Mike Crockart MP: we need a one-stop shop for nuisance calls

The problem with opt-in is that it would kill the direct marketing industry stone dead. What I want is a register that actually means something so an opt-out is acted upon effectively and adhered to and anyone breaching that is then open to penalties.

Mike

I am absolutely sick of unsolicited calls and if you take the time to read the all the relevant correspondence on Which? Conversation you will see that I am not the only one. I have never bought a single product or service as a result of an unsolicited call. Furthermore, I make a point of not using companies that annoy me in this or other ways.

There may be people who are very grateful for information about selected products or services and might want to opt-in to receiving marketing calls. At the present time, I am not one of them.

Mike

I have to say that I personally find your elitist approach on this point to be wholly unacceptable.

You are defending the failure to enforce the existing “opt-in” provisions, which exist in the laws that you choose not to mention, on the basis that enforcement of the law would have an unwelcome effect. You are obviously obsessed with the idea that citizens must exercise consumer choice in order to enjoy the protection of those who enforce the law, and we note that this fits in well with the Which? mission.

It would be good to know if you are arguing that the existing “opt in” or universal protections be removed, or simply that an effective superior level of protection be offered to a select group of citizens. In the former case, it would be probably be necessary to renegotiate the terms of our EU membership to enable us to opt out from the provisions of existing consumer protection directives.

Those who note the effect that the present level of TPS registration has had on the telemarketing industry may disagree with your suggestion that an “opt out” approach ensures its good health. Ask those businesses who were the victims of BT’s business protection scheme known as “BT Privacy at Home” if their attempts to compete with BT, as originally encouraged by Oftel, were not severely damaged. Their retaliation, by abusing the principles of the TPS and thereby further undermining it, provides a fair indication that they were hurt.

Obviously, one must never disregard the effect that nuisance calls has on individual victims, but it is the practices of the direct marketing industry, and others, which have to be addressed. I cannot agree that the law, in definition or in implementation, should be applied selectively, according to the identity of the victim.

Joe

You are undoubtedly correct to assume that the proposal to replace the existing “opt-in” requirement for direct marketing emails with assumed consent and an “opt-out” is likely to lead to more being sent.

It would indeed be less obtrusuive on businessses selling valuable products and services to older and vulnerable people, as they would not have to canvass for enquiries by other means. Blocking the addresses of those in this group would indeed also be easier than for other groups, because they would be less likely to take the trouble and incur the expense of registering.

prescriptive it may be, but do we not already have a similar mechanism for dealing with SPAM texts by forwarding them to {3|8}7726 .

And I wasn’t expecting government to do what I wrote but at the very least discuss it and hopefully ways forward.

And these regulatory bodies don’t seem to be catering for there target audience very well, e,g, someone with a phone. As I would be prepared to bet any wager you like that everyone who gets a nuisance call has a phone and not all of them have computers, even if some calls are about there none existent computer.

Sent before I’d added something!
These calls – like emails – can be very persuasive for vulnerable people – whether elderly or not confident nor experienced at dealing with sales people. I have seen the direct results of this with acquaintances who were taken in, or nearly so. Direct mail and emails are bad enough but at least give you (or carers/relatives) thinking time – phone calls do not and can result in a spur of the moment decision. They need to be controlled.

Benny

As one of the select group of individuals “wishing to protect their privacy”, it seems that you would be an ideal subscriber for the proposed shop. You seem happy with the proposal that this service must be privatised.

If, as suggested, you were offered a guarantee that these organisations would stop calling you, how much would you be prepared to pay? (I assume that the terms of the guarantee would include a complete refund of your subscription.)

It wouldn’t work for me. I have elderly relatives living abroad and I also need to be able to accept business calls from India. That’s why I suggested the PIN.

I’m ex-directory too, but that doesn’t work. Someone is misusing my personal information, but once the cat is out of the bag, there is little I can do except change phone number. I think adding a few digits to the end (the PIN) would be a lot easier to implement than completely changing phone number.

Em

When you refer to your personal information being misused, I assume you mean your telephone number associated with your name, as provided in good faith. I also assume that you have no way of knowing who is responsible for this illegal activity.

Under your proposed scheme, one assumes that you would have added your PIN in such a situation, when you knew that you were providing personal information.

If you were to change your PIN and re-issue your number to all your approved callers, without knowing which may have misused the information, surely you are back where you started.

Have you considered existing call blocking options?

nhspatient

Yes, I do mean that, but especially those relying on out of date personal information, which is a breach of DPA 1998, as there is no reason for the information to be retained on their systems.

So no, I wouldn’t automatically re-issue my PIN to every potential caller, only on request.

@nhspatient – I agree the statutory provisions are generally adequate, although I do not wish the phone service that I pay for to be used for “market research”, nor do I see why I have to take any action to “opt-out” of other types of call.

As you can appreciate, one set of regulations does fit the requirements and wishes of the entire UK population, particularly where it is based on the concept of nuisance. As far as I am concerned, NO ONE has the right to call my telephone number without my express permission.

Unfortunately, I don’t share your faith in HM Government and their agencies being able to control all dodgy businesses, foreign governments or criminals. There is a law against burglary and the police service, but I have a good lock on my front door.

Finally, I would not expect to pay for a PIN on my phone number. This should be a service that all telecoms providers are required to supply for the well-being and safety of their customers.

NHSpatient

I do not want to receive any calls from any commercial organisation with which I have no current connection, whether this is marketing or market research. Every time the phone rings, it commands my attention. I don’t want to ignore the phone because the call may be important.

I also don’t see why we should be expected to spend money on devices. I have never purchased anything as a result of an unsolicited call, and I have no plan to do so.

Rightly or wrongly, I regard these calls as an infringement of my rights. If you think that statutory provisions are adequate you may be in the minority. I have enjoyed reading your contributions on other topics.

Of course, I meant to say: “… one set of regulations does NOT fit the requirements … “!

Which? – please feel free to correct my post.

Perhaps I can respond to both em and wavechange together

With telephone companies and ancillary equipment providers being in the private sector someone, other than the taxpayer, has to pay for the services they provide. Perhaps you are saying that all customers of a provider should meet the cost of whatever call filtering facilities any individual customer feels they need to suit their particular personal requirements.

I may differ from you in seeing the telephone network as a public asset which we access on the basis of clear rules. I do not believe that we have a “right” to use it in whatever way we wish. Where we see that the rules are being breached, our first step must be to demand proper and effective enforcement.

The issue with nuisance calls is that the ICO has only in the last few months started to take its work seriously – and it has a very long way to go. Ofcom has never got to grips with its responsibilities and looks to be ready to further embed this failure, rather than address it. There are other agencies (e.g. MoJ) that could do much more.

You suggest that there is an issue with genuine market and opinion research. My belief is that most unwanted unsolicited calls are caused by activity which falls within the definition of “direct marketing”. Any other habitual activity which causes unnecessary inconvenience annoyance or anxiety could, and should, be classified by Ofcom as persistent misuse.

I do not share the view that the police should only try to protect those who place a strong lock on their door from burglary – the Mike Crockart approach. Nor do I believe that the existence of the Police (or strong door locks) can ensure that there is no burglary.

Understanding of the existing statutory provisions is not helped by the fact that they are commonly misrepresented. It is most unfortunate that the “summary of the law” at the head of this conversation is seriously flawed. It renders any commentary on this aspect of the topic meaningless.

Mike Crockart proposes that the existing “opt-in” provisions (for recorded messages, faxes, emails and text messages), and an imagined consent provision (for Silent Calls), be replaced, or superseded, by some people being able to “opt-out” through a new “one-stop shop”. I cannot see how your comments provide an endorsement for this view, over my call for the existing powers to be used properly with the engagement of a separate agency to handle the citizen’s interest side of things.

I do understand the importance which some place on consumer choice over the enforcement of regulations in the public interest – Which? is fundamentally opposed to any public body having more power than an individual consumer. Putting that radical position aside for a moment, I cannot see which nuisance calls are not covered by current provisions, that could be enforced more effectively.

NHSpatient

Em wrote: As far as I am concerned, NO ONE has the right to call my telephone number without my express permission. My number is in the phone book and I am happy to receive bona fide calls from members of the public, companies that I buy services from, organisations that I am a member of, and anyone connected with my former employer. It’s scam and market research calls that must stop and any company that calls numbers registered with TPS should be warned and heavily fined if the problem persists.

The TPS works well for me and on the odd occasion that I do get a marketing call from a UK company they have to listen to my lecture and rarely have I had a repeat call.

I can cope with junk mail and rising postage costs are helping deal with the problem. Junk email is not a big problem, though it was when I was getting over 100 unwanted messages a day.

If I have to contribute to the cost of filtering out nuisance calls then so be it.

Yes, I did write that, on the basis that I am now ex-directory as a result of 192.com and their kind. BT is no longer a public service, but a private company and have no more right than any other organisation to resell my personal identifiers. So now, the only legal way a business has of obtaining my phone number is if I have volunteered it.

OK chaps

It has been well said that everyone has particular personal issues and situations that inform their view. There is nothing wrong in bringing them into the discussion, but I am only really concerned with ways forward to serve the general public interest, covering all possible cases.

The fact that a number appears in a telephone directory (rightly or wrongly) is no justification for the subscriber being subjected to nuisance calls. It has no bearing whatsoever on the relevant statutory provisions.

The issue only gets tricky when we introduce the question of “wanted” and “unwanted calls”. I commonly say that the most unwanted call for me is a call from a dear friend in the middle of a favourite TV programme (in fact there are similarly innocent, but worse, cases).

NHSpatient

I have opted-in to receive information from various companies and organisations, related to my interests. This has worked very well for years. If I decide that I no longer want information I let the relevant organisation know and that is usually successful at the first attempt. I know others who do the same and generally have a very good experience.

If time permits, I am happy to respond to requests for information from organisations and companies that I am involved with or have an interest in. I suppose some of it is market research, but that’s fine because I wish to participate. I take part in discussions on Which? Conversation because I can learn a lot and occasionally help people. I have had long discussions with ONS because I see that as a public duty and it is interesting to speculate on how the information might be used.

My comments may be unrepresentative, but I hope that Mike will see them and that others will be encouraged to participate in the discussion, whether they agree or think I’m talking nonsense. I was not aware that you had been appointed ‘to serve the general public interest’ and I apologise if I have missed something. 🙂

To briefly summarise my views:
– we need to stop scam calls
– we need to allow people to opt into receiving both marketing calls and market research calls
– we need to punish offenders

I really wonder how many more years we will have to put up with the problem of nuisance calls.

wavechange

We are actually very close in our views. I will not highlight some minor differences.

I have certainly not been appointed to any position, however I am concerned as a citizen not representing any particular personal or other interest.

I am deeply concerned when I see a reference to “any individual wishing to protect their privacy” as if it could be assumed that those who fail to take the action suggested do not need their privacy to be protected in exactly the same way.

I am also suspicious of those who pretend authority and knowledge and then misrepresent the truth to suit their agenda. All of this is in the context of a most fundamental difference of view with Which? over the power held by public bodies.

Ten years ago, I had hopes that something could be done to seriously address the problem of nuisance telephone calls. Many things have changed over that period, including modest changes to the nature of the problem, but not as a result of proper efforts to address it. There will inevitably be many other changes over the next ten years, I hope this will include serious efforts to address the practice of nuisance.

Thanks. I very much hope that Which? pursue this issue. The only problem that currently I feel more strongly about is the Sale of Goods Act, which does not deliver adequate consumer protection.

Please understand that I am not opposed to measures that people may choose to use to filter their calls. Additional assistance can be provided by the telephone companies, however we may be asking too much if we expect them to able to clearly identify “Nuisance Calls” before we answer them.

Individual action is perfectly proper, however I am focussed on the action that needs to be taken by public bodies to protect us all from an illegal public nuisance. It is fair enough for telephone companies and others to develop and sell call screening products and services, but this should not be aided by weak action by regulators, nor used as a reason for such weakness.

The presentation CLI provided is but one of many ways of identifying the caller when the law is being broken. The call is often made by a company which is only an agent of the company in breach of UK law, so its origin and means of delivery is of no ultimate significance. There is also some significant international co-operation on these matters and plenty of opportunity for this to be increased.

To address the problem as a whole, we must also remember that many nuisance calls are made by companies that also make valid calls, and by those who provide proper CLI. I am pleased to hear that there are some who are spared this, however many are not.

The problem now Valerie is that a phone call and a conversation over it indicating acceptance of a contract is legally binding although you can appeal to the company because of your uncle,s loss of memory . You could of coarse contest it precisely on those grounds that your uncles mental health was diminished by contacting a lawyer or you could become a “guardian ” for your uncle by contacting his doctor /health visitor etc but this would imply legal control of his affairs and will depend on how bad his state of mind is. This phone/contract business has caught a lot of people and I dont know why it is allowed except to save money and use the powers of pursuance -ie- sales talk – to rip off people. You cant beat the old paperwork through the door and please read the terms+conditions BEFORE you sign . There are plenty of organisations you could appeal to but at the end of the day ,will they achieve results? It is only fraud if it can be proved that the company knew your uncles state of mind but still carried on with it.