MSE News: Universal credit helpline charges to be scrapped

TheMsTeal

Not everyone has free minutes though, that is the point...

TheMsTeal

It is now Mid November and still no freephone - they are dragging their feet to get a few more quid. It could be done overnight if they pulled their finger out.

zagfles

TheMsTeal wrote: »

It is now Mid November and still no freephone - they are dragging their feet to get a few more quid. It could be done overnight if they pulled their finger out.

Err.. they don't get any money from 03 numbers. They are ordinary numbers, not premium rate as some clueless journalists have described them.

TheMsTeal

Err when it goes freephone there will clearly be a cost to the DWP and therefore the longer they drag it out the better for them. Alright?!

zagfles

TheMsTeal wrote: »

Err when it goes freephone there will clearly be a cost to the DWP and therefore the longer they drag it out the better for them. Alright?!

You said "get a few more quid" not "save", implying they were making money from the number. Like the clueless journalists who referred to it as "premium rate".

When tax credits first came out they used an 0845 number, which is premium rate (charged more than normal numbers for most people), and it remained an 0845 number for the entire period of the last Labour govt. Where was the outcry?

Most councils' housing/council tax benefit helplines use normal geographic numbers, charged exactly the same as the UC 03 number, where is the outcry?

It's good that DWP are moving (slowly) towards using freephone numbers, but this whole story, as usual, has been framed by incompetant or biased journalists and social media into the usual villification of the Tories. When if anything they've made the situation better not worse, eg by moving from 084 to 03 numbers which are much cheaper for most people.

TheMsTeal

Well! Thanks for aligning me with the "clueless journalists". I was not making an anti-Tory point and I note that a number of Tory MPs have also spoken out against UC and the helpline so your accusation that it is all anti-Tory could be described as slightly "clueless" itself.
Furthermore if the staff and/or the system didn't make so many co*k-ups there would be no need to call any helplines, premium or free.

zagfles

TheMsTeal wrote: »

Well! Thanks for aligning me with the "clueless journalists". I was not making an anti-Tory point and I note that a number of Tory MPs have also spoken out against UC and the helpline so your accusation that it is all anti-Tory could be described as slightly "clueless" itself.

Yes, plenty of people have. The issues in UC and of whether the helpline should be free is one thing, falsely claiming the helpline is currently premium rate is another.

Furthermore if the staff and/or the system didn't make so many co*k-ups there would be no need to call any helplines, premium or free.

It's a new system. Tax credits staff are still making cockups and telling people rubbish after 14 years.

TheMsTeal

None of the articles I read mentioned "premium rate" but figures of up to 55p a minute, at least some callers to UC must be paying 55p because "premium rates" can go up to £3 a minute, so why would they (MPs & journos) have plucked the 55p figure out of the air...?

zagfles

TheMsTeal wrote: »

None of the articles I read mentioned "premium rate"

I posted a link to a BBC article earlier in this thread that claims it's "premium rate".

but figures of up to 55p a minute, at least some callers to UC must be paying 55p because "premium rates" can go up to £3 a minute, so why would they (MPs & journos) have plucked the 55p figure out of the air...?

Because 55p per min is the worst case scenario for calling an ordinary number - think it only applies to Vodafone contract customers who have inclusive mins but used them all.

The reality is that hardly anyone would have paid 55p per min, the vast majority far less or nothing. It's propaganda designed to con the gullible.

TheMsTeal

You admit that 55p is paid by some, too much even if it is just a minority paying. Therefore it is not "propaganda" or people are not "gullible" as it is indeed TRUE that some are paying 55p. You cannot be "gullible" if the fact is true not concocted. Furthermore as I mentioned, not ALL articles mention "premium rate", just the one that you provide a link for.

You have clearly set yourself up as a spokesperson for government phonelines; you should ask for a salary from them!