https://nds.coi.gov.uk/environment/fullDetail.asp?ReleaseID=382713&NewsAreaID=2&NavigatedFromDepartment=False

Thursday 30 October 2008 10:54
HM Revenue & Customs (National)

Why don't you give us a call?

<<
Over 170,000 agents have called HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) Agents Dedicated Lines (ADLs) since they started being rolled out three months ago.

With the last line going live today (30 October) agents throughout the country will receive a more efficient telephone service from HMRC.

By ringing the number that deals with their clients' records, agents will get to speak to a well-trained adviser who can help with difficult and complex issues. And if the query cannot be answered straight away, there is an immediate escalation route to a specialist within HMRC.

This new service has been developed with support and encouragement from HMRC's professional partners involved in Working Together (the partnership between HMRC and the main agent representative bodies)

[…]

>>

The news release ends with a list of 0845 numbers, naturally.  ::)

"Agents" will generally be professional bodies, e.g. accountancy practices.

This indicates two differences from the situation of citzens. Firstly they will be on business tariffs and secondly there is a question about whether it is fair for them to contribute towards the costs of services provided specifically for them which are otherwise funded out of general taxation.

This is similar to the situation of the Land Registry which offers local geographic numbers for its general offices, but uses revenue sharing numbers for central enquiry lines mostly used by conveyancers.

I do not assert that use of revenue sharing numbers is perfectly acceptable in these cases, however the difference should perhaps be noted.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 10^th, 2008 at 8:45pm:

This is similar to the situation of the Land Registry which offers local geographic numbers for its general offices, but uses revenue sharing numbers for central enquiry lines mostly used by conveyancers. I do not assert that use of revenue sharing numbers is perfectly acceptable in these cases, however the difference should perhaps be noted.

Surely the difference is that HMRC tries to make the public contact them on 0845 numbers as well as businesses.

Has no one here yet sent HMRC a major FOI request about the number of 0845 numbers they have, the telco the contract is with and the terms of the contract and also asking what attention HMRC are paying to the guidance of the COI and Sir David Varney?  I keep meaning to but there are always other more important things to be doing and we know that HMRC do not use 0845 by accident or mischance. ;) ::)

Hello sir,

Sorry to troubling much by reading below mail, but i need ur support and help.

Can you please provide me the email id for below address:

E Hampshire and Wight Area
Lynx House
1 Northern Road
Cosham
Portsmouth
PO6 3XA
Telephone 0044 23 9240 1194

Actuualy i stay in india and unable to communicate them via phone. can you please try to call and get their email id. I am very happy to send an email to them for my queries.

Regards
Bala


Dave wrote on Nov 10^th, 2008 at 3:15pm:

https://nds.coi.gov.uk/environment/fullDetail.asp?ReleaseID=382713&NewsAreaID=2&NavigatedFromDepartment=False Thursday 30 October 2008 10:54 HM Revenue & Customs (National) Why don't you give us a call? << Over 170,000 agents have called HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) Agents Dedicated Lines (ADLs) since they started being rolled out three months ago. With the last line going live today (30 October) agents throughout the country will receive a more efficient telephone service from HMRC. By ringing the number that deals with their clients' records, agents will get to speak to a well-trained adviser who can help with difficult and complex issues. And if the query cannot be answered straight away, there is an immediate escalation route to a specialist within HMRC. This new service has been developed with support and encouragement from HMRC's professional partners involved in Working Together (the partnership between HMRC and the main agent representative bodies) […] >> The news release ends with a list of 0845 numbers, naturally.  ::)

Bala wrote on Dec 12^th, 2008 at 12:31pm:

Can you please provide me the email id for below address: E Hampshire and Wight Area Lynx House 1 Northern Road Cosham Portsmouth PO6 3XA Telephone 0044 23 9240 1194

I am note sure whether there is an email address or whether they would correspond via email. Could you write a letter? Why do you want to contact them? Why can't you telephone them?

I put the number of my Tax Office (HMRC, Southend-on-Sea) into your 'Find alternative number box and 08453667813 generated
Company Name:  HM Revenue & Customs (Inland Revenue)
Alternative:  01702 442500
Other Information:  Collections Dept - South Essex Area
When I rang it I got this answerphone message...
Please note that the number called has been changed to...  >:(  08450150009 !
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

For those feeling frustrated with HMRC's continued use of 0845 numbers and their recent policy of deliberately shutting down many geographic alternatives to their 0845 numbers can I point you to the page on their website that shows their Board members at:-

www.hmrc.gov.uk/board/index.htm

All staff email addresses (including Board members) are in the format firstname.lastname@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk

You will note that their Chief Executive is now Lesley Strathie who has a long term record of telling extensive lies and untruths to support the use of 0845 numbers during her time at JobCentrePlus :o >:( [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

My partner is trying to get his tax sorted out and tried to call the number on this web site for the Leicester office, 0116 2427200 only to be told, by an automated voice, to use the 0845 number. We did try another office with a geographic number with success, just thought I'd let you know!

citychick wrote on Mar 24^th, 2009 at 11:51am:

My partner is trying to get his tax sorted out and tried to call the number on this web site for the Leicester office, 0116 2427200 only to be told, by an automated voice, to use the 0845 number. We did try another office with a geographic number with success, just thought I'd let you know!

Try 0161 931 9070

This seems to be the only official remaining number left for HMRC as a number for those based overseas etc to call.  You can reach quite a few different services at HMRC using the IVR menu system.  Staff on this line seem to have geographic numbers for individual tax offices that they will give out on request even though there is no longer a list of international alternative geographic numbers published on the HMRC website. >:(

I just discovered these comments on the 0845 number issue on the HMRC Employers Bulletin Letters Page on their website at www.hmrc.gov.uk/employers-bulletin/bulletin29/letters.htm


Quote:

Employer Bulletin letters page [quote]Helpline numbers "It is very useful to have all the Helpline and Orderline numbers on the back of the Bulletin. All of them are 0845 numbers. When these were first introduced the charge was the same as a local call. Telephone charges have changed a lot. All the calls from my phone to 01, 02 and 03 numbers cost 0p per minute. Calls to 0845 numbers are 4p per minute. I know it’s not a lot but I have to pay for all my calls (I do the payroll for a Charity and pay all my own costs personally). A normal half hour call costs me 0p, one to an 0845 number £1.20. Why does the Revenue use 0845 numbers? Could you also publish alternative normal numbers? If you want to use non-geographic numbers, could you consider changing to the recently introduced 03 numbers? R Service Glasgow

HMRC keeps its policy and practice for handling telephone calls from customers through its centrally managed contact centre network under constant review. Whilst the policy is to operate customer facing helplines using 0845 prefixed numbers we are considering how the alternative numbering schemes interact with the wide range of tariffs available from telecommunications providers.

HMRC uses 0845 numbers as they allow accurate routing of calls. It also allows each call, when received, to be routed to the contact centre best able to handle it. Using this facility allows us to manage call queue lengths, reduce call waiting times and offer the best available service during our opening hours.[/quote]

So in what way do 03 numbers not provide any of the benefits that HMRC claims are so great about the call routing facilities available on their 0845 numbers?  Or is the taxman in reality unwilling to give up his free swithboard or switchboard maintenance or his cut price outgoing call costs, all paid for on the back of the honest British tax payer through the stealth 0845 hidden revenue share. :o >:( [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

NGMsGhost wrote on Sep 25^th, 2009 at 9:55pm:

Quote: we are considering how the alternative numbering schemes interact with the wide range of tariffs available from telecommunications providers.

Unfortunately these considerations will be swayed by the fact that for many callers (those on BT call plans but not benefiting from inclusive calls at the time), a call to a 03 number is more expensive than a 0845 number. This overrides the inherent impropriety of revenue sharing, which benefits those who pay taxes without calling HMRC to enquire about them, as the issue is viewed from a consumerist perspective.

What is needed is some serious consumer research to show that the financial benefit to some callers is outweighed by the financial disadvantage to others, so that the argument for 03 can be won on the terms in which it is being viewed. I would prefer to argue that taxpayers in general should meet the costs of the advanced telephony, rather than those who use it, as a point of principle. I fear that outside the NHS, where service users are regarded differently, this argument would not carry much weight.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Sep 25^th, 2009 at 10:34pm:

Unfortunately these considerations will be swayed by the fact that for many callers (those on BT call plans but not benefiting from inclusive calls at the time), a call to a 03 number is more expensive than a 0845 number. This overrides the inherent impropriety of revenue sharing, which benefits those who pay taxes without calling HMRC to enquire about them, as the issue is viewed from a consumerist perspective.

Thanks for shooting the campaign in the foot as usual SCV by quoting the sneaky arguments of our satanic opponents when they try to hang on to their greed based numbers.  We all know perfectly well that BT has only cut the call price of 0845 numbers in a desperate last ditch attempt to try to undermine the clear cut logical case for all government services moving to the 03 number range.

The reality is that anyone at home in the weekday daytime for any amount of time either has an inclusive landline call plan or uses their bundled minutes on their mobile phone (for instance someone who normally is out at work at home on the odd day) so they won't be paying for any calls to 01/02/03 numbers but 0845 numbers will cost them extra unless they are on an Anytime landline calls plan on their landline.

The argument that 0845 numbers are in reality cheaper is utterly bogus and I only expect to hear it from the mouth of one of the scamerati (excuse me for dropping in to the language of one of my other campaigning hobbyhorses against New Labour but it seems appropriate in this case just as it is with New Labour motorist crunching Scamera Partnerships) and not from one of the members of our own campaign.

The fact that a tiny number of people who pay per call in the weekday daytime (anyone doing so will be badly off very quickly at BT's new minimum call charges as of 1st October) are better off calling 0845 does not affect the fact that the majority of people are much worse off (not least those calling from BT's own Payphones).  And anyone on a mobile phone is hugely worse off having to call an 0845 number if they have an inclusive calling plan to 01/02/03 numbers.

So staunch campaigners are not fooled by this latest dastardly attempt to dress up something twisted and unpleasant as being something nice by the Scamerati and we will continue to demand that HMRC and the other scammers switch from 0845 numbers to 01/02/03 numbers and that Ofcom also sets a date for the end of revenue share on 0845 numbers and a date when 0844 numbers will also become subject to premium rate regulation pay by PhonePayPlus as 0871 numbers now already are.

Heaven knows we have a hard enough job winning this campaign without constantly being undermined by worried doubters who are supposedly on our own side.

NGMsGhost wrote on Sep 25^th, 2009 at 10:53pm:

Heaven knows we have a hard enough job winning this campaign without constantly being undermined by worried doubters who are supposedly on our own side.

I hope that I expressed no doubt whatsoever about where I stood on this issue. I am content that it will cost taxpayers, and some callers, more for HMRC to switch to 03.

HMRC has however expressed doubt about this course of action and may, as I said, have been unduly swayed by looking at the BT price list and noting that only 10% of BTs customers are on the Unlimited Anytime call plan (that figure may have increased since the April price changes and will be likely, as intended, to increase further.) It is possible that, like DWP, HMRC will also have figures to show that an overwhelming majority of their calls come from landlines. Most of these will be from customers of BT (and its pricing clones) who would gain no advantage to offset the cost to taxpayers of switching to 03, some of these callers would incur additional cost. The "bogus" argument referred to is that it would wrong be to incur an additional cost to taxpayers and impose higher charges on some callers for the sake of the minority of callers who would benefit.

That is the type of argument that we face in the public sector with 0845.

My point was that this argument needs to be disproved with figures in a consumerist way. It is the doubters that we have to convince if we are to make progress. Sometimes that means that one has to deal with them on their own terms, however distasteful we may find it. If they cannot be convinced, or if we cannot face their doubts, then we are wasting our time.

As I said, I would rather deal with the issue as a matter of principle. Whilst those who apply the term "satanic" to attempts to reduce public expenditure will have no problem with placing the interests of public service users above those of greedy taxpayers, I do have some trouble in getting this point across to those who are not quite so far to the left in their politics. (Everyone is a socialist when talking about the NHS.)

I will address the broader issues separately.

NGMsGhost wrote on Sep 25^th, 2009 at 10:53pm:

we will continue to demand that ... Ofcom also sets a date for the end of revenue share on 0845 numbers and a date when 0844 numbers will also become subject to premium rate regulation pay by PhonePayPlus as 0871 numbers now already are.

I will politely dissent from this position.

With the end of the BT SMP, as recently announced, 0844 has no future, as the regulation of so many different rates is quite meaningless. If I became aware of any significant use of the very low cost and fixed price per call tariffs then I would perhaps think again, but in my view it should go the way of 0870, which it has effectively replaced at the upper end.

I cannot see any continuing valid argument for low-cost premium rate numbers in the market as it is. When there was a dominant market player so that use of advanced technology could be subsidised whilst costs to callers were regulated, there was some sort of dodgy justification for the revenue sharing concept. That is long past. (If PhonePay Plus wants to introduce a lower band within 0871, then fair enough.)

BT has dealt a fatal blow to 0845 by causing package subscribers to pay for the revenue share. (Maybe Ofcom is to blame for allowing this to happen, although one understands that Ofcom was caught off-guard by this move.) 0845 must be put out of its (and our) misery as swiftly as possible. Its loving family of users will however need time to prepare for their grief. I would propose that the level of revenue share (inflated termination fees) be lowered in stages to zero. BT will set the standard (under Ofcom's control) and everyone else will be obliged to follow, as with 0870. Dropping the value in stages will give users time to gradually adjust their costings. This is necessary as, unlike with 0870, they have nowhere to go; their only alternative is the big step up into PRS.

A gradual move will actually put more pressure on the public sector, and others with reputational interests, to move swiftly to 03 to take the credit rather than suffering the growing pain. Providers will be free to adjust their caller tariffs at whatever stage they wish; good for competition. BT should be freed of its limitations immediately, assuming an undertaking not to increase the charge to above that of "ordinary" numbers.

This is not a fully worked through proposal (my ideas continue to develop), but perhaps a thought-provoking response to another proposal, from "we".

NGMsGhost wrote on Sep 25^th, 2009 at 10:53pm:

we will continue to demand that ... Ofcom also sets a date for the end of revenue share on 0845 numbers and a date when 0844 numbers will also become subject to premium rate regulation pay by PhonePayPlus as 0871 numbers now already are.

I never thought I'd see the day when NGMsGhost would relinquish his call for all premium rate services to operate on 09 numbers only!  :o >:( :'(

Has he been "got at"?  :-?

Dave wrote on Sep 26^th, 2009 at 11:40am:

I never thought I'd see the day when NGMsGhost would relinquish his call for all premium rate services to operate on 09 numbers only!  :o >:( :'( Has he been "got at"?  :-?

No I have not changed my core views that all premium rate numbers should be on a code or codes only used by premium rate numbers and that the public recognises as such.  However by demanding that 0844 numbers also be transferred to ICSTIS control I was being realistic about what we can actually hope to achieve given the current inherent bias at Ofcom in favour of protecting the NTS revenue share industry.

After Ofcom even U-turned at the last moment on its own commitment to make 070 numbers re-number to 06 I know that there is absolutely no hope at all of them forcing 0844 or 0871 numbers to be re-numbered to the 09 prefix where they belong.

Hopefully things will be different under the next government when Ofcom is no doubt either divided back up in to its original component parts or otherwise heavily changed by the new incoming government.

just posted this info about a Number10 Petition deadline 13 March 2010 re calls to government offices:


fred21 wrote on Feb 8^th, 2010 at 11:44pm:

There's a Number10 petition http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/no2costlynumbers/ to: "Enable OFCOM to enforce change of 0870, 0845 and similar expensive call cost numbers to all govenment offices to be changed to 01 or 02 geographic STD numbers or local call numbers." which I assume includes HMRC/DWP.   The deadline is 13 March 2010.   btw: Hi - I've just been searching for non-0845 numbers for HMRC - and decided to join the forum.  :)  Put this at the end 'cos I'm not sure how "new posts" are displayed and wanted people to see the petition (rather than me).

See list of Public Accounts Committee Meetings.

Yesterday, the topic was "HMRC: Dealing with telephone enquiries", and the witnesses were Lesley Strathie, Chief Executive and Permanent Secretary, Mr Nick Lodge, Director, Debt Management and Banking and Mr Chris Hopson, Director, Customer Contact, HM Revenue and Customs.

Watch the meeting here on Parliament TV.

The part of the meeting of interest here starts 16 minutes in. What follows is my summary of what was said.

There are 139 customer facing 0845 numbers, and part of this is because of the way that PAYE tax enquiries had to be dealt with at a specific contact centre for the caller's area which would have its own 0845 number. A new system introduced last year means that all enquiries can now be dealt with at any contact centre and there are plans to replace 70 incoming numbers (for enquiries from different areas) with just one, later on this year.

The discussion then turns to telephone numbers and the example of what the DWP has done is brought up. There is a balance to be struck between giving a service that is free to call (where HMRC payes for calls) and not. The DWP has moved only its lines that get the longest calls to 0800 numbers, and these last around half an hour to an hour. HMRC has a different "call profile" to DWP; about 95% of its calls to Child Benefits and Tax Credits lines last less than 10 minutes.


Moving forward to about 48 minutes, Austin Mitchell asks why don't they call people back. Mr Mitchell then gives Bristol Council as an example where they say how long they estimate it will be until the call is answered, and give the option of them ringing back at the same time. HMRC is "trialling" call backs for callers to Child Benefit lines.

The cost of calling on 0845 numbers is raised at 54 minutes and at 57 minutes Leslie Strathie, Chief Executive of HMRC, formerly of DWP, responded to a question, with reference to the 139 numbers with the 0845 prefix used by HMRC, - “Are you making any money from these calls?”

She responded “I can categorically say ‘we are not making any money’. We are not in the business of making money.

“What I can say, without getting into the commercial in confidence aspect of any of our contracts, is that the 0845 numbers are actually configured in a way that over a period of time we are paying for that investment in the system. It’s actually quite a complex arrangement; we don’t have a single telephone provider for all of our telephone services at the moment.

“I do know what you are alluding to, I did go through this in DWP and JobCentre Plus. As I said earlier, we are in the process of reviewing our current suppliers and our contracts on telephones at the moment.”

Source: This is Money/Daily Mail

Hanging on the taxman's telephone: Taxpayers 'could wait half an hour at a cost of £12' to get through to HMRC

By Tara Evans

PUBLISHED: 14:37, 12 April 2012

Taxpayers face waiting nearly half an hour when calling the HMRC, according to a campaign group.

Despite a long-standing promise from the Inland Revenue that it would aim to answer 91 per cent of telephone calls within 31 seconds, the Low Incomes Tax Reforms Group found that it took on average 29 minutes for a call to be picked up.

The campaign group carried out a 'mystery shop' on the HMRC telephone service on Tuesday last week by making three telephone calls posing as an PAYE caller, pensioner and tax credit claimant.

[…]

Which is why I always write to them.

I write to the (Leicester) office that sends me my Notice of Coding each year but never get a reply from them.  Variously, people from Glasgow, Ipswich, Portsmouth, Liverpool and Cardiff reply (usually with nonsense which requires me to write again seeking clarification and/or a real answer to my original query).

HMRC must have the most convoluted structure imaginable.  No wonder they're always making mistakes and can never be bothered to answer the phone.

I recently had cause to call HMRC and used their geographic number prefixed by 141.  When the call was answered, I was asked where I was calling from and said (honestly) the UK.  I was then told that my call would be dealt with this time, but in the near future, they would only be speaking to UK callers if they used the NGN number.  I asked what would happen if I said I was calling from Europe and the reply was "oh, that's OK, I would deal with it"  After my query had been dealt with, I said that when I had previously used the 0845 number (I'm with BT, so no extra cost) the calls had been cut off 3 times.  I was told that it was possibly to do with staff level problems but in future, I should still use the 0845 number.

Kiwi_g wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2012 at 11:45am:

I recently had cause to call HMRC and used their geographic number prefixed by 141.  When the call was answered, I was asked where I was calling from and said (honestly) the UK.  I was then told that my call would be dealt with this time, but in the near future, they would only be speaking to UK callers if they used the NGN number.  I asked what would happen if I said I was calling from Europe and the reply was "oh, that's OK, I would deal with it"  After my query had been dealt with, I said that when I had previously used the 0845 number (I'm with BT, so no extra cost) the calls had been cut off 3 times.  I was told that it was possibly to do with staff level problems but in future, I should still use the 0845 number.

Kiwi_g, there are clearly differing experiences when ringing HMRC. A recent thread has been started on this, HMRC friendlier than note on the site and I ask that you post about it on there, giving the number you dialled and the 0845 number it was an alternative for.

In reply to Dave, I called HMRC most likely on 01355 359022, during a weekend last month (I do have the date, time and the name of the person I spoke to).  I was responding to a letter where the phone number shown was 0845 3000 627.  It was during this call that I was told that in the near future, only calls from overseas would be dealt with on the geographic number, however, this time, as a concession, my query would be dealt with.

Source: Kilmarnock Standard

MP demands answers over tax calls


Quote:

MP Cathy Jamieson is demanding answers after an increase in constituent complaints about the HMRC’s tax helplines. New figures show that the waiting time for people calling the helplines has almost trebled in the last two years. The helplines are automatically answered within a few rings– meaning callers begin to be charged – but callers are then given a range of options and often spend time on hold before speaking to an adviser.