Hi There Peeps

I have just tried calling 0114 296 9696 and after 20 minutes it went unanswered, then I did another search on here and came up with 01355 359022  :) which allowed me to get through.

While i was talking to the lady she told me they all have one number now.

She then proceeded to tell me I was calling from abroad,I said "Oh really"

Please look on these pages then call 01355 359022   :)  and give them your money or not as the case may be

http://www.saynoto0870.com/companysearch.php

http://www.saynoto0870.com/companysearch.php

The single enquiry numbers (all 0845) for the various HMRC operations have been in place for some time. (These now cover employers and agents, removing the idea that only individuals are required to pay a Service Charge).

In many cases they have geographic alternatives for those calling from overseas (who may not be able to dial the +44 845 number).

I have just had a very friendly chat with an agent on the "Taxes Helpline" covered here. She takes calls made to both 01355 359022 and 0845 300 0627 and is alerted to the "fact" that someone calling the 01355 number is calling from overseas. If they have called the 01355 number from the the UK, she tells me that she is instructed to deal with their enquiry, not to tell them to re-dial. From her personal knowledge, she can see no reason why those who would incur a high charge in calling the 0845 number should not use the alternative.

It is important to note that these comments are not an authorised statement of policy from HMRC. Other agents may take a different view, or be following different instructions. Another important issue is the way in which the calls are handled and distributed around call centres. It is likely that they are channelled differently and that the systems in place would not be sustained if many callers used the alternative numbers.


It may be that HMRC needs the benefit of the advanced call handling features that are more readily available with non-geographic numbers; national helplines handled by a number of call centres obviously benefit from not being associated with a particular locality. For these reasons HMRC must immediately adopt 03 numbers, most simply the 0345 equivalents of every published 0845 number. Simple advice to subsitute a "3" for the "8" at the beginning of the number will cover the situation until the confusion and cost of advising new (0300) numbers is warranted.

Until that simple step has been taken, I see no reason why Saynoto0870 should not declare the availability of the geographic alternatives and the experiences of those who have called them. To my mind, widespread general publication requires proper qualification, as I would not wish to actually damage the service provided by HMRC.

The parliamentary Treasury Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into "the "Administration and effectiveness of HMRC".

It has accepted written evidence about the use of 0845 telephone numbers and the need to change to 03 immediately.

It is possible that this issue will be raised when the three most senior officers of HMRC give oral evidence before the committee this afternoon.

Members may be interested to follow this session at http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=7965.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 11:40am:

Members may be interested to follow this session at http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=7965.

An extract of the relevant portions of the session is available to view here.

I will be interested to read any comments from members.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 1:55am:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Mar 16th, 2011 at 11:40am: Members may be interested to follow this session at http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=7965. An extract of the relevant portions of the session is available to view here. I will be interested to read any comments from members.

My initial comment, after enduring seven minutes of nonsense is to question whether anyone in this department actually 'gets it'? Ms Strathie certainly does not. Why is it so difficult for a govt department, with huge back office resources, to establish a few unified contact numbers in a specified range? Here, the social security administration, a vast government agency of over 60000 employees, has just one public central number, toll-free from anywhere in the country. Simple, straightforward and consumer-friendly. (I will make no comment about the often lengthy queueing times though!)

Seeing this performance, there's little wonder that the tax office is in such a mess.  ::)

And then at the end there's the twaddle about not receiving revenue on the 0845 numbers and not receiving any benefit. So the tax office happily allows it provider to benefit.

It's a simple concept: If you use a 0845 number, then you are deriving benefit from callers via your telephone provider. That is by design.

Yet no one, apart from campaigners, it seems, does anything to address this lack of understanding. Ofcom sits idly by whilst the "market" grows on some false basis that there's no premium involved.

Dave wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 10:02am:

Ofcom sits idly by whilst the "market" grows on some false basis that there's no premium involved.

Yes indeed they do Dave.  And it is not by accident but on purpose as far as I am concerned since they have been told by the government not to upset the 0845 Applecart.

I wish I had the energy to continue to pursue this 084/7 issue but since I am facing potential personal financial disaster depending on the outcome of the decision of another part of the governmental apparatus known as a Tribunal I have reluctantly had to conclude that with OfCoN one is hitting one's head against a brick wall.

Clearly other parts of government with other agendas and other access to Ofcom decision makers do have the power get Ofcom to take action over issues that are regarded as serious by the powers that be as we can see with the current urgent investigation in to TalkTalk over failing to disclose subscriber location information for calls to 999/112.

one can only therefore reluctantly conclude that no one other than those of use here cares about the great 084/7 calls ripoff or the great BT line rental rise and associated BT call connection charge ripoffs.

Good Evening,

Just wanted to "highlight" the present crazy situation with HMRC. If anyone cares to type HM rev into the SNT0870 database, and see just how many unvarified numbers we have, you will be quite shocked.

If anyone who deals with HMRC fancies trying some of these numbers and starting a NEW thread entitled - HMRC Confirmed Numbers - I would be very greatful, and the Admin team and myself can look to update and tidy up the current Database.

Many thanks,

and Happy Easter!

:) :)

Happy Easter to you!

I have been trying to deal with my wife's income tax affairs over recent years and, after initially writing to the Ipswich office, received a reply from a Leicester office.

She then wrote (to both) to query with whom she should communicate?

She received a reply from a Portsmouth office!

Trying to put an end to the nonsense, I wrote to our MP and received from him a copy of a letter addressed to my wife (my wife never received the original) which he had received from the head HMRC office in London telling her she should communicate with Leicester but that, if she was dissatisfied with the reply, she should complain to an office in Edinburgh.

Her circumstances then changed and she received a letter from an HMRC office in Liverpool but her annuity provider then wrote giving details of another Liverpool ovvice with which she should communicate.

She wrote to both Liverpool addresses asking which office she should now communicate with.

She received a telephone reply to the effect that it didn't matter who you wrote to because any of their offices throughout the country could deal with any enquiry!

I have an uncomfortable feeling about those last few words!

I think I'll be trying 01355 359022 when next I need to phone.  I have no idea which office I'll write to should I need to write though.

I've just tried calling the HMRC alternative numbers (01355 359022 and 0161 931 9070). I got a recorded message telling me I'd called from the UK but was using the number for their "international customers only" and must check the HMRC website for the correct contact details.

So it looks like they're determined to make us all pay, even though the 084 numbers should be on the way out for HMRC.

Does anyone have an alternative alternative?  :)

rfctabs wrote on Jul 19^th, 2011 at 12:20pm:

I've just tried calling the HMRC alternative numbers (01355 359022 and 0161 931 9070). I got a recorded message telling me I'd called from the UK but was using the number for their "international customers only" and must check the HMRC website for the correct contact details.

What about if you withhold your number? Does it work then?

How weird!

I'm on Virgin Media for landline, and that behaves as previously described. I've also tried withholding my number and had the same result. However...

My O2 mobile has connected immediately to 01355 359022 with no problem (number not withheld, by the way).

Of course, I'm on hold while the nice lady seeks further information on my inquiry but hey ho - can't have everything, I suppose.  ;D

The number 01355 359022 is the "Taxes Helpline" and this goes through to the closed message, irrespective of whether my number is withheld or not. I am calling from a BT line.

The 0161 931 9070 is the "Self-Assessment Helpline" and I get the message telling me off for ringing from the UK on this number, irrespective of whether I withhold my number. This did not used to be the case when I last tried it a few months ago.

As has been explained previously there are two ways in which the origin of a caller can be identified:

1) CLI - this is the full detail of your number, as given when dialling 1471 or on "caller display".

2) Location information - this is general area from which you are calling, for mobiles this can be the cell location.

Use of the first is covered by data protection legislation which gives you the right to withhold it. Because the second is not personal data it is always available and cannot be withheld.

The second is used by services to route calls to the appropriate national / regional / local call centre. Examples are 111 and 101.

From the information provided it seems likely that this is what is being used on these numbers, but in a primitive form. It seems likely that all calls where an identity can be given are passed through to the rejection message, whereas others are allowed through. As there is no need to incur the cost of checking the mobile cell, it seems that calls from mobiles are allowed through, as no location information is obtained. I imagine that it would not be difficult to treat calls from mobiles in the same way as those from identifiable locations, but as this is not a vital feature it has been deployed in a very simplistic manner.

This explanation is pure speculation, but it seems credible.

---

On this issue generally, surely SayNoTo0870 should enter into serious and formal correspondence with HMRC and DWP about this issue. The policies of these organisations need to be clearly explained and understood.

I would argue that where a dedicated team of specialist advisers are made available to handle a limited number of calls from overseas, then there is a sound argument for blocking UK calls to those numbers. If, as we are inclined to believe and have evidence to prove, these blocks are simply a way of protecting the benefit of revenue sharing, then this should be acknowledged and defended by the agency.

---

P.S. Just to complete the picture, the withholding of CLI may be overridden by those with "proper authority", e.g. the police, under the terms of the Data Protection Act. Any telco which released the information to any other body (e.g. HMRC or DWP) would be in serious trouble with the Information Commissioner.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jul 19^th, 2011 at 10:43pm:

I would argue that where a dedicated team of specialist advisers are made available to handle a limited number of calls from overseas, then there is a sound argument for blocking UK calls to those numbers.

Blocking calls purely on the basis of received CLI is unacceptable as the information passed is not necessarily indicative of a geographical location.

I called the two numbers referenced elsewhere in this thread - 01355 359022 and 0161 931 9070 - early this morning (Eastern Time) from a location approximately 4500 miles from the UK using sipgate, a VOIP provider. The service is configured with a London number, 020, which presumably is sent as part of the CLI string. I received the blocking message, telling me that I was naughty and had to use the UK number, despite my location in south Florida. I will carry our further tests with this and other VOIP providers. CLI is not a reliable source for determining location. As an aside, calls from UK numbers which terminate here sometimes presented as originating from Bermuda as 441 is the NPA for that territory.

idb wrote on Jul 21^st, 2011 at 4:45am:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jul 19th, 2011 at 10:43pm: I would argue that where a dedicated team of specialist advisers are made available to handle a limited number of calls from overseas, then there is a sound argument for blocking UK calls to those numbers. Blocking calls purely on the basis of received CLI is unacceptable as the information passed is not necessarily indicative of a geographical location.

Blocking calls purely on the basis of received CLI is a waste of time, as it is unreliable (e.g. blocking overseas callers) and can be circumvented. It is any means of enforcing a charge on callers that is unacceptable.

I must add that there is no evidence that HMRC or DWP could offer the argument that I suggested as possibly providing a justification for the practice. I have in the past been told that (at least) some of these geo numbers route to exactly the same team of advisors, with the CLI or location information presented to the advisor. If calls that are not blocked are routed in exactly the same way as those to the 0845 number that blocked callers are advised to call, then the block is simply enforcement of a charge on callers. The Agencies and the relevant Ministers must be called upon to explain and justify this imposition of a charge - unless an alternative explanation can be offered.

I strongly urge SayNoTo0870 to make a formal approach asking for an explanation for the blocking.

Those able to evade the block to get through on the various alternative numbers should ask for confirmation that they are connected to a specialist team.