I am surprised to see you SCV describing this as a fight because I thought this is a Forum where civilised discussion and debate can take place, hopefully between friends, and that we can all remain friends both during and at the conclusion of any discussion.   There is nothing wrong with any of us expressing our views and no-one should be attacked for endeavouring to put forward and develop them.

Unfortunately you persist in misrepresenting what I have said and inventing things I haven't said and to create arguments where none exists.   I had hoped for reasonable, fair, factually based and civilised discussion but you continue to disappoint.   Why do you treat a friend and supporter in such a way?   Goodness only knows what others think of you.

Why have you misquoted me in your second sentence?    You omitted the first and crucial word which set the tone for what was clearly a tentative suggestion.   It is unfair of you to misrepresent me by omitting the word “Perhaps ..” which clearly indicated that I was suggesting that this was a matter which might be worth considering or discussing.    I did not make nor imply any complaint against the NAO; I made it plain it was about HMRC and the possibility of NAO or Select Committee applying pressure.

It is true that the date of the Parliamentary Select Committee quoted was omitted and gave the distinct impression that the Committee had recently asked HMRC whereas you showed that it must have been 3 years previous.   I clarified that the two cost figures were related and, given the stated scope of each, one would expect the HMRC figure to be greater than the NAO figure.   Surely that raises quite legitimate and valid questions and that is why I believe it is valid to ask for explanation of the basis and calculations of each. 

I see “us” as embracing all of the contributors to this Forum who are concerned by or wish to avoid being compelled to dial rip-off numbers, many of whom have been campaigning for some years  and may well continue to do so and also including the members of Fair Telecoms, which has only been formed in the past few months, who contribute to this Forum.   

The fair comment about negligence was made in this Forum in a non-formal way and did not refer to any individual so why have you made things up again and tried to attribute them to me?.   

I find your attitude to “digging up history” surprising as my understanding is that an Audit is by its nature looking at history.   It is usually an evaluation of an organisation, system, process, product or project and must look at what has happened in the past.   This thread is devoted to comment on a recent Audit by the NAO and so comment on what has occurred is entirely to be expected.   Organisations can learn how to improve and correct things by looking at what has happened and thereby decide on appropriate actions for the future, that is the purpose of audits.   Audits usually contain recommendations for future action and this one is no different.

You say there are no grounds for complaint against the NAO but I have not suggested making such complaint.   I have pointed out a failure by NAO to make a justified criticism of HMRC and suggested taking that up in an appropriate way and I have pointed out a major discrepancy between calculated costs published by NAO and HMRC and suggested that we seek clarification.   Your approach, SCV, should be more balanced and truthful.   I trust that we can remain good friends and fellow campaigners after all this.

I am disinclined to continue this discussion because of your utterly unreasonable attitude and so ask you to desist at this point.    However, you raise another point which I feel should be debated in another thread which I expect to open shortly.

loddon wrote on Dec 24^th, 2012 at 5:25pm:

I am not sure of the full detail of the HMRC policy on email, but it could be taking a better balanced approach to the use of online vs. telephone access than others.


As I understand it, HMRC encourages use of information published online as a way of finding answers to questions which are very commonly the sole purpose of a telephone call. Similarly, information that is commonly offered by telephone can be entered online. For those with internet access and the competence necessary to find information about often complex issues, it is right to encourage this means of contact.

General use of email (outside the secure government network) presents problems with authenticity when important and personal information is being covered. For simple questions and answers it loses out badly over a telephone conversation, because the provider of the information is unable to determine immediately if their point has been understood and cannot directly address a related further question.


I hope that Which? has served its subscribers with an adequate explanation of this point and am disappointed to hear that it has once again fallen short by failing to pick up on the 0845 issue.

I am not however surprised, as it conducted a major campaign and conversation on the topic of use of 084 and 087 numbers for complaints and enquiries whilst the BIS consultation into the implementation of the CRD was running. Despite this consultation receiving some publicity (including on You and Yours) Which? made no reference to the CRD in connection with this campaign. Which? did however crow over another CRD provision, which it took credit for having secured, although it appears to failed to secure UK implementation of this provision by the end of 2012.


I have often expressed my concern about an organisation, which rightly exists to serve its customers, getting involved in public issues and pretending to serve a wider interest group. Its avowed (anarchistic or excessively libertarian) principle that every individual should be as powerful as the organisations with which he or she engages may be simply misguided when it comes to machine machine manufacturers and retailers. When it places state institutions and public bodies within its focus, this principle, along with its name, place Which? in a very odd position.

I am very happy to campaign alongside others when we share only a few objectives, and am delighted when Which? can utilise the power of its membership to achieve worthwhile results. By its nature, it does however seem to have a problem in dealing with any issue that cannot be expressed in simplistic populist terms. That is fine in itself, however it does mean that there may be some issues on which the involvement of Which? could do more harm than good.

Put simply, perhaps it would be best if Which? stuck to comparing competing products and services and kept out of public services and politics.

HMRC's Chief Executive went before the Public Accounts Committee today and she said that the department will be switching to 03 numbers later this year. You can watch the video on Parliament TV.

It was also discussed the length of waiting times.

Dave wrote on Jan 28^th, 2013 at 6:57pm:



The Daily Telegraph today, in its report on the Select Committee hearing, seems horrified that HMRC helplines make six-figure profits for Cable and Wireless.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/9832821/HMRC...

It goes on to quote the NAO :---
“National Audit Office found last year that taxpayers spent £33 million calling premium-rate tax helplines during 2011/12”


“Lin Homer, head of HMRC, said Cable and Wireless make “less than £1 million” in profit on the premium-rate numbers ...”

“They make a small amount of profit,” she said. “It is considerably less than a million,”
“Despite repeated questions from MPs on the committee, Mrs Homer refused to give more details of the profits on the contract.”

So C&W make less than one million from a total call revenue of £33million --- pull the other one.  OK the revenue is shared with the originating call providers but this claimed small level of profit is just not credible.   It would be interesting to know the true costs and profits figures.

Looking at the way Homer and Owen conducted themselves at the Select Committee would cause many a typical business man to weep into his beer at the display of incompetence and lack of knowledge.   We can hardly expect that their “negotiations” over the contract for the new 03 based service will be any more competent or beneficial for the taxpayer.