Is there any thought being given to fix the number lists such that numbers are returned in their correct format even if input in the wrong format?


That is, if the database contains a number like  0207   2343456  to show it on the website like   020  7234  3456  instead?


Taking "British Gas" as an example, and just the 01/02/03 column, there are three numbers in the wrong format in the 'main database' list and at least a further 30 in the wrong format in the 'unverified' list.

In many cases, there is multiple repetition, with e.g. 023 8005 1003 potentially being listed again as 0238 0051003 and 0238 005 1003 and 0238 0051 003 and 02380 051003 and 02380 051 003 and 02380051003. In this case, only 023 8005 1003 is the correct format.




The UK numbering system is quite complex. Here's a quick summary:


Local numbers can be 6 or 7 or 8 digits long.

The code can be 4 or 3 or 2 digits long, after the initial zero.


The area code and number is 11 digits in total, including initial zero.

There are very few exceptions.




Depending on the area code, the numbers are formatted in a very specific way, but it is one that is fairly easy to remember:


Birmingham (0121), Edinburgh (0131), Glasgow (0141), Liverpool (0151), Manchester (0161), Tyne and Wear/County Durham (0191):

Numbers with area code like (01x1) are written:   (01x1)  xxx  xxxx


Leeds (0113), Sheffield (0114), Nottingham (0115), Leicester (0116), Bristol (0117), Reading (0118):

Numbers with area code like (011x) are written:   (011x)  xxx  xxxx


London (020), Southampton and Portsmouth (023), Coventry (024), Northern Ireland (028), Cardiff (029):

Numbers with area code like (02x)  are written:   (02x)  xxxx  xxxx


Rest of the country (01xxx):

Numbers with area code like (01xxx) [but not including (01x1) or (011x) codes] are written:   (01xxx)  xxxxxx


There are a small number of exceptions where the number part has only 5 digits. These are usually written:   (01xxx)  xxxxx



The brackets around the area code are *optional*.



To summarise:

If the number starts 02x the number part is 8 digits long (grouped as  xxxx xxxx).

If the number starts 01x1 or 011x the number part is 7 digits long (grouped as  xxx xxxx).

Most other numbers are written 01xxx  xxxxxx (6-digit number), with a very few as 01xxx  xxxxx (5-digit number in very rural location).




It would require only a small number of 'regular expressions' to parse and fix the data so that it can be displayed in the Ofcom-approved format.

I agree catj, something needs to be done.

Numbers are stored in the database in the format they appear in the results. The search engine will only pick up on them if they are in the database in particular formats when searching by number (not company name). Extra spaces, spaces in some wrong places and brackets will mean that a number search won't return them.

There is currently no validation on the add number form, so numbers appear as they were entered. The first thing to do when any of us work on the database is to tidy up the formatting.

I hope that site admin will implement a fix for this. I agree with the spacings you suggest, other than I don't put spaces in the local part of numbers.

The programming for this is fairly simple. It will need a few value compares, and several regular expressions.

As you say, there's two things to consider here - the format the data is stored in, and the format that it is displayed in.
I'm somewhat surprised that it isn't normalised at the point it is stored in the database.



Off the top of my head I would:

- copy the number to a temporary variable in memory
- remove all the spaces and brackets and hyphens
- check that it is exactly 11 digits long.
- if it is not exactly 11 digits long then print it 'as is' [See Note 1]
- if it is exactly 11 digits long then run function(tidyup)
- this function would format the number correctly as per details above
- finally, print the number out

[1] Print 'as is' - as it is likely that it has extra punctuation, or maybe it is in international format, or might even be multiple numbers such as 0121 456 2345/6/7/8 or like 0121 5678 2340...2350 or some such.  I could live with a small number of items like this if the vast majority of other 'errors' were automatically cleaned up. In fact, in these cases, they would 'stick out more' in your listings making them higher priority for manual attention; you'd no longer need to work on most entries, as they would have automatically been 'tidied' by the operation above.



For the local number part, the 3-4 split for 7-digit numbers, and the 4-4 split for 8-digit numbers, is recommended by Ofcom for readability.  
I, for one, cannot accurately key in a number written like  01212521425  without error.

These edits would all depend on Daniel, the site admin, having time to implement these changes. He is often busy and I don't believe he has much time to make (what could be considered) trivial updates.

catj wrote on Jun 6^th, 2009 at 2:52pm:

For the local number part, the 3-4 split for 7-digit numbers, and the 4-4 split for 8-digit numbers, is recommended by Ofcom for readability.   I, for one, cannot accurately key in a number written like  01212521425  without error.

I know BT Phonebook website lists them in this format, although the printed directories do not.

If all the numbers were stored in the database without any spaces, the search engine could add them when it outputs its results. The add form would need to remove all spaces.

I'm not sure this is 'trivial'. The changes do sound like they would remove the need for some types of manual editing of the database, so it might be something that saves considerable admin time in the future. It would also (the prime reason for suggesting this) make the data a heck of a lot easier to read. It also sounds like it would help the number search function to work better - which might lead to less repetition of submission.

I'm torn between:
- tidying the number (with correct spacing) as it is stored (a one-time operation) and then displaying 'as is' when requested
- stripping spaces and brackets on all numbers as they are stored, and then formatting with spaces at display time (has to be done every time it is displayed).

In any case, there would need to be something on both input and output, simply because of the millions of existing entries already stored in the wrong format.

As I've said, responsibility lies with Daniel to implement these changes, and I don't think it's something he's likely to do.

catj wrote on Jun 6^th, 2009 at 3:11pm:

I'm torn between: - tidying the number (with correct spacing) as it is stored (a one-time operation) and then displaying 'as is' when requested - stripping spaces and brackets on all numbers as they are stored, and then formatting with spaces at display time (has to be done every time it is displayed).

Some numbers are in the Other Information field, eg "Also: 01234 567890" and the search engine picks these up. If the number were to be stored without spaces, and they were to be added later, then there will be no way of being certain that it is a telephone number, although I suppose it will be unlikely to be anything else if it is 10 or 11 digits long starting 0.

It wouldn't be a disaster if the stuff in the "other information" column was just left 'as-is'.

It's the readability of the other columns that's more important.

catj wrote on Jun 6^th, 2009 at 7:46pm:

It wouldn't be a disaster if the stuff in the "other information" column was just left 'as-is'. It's the readability of the other columns that's more important.

The search engine currently picks up numbers with spaces in certain places. If numbers were stored in the database without any spaces, then it would not need to do it for them. It would, however, still need to search the Other Information field for numbers with spaces, just as it does now.

I guess it all depends on what you do with a user's search query when received:
- search for what they typed exactly as they typed it,
- take all their spaces out and search for that,
- re-space it in the correct format for what they typed;

against what is in the database:
- numbers stored exactly as submitted,
- numbers stored as 10 or 11 digits with no spaces at all,
- numbers stored in the correct format for that area code.

There's several ways to achieve it, some more work than others.

Thanks for your post regarding the formatting of telephone numbers on the site.

This is something that I have been working on recently, and I am pleased to announce that this has now been implemented on the website. - At this time, this applies to all the telephone number columns, but does not apply to any numbers contained in the 'Other Info' column.

If you notice any anomalies please do not hesitate to let us know. - Either by posting a message on this thread, or via the 'Contact Us' link on the homepage.

Thanks again,
Daniel
(Forum Admin)

At first glance, that looks fantastic! I'll certainly keep an eye open for any errors. I'm sure they will be minor, if indeed there are any errors at all.

Thanks for taking the time out to make this great improvement to usability.  You also proved the single naysayer wrong. :)


I can live with the "other information" column using whatever format was typed by the user. The normal 'number' columns were the main problem.


Is it OK to submit test listings for company "TESTENTRY", or somesuch, or do you already have another made-up reserved word used for testing?

Yes, it is fine to test using a company name of 'Test'.

Thanks
Daniel
(Forum Admin)

On a number search for company 'BT', the words in the 'numbers' columns have oddsp acing in them, and/or the words are joine dtogether.

Words, and anything else non-numeric, need to be left 'as is' for display; only the all-digit entries, and only those that are exactly ten or eleven digits long, need to be formatted.

I guess that it is attempting to format them using the last formatting rule in your IF...ELSE list (and that one is probably '01xxx xxxxxx').

The clue is that the gap is after the fifth letter, every time.    :)



The formatting does not 'touch' numbers in the +441214789200 international format. That is not a problem.

There are too many issues with trying to fix those (you'd need to know the formatting rules for every country), and very very few are in that format anyway.

Learn something new every day. :)

I hadn't ever noticed that 0800 numbers beginning 2, 4, 6, or 8, are six digit numbers and that 0800 numbers beginning 0, 1, 7, or 9, are seven digit numbers, though there are some beginning with 3, 5, 6, or 7, that are in both groups.

The majority of numbers beginning with an even number are six digits long. The majority of numbers beginning with an odd number or a zero are seven digits long.

So many complications!

It should now be a lot easier to spot certain types of typing errors in submitted information.

For example, this one, with a digit missing, leaps off the page:

Inland Revenue (Debt management/Time to Pay) : 0845 366 1204 : 020 8377 300 : London North Debt Management Office.

I found one number range not being formatted: 03002220000 and 03700100500

I am not sure if those numbers have the right amount of digits, or not.

catj wrote on Jun 7^th, 2009 at 2:52pm:

I found one number range not being formatted: 03002220000 and 03700100500

I see that this has been fixed. Same goes for 05 numbers. Do a search for abbey for some examples.

I'm not even sure how a number like  05511430045  should be formatted.     ;D ;D

According to the Ofcom numbering scheme (see here), it would be 05511 340045.

catj wrote on Jun 7^th, 2009 at 5:40pm:

I'm not even sure how a number like  05511430045  should be formatted.

I think that all numbers should be formatted as 0### ###### unless there is a case for it to be any different. The only exceptions, therefore are the STD numbers where the code is not five digits (including leading zero). The reason for this is so that there is a space to separate code and local number.

All non-geographical numbers do not have an optional code.

Dave wrote on Jun 7^th, 2009 at 7:28pm:

catj wrote on Jun 7th, 2009 at 5:40pm: I'm not even sure how a number like  05511430045  should be formatted. I think that all numbers should be formatted as 0### ###### unless there is a case for it to be any different. The only exceptions, therefore are the STD numbers where the code is not five digits (including leading zero). The reason for this is so that there is a space to separate code and local number. All non-geographical numbers do not have an optional code.

I have thought about this again. NTS non-geographical prefixes should be 0800, 0808, 0845, 0870 etc.

Mobile numbers and personal numbers should be 07789 123456, 07000 123456 etc. I think 05 numbers should be like this (ie 05511 123456).

I agree that mobile numbers should be formatted as:  07xxx   xxxxxx  here.

However, for  070  'personal' numbers I always write those out as  070   xxxx   xxxx  so that they cannot be confused with mobile numbers (a common scam).

For the moment, you're right about  0800,  0808,  0844,  0845,  0870,  0871,  etc,  but I am sure that I saw something, some while ago, that was suggesting that at some point in the future it was going to be recommended that they should be written as  08x   xxxx   xxxx  instead.

I think the same plan (0xx  xxxx  xxxx)  is also going to be hatched for  030,  033,  034,  037,  etc,  numbers at some time in the future as well.

In any case, it looks like the software used to run this website is flexible enough that changes like this can be made as and when they are needed. What has been achieved in the last 24 hours has already massively improved usability.

catj wrote on Jun 8^th, 2009 at 1:02am:

However, for  070  'personal' numbers I always write those out as  070   xxxx   xxxx  so that they cannot be confused with mobile numbers (a common scam).

That's a very good method!


catj wrote on Jun 8^th, 2009 at 1:02am:

For the moment, you're right about  0800,  0808,  0844,  0845,  0870,  0871,  etc,  but I am sure that I saw something, some while ago, that was suggesting that at some point in the future it was going to be recommended that they should be written as  08x   xxxx   xxxx  instead.

Eeks.. I hope not .. how will people be able to tell the difference between 0870 (free on some call plans) and 0871 (up to 10p/min!)  Or maybe that's what the numbers' owners want...


catj wrote on Jun 8^th, 2009 at 1:02am:

I think the same plan (0xx  xxxx  xxxx)  is also going to be hatched for  030,  033,  034,  037,  etc,  numbers at some time in the future as well.

Hmm.  Given 0370 and 0345 are there specifically for 0870 & 0845 migrations, I'd say 03xx xxxxxxx is a better format.  Especially as most (all?) other numbers within 03 currently start 0300 and 0333 which fit nicely...


catj wrote on Jun 8^th, 2009 at 1:02am:

In any case, it looks like the software used to run this website is flexible enough that changes like this can be made as and when they are needed. What has been achieved in the last 24 hours has already massively improved usability.

Agreed, it does look better!!

The database pages mostly look fine after all the changes a few months ago.

Ten-digit 0800 numbers are shown as 0800 xxxxxx. Those are fine.

However, do note that 0800 numbers can be either ten or eleven digits long.

Eleven digit 0800 numbers are shown as 0800 xxxxxxx but should really be shown as 0800 xxx xxxx if possible.

Eleven digit 0808 numbers are shown as 0808 xxxxxxx but should really be shown as 0808 xxx xxxx if possible. All 0808 numbers have eleven digits.

Eleven digit 055 numbers are shown as 055xxxxxxxx but should really be shown as 055 xxxx xxxx if possible.

Eleven digit 056 numbers are shown as 056xxxxxxxx but should really be shown as 056 xxxx xxxx if possible.

If you have a few minutes sometime, can you please change those too?




Additionally, would you also please consider showing eleven-digit 070 personal numbers as 070 xxxx xxxx too?  Those are often associated with scams, and the alternative format makes it more clear that they are NOT a mobile number.  I doubt there are many, if any, 070 personal numbers in the database, but the 070 xxxx xxxx format will make them stand out in listings making them easier to find.

catj wrote on Oct 19^th, 2009 at 11:36am:

The database pages mostly look fine after all the changes a few months ago. Ten-digit 0800 numbers are shown as 0800 xxxxxx. Those are fine. However, do note that 0800 numbers can be either ten or eleven digits long. Eleven digit 0800 numbers are shown as 0800 xxxxxxx but should really be shown as 0800 xxx xxxx if possible. Eleven digit 0808 numbers are shown as 0808 xxxxxxx but should really be shown as 0808 xxx xxxx if possible. All 0808 numbers have eleven digits. Eleven digit 055 numbers are shown as 055xxxxxxxx but should really be shown as 055 xxxx xxxx if possible. Eleven digit 056 numbers are shown as 056xxxxxxxx but should really be shown as 056 xxxx xxxx if possible. If you have a few minutes sometime, can you please change those too?

Hello catj. I note from your postings that telephone number formatting of interest to you.

Changes were made following your posting, which was the start for this thread.

Whilst it would be ideal to display 11 digit freephone numbers with a second space, site admin informs me that this causes problems because of the different length 0800 numbers where some need these extra spaces and others don't.

With regard 05 numbers, why do you think that there should be a 3-digit prefix followed by two blocks of four?



catj wrote on Oct 19^th, 2009 at 11:36am:

Additionally, would you also please consider showing eleven-digit 070 personal numbers as 070 xxxx xxxx too?  Those are often associated with scams, and the alternative format makes it more clear that they are NOT a mobile number.  I doubt there are many, if any, 070 personal numbers in the database, but the 070 xxxx xxxx format will make them stand out in listings making them easier to find.

This is a good idea.

As I said back in June, Ofcom actually shows 05 numbers in the format 05xxx xxxxxx, so we should really adhere to that format.

For 055 and 056 numbers, allocations are issued in blocks at the 10k* level.

The unique digits  AAAB  define the 'reference number' of the block...

056AA     ABCCCC

056AAAB     CCCC

056   AAAB   CCCC



Tariffing is defined in blocks at the 100k* level.

For tariffing purposes, the unique digits AAA define the tariff band; so maybe...

056AAA  BCCCC
or
056  AAA  BCCCC

would make more sense - but I don't think the UK public could understand yet another number format.



You've therefore got three choices...

056AA     ABCCCC

056A   AAB   CCCC

056   AAAB   CCCC


For the latter format, a Google search for 'Tel  056' or similar would find all these VoIP numbers quite easily, rather than having to try 05611 then 05612 then 05613 etc.

*http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/groups/nvs_index/dg_250204/meeting_notes

While I agree that the 05x xxxx xxxxx format would be good, and make sense giving the tariffing etc., searching for "tel 055" for example brings up numbers in Italy, Morocco, Korea... while "tel 05511" (for example) appears to show more UK-based numbers at first glance.

It probably doesn't make any difference either way, but my preference would be 05xxx xxxxxx, only because I think saying it that way seems easier than 05x xxxx xxxx.

catj wrote on Jun 6^th, 2009 at 2:13pm:

The UK numbering system is quite complex. Here's a quick summary: Local numbers can be 6 or 7 or 8 digits long. The code can be 4 or 3 or 2 digits long, after the initial zero. --- Rest of the country (01xxx): Numbers with area code like (01xxx) [but not including (01x1) or (011x) codes] are written:   (01xxx)  xxxxxx --- If the number starts 01x1 or 011x the number part is 7 digits long (grouped as  xxx xxxx). Most other numbers are written  (01xxx)  xxxxxx   (6-digit number), with a very few as  (01xxx)  xxxxx   (5-digit number in rural location).

When I originally wrote that, I was unaware that there's one more format used in twelve places in northern England and the borders.

Langholm (013873), Hornby-with-Farleton (015242), Hawkshead (015394), Grange-over-Sands (015395), Sedbergh (015396), Wigton (016973), Raughton Head (016974), Brampton (016977), Appleby-in-Westmorland (017683), Pooley Bridge (017684), Keswick (017687), Gosforth (019467):

Numbers with the above area codes are written:  (01xxxx)  xxxxx   (5-digit number).

Additionally Brampton has some four-digit local numbers at:  (016977) 2xxx  and  (016977) 3xxx   (4-digit number).

These are known as "Mixed" area codes. I assume that's because these longer area codes overlap with another shorter format, e.g. Dumfries is  (01387) zxxxxx   (where "z" cannot be "3")  and Langholm is  (013873) xxxxx.

Another example is where Lancaster is  (01524) zxxxxx  and  (01524) zxxxx   (where "z" cannot be "2")  and Hornby is  (015242) xxxxx.


There are a small number of entries for these areas already in the database, but they currently display incorrectly.

e.g.  in Keswick (which uses the 017687 area code):

Youth Hostels Association is shown as  01768 772484  but should be  017687 72484.
Dialling 772484 within Keswick connects to Keswick 77248, not the intended Keswick 72484.


e.g.  in Wigton (which uses the 016973 area code):

Lloyds TSB is shown as  01697 343110  but should be  016973 43110.
Dialling 343110 within Wigton connects to Wigton 34311, not the intended Wigton 43110.


Likewise for numbers in Hawkshead, Ambleside, Coniston, Eskdale, Grasmere, Windermere and other places.





catj wrote on Jun 6^th, 2009 at 2:13pm:

Local numbers can be 6 or 7 or 8 digits long. The code can be 4 or 3 or 2 digits long, after the initial zero.

The corrected information:

Local numbers can be 4 to 8 digits long.

The area code can be 2 to 5 digits long, after the initial zero.

The total number length is always 9 or 10 digits, after the initial zero.




This UK area code list seems to be accurate:  http://www.telephonenumbers.co.uk/Geographic-Codes/i=2

A detailed list of the "Mixed" area codes is here:  http://www.aa-asterisk.org.uk/index.php/Mixed_areas

catj wrote on Oct 20^th, 2011 at 12:06pm:

[...] Local numbers can be 6 or 7 or 8 digits long. The code can be 4 or 3 or 2 digits long, after the initial zero. The corrected information: Local numbers can be 4 to 8 digits long. The area code can be 2 to 5 digits long, after the initial zero. The total number length is always 9 or 10 digits, after the initial zero.

What a beautifully engineered and aesthetically pleasing system, created by an efficient and competent regulator. A numbering model for other PTTs to aspire to.

Simply, longer local numbers are used where there are more people and shorter local numbers are used where population numbers are low. In order to ensure telephone numbers are of reasonably consistent overall length (total digits for area code and local number), longer local numbers are paired with shorter area codes and vice versa. Most UK numbers have 11 digits including the leading 0. In low population areas, there's a few with only 10 digits including the leading 0.

Ideally, the last few places using 10 digit numbers would add a digit to give a consistent format, but there's no really compelling reason to change local numbers that in some cases have remained unchanged for anything up to 50 years (noted that these places did see the digit "1" added to their area code in 1995).

London needs 8 digit numbers. It would otherwise have to be divided up into multiple area codes. Under the current scheme, number ranges covering about 26 million numbers have been allocated to providers and there are some 54 million numbers free in the (020) area code. London has enough spare number ranges to last at least several decades, if not some time well into the next century.

Brampton uses 4 and 5 digit local numbers because it has less than 5000 active lines. The only reason for a number shortage here would be Ofcom allowing 500 providers to each reserve a block of 1000 numbers they will never actually use.

The rules are not especially complex, with most geographic numbers using 2+8, 3+7 or 4+6 format. A few places using 4+6 format also use 4+5 format. There's also a small number of rural areas using 5+5 format and one of those also uses 5+4 format. NDO numbers use 0+10 format. Non-geographic numbers mostly use 0+10 format, but some 0800 and all 0500 numbers use 0+9 format.

It's a system that has evolved over 50 years or so, and has been altered several times to meet capacity demands. BT made a reasonable job of things. The system was reasonably logical. Oftel and Ofcom have not been as good, as discussed in several other threads last year/earlier this year: http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1290685881  and http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1289306809

The US system goes the other way. There's a consistent presentation format for numbers but inconsistency in what is actually dialled. In some places an area code covers a whole state. In other places, multiple area codes cover the exact same steet. Depending on where you are, local calls may be dialled with 7 digits or with 10 digits. There may be a choice as to which one to use, or there might be only one format that will work. Long distance dialling will usually require 1+10 format, and it might also be required for calls which are to the local area. As areas have run out of numbers, additional overlay codes have been added rather than extending the length of the numbers.

catj wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2011 at 8:26am:

The US system goes the other way. There's a consistent presentation format for numbers but inconsistency in what is actually dialled. In some places an area code covers a whole state. In other places, multiple area codes cover the exact same steet. Depending on where you are, local calls may be dialled with 7 digits or with 10 digits. There may be a choice as to which one to use, or there might be only one format that will work. Long distance dialling will usually require 1+10 format, and it might also be required for calls which are to the local area. As areas have run out of numbers, additional overlay codes have been added rather than extending the length of the numbers.

The situation here, as I have said in the past, is far from perfect, however it does provide several key advantages such as the consistency of presentation throughout most of north America which lends itself well to web form completion and various paperwork and forms. Additionally, I believe that research has shown (although I cannot cite anything!) that it is generally easier to recall numbers in a XXX-YYYY format rather than, for example XXXX-YYYY or similar presentation. Indeed, whenever I have to call London numbers, I recall them from memory as seven digits and then add the leading 7 or 8 as appropriate (I know there is also a 3). States with few people, Wyoming for example, have one area code. Metro areas, such as mine, have several - my county, Palm Beach, has one code that covers the whole county (pop 1.3m). An adjacent county, Broward (Fort Lauderdale) has two (1.8m), and its neighbour, Miami-Dade (Miami) also has two (2.5m). So, for a metro area of around 5.6m population, we have five area codes that cover all landlines, cellular and VOIP services.

It is true that it is often necessary to dial ten or eleven digits to make a call next door, but once the system is understood, it presents little difficulty. The local phone book will usually tell you exactly what to dial depending on where you are, and the system itself is often, but not always, quite forgiving if you dial the wrong number by advising you that it is incorrect and should be redialled.

Ofcom has messed around with numbering for ages. It has has ample opportunity to carve up the country into manageable areas with one or more area codes. Why does the UK need so many? Perhaps this is still related to the legacy 35m/56km local area call description. I do not know the answer. Perhaps there is still a reluctance to have more than one area code per metro area, but again, specific mobile providers have multiple area codes, so why can this situation not prevail for fixed services?

idb wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2011 at 6:12pm:

Ofcom has messed around with numbering for ages. It has has ample opportunity to carve up the country into manageable areas with one or more area codes. Why does the UK need so many? Perhaps this is still related to the legacy 35m/56km local area call description. I do not know the answer. Perhaps there is still a reluctance to have more than one area code per metro area, but again, specific mobile providers have multiple area codes, so why can this situation not prevail for fixed services?

This begs the question, what does each "code" signify?

For landline numbers it is the locality and for mobiles it is the network operator. The former is understood, but is it a relic of the bygone days (clockwork exchanges)?

Mobile numbers, for most people, are just 11 digits where the first two are 07.