along and I am surprised that they would not also have wanted to attend given that this was event was held in London.  Still too late now and the opportunity has sadly passed. :(

Did any of the likely suspects from this campaign attend the Consultation event? If not, why not as unlike me you clearly did know about it.

NGMsGhost wrote on Mar 21^st, 2009 at 6:24pm:

I wish loddon or SCV had contacted me about this by email as I would certainly have been up for going along and I am surprised that they would not also have wanted to attend given that this was event was held in London.  Still too late now and the opportunity has sadly passed. :( Did any of the likely suspects from this campaign attend the Consultation event? If not, why not as unlike me you clearly did know about it.

Seems the event was cancelled:

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/Liveconsultations/DH_091879

<<
Consultation event

Please note that the public meeting scheduled for 19 March 2009 has been cancelled because of the low number of people registering to attend. Please note that everyone who originally accepted the invitation to attend the afternoon (public) session has been contacted to inform them of this change and to make alternative arrangements to hear their views. The morning session (industry) will proceed as originally planned.
>>

idb wrote on Mar 21^st, 2009 at 10:16pm:

Seems the event was cancelled: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/Liveconsultations/DH_091879 << Consultation event Please note that the public meeting scheduled for 19 March 2009 has been cancelled because of the low number of people registering to attend. Please note that everyone who originally accepted the invitation to attend the afternoon (public) session has been contacted to inform them of this change and to make alternative arrangements to hear their views. The morning session (industry) will proceed as originally planned.

If I had known it was on I would have demanded my right to attend the "industry" session instead since I am sure the representatives from DH etc would have been precisely the same.

Why were there two events to begin with.  Presumably because the greedy doctors did not want their concerns about loss of revenue share heard in front of the great British public. ;) :o >:(

NGMsGhost wrote on Mar 21^st, 2009 at 11:25pm:

If I had known it was on I would have demanded my right to attend the "industry" session instead since I am sure the representatives from DH etc would have been precisely the same. Why were there two events to begin with.  Presumably because the greedy doctors did not want their concerns about loss of revenue share heard in front of the great British public.

Many see this, as indeed other consultation processes, as a waste of time and effort. I understand that the Department of Health took reasonable steps to invite all those who had expressed a clear interest in the process, from all points of view. I understand that the reason for there being two events planned initially was to enable technical discussion of issues relating to the way in which advanced telephone features can be delivered in the one session, with other and general issues to be discussed in the other. I understand that there were no specific qualifying criteria, other than a readiness and ability to contribute.

For those engaged in and following the consultation process, a public announcement of the meetings was seen on the consultation web page. This was brought to the attention of print and broadcast media likely to have an interest. A posting was also made on the thread in this forum covering the consultation process, as follows:


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Mar 6^th, 2009 at 3:12pm:

Further to the main consultation process the Department of Health has now announced that there will be two public "events" on 19 March 2009 in London. One for the telecomms industry, the other for "others", These events, which are announced here, are intended to help inform the consultation process.

What turned in a single event was nothing more than a further opportunity for those with something to say to contribute to the public consultation process. All these contributions, which were made after other contributers had agreed to respect confidentiality, will be noted alongside responses made in writing.

I would not be betraying any confidence to offer my assurance that the Department of Health is fully aware of what is going on. There are many in the telecomms industry who are able to point out that the only serious reason for a GP using a 084 telephone number is to benefit from the revenue share. I can say that they would have had an opportunity to express this view in very strong and clear terms at the event.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2009 at 2:34pm:

What turned in a single event was nothing more than a further opportunity for those with something to say to contribute to the public consultation process. All these contributions, which were made after other contributers had accepted to respect confidentiality, will be noted alongside those made in writing. I would not be betraying any confidence to offer my assurance that the Department of Health is fully aware of what is going on. There are many in the telecomms industry who are able to point out that the only serious reason for a GP using a 084 telephone number is to benefit from the revenue share. I can say that they would have had an opportunity to express this view in very strong and clear terms at the event.

As so often SCV you clearly exceed even my own prodigious abilities to use five words where only one word would do. ;) :P

However cutting to the chase, as they say across the pond, did you or loddon actually attend this event and if so what did you learn from it?  Were there presentations and then a question and answer session or quite what exactly?

We must recognise that this is a public forum and so those who are constrained by a commitment to confidentiality must honour this commitment. Please indulge what could be seen as a roundabout way of answering questions that cannot be addressed directly.

I can reveal that representatives of a well known provider of surgery telephone systems were present at the location and had registered to participate in the event before I arrived. Just before the meeting began there were no representatives of this company present. I am genuinely unaware of any reason for this change of mind having been offered.

I can only report that the purpose of the meeting was simply to receive input from the participants on issues relevant to the consultation, using only the generally published material. In the context of a public consultation exercise it would not have been appropriate for the DH to release any further information about its thinking than was placed in the public domain anyway.

A news piece dated 6 Aprill covering the No 10 petition is found in Healthcare Republic:

Petition urges ban of 08 numbers in NHS

The comments that have been added make this worthy of inclusion in this thread.

Remember to sign the petition to the Prime Minister. Over the last day or so its grown by about 200. The total is now over 15,000 !!!!

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Healthtelephone/

Dave wrote on Apr 19^th, 2009 at 9:39pm:

Remember to sign the petition to the Prime Minister. Over the last day or so its grown by about 200. The total is now over 15,000 !!!! http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Healthtelephone/

Its now No.11 by size out of the currently open petitions on the 10 Downing Street website.

While you are there don't forget to also sign the petition opposing the proposed blanket lowering of the National Speed Limit on single carriageway roads in non street lit rural areas from 60mph to 50mph.

See http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/noNSLreduction/

NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 19^th, 2009 at 10:06pm:

While you are there don't forget to also sign the petition opposing the proposed blanket lowering of the National Speed Limit on single carriageway roads in non street lit rural areas from 60mph to 50mph. See http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/noNSLreduction/

Is this the proposal that the national speed limit will be reduced to 50mph or is the proposal to introduce more 50mph limits where currently they are national speed limit?

Dave wrote on Apr 21^st, 2009 at 12:59pm:

Is this the proposal that the national speed limit will be reduced to 50mph or is the proposal to introduce more 50mph limits where currently they are national speed limit?

This is the proposal that the National Speed Limit (black diagonal stripe on white background traffic sign) on all non single carriageway roads currently signed as such should fall from 60mph to 50mph.  There are numerous major A roads where 60mph is a perfectly safe speed, although of course many minor country roads that are perhaps not safe for 60mph also used to all be National Speed Limit.  But the local highways authority can and in recent years very frequently has reduced the limit on such minor roads to a lower limit using a local Traffic Sign Order.

This proposal seems to be part of a New Labour obsession with trying to make everyone driving a potential criminal (since on many of the  single carriageway roads the natural safe speed of traffic is well above 50mph) so that the increase in driver numbers is slowed down and they don't have to build any more roads.  They play disgraceful games with statistics to try to pretend they will save lives but all they will actually do is cots the economy billions in longer journey times and increase the risk of anyone who drives for a living losing their livelihood for at least 6 months (if they are banned through totting up) or indeed for good, since many employers of professional drivers would not hire someone who had received a driving ban.  Don't forget they also propose to give an automatic 6 point fixed penalty to anyone caught travelling more than 20mph over the speed limit in the near future.  No allowance is made for the number of miles a year anyone drives so anyone who drives all the time for a living faces an Orwellian nightmare of trying not to lose their license.

NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 21^st, 2009 at 1:39pm:

This is the proposal that the National Speed Limit (black diagonal stripe on white background traffic sign) on all non single carriageway roads currently signed as such should fall from 60mph to 50mph. …

This was not what was reported on BBC News at One today. They said that local authorities are being given stronger advice on speed limits and in that they are encouraged to put 50mph limits where previously it would have been national speed limit.  :-/

Dave wrote on Apr 21^st, 2009 at 2:09pm:

This was not what was reported on BBC News at One today. They said that local authorities are being given stronger advice on speed limits and in that they are encouraged to put 50mph limits where previously it would have been national speed limit.  :-/

Perhaps the government is back tracking then due to the huge outcry (including by Highways authorities) against the original proposal floated to make all NSL limits on single carriageways 50mph.

In reality they will still make it near compulsory by threatening to cut highways funding for highways authority who do not change most of their NSL limits to 50mph.  Having said that the costs of resigning all NSL limited areas to 50mph would be very substantial so most highways authorities would also have to take that in to account.  Also a 50mph limit has to have repeater signs when an NSL limit does not need repeater signs (as it is the default limit on a single carriageway) so perhaps this means that a fair few single carriageway roads will remain at 60mph.  Hopefully this government will be kicked out though before there is a chance for any more of their lunatic anti motorist policies (actively encouraged by a small minority of hypocritical zealots in the Police like Richard Brunstrom and Meredydd Hughes) to actually be fully implemented.

The Telegraph reports it as NSL on single carriageway being reduced to 50mph.  Perhaps they are suggesting a few high quality long distance A roads with less accidents can stay at 60mph but these will now be signed 60mph instead of NSL.

See www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/5191001/A-road-speed-limits-to-be-reduced-to-50mph.html

The costs of resigning loads of currently NSL roads to 50mph would be huge so highways authorities will want to avoid that.

NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 21^st, 2009 at 2:50pm:

… Having said that the costs of resigning all NSL limited areas to 50mph would be very substantial so most highways authorities would also have to take that in to account.  Also a 50mph limit has to have repeater signs when an NSL limit does not need repeater signs (as it is the default limit on a single carriageway) …

This was what I was thinking.

Sure, where there is good case, then reduce the speed limit. I know of some examples of where this has been done. But speed is the responsibility of the driver.

Signs such as 'N' bend or bend to right/left warn where speed needs to be reduced (where one is driving at the limit). Will these bends all have slower speed limits imposed such as 40mph or 30mph because going round them at 50 or 60mph is dangerous?

The cynic that I am, surley all this is typical Labour spin in action, taking the headlines off the more serious stuff that is going on in this wretched government. Will this (50 MPH propsal) ever get off the ground? Probably not, as the little darlings are taking 12 weeks off in the summer, (probably to try and spend some of their expenses before they get caught out), so what I am saying is, is there enough time for the reviews, consultations, and passing it through both houses of parliamnet before the next general election? Labour are very clever at making the headlines that they want. On another note I see Hazel Blears 'did a Bob Quick' and the press saw the information about reforming the expenses before dear Gordon announced it in the Mother of Parliaments. i.e. You Tube. ::)

sherbert wrote on Apr 21^st, 2009 at 4:29pm:

The cynic that I am, surley all this is typical Labour spin in action, taking the headlines off the more serious stuff that is going on in this wretched government. Will this (50 MPH propsal) ever get off the ground? Probably not, as the little darlings are taking 12 weeks off in the summer, (probably to try and spend some of their expenses before they get caught out), so what I am saying is, is there enough time for the reviews, consultations, and passing it through both houses of parliamnet before the next general election? Labour are very clever at making the headlines that they want. On another note I see Hazel Blears 'did a Bob Quick' and the press saw the information about reforming the expenses before dear Gordon announced it in the Mother of Parliaments. i.e. You Tube. ::)

I personally believe the vast majority of motorists are against this proposal (and the even worse one for 20mph in all residential areas) but Labour has a lot more supporters who don't drive (due to city location and income) than the Tories and this nonsense sounds good with those people who in the main don't understand the issues in the way a driver who has experience of these speeds do.

Labour is obsessively anti car due to its links with personal liberty and the more it can control the car and try to make using one such a horrid experience (as you are a potential criminal the minute you drive away) the better it likes it.  There are a few control freak nutters in the Police and local councils, not to mention the real nutters at Brake and Roadpeace, and they have Labour's ear while the motorist and the Association of British Drivers does not.  The loonies in the camera partnerships known that the Tories with lots of car drivers in rural areas among their voters will never agree to this nonsense when they get in to power and so are desperate to push it through now as they know that rescinding this stuff is a lot harder once it has happened.

Cameron is pretty weak on all this with his tory toff Notting Hill bicycling nonsense (while followed by security men in cars) but the majority of real Conservatives oppose the constant war on the motorist.  Needless to say namby pamby Clegg probably supports all of this stuff.  Charles Kennedy might have been more sensible.

Number of signatures has now reached over 17000.

This petition has been adding votes at a rate of 1500 per week since the Dept of Health Consultation on banning 084 numbers closed at the end of March.

loddon wrote on Apr 29^th, 2009 at 6:17pm:

This petition has been adding votes at a rate of 1500 per week since the Dept of Health Consultation on banning 084 numbers closed at the end of March.

But remains unchanged in ranking order postion No.11 (in terms of total number of signatures) as other petitions have also been adding signatures at a broadly similar rate of increase.

NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 29^th, 2009 at 6:36pm:

But remains unchanged in ranking order postion No.11 .

And no mean achievement in the time!    It is hardly surprising that a petition calling for the PM to resign should rocket to the number one position from a standing start in about a week, as it has.

Ours is currently the second largest open petition in the Health category and looks like it will overtake into the top position very soon, see :----

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/list/open?cat=557

And don't forget our earlier petition on this subject which sits at number 3 in the all time list of closed petitions in the Health category, see :----

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/list/closed?cat=557

There is undoubtedly significant public concern in this topic and it is relatively high up for such an 'anoracky' type of issue, don't you think?

OK all very fair points loddon and I never decried the petition but just noted that other petitions in the top 50 were also adding signatures at a high rate so we had not moved up the league table.

By the way does anyone know who Guy Mayhew is as he never seems to have posted on here.  Unless that is he uses a pseudonym. :-/

I guess he can't be the son of former Tory Attorney General and MP Sir Patrick Mayhew as his sons are Barnabas, Henry, Tristran and Jerome.   See www.independent.co.uk/news/election-97-the-best-education-money-can-buy-for-cabinet-members-children-1267426.html

NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 29^th, 2009 at 7:38pm:

By the way does anyone know who Guy Mayhew is as he never seems to have posted on here.  Unless that is he uses a pseudonym.

He is the commendable 16 year old who started his petition after his mother was charged £11 to call her 0844 doctor, trying and failing to get an appointment.    All reported in the local Kent press.

Guy looks after his village website, Swalecliffe in Kent, and very good it looks too.

After being told about this Forum he joined using his usual name I think.    He has posted but I cannot find any of his posts at the moment.

This petition has now reached the number one position in the Health category.

No 1 out of 692 current petitions on Health related matters.!!! :----


http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/list/open?cat=557

It is ahead of many petitions concerned with really important health and ethical matters.   Many concern really serious medical conditions, the need for public enquiries into medical incidents (such as baby P), medical disorders, medical services etc  etc.   and yet this petition about telephone numbers has gathered the most signatures.   Isn't it about time that the Government took notice and took action instead of wasting time, using delaying tactics like holding unending consultations and continually looking for any excuse no matter how implausible for avoiding making a decision and taking action?

The current DH Consultation on 084 numbers has now gone open ended with no publication date for the consultation response (report).    This is a shameful disgrace and the DH should be censured for such apalling incompetence and lack of professionalism.

NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 29^th, 2009 at 7:38pm:

By the way does anyone know who Guy Mayhew is as he never seems to have posted on here.  Unless that is he uses a pseudonym. :-/

His username is mayhew123 and you can see his posts here :---

http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1185566187/135

Hi NGMsGhost,

It is the Guy Mayhew you have been seeking, I apologise for not making my position on the forum blatent, as well as working for local consortium I also have tonnes of college work to do, but I do keep an keen eye on the petition and what's going on. Which brings me to my main point 20,000 signitures!!!!!, I honestly am so thrilled to see that the sayno website has followed through on extending the link to the petition and the response just keeps growing.

Again I would just like to say thank you so much to everyone following the campaign and I cannot wait to see the response from the PM (hopefully not an automated robot) once the petition deadline is reached.


Thanks Again,

Guy

The e-petition is currently in fifth place, ranked by number of signatures of which there are now over 22,000 !!

mayhew132 wrote on May 15^th, 2009 at 10:28pm:

Again I would just like to say thank you so much to everyone following the campaign and I cannot wait to see the response from the PM (hopefully not an automated robot) once the petition deadline is reached.

Hi Guy,

Its good to hear from you and to know that you are following the coverage of the growth of your petition here on the forum.

As the petition still has six months to go and all the other petitions above it in the top five finish before it does the Department of Health, NHS Direct etc must be rather worried that it will eventually become the number 1 petition on the Petitions website.  You would think this might possibly give them the hint that it is time to bring in 03 numbers instead of the 084 numbers but I expect they will just continue to cynically stone wall.

It seems ironic that the media has devoted so much attention to what MPs have spent their expense allowances on (even though all of them are within the total expenses limit allowed and other MPs have spent the same amount on things which cannot be criticised in the same way) but don't seem to get at all worried about the continuing fleecing of the entire general public with the £1 billion per year 084/7 phone calls ripoff........... :o >:( :'(

                                           28000

My 1st post and just wanted to say I've signed the petition. Believe it or not, it's cheaper for my family to call our friends in Chicago (not on skype, just a straight telephone call) than it is to call my local doctor who is 2 streets away on an 0844 number.

30,626

Moggster wrote on Jul 14^th, 2009 at 11:03am:

My 1st post and just wanted to say I've signed the petition. Believe it or not, it's cheaper for my family to call our friends in Chicago (not on skype, just a straight telephone call) than it is to call my local doctor who is 2 streets away on an 0844 number.

Hello and welcome to the website and campaign. Thanks for your support.

Has the 01/02 number for your surgery been found and is it listed on this website?

Thanks for the welcome. Unfortunately I cannot find the 02 number listed on the website. We were told by the practice that they were switching to an 0844 number as their old 02 number had issues with call waiting causing problems in the area. On the old 02 number it was very hit and miss whether you'd get through or not as most of the time the lines were engaged. When they switched to the 0844 number, they introduced a queuing system which made things a lot better in that respect. What I don't understand is why they couldn't of had the same system with the old number.

Moggster wrote on Jul 27^th, 2009 at 12:54pm:

When they switched to the 0844 number, they introduced a queuing system which made things a lot better in that respect. What I don't understand is why they couldn't of had the same system with the old number.

Of course they could have had a queuing facility with the old number.    

My GP Surgery had a very good queuing system on the old 01 number.    Now they have got a much worse system with unnecessary messages and time wasting before, maybe, forwarding you to a queue.    

I cannot help comparing them to the Royal Berkshire Hospital and the University Hospital for Coventry and Warwickshire which are massively bigger than any GP Surgery and yet use 01/02 numbers very successfully.

Some argue that the "network queueing" facility that is readily available with non-geographic numbers, such as 03, offers advantages over the facilities available with geographic numbers. I would therefore always try to avoid getting involved in the geographic vs. non-geographic technical argument.

I see the crucial issue to be that of revenue sharing. 03 numbers address the point of features available with non-geographic numbers, so that the only remaining argument in favour of revenue sharing numbers is that of the funding provided. If someone chooses a 03 number over a geographic number, I am prepared to accept that this is done for sound reasons, as I cannot see any sinister motive.

Whilst some may believe that 03 numbers offer nothing more than geographic anonymity, I would look for more than a few examples to make a point with sufficient force to sustain a strong campaign.

The Petition has now achieved the significant milestone of 40,000 votes and is No. 2 in the overall list of petitions by size!!

On Monday (14 September) the government will announce that all NHS hospitals are no longer allowed to use premium rate phone numbers.  So good news there. :)

brenmar wrote on Sep 12^th, 2009 at 11:04am:

On Monday (14 September) the government will announce that all NHS hospitals are no longer allowed to use premium rate phone numbers.  So good news there. :)

But will apparently only announce complete lies and double speak to try to justify the continued use of 0844 numbers by NHS GP Practices that specifically back tracks on the earlier clear commitments of Ben Bradshaw and Alan Johnson. :o >:( [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

The DOH issued this on 14 Sept

NHS to ban use of premium rate call charges
14 September 2009 00:01

The use of phone numbers that charge the public or patients a premium rate to contact the NHS are to be banned in England, Health Minister Mike O’Brien announced today.

The announcement follows a recent public consultation on the use of 084 numbers in the NHS. Almost 3,000 members of the public responded, demonstrating the strength of feeling on this issue.

Health Minister Mike O’Brien said:

“We have been concerned that some people are paying more than the cost of a local call rate to contact the NHS.  It is clear from the feedback we have received that patients support the banning of any number or tariff which is more expensive to call.

“For people on low incomes, and for those who need to contact their local doctor or hospital regularly, these costs can soon build up. We want to reassure the public that when they contact their local GP or hospital, the cost of their call will be no more expensive than if they had dialled a normal landline number.”

The Department of Health will work with the British Medical Association’s GP Committee over the coming months to integrate the legislative changes into the GP contracts.

NOTE (EXTRA INFORMATION ALSO FROM THE DOH)

The ban on the use of numbers charging patients a premium rate to call NHS services will allow a marketplace to evolve where 084 numbers compete alongside 01, 02 and 03 numbers, but where patients will pay no more than the cost of a local call. The ban means that GPs and other NHS organisations remain free to use 084 numbers, providing patients are not charged more than a local rate number.


In April 2005, the Department of Health banned the use of premium (0870, 0871 or 09) and national charge rates to call local NHS healthcare services in England. The ban did not extend to other number ranges, as at the time they were not considered ‘premium’ rate.  However, it has now become clear that there are other numbers which can also be more expensive to call than a normal geographical (01 or 02) telephone number.


In December 2006, the Department of Health issued a letter to all Primary Care Trust (PCT) Chief Executives, asking them to consider what actions they needed to take locally to ensure that patients did not pay more than they would if they called a geographical telephone number. It also advised that Ofcom was issuing a new countywide (03) number range, which allows the functionality of a non-geographical number, with the receiver rather than the initiator of the call bearing the extra cost.


The ban will be enforced through proposed changes to the GP contract (in consultation with the British Medical Association’s GP Committee), and the issuing of Directions to NHS PCTs and Trusts. These changes will be put in place as soon as practicable.


It is not our intention to prohibit ‘revenue sharing’ as part of our proposals – the important thing is to ensure that patients are not being made to pay more than the equivalent cost of calling an 01 or 02 number. ‘Revenue-sharing’ arrangements allow for a proportion of the money paid to the supplier to go towards the ongoing cost of running an 084 number, which includes the cost of renting the equipment from the supplier.

In other words complete and utter and total economy with the truth of the kind that only New Labour can engage in.

They are conniving with BT to increase the cost of 01/02 calls not in call plans to 5p per minute and then claiming it is only the cost of call to an 0844 number from a customer without an inclusive call plan in the weekday daytime that counts and totally ignoring monstrous charges to 0844 on mobiles, BT payphones and for any landline customer who has an inclusive calls plan that excludes these calls. :o >:( [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

NGMsGhost wrote on Sep 18^th, 2009 at 1:13pm:

They are conniving with BT to increase the cost of 01/02 calls not in call plans to 5p per minute and then claiming it is only the cost of call to an 0844 number from a customer without an inclusive call plan in the weekday daytime that counts and totally ignoring monstrous charges to 0844 on mobiles, BT payphones and for any landline customer who has an inclusive calls plan that excludes these calls.

On top of the 'call set-up fee' being increased to 9.02p (which will be 9.25p when the VAT rate reverts to 17.5%), BT has already announced an increase to 5.25p/minute (more than the 5p/minute highest possible cost of an 0844 call) from 1st October.

Heinz wrote on Sep 18^th, 2009 at 2:56pm:

On top of the 'call set-up fee' being increased to 9.02p (which will be 9.25p when the VAT rate reverts to 17.5%), BT has already announced an increase to 5.25p/minute (more than the 5p/minute highest possible cost of an 0844 call) from 1st October.

I expect the price per minute and call set up fee for 0844 calls no doubt increase to precisely the same price on the same date. ;)

I'm amazed that Finarea haven's started advertising their 5p per call 1899/18185 service on radio or tv by now the way things are going with BT's non incusive call charges.

NGMsGhost wrote on Sep 18^th, 2009 at 3:38pm:

I expect the price per minute and call set up fee for 0844 calls no doubt increase to precisely the same price on the same date.

Ofcom still regulates the former (only for BT) which is why it is perversely relatively low and will remain so, whilst this regulation continues. The same is true in respect of the price per minute for 0845 calls from BT (and the "clones" that mirror its tariffs).

It is only market pressure that regulates the latter, along with the terms for ordinary calls. If the majority of consumers prefer inclusive Call Plans then that is what the market will deliver. Minorities need the protection of regulation, unless the market is perfect, which few are.

The limited capacity for regulatory intervention which Ofcom seems content to exercise causes these perverse distortions of the operation of the free market, which sometimes make it difficult for us to put across our points about the inevitable effect of revenue sharing on call costs. Light touch regulation perhaps produces the worst of both possible worlds.

Finarea is only an opportunist, not a true market player; such participation actually distorts unregulated free markets.

New Labour is indeed all in favour of the free market and the empowered consumer (and patient), rather than over-restrictive regulation of the behaviour of telephone companies and GPs. Perhaps one day we will have a government that believes in the truly socialist concept of the NHS, which is funded by taxation (according to ability to pay) and delivered free (according to need). We may also one day have a government that believes in utilities being delivered purely for the benefit of the people and therefore re-nationalised.

---

These are comments in response to previous postings in this thread, intended to entertain and stimulate thought. They do not lay out any particular position or rounded view. (See my blogs and website for that type of thing.)

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Sep 18^th, 2009 at 6:30pm:

Finarea is only an opportunist, not a true market player; such participation actually distorts unregulated free markets.)

That is a highly opinionated view that clearly only reflects your own personal prejudices.

Finarea have been offering telephone services on UK landlines using Indirect Access codes for several years and their call quality is normally good (with the exception of barking dogs incident which has never recurred) and their billing accurate.  It is true their customer service leaves something to be desired but then so does that of BT, Sky or Talktalk.

Perhaps you can tell us what it is necessary to do as a telecoms supplier to pass the SCV "true market player" test.

NGMsGhost wrote on Sep 18^th, 2009 at 9:01pm:

Perhaps you can tell us what it is necessary to do as a telecoms supplier to pass the SCV "true market player" test.

Forgive me if I am mistaken, however I understand that this company only offers a limited range of services. Those where it can undercut the players who provide the full range of services and carry overheads such as customer service and marketing.

That is not to say that there is anything wrong with this per se, my only point was that such intervention distorts a wider market. I am not an economist, I cannot propose a formal test to provide a comprehensive defintion of what is a "true player", however use of indirect access codes provides a useful distinction.

Distortion of the market is tested by the ease with which one may answer questions such as "what is the price of an airline ticket from London to Glasgow?", is it £1 or £200? Telecoms has not quite reached that level of distortion, however similar principles apply.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Sep 19^th, 2009 at 1:26am:

Distortion of the market is tested by the ease with which one may answer questions such as "what is the price of an airline ticket from London to Glasgow?", is it £1 or £200? Telecoms has not quite reached that level of distortion, however similar principles apply.

But a 120 minute weekday daytime call to an 01/02/03 number with BT for anyone on the Weekend Calls Plan will shortly cost them over £6 and a 120 minute call with 18185 will cost 5p.  A factor of 120 to 1.  So this sounds to me like a similar level of what you would call "distortion" but I call a sign of a fully functioning and competitive marketplace to your airline example.

My idea of distortion is when everyone's cost for the price of line rental is no more than 10% different on an already very expensive rate or when BT is able to bundle in Caller Display for free with its line rental but nobody else in the marketplace can even begin to compete with them on this.

NGMsGhost wrote on Sep 19^th, 2009 at 6:04am:

My idea of distortion is when everyone's cost for the price of line rental is no more than 10% different on an already very expensive rate or when BT is able to bundle in Caller Display for free with its line rental but nobody else in the marketplace can even begin to compete with them on this.

I address these points in reverse order, to return to topic in conclusion.

The (optional) bundling of Caller Display goes back to “BT Privacy at Home”. This was a fairly elaborate scheme with the objective of getting BT customers registered with the Telephone Preference Service, so that competitors would not be able to pinch them through telemarketing. Others had previously been using that technique of customer retention (often without the customer’s permission) and BT wanted to offer a carrot to ensure that its customers would sign up in droves. It was highly successful to that end.

I do not go along with the suggestion that others cannot compete with bundled provision of “Caller Display” on a line. Similar additional services such as 1471 and 1571, at the basic level, are already generally bundled by all. I cannot see why there must be a different approach to bundling between these three. Basic 1471 and 1571 could easily be unbundled. I suspect that if Caller Display facilities, or even the wonderful “True Call”, become more commonly built into telephone receivers then the line facility will become commonly bundled (as it is on mobile networks where handsets have this feature).

---

I understand the political concept of free markets serving the needs of service users to mean that prices for a particular service are levelled down to within a very narrow band. (In theory they all become the same, because the provider charging more for the same service gets no business.) This is not achieved when perhaps minor or totally insignificant differences in what is offered from competing providers are associated with a wholly disproportionate difference in price.

Assessment of the operation of a market must consider what “choice” consumers actually need and the extent to which they are realistically able to exercise it. New Labour is not alone in simply pointing to (and promoting) the existence of “choice” and “competition”, as if this must mean that the needs of service users are being served. In many cases, it simply means that failure can be attributed to a particular consumer or provider, which is highly convenient for those who accept responsibility for the overall provision of the service.

The theory of markets is compelling; it is now deeply rooted in much of our politics, and accepted as if part of some universal truth. One may expect the Prime Minister to refer to this when he responds to this petition. Last Monday’s announcement implied that the effect of a ban on premium rate call charges would be achieved through a “marketplace”. (It certainly will not be achieved by the suggested terms of a revision to the GMS contract, unless any sanction for the use of 084 numbers is expressly absent.) With a newly announced extended “choice” of GP to add into a market-driven approach, can we expect patients and telephone service providers to be blamed for any failure of the “ban”?

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Sep 19^th, 2009 at 11:13am:

Similar additional services such as 1471 and 1571, at the basic level, are already generally bundled by all.

The reason it is not offered free of charge with other providers is because BT Wholesale/Openreach is still quite outrageously allowed by OfCoN to charge extra for caller display to its clients but it seems to have a special deal with BT Retail in that regard.  BT Wholesale/Openreach charges £1.50 per month to see who is calling you and their customers (PostOffice, Sky etc) then have to pass on that charge to their customers.  Whereas on a mobile the network does not charge for caller display.  This is why can I run my Asda mobile pay as you go phone including calls for about the same money as my annual Caller Display costs with Post Office Homephone. I cannot go back to BT as I refuse to be enslaved for 12 months for no good reason just because Ofcom has allowed BT to get away with it.

1471 is bundled by all but 1571 is frequently not and is often charged as an extra facility like Caller Display.

Just over 3 weeks to go until the deadline. Please sign the petition to the Prime Minister if you haven't already done so:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Healthtelephone/

As I anticipated when I heard the very woolly government statement that suppossedly banned the use of numbers that cost more than the cost of a normal call to your doctors surgery - nothing is going to happen >:(

Today I had a response from Surrey PCT following several conversations since the announcement. Finally I was read the usual statement we have all read and heard numerous times and confirmation they are going to do nothing about GPs in Surrey that use 0844 numbers unless someone tells them they have to.

Even though currently the 0844 numbers fail the cost test.

Keith wrote on Nov 6^th, 2009 at 2:44pm:

nothing is going to happen

This suggestion is perhaps supported by the fact that the directions to NHS bodies referred to in the announcement have not yet been issued. Neither have the formal discussions on the revisions to the GP contract begun.

Nothing would happen with the GPs when the terms suggested in the announcement are applied to the contract anyway. This is because there is an assumption that all 084 numbers are OK because all of the telephone companies are about to change all of their tariffs so that nobody has to pay more than the cost of a geographic call to call them. This is not "woolly" - it is complete nonsense.

The Department of Health even hints that Ofcom regulations, which only apply to calls to 0845 numbers by BT customers not subscribed to any of its packages, cover all calls to 084 numbers from any provider on any tariff. Others attempt to press this false understanding.

The delay in taking the promised action could however provide an opportunity for the error to be corrected before it is actually put into effect. I must urge other members to join me in trying to get this point recognised in any way that would bear on what the Department of Health is doing.

My latest media release covers these points, and also the topic of this thread. Please let nobody get confused about the extent of my influence on this matter. The more who are making these points through whatever channels are open to them, the more chance we have of these points being understood and recognised.

---

The issue of how PCT's behave raises the familiar point about their role and accountability. They are obliged to consider guidance, and to comply with directions, from the Department of Health and once the Health Act 2009 is implemented they will be required to "have regard to" the NHS Constitution. They are however accountable to nobody in particular.

It is however fair to point out that the general terms of their contracts with GPs are defined for them by statute. Whilst they have some freedom about the way in which they interpret the terms, one would expect them to try and offer a consistent view, following guidance from the Department of Health.  There is however very strong public opposition to PCT's making their own decisions on any issue that applies to others in the same way, as is this is precisely what is known as "the postcode lottery".

Four more days left to sign the e-petition:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Healthtelephone/

I have sent this message to Number 10 today.    51,380 people deserve a prompt answer.


Dear Prime Minister,

When are you going to provide a Response to the Petition submitted by Guy Mayhew calling for you to “prevent local health centres and hospitals from using 08 numbers such as 0844, 0845 or 0870”?

More media coverage of this issue.

BBC South East Today - today - see the clip

I believe I am correct in asserting that the PCT representative actually has his facts wrong. The cost differential between calls to 0844 and ordinary numbers has actually fallen in recent years. It always was, and remains, wholly unacceptable that revenue sharing numbers be used in the provision of NHS services, unless the revenue share can be found to be paid out of thin air!

Yet more media coverage (perhaps related) - see this item.

An interesting development of the DH position is reported in a formal statement read out in the piece. Nothing too dramatic, but a more coherent basis from which to pursue the issue. I quote the statement and attempt to progress it here.

Don't know if this was noticed or discussed before, but I throw it in as general information:
http://www.leicestercity.nhs.uk/paper_a_084_numbers-doc.cmsdoc

A Government Response to the Petition has been posted on the PM's website here :---

http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page15215

It states :---

Responsibility for provision of local health services now rests with local NHS organisations as they have the specific knowledge and expertise that makes them best placed to plan, develop and improve services according to the needs of the local population. The provision of telephone services for patients and the public is therefore a matter for the local NHS.

However, the message from the Department of Health has made it very clear to NHS organisations that patients should not be expected to pay more than the equivalent of a local call to contact their GPs.

NHS organisations have a duty to ensure that they provide the best possible service to their local populations. We expect Primary Care Trusts and GPs to ensure locally that telephone systems do not place a financial burden on patients.

loddon wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 4:43pm:

A Government Response to the Petition has been posted on the PM's website here :--- http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page15215 It states :--- Responsibility for provision of local health services now rests with local NHS organisations as they have the specific knowledge and expertise that makes them best placed to plan, develop and improve services according to the needs of the local population. The provision of telephone services for patients and the public is therefore a matter for the local NHS. However, the message from the Department of Health has made it very clear to NHS organisations that patients should not be expected to pay more than the equivalent of a local call to contact their GPs. NHS organisations have a duty to ensure that they provide the best possible service to their local populations. We expect Primary Care Trusts and GPs to ensure locally that telephone systems do not place a financial burden on patients. Comment :--- A miserable, pathetic, incompetent abrogation of responsibility by the Government.    No mention of the study/investigation of this matter which was announced in the House in January 2008 nor of the Consultation which was launched in December 2008 and the Response to the Consultation in September 2009. This means that patients will be subject to a sort of post code lottery and will be dependent on the "local NHS" and separate local decisions as to what will be done about GPs who continue to use 084 numbers which the Government "BANNED" in September 2009. I can only say that the Government have confirmed our worst fears that the Consultation was a complete waste of time and taxpayers' money and all they have ever done on this issue is to avoid making a clear decision and to prevaricate.   Useless gits! :( >:( >:( >:(

loddon, I echo your comments. What a total sham!

The response essentially repeats what has be trotted off on previous occasions, to no effect.

Quite why it requires each individual PCT to make decisions by themselves and not just issue a blanket directive, I don't know. It's all about buck passing!  >:( >:(

My mistake, this was the response to the previous Petition.   My apologies for causing confusion.   It will be interesting to compare this previous response to the next one when it does eventually appear!

Has anyone else received the response from 10 Downing Street to the petition?   From reading what is said, it seems more definite in its wording than the original 14th September statement (could it be less?!) but that could just be my interpretation.  If anyone hasn't seen it & would like it, I'm happy to forward it to one of you who has my email address so it can be posted (have never worked out how to do that yet).

Barbara

I have sent you a PM

I've had an email today from the Downing Street website, which appears to confirm that GP's will be banned from using 084 number from early in the New Year, and other NHS organisations later in 2010.  

The text of the message is:
The Department of Health proposes to ban the use of premium rate numbers by NHS organisations.  It has recently consulted on the use of 084 numbers in the NHS.  The Department’s response to the consultation was published on 14 September, and is available on its website at: www.dh.gov.uk by typing ‘084 consultation response’ into the search bar.

The Department received approximately 3,000 responses to the consultation exercise; 2,000 from members of the public, a further 1,000 from the NHS, and a small number of responses from industry and other stakeholder organisations.

The consultation demonstrated that there is overwhelming support for the banning of numbers which cost the patient more to call than if they had called a normal geographical number (for example, numbers beginning 01 or 02).  As a result of the consultation, the Department intends to amend legislation to stop the use of any telephone numbers which charge patients more to contact the NHS than the equivalent call to a geographical number.  This will be enforced through amendments to the GP contract regulations, and the issuing of Directions to NHS Trusts and Primary Care Trusts (PCTs).

The ban will be enforced as soon as the necessary legislative changes can be made.  This will be early next year for GP Practices, but as soon as practically possible for NHS Trusts and PCTs.  The Department’s ongoing position on this issue has been that patients should not be expected to pay more than the equivalent cost of calling a geographical number, and, in the meantime, Ministers expect NHS organisations to continue to take this into account.

Yes, the Government Response has at long last appeared here :---

http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page21836

The text is :---

The Department of Health proposes to ban the use of premium rate numbers by NHS organisations.  It has recently consulted on the use of 084 numbers in the NHS.  The Department’s response to the consultation was published on 14 September, and is available on its website at: www.dh.gov.uk by typing ‘084 consultation response’ into the search bar.

The Department received approximately 3,000 responses to the consultation exercise; 2,000 from members of the public, a further 1,000 from the NHS, and a small number of responses from industry and other stakeholder organisations.

The consultation demonstrated that there is overwhelming support for the banning of numbers which cost the patient more to call than if they had called a normal geographical number (for example, numbers beginning 01 or 02).  As a result of the consultation, the Department intends to amend legislation to stop the use of any telephone numbers which charge patients more to contact the NHS than the equivalent call to a geographical number.  This will be enforced through amendments to the GP contract regulations, and the issuing of Directions to NHS Trusts and Primary Care Trusts (PCTs).

The ban will be enforced as soon as the necessary legislative changes can be made.  This will be early next year for GP Practices, but as soon as practically possible for NHS Trusts and PCTs.  The Department’s ongoing position on this issue has been that patients should not be expected to pay more than the equivalent cost of calling a geographical number, and, in the meantime, Ministers expect NHS organisations to continue to take this into account.

I will comment later.

Expected waffle.

The well known group of liars, NEG, already knows that its business model is safe, as demonstrated by its statement in September:

Commenting on the Government's announcement, NEG Managing Director, major liar and chief patient-exploiter, Dean Rayment said

"We applaud the Government's decision to allow patients, GPs and other NHS professionals to continue to benefit from the increased services, convenience and choice that are provided by the use of 084 numbers. We were always confident that, once the full facts about NHS telephony services were considered objectively by the Department of Health, the retention of the option to choose 084 numbers would be seen to be the best solution for patients, GPs and the NHS."

The extensive qualification with reference to 084 numbers that was included in the September statement has not been repeated since.

The issue remains about what is meant by "cost more" / "charge more" as this depends on the tariff in the case of all 084 numbers. Some callers will find that it is cheaper to call any 084 number than a 01/02/03 number during the daytime and with others the situation will be mixed and conditional.

It is for this reason that I have always held that it is use of revenue sharing numbers that must be banned, i.e. all 084 numbers. This consumerist nonsense, which leads to telco's offering perverse discounts on some calls and imposing penalty surcharges on others (to support the marketing of inclusive packages) distorts the situation and blinds us to the principle.

We must press on using the assurance that a simple ban on numbers which cost more than a geographic number has been announced. There is no reference to an exemption for those which SOMETIMES cost less. The directions issued to NHS bodies and the contractual changes MUST include the advice that (at least for the time being) all 084 numbers do cost many callers more and for this reason they must be considered to fall within the terms of the ban. If they do not, then nothing has changed, as use of 070, 087 and 09 numbers has already been banned.

I have just received a response on the petition to the Government relating to banning of premium, non-geographic numbers.  Here is what I received:


“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to prevent local health centres and hospitals from using 08 numbers such as 0844, 0845 or 0870.”

Details of Petition:

“Local health centres and NHS medical practices should be banned from using 08 numbers or offer a local 01 or 02 number alternative for booking appointments, as health centres make a profit using these numbers. For example, an 0870 number costs 10 pence per minute (whereby 4.5pence per minute goes to the local hospital).

Read the Government’s response
The Department of Health proposes to ban the use of premium rate numbers by NHS organisations.  It has recently consulted on the use of 084 numbers in the NHS.  The Department’s response to the consultation was published on 14 September, and is available on its website at: www.dh.gov.uk by typing ‘084 consultation response’ into the search bar.

The Department received approximately 3,000 responses to the consultation exercise; 2,000 from members of the public, a further 1,000 from the NHS, and a small number of responses from industry and other stakeholder organisations.

The consultation demonstrated that there is overwhelming support for the banning of numbers which cost the patient more to call than if they had called a normal geographical number (for example, numbers beginning 01 or 02).  As a result of the consultation, the Department intends to amend legislation to stop the use of any telephone numbers which charge patients more to contact the NHS than the equivalent call to a geographical number.  This will be enforced through amendments to the GP contract regulations, and the issuing of Directions to NHS Trusts and Primary Care Trusts (PCTs).

The ban will be enforced as soon as the necessary legislative changes can be made.  This will be early next year for GP Practices, but as soon as practically possible for NHS Trusts and PCTs.  The Department’s ongoing position on this issue has been that patients should not be expected to pay more than the equivalent cost of calling a geographical number, and, in the meantime, Ministers expect NHS organisations to continue to take this into account.

Another case of obtuseness by Gordon and his band of career incompetants!  Why can't this idiot understand that the issue is also about banning non-geographic numbers that the various providers will not include into their "free" numbers package: why? Because they are non-geographic and replacing the numbers by other non-geographic numbers that cost the same as geographic numbers is not a solution to anyone not endowed  with an  amoeba brain cell. Gordon, just go asap!

The response states that no-one should have to pay more to ring an NHS 084 number than they would to ring a normal geographic  01,02 number.
How is this going to work when some phone providers offer 084 numbers for free while others charge a premium, will all NHS 084, 087 numbers also have an equivalent geographic number given as well,.....I think not.
Why can't the Govt. just abolish all non geographic numbers that impose a higher charge than standard geographic numbers, surely that's not too difficult for Gordon and his neanderthal cronies to understand.

Maxadolf wrote on Dec 21^st, 2009 at 1:14pm:

Why can't this idiot understand that the issue is also about banning non-geographic numbers that the various providers will not include into their "free" numbers package: why? Because they are non-geographic and replacing the numbers by other non-geographic numbers that cost the same as geographic numbers is not a solution

At the risk of having my intelligence insulted, and not wishing to insult that of anyone else, I beg to differ.

Inclusive packages are a red herring. The fact that BT, and some others, have included 0845 is perverse and totally misleading.

If a national service with calls being picked up in call centres all over the country, or indeed in two countries (according to the origin of the call), wishes to use a non-geographic number which costs no more than a call to a geographic number, then I see that as a perfectly acceptable solution.

There are many ways in which the competence of the present government may be challenged; on that I am happy to agree. If we want to make a Political issue out of this we must wonder who is going to put up the extra public money necessary to relieve NHS patients from the cost burden they are presently carrying because of the subsidy obtained from use of revenue sharing telephone numbers. Should Gordon go in order to make way for someone more ready to spend public money?

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 21^st, 2009 at 2:57pm:

Maxadolf wrote on Dec 21st, 2009 at 1:14pm: Why can't this idiot understand that the issue is also about banning non-geographic numbers that the various providers will not include into their "free" numbers package: why? Because they are non-geographic and replacing the numbers by other non-geographic numbers that cost the same as geographic numbers is not a solution At the risk of having my intelligence insulted, and not wishing to insult that of anyone else, I beg to differ. Inclusive packages are a red herring. The fact that BT, and some others, have included 0845 is perverse and totally misleading. If a national service with calls being picked up in call centres all over the country, or indeed in two countries (according to the origin of the call), wishes to use a non-geographic number which costs no more than a call to a geographic number, then I see that as a perfectly acceptable solution. There are many ways in which the competence of the present government may be challenged; on that I am happy to agree. If we want to make a Political issue out of this we must wonder who is going to put up the extra public money necessary to relieve NHS patients from the cost burden they are presently carrying because of the subsidy obtained from use of revenue sharing telephone numbers. Should Gordon go in order to make way for someone more ready to spend public money?

I would totally agree with you on this.

The Department of Health has failed.

On Friday (18 December), Dr A J Dawton & Partners of Humber Road Chelmsford adopted NEG Surgery Line, changing its telephone number from 01245 268635 to 0844 3878773. On Monday the number for its other surgery in Sunrise Avenue changed from 01245 266044 to 0844 3878777.

This newish range of 0844 numbers are classified as call type g11. These are marginally cheaper than g6 in some cases, but this makes no material difference whatsoever.

Given that this indicates the familiar commitment to a seven year contract (perhaps longer as the revenue share on g11 may be less than that on g6), the ban that was announced on 14 September and confirmed by the Prime Minister yesterday will not come into effect until at least 2016, during the parliament after next.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2009 at 10:25am:

This newish range of 0844 numbers are classified as call type g11. These are marginally cheaper than g6 in some cases, but this makes no material difference whatsoever.

Except that they are not included in the packages that gives you 'inclusive' calls

sherbert wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2009 at 10:59am:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 22nd, 2009 at 10:25am: This newish range of 0844 numbers are classified as call type g11. These are marginally cheaper than g6 in some cases, but this makes no material difference whatsoever. Except that they are not included in the packages that gives you 'inclusive' calls

Don't understand the point - are call type "g6" numbers ever included in packages?

g11 is cheaper than g6 where there is a distinction, although the two are often treated the same. I am not aware of any inclusive package that covers either. (By "inclusive packages" I refer to packages subject only to "normal usage" limits, rather than being for a specified number of call minutes.)

The "packages" issue is only of relevance in the case of BT and its clones, where the penalty charge applied to geographic calls outside a call plan makes them more expensive than the regulated rates for calling 0844 numbers. In all other cases calls to these 0844 numbers are more expensive regardless of whether or not a package is being used.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2009 at 10:25am:

The Department of Health has failed. On Friday (18 December), Dr A J Dawton & Partners of Humber Road Chelmsford adopted NEG Surgery Line, changing its telephone number from 01245 268635 to 0844 3878773. On Monday the number for its other surgery in Sunrise Avenue changed from 01245 266044 to 0844 3878777. This newish range of 0844 numbers are classified as call type g11. These are marginally cheaper than g6 in some cases, but this makes no material difference whatsoever. Given that this indicates the familiar commitment to a seven year contract (perhaps longer as the revenue share on g11 may be less than that on g6), the ban that was announced on 14 September and confirmed by the Prime Minister yesterday will not come into effect until at least 2016, during the parliament after next.

Nothing on their website about moving to an 0844 number:
http://www.nhs.uk/ServiceDirectories/Pages/GP.aspx?Pid=B52D1C19-2ABD-4D16-AED6-6989AA35464A&TopicId=15
This website was updated on 18th December and is still giving the 01245 numbers.

Maybe someone who is a patient should send these doctors a copy of the latest missive from Downing Street?

poppasmurf wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2009 at 11:45am:

Maybe someone who is a patient should send these doctors a copy of the latest missive from Downing Street?

Lots of activity already in hand - further contributions would certainly be helpful.
(Please note that this is a public forum.)

[size=12]My daughter-in-law had to ring this surgery last month when my grandson was very ill. She was worried sick and didn't think about the cost of the call - or calls as it turned out. She started ringing at 8am but she didn't know that the phone wasn't answered until 8'15am. She received her phone bill yesterday. Those calls cost her £3. 90!  :o This is disgusting! How can doctors MAKE money out of their patients.  >:( Are they not paid enough already![/size]



SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2009 at 10:25am:

The Department of Health has failed. On Friday (18 December), Dr A J Dawton & Partners of Humber Road Chelmsford adopted NEG Surgery Line, changing its telephone number from 01245 268635 to 0844 3878773. On Monday the number for its other surgery in Sunrise Avenue changed from 01245 266044 to 0844 3878777. This newish range of 0844 numbers are classified as call type g11. These are marginally cheaper than g6 in some cases, but this makes no material difference whatsoever. Given that this indicates the familiar commitment to a seven year contract (perhaps longer as the revenue share on g11 may be less than that on g6), the ban that was announced on 14 September and confirmed by the Prime Minister yesterday will not come into effect until at least 2016, during the parliament after next.

Send them an invoice for the cost of the calls, citing the fact that the NHS should not cause patients to pay more than the cost of a normal geographic phone call, a requirement that has been issued as guidance by Ministers repeatedly since 2005.

Also write and complain about it to the Minister of Health Mike O'Brien, the BMA, your local PCT and copy all this to this site for the record and to your local press.   If you would like help or guidance in doing this then let us know by asking a moderator to send us your contact details such as your email address and some veterans of our campaign will help or support you.

evenasus wrote on Mar 13^th, 2010 at 9:23am:

[size=12]My daughter-in-law had to ring this surgery last month when my grandson was very ill. She was worried sick and didn't think about the cost of the call - or calls as it turned out. She started ringing at 8am but she didn't know that the phone wasn't answered until 8'15am. She received her phone bill yesterday. Those calls cost her £3. 90!  :o This is disgusting! How can doctors MAKE money out of their patients.  >:( Are they not paid enough already![/size]

evenasus  I believe you have been sent a private message.   To read any private message --- first make sure you are logged in, then look at the top left of any page in this Forum and you will see a note of private messages for you, just click on there to read them.   Regards, loddon.

A briefing on the current situation is published:

Will the BMA be able to beat the government by enabling GPs to continue using expensive telephone numbers?

This will be very widely circulated as a briefing and commentary.

Members may wish to discuss any aspect of this in response. Please email or PM me with any tactical suggestions that may be best not discussed in this public forum.

THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT.

I would like to ask a general question of all readers and contributors to this Forum who have a particular interest in the problem of doctors (GPs) using 0845 and 0844 numbers.

Some assiduous people have managed to find out the geographic number which lies behind their own GP's much disliked 0844 and 0845.    I ask all the of you who are lucky enough to be able to use an alternative geographic number HOW WELL DOES IT WORK FOR YOU?    
Have you noticed any differences between when you use the geo number and when you use the 084 number?
Have you found any particular problems?
Have you found any improvements or benefits?
Is the phone answered any differently when you use the geo number?

This is a terribly important matter and I hope as many people as possible will respond.    We really need to get as much information as possible on this.    If anybody wishes they are most welcome to respond to me by private message if they do not want to say things in the open Forum.

All feedback and information will be treated confidentially if you ask, and will be invalualble to us in our ongoing campaign about GP's numbers.

Please respond as fully as you can and MANY THANKS for your help.  

Best wishes to all NHS patients in their battle to avoid 084 numbers.

My doctor gives out an 0870 number for overseas calls so I use that (I'm on BT). It gets through to the same set of options and messages.

Just in case it is missed on your other post in the Geographical Requests thread.

My surgery still has the geo number it had before they introduced their 0844 number, in fact it is on some, (?), doctors prescriptions! and on their website, although in the practice they have a scrolling board with various info on it including the "new" 0844 number.

I use the geo number when I need to phone them so cannot comment on how the 0844 works.

When I use the geo number it is answered pretty quickly by a human with them saying hello then the name of the practice, I then can ask whatever I like really, including booking an appointment.

So all in all it works well for me.