I was listening to Minster FM the other day and there was an advert for NHS dentists in North Yorkshire, and on it, it said:
"Call freephone 0300 3038 010 to register".

On the official website (http://www.nyypct.nhs.uk/AdviceInformation/DentalRegister/) it doesn't mention it being freephone but this article says:
"People wishing to register can call free on 0300 303 8010 or click on northyorkshire andyork.nhs.uk."

Now forgive me if I'm mistaken but I thought the whole 03 range had to be charged at the same rate as a geographical 01/02 call. So is it me that's got this wrong on them?
If it's them it seems like a rather big mistake for them to make.

You are correct - this is a foolish mistake by the PCT.

Ofcom may have been better advised not to use the xx00 block of 03xx numbers as such a major element, because of the danger of confusion with 0800. Happily there are not very many cases like this, but there are others.

The error is seen in this media release, which was the basis for a number of local press items.

The Communications Office of the PCT have been made aware of the error and is considering the most appropriate response. The radio ad is still running and re-recording is likely to be very expensive, so it may be that clarification of the cost of calling on the webpage would be the best way forward.

A quick note to the ASA would bring a decisive response.

As for "very expensive".  I dispute the "very". This is a radio ad, not TV. How much for some music and a voiceover?

Who wrote the script? They're ultimately liable.

"The taxpayer would be paying for this change."  They're already paying - for calls advertised as "free".

catj wrote on Apr 5^th, 2012 at 11:35am:

A quick note to the ASA would bring a decisive response. As for "very expensive".  I dispute the "very". This is a radio ad, not TV. How much for some music and a voiceover? Who wrote the script? They're ultimately liable. "The taxpayer would be paying for this change."  They're already paying - for calls advertised as "free".

It may be of interest to check out the ASA position on this. It will possibly have a major role to play in forthcoming matters.

The error in the radio script reflects the error in the media release. I understand that it was drafted in good faith, based on false information, and that the error is acknowledged.

Ofcom has got a tricky job on its hands with trying to get people to understand that 03 is better than 08, but that 080 is different and will become better than both 03 and the rest of 08. Whilst 080 is different from the rest of 08, 030 is not different from the rest of 03, in terms of charging. 030 is however different from the rest of 03, in terms of who may use it.

It is not difficult to see how people can make mistakes, although that alone does not wholly excuse them.


From a very remote understanding of the costs of radio ad production and the level of PCT marketing budgets, I am not in a position to challenge use of the word "very" with reference to the possible expense of re-recording. It seemed credible when I repeated it, but I am unable to offer figures so as to defend it. I understand that it would indeed be inappropriate if set against the cost of a TV advertisment.