SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 12:07pm:



Why should we be distressed?

After all, almost everybody in the land is a taxpayer, so either way we are paying for the calls to the Inland revenue, and I would guess the consensus would be to a preference to a 'free' 0800 number.

The only times I have had to get in touch with the Inland Revenue is because of a 'muck up' on their part, so why should I have to personally pay to get them to rectify it?

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 2:07pm:



But in your reply #9 you say, quote, can I recommend adoption of an expensive premium rate number. end quote.

Now you are saying what Barbara, myself and others have been saying all along

sherbert wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 3:24pm:

We all have our different views and ways of approaching these issues. That is why it is good to have a discussion forum in which to debate the issues themselves; a matter which I consider to be of greater merit than analysis of who agrees with whom.

My quoted recommendation was preceded by the statement: SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 2:37am:

Noting his present location, we may forgive idb for any failure to appreciate irony. The quoted example of mine was clearly signposted by this statement, which provided a qualifying context for my "recommendation". I even preceded my subsequent comments with the phrase "the point I seek to make" in the hope of enabling readers to see that I did not actually stand by the "recommendation".

Can we please try to avoid looking for "good guys" and "bad guys" in the forum. The two interests that are opposed in the context of public sector use of revenue sharing numbers are "taxpayers" and "service users". The DWP has just announced support for the latter of these over the former, whilst it continues to take the reverse position by rolling out use of a new 0845 number. It nonetheless damages the interests of taxpayers whilst offering only modest relief to service users by offering to call back to mobile callers after they have got through to an agent.

Today's announcement should make life very difficult for those who seek to offer a simple characterisation of the behaviour of the DWP. We have to be guarded in our welcome, but we must not fail to show some appreciation for the considerable efforts that were involved in taking this unprecedented step that may provide a model for others.

I say that we should applaud the "direction of travel" and its being the first to scale the summit that was marked with a flag today. There is however a clear lack of sure-footedness in the approach to other peaks, which others have ascended with relative ease. I hope that we can offer encouragement and support (and maybe providing the occasional leg-up) rather than throwing down boulders and mocking what has been achieved. To ensure complete confusion, I will conclude by saying that I do not agree with those (including some within the DWP) who suggest that it should wait for a higher authority to come along and remove the remaining obstacles. (More on this latter point will follow.)

idb wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 5:08pm:

The irony may be seen to lie in my "recommendation". I had hoped that use of this device would not be lost on UK-based members, whereas it is commonly said to fail to traverse the Atlantic. In this particular case, it clearly arrived undamaged and was indeed appreciated.

When I visited my local JobCentre today I was proudly informed that they have just changed their 01xxx number to a new 0845 number "to help serve me better".  I was assured that the call was charged at "local rates" and when I objected was told that I didn't know what I was talking about and that is what "head office" have just instructed them to do.

So much for DWP being in the lead at understanding the problem and changing away from the 0845 numbers! 

olliecox wrote on Jan 28^th, 2010 at 12:40pm:

The centralisation of the "front desk" telephone answering function is purely a cost saving measure. Unless the person who normally answers the 01xxx number has long coffee, lunch and tea breaks, cannot answer the telephone and always put calls through to the wrong extension then the new centralised switchboard operators will not be able to "serve you better".

The DWP has been focussing hard on the 0800 from mobiles issue, where it has taken a lead. Automatic offers of a callback to mobile callers on 0845 numbers was in the course of being introduced, whilst someone selected a 0845 number for the new centralised service. This suggests all the hallmarks of a "fowl"-up.

The Call Cost information on the main DWP website is still inaccurate, but it avoids the "local rate" nonsense, which remains all too common. Could there be a similar explanation for this possibly similar occurance?

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

Welcome Fred.

The general spirit of the petition is to be welcomed, however it fails in two key respects:

1) The present Prime Minister has no plans to introduce the primary legislation that would be required to grant Ofcom the power to direct users of telephones to adopt any particular type of number. If the purpose is as stated, it is odd to demand such a roundabout route - the government going to parliament to change the law to enable Ofcom to tell the government what to do!

2) Many public services are provided nationally, from one or more particular geographic locations that change from time to time. The 03 number range is therefore ideally suited to this purpose.

The minor failings include the failure to recognise that many public services are provided by agencies, not directly by government offices, and use of the obsolete term "STD" and the meaningless term "local call".

For those who value e-petitions, it could nonetheless be worthy of support.

I personally see most purpose in supporting and encouraging the good work already going on in some central government departments and agencies. This needs to be spread around more and provided with more focused assistance from Ofcom. Much more also needs to be done with the other layers of "government" - local, regional and national.