One notes the formal statement of DH policy quoted above

sherbert wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 9:14pm:


The Directions on telephone numbers issued last December remain in force and there is no indication of them being rescinded. There is however little hope that the DH will now take a stronger line on the proper determination that 084 numbers are generally more expensive, than that taken under the previous government, which is generally thought to have been too much in favour of Directions from the centre.

It must be likely that the forthcoming response to the Consultation on proposals to impose Directions on NHS Car Parking charges in England will announce the issuing of Guidance, rather than Directions.

My personal view is that detailed car parking, and other physical access, arrangements are best resolved locally in line with the clearly understood principles of the NHS, so that all relevant circumstances, including the associated costs incurred by patients and visitors, (which do differ widely) can be properly taken into account. The cost of calling particular types of telephone number are however set nationally by the telephone companies and there is no local variation that requires consideration. Furthermore, the effort necessary to clearly understand that 084 numbers are generally more expensive is sadly considerable, given the tendency to use BT charges as if they were typical and the way in which providers of 084 numbers are given to misrepresentation. The DH should be serving local NHS bodies by providing them with clear advice that their duty under the NHS Constitution cannot be fulfilled if they continue to use 084 numbers.

If "greater autonomy" extends to permitting the essential principles of a National Health Service to be disregarded, then "NHS" becomes nothing more than a meaningless name.

Dave wrote on Aug 18^th, 2010 at 9:34pm:



This is good news but it raises a few important questions and goes to illustrate that many responsible people in the NHS are still themselves very confused and misunderstand the telephone numbering system and associated charging regimes.   This hospital spokesman was presumably well prepared to make the quoted statements and yet still said several things which knowledgeable people would seriously question.

The most surprising thing about this announcement is that there is no reference whatsoever to the "Directions" issued by the Dept of Health and announced by the Health Minister that numbers such as 0845 are banned if they cause patients pay more for a call than if they had dialled a normal geographic number.    The hospital states this change is entirely due to pressure from patients?  

Are we really expected to believe this?   Is this purely a coincidence that it comes shortly after the "banning" of 084 numbers within the NHS?  

The hospital says “We introduced that number so our switchboard can operate from a different venue, namely Orsett Hospital, in the event of a disaster, such as a fire."   This is revealing because it exposes the lies perpetrated by the phone service industry and others when they claim, as they have over many years, that this sort of flexibility and ability to redirect calls, is only available by using rip-off 084/7 numbers and this is one of the justifications they use for 084/7 numbers instead of normal geographic numbers.  

The spokesman said "The move follows concerns from some people who confused the normal rate 0845 number with a premium 0870 telephone number, which is in fact, much more expensive."    We've got news for this spokesman --- the public are NOT confused at all -- you are!!    We know that all 084/7 numbers are a rip-off!!   You clearly don't understand what you are talking about!!      The spokesman still makes reference to the exceptional case of BT which currently includes 0845 and 0870 numbers within its packages, as though that is meaningful, but fails to mention that BT continues to charge premium rates to all other callers outside its packages.

It is a pity that it is necessary to criticise a hospital and its spokesman after it has made a highly commendable decision and has done the right thing -- at last.   But this criticism is caused by the intransigence and determination of those in key positions to continue to put about misleading informatuion and their failure to be honest with the public!!  

When are they going to start being honest and straightforward with the public?

loddon wrote on Aug 20^th, 2010 at 9:01am:

The comments made above, as well as those added to the Echo article, indicate that confusion and misunderstanding on points of fine detail is widespread. I will refrain from addressing each of them, or trying to guess which are due to genuine ignorance rather than deliberate deceit. I do not disregard the importance of "getting it right", however I feel that there are quite enough cases where dishonesty and misunderstanding are used to support the improper retention of 084 numbers to occupy our campaigning energies.

The Chief Executives of all the hospitals listed here have been briefed repeatedly (I can supply email addresses). I suggest that they are more in need of further efforts to point them in the right direction than those who have already seen the light - if only through a mist of confusion.

Dave wrote on Aug 20^th, 2010 at 10:14pm:

It is easy to understand how switching the destination point of a non-geographic number provides a ready means of dealing with a situation where a local telephone connection is cut off. That is not to say that alternative arrangements could not be made to re-route a geographic number if necessary. It is all a matter of cost.

I have always argued that if the expense of having a non-geographic number is worth the benefit, then a 03 number must be used, except where it is appropriate for callers to pay for the benefit. In the unlikely event that the issues are fully and accurately understood, this hospital has decided that the disaster recovery benefits of having a 03 number do not outweigh the additional cost.

(I am not sure if repeating a half-baked story from a telephone salesman or conveying an obvious misunderstanding counts as "lying". If we approach these NHS bodies convinced that they know exactly what they are doing, then we are perhaps likely to be less successful in persuading them to change than we could be.)

sherbert wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 9:28am:

As followers of my feeds will know, I am very busy at present. Perhaps someone would like to follow this up with the DH and the media to see if the ban on use of expensive telephone numbers is also going to be scrapped.

If NHS hospitals need money badly, perhaps they should be allowed (or compelled) to switch to 090 premium rate service numbers.

To be fair, I was no fan of Andy Burnham's car park charges plan. It was totally lacking any sense of principle, being largely pragmatic and heavily weighted in favour of one rather noisy special interest patient's group.

sherbert wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 11:27am:

There can be a serious issue with any parking charge for patients and with excessive charges for the area in other cases.

I drive a car in London, so I must have that sort of money to spend when visiting friends at home, whether they are sick or well.

How much do people have to spend visiting a sick relative or friend in hospital, or attending an outpatient appointment, by public transport or taxi, is that not equally outrageous?

There are undoubtedly many cases where hospital car park charges are excessive. There are undoubtedly others where they are reasonable and there is a proper scheme for exemptions. There are probably cases where there is no charge and the spaces are taken up by those with no business at the hospital. There may be cases where parking charges were dropped, more staff and visitors starting using their cars and a local bus service was cancelled. There are probably cases where there is no charge and all works well.

I am no fan of this government and will be making the strongest possible objections to the proposals in the Health White Paper. This is however one issue which can only be sorted out locally, based on the principles of the NHS.

On telephone numbers, this has to be dealt with nationally. The principles of the NHS demand that all use of revenue sharing numbers in the delivery of NHS services be prohibited - that is simple. Some issues are clear black and white, others are striped.

sherbert wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 2:27pm:

I totally agree. I cannot think where it could be appropriate to require someone to incur that level of parking fee.

The previous government is not generally renowned for withdrawing funding for the NHS that was provided by its predecessor, however if that is what happened in this case then again, it is not right. The previous government left office with a policy of being ready to cut the NHS budget whereas the present government is guaranteeing to maintain it. It is somewhat odd to deal with Labour as cutting back public spending on the NHS whilst the Conservatives follow the opposite path.

Even more.....


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1319330/Tax-sick-hospitals-increase-car-...