Baroness Neville-Rolfe: why we’re blocking withheld numbers

Seeing a number that you do not recognise is no more useful than seeing no number at all. The only time that seeing a number proves useful is when it is one that you already recognise.

The new rules will do nothing to cut cold calls. To be clear, the new rules require those who are breaking the law by making nuisance calls to reveal their number in order to make it easier to apprehend them.

Total nonsense.

Many Cold Callers are now using ‘Virtual Telephone Numbers’, (such as provided by ‘VirtelUK’) these get around the law and call blocking equipment by providing a false number, often a ‘one-off’ which will appear as ‘Unobtainable’ if re-dialled . This renders the recent law completely ineffective. A far more intelligent approach is needed.

SC my callblocker blocks “unavailable ” numbers , “0” numbers -withheld numbers -international/out of area -VOIP/IP rogue callers -spam faxes-skype-PPI calls-number blasts -area codes-silent calls etc. I do agree its time the government puts an end to this but money counts first.

Most already do – TalkTalk & BT for example. You will have to ask for it as an ‘extra’, but the cost should be zero. Don’t forget though, you need a phone that can display a caller’s number – the cheapest don’t have that facility.

The cost is only zero with BT if you pay for line rental a year in advantage.

If it is a number you do not recognise, seeing it gives you no more information than no number at all. This is looking at the wrong end of the problem.

If the caller insists you look at the number as proof the call is from e.g. your bank, then the CLI is probably fake and the person on the line is likely a scammer.

Tell me again how seeing a string of digits tells you anything at all?

Sheena,
Have you tried using Skype that is completely free using the internet? Both ends just need a computer or tablet with microphone and speakers/headphones. Laptops and tablets tend to have them built in these days.

You have no way of knowing whether a caller saying they are a charity is legitimate so treat them the same as any cold caller.

Every time Alfa (or anyone else) suggests that cold calling should be made illegal there is a lot of support, yet it is still LEGAL for companies to make calls unless we opt out. Like Alfa, I want a ban on all unsolicited calls from companies but a first step would be make calling opt-in. Why is our lives ruled by companies?

I am not sure that your phone provider can identify the difference between a commercial or residential caller. If you block calls were the CLI (Telephone number) is withheld or even the TPS service, then you can sometimes prevent family who are ex-directory from calling you. OR business that you do business with from calling you.
Most of the nuisance calls we get are from overseas were the regulation makes no difference at all.
If you have relatives abroad and want to 1. reduce costs 2. stop answering annoying marketing calls, then use either Google Hangouts or Skype. The applications are available on mobile devices, ipads, tablets, PC’s and laptops. For them to be cost effective both users need to be on WiFi.
IF BT/Openreach/Network Operators/Government wanted to block these nuisance calls they could easily do this through the network. Every call, no matter whether its ex-directory or not must present a telephone number to the Exchange – for billing purposes. Simply let customers add black/white list numbers tagged to the exchange. Also let them tag “International” numbers so that they can be tracked and shut down. Virtually all Exchanges are now digital and part of the 21C network and are software controlled, therefore the changes required to make this happen would be tiny. But here is the thing. The network operators make millions per year from call centres. The government makes millions in tax receipts from Call Centres and Network operators – who really has the stomach to shut/slow down this operation?

A lot of the nonsense revolves around the fact that companies can claim that you somehow consented to receiving unsolicited calls from people you have never heard of.

Claims management companies are not permitted to pound the streets and bang on doors to drum up business due to the large amount of nuisance that would cause.

The regulator has not banned those companies from calling all of those people in the hope they find a few ‘customers’. That simple move would be the end of this issue.

I agree with your comment about the need to compel companies to display a valid number and to be able to bar calls from specific countries. However your idea to bar numbers one digit short would cause great problems. I have a valid phone number with 10 digits – 5 for the area code and 5 for my specific number. I have had it for over 37 years and there are many others in my area.

Its already an offence to broadcast a number that is not your own. However, it can be a grey area when it comes to displaying the owners number as some cloud/internet/hosted type services do this just as limitations on the software.

Your GP withheld the number as they are not always dealing with clear cut ownership of event. Sometime the patient does not want it broadcast across the mobile or home phone that the GP is calling.
The best thing to do with international calls you are not expecting is to let them ring off. After about 6 weeks, it takes some will power, they will stop.

As all patient records are computerised, it wouldn’t take much to add a note as to how a patient can be contacted.

Some patients might have sensitivity or privacy issues, but there is no reason why these cannot be catered for.

David,
I am glad that after 6 weeks your international calls have ceased sadly mine have been going on for years.

GP Surgeries must maintain patient confidentiality so the display has to show as ‘Withheld ‘ / ‘Unknown’ to avoid other family members asking questions which one might not wish to answer!

That obviously isnt the case universally Cazzkins as my GP surgery displays the surgery telephone number .

So does mine.

Sylvia- It does sound scandalous that if you were making few calls that such a bill racked up and , though I am not clear to the details, I wonder if you have been subject to some scam. I only use PAYG for my two mobile numbers and my smartphone and barely use them at all anyway. Under £30 per ear for sure.

All my phones are owned outright to avoid contact with my mobile providers.

Syliva, please get in contact with Offcom. They can and will help you. The inbound SMS could be as a result of you sending a voting or competition text to a magazine, TV or radio show. Virgin should also be helping you if you feel that these premium rate numbers are exploiting you. Stand by your guns and do not pay. The Premium rate SMS market is regulated and Virgin can reclaim through the compensation panel.

If the companies are based in the UK, they don’t deserve to have a telephone service. For a start they should have their UK phone service withdrawn and if they continue to use an overseas agency to make nuisance calls, prompt legal action should be taken.

A couple of months ago a UK-based firm made 46 million automated nuisance calls and was fined a few hundred thousand pounds. The company went into liquidation with little assets, so it seems unlikely any of the fine will be paid. Action needs to be taken promptly. A handful of calls should be enough.

I proposed some while ago that UK offenders should have their telephone service terminated. It was suggested this would be illegal but I do not see that. If you don’t pay your bill you can be cut off, so why not if you use the service for illegal purposes?

The problem with overseas cold calls is identifying the operator in the first place, and what law can be used to stop them if they don’t have a suitable national law? A means of blocking access to the UK seems one way.

Thank you for supporting a suggestion that I have made numerous times. 🙂 I doubt I was the first.

It is a good suggestion wavechange, but I imagine offenders would have numerous lines to rotate calling from to give the impression of only calling you occasionally.

If it is the same company or the same automated message, that would give their game away. I have no idea how much BT and other companies involved in providing phone services are doing to cooperate with ICO to identify the culprits. That seems to be a higher priority than making a profit from selling call blockers. 🙁

It matters not who was the “first”. We talk about this, moan about it, but why has Which? not done a decent investigation that explores whether technically there are ways of blocking unwanted calls from all sources? If there is currently no way to stop, say, overseas cold calls, then we are wasting time complaining.

So, are there technical ways we can deal with this or not? Does anyone know? Has Which? tried diligently to find out? If there are, we can then look at the ways they can be implemented. But fining companies is not an answer, clearly.

Then maybe we and others should be working together as a team and providing mutual encouragement, exploring new ways of finding information and encouraging more people to get involved with Which? Conversation.

Until a year ago I looked down on social networking but thought it could help one of the charities I work for. It has helped pull in more volunteers, unearthed interesting historic photos that we did not know existed and I now have a photographer who is happy to supply professional quality for the magazine I produce. What I have discovered is that it’s not just young people that use Facebook and while many pages are devoted to trivia, it has its serious side.

Tackling nuisance calls and many of the issues we debate involves commercial secrecy, not least from Which? Perhaps it would be in the public interest for Which? and all other organisations with charitable status to be subject the the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, along with every commercial organisation.

Perhaps we could work together to get British Standards available to everyone.

You raise several points.

Regarding unwanted calls I have firstly asked if there is a sound technical solution available. It seems the starting point to me.

The Freedom of Information act – well we’ve discussed this elsewhere but I don’t see that should inhibit Which? and others from collating information – on product defects for example – and making proper use of it.

British Standards, like EN (Euronorm) are not freely available and unless an organisation makes them so – as the library service used to much more widely – then I see no progress unless and until they are funded by the public. Someone has to pay for the organisations that develop standards. BSI is independent of government. I would love to be able to get access to them for free.

However Which? tell me they have access to copies of all the BSEN standards that are applicable to the products they investigate. So, as an interim measure, will they undertake to answer any questions on standards, and provide relevant information, for Convo contributors or, at the very least, to their members (who presumably fund the purchase of standards through subscriptions)?

The costs of creation and management of British Standards is already covered. The additional cost of managing public access should be small and could be funded by the government. I have explained that articles in many scientific and other journals are publicly available, so we all benefit from free access. Unfortunately, some of the best tools for searching all the worthwhile journals are not open access, but I’m sure this will come.

How is it covered? It is a continuous process of developing new standards, amending existing ones, updating standards (every 5 years requires a review of every standard I believe). And it is not just British Standards; the vast majority of our BS standards are derived form Euronorms – which is why they are BSENxxxxx- and International standards (ISO) and so on, that all require to be funded.

As I said, I am proposing that British Standards continue to be funded as before, but the small cost of making them available online to the general public could be borne by government. When I was doing research, information retrieval was an important part of my job and sometimes an uphill struggle thanks to reluctance of commercial publishers to change. Academics pulled together and considerable progress has been achieved. I suppose we could have accepted the status quo and done nothing.

I don’t disagree with the concept, but making them available online would make them available to everyone. All EU states for example. So as I see it the decision to do this would require all EU states to agree to publicly fund standards.

In general, standards are produced primarily for the use of producers rather than consumers, to regulate the safety of their products for example so we, the consumers, are protected. We are hoping that a very few interested, usually practical but inexpert, consumers could monitor standards when issues arise such as tumble driers, washing machine doors and so on. I am not sure this would be sufficient to warrant the cost of production and access being borne by the taxpayer rather than industry (one of the major funders through subscription). This is why I suggest as a solution more likely in at least the interim is for Which? to use its access to provide information when requested. If Which? became a subscribing member it might be able to arrange online access with BSI for nominated members? I’m all for a practical solution in the absence of the ideal one.

As I have said, the funding of standards could continue as at present, so that the only cost to the taxpayer would be the minor cost of managing public access. Industry already provides the public with online instruction manuals, MSDS, and so on and it is right that they should fund the production and revision of standards that relate to their products.

Restriction of access to information that is useful to the public is one of my concerns. For years I used online access to the British National Formulary. That was withdrawn, I suspect for commercial reasons. It’s not a problem for me because I have a recent paper copy but I would like public access restored for the benefit of others.

Apologies for these posts, which should have been in the Convo about tumble dryers, where we were discussing British Standards. It’s easy to get carried away with off-topic discussions. 🙁

I’ve got a BT8500, not spoken to a cold caller for months now. Still get several calls a week, sometimes 2-3 a day but as they refuse to say their name and press hash the phone never rings. Tis a pity that companies like BT are seen to be profiting from these pests rather than doing something more constructive.

Access to standards: this seems to miss the point. If access to standards were free, then no one – industry, academia, public or private users, would have any need to subscribe or purchase. So the income that currently funds their preparation and supports all the national institutions that work on them – like BSI – would dry up. Currently, those who make use of standards in their business and daily lives, for the benefit of their business or organisation, and who are the vast majority, pay for that benefit. I suspect some might complain if the taxpayer had to fund something primarily benefiting profit-making institutions (among others).

Once again I will say that I am not proposing that the taxpayer should pay for the costs of producing and managing standards. If I post a link to an article in a scientific journal I try to pick one that will cost nothing to access, even when an annual subscription to the journal previously cost hundreds or thousands of pounds. It’s called open source publication and the costs of peer review and other publisher’s charges are generally met by the authors. When you apply for a grant to do research it is important to factor in publication costs and the research councils etc. recognise this.

I don’t know how this would work in the case of British Standards but I presume that it would be a case of levying charges on companies based on sales. Managed properly, it might be used as a means of stamping out substandard goods. In a Conversation about the NHS you wrote that we should look at ways of making progress rather than finding excuses for not trying. I strongly support this and it is how I feel about getting information that concerns the public available to all.

I wonder just how many members of the public would use BSEN standards unless they had a professional need?
Standards are used by all kinds of users, not just industry. Levying a charge on all users related to turnover (how to deal then with NHS, Universities for example) seems unfair as it bears no relation to how many standards they might need access to.

At present you can subscribe to standards online by selecting those group(s) that are relevant, including a huge range of international standards. I’d like to see a modest subscription offered to private users who simply want occasional access – such as we are asking here. Or maybe Which? could arrange access on line – they should access standards regularly themselves with the amount of testing they commission – and arrange for interested members to have access.

As I do not see access to all standards becoming free to all, I’d suggest other avenues are explored that might bear fruit. Any ideas, Which?

Malcolm – Let’s move our discussion to the Convo about tumble dryers, where it is relevant.

You raised this above after suggesting certain contributors work together as a team. I am all for a cooperative team approach to topics. Perhaps the new Which Convo might be more appropriate, although I would like Which? to respond if they can help with standards. I don’t think I can add more.

Back to this topic. My concern before this crept in was to ask if there was a technical way to identify and block unwanted cold calls, particularly from overseas. If there were then we have the principle of an effective way forward. Perhaps Which? could investigate this, or there may be a telecoms expert (duncan?) who may be able to help us. If there is no way to block them technically, then we must see if penalties can possibly work but so far I am dubious that this will be an effective solution.

malcolm – you are absolutely right ALL international calls can be blocked via the exchange and you could be provided with a code that switches it on/off . This is in action in Australia as we speak . Do telephone companies want to do it ?? –nope ! – lost revenue , does the government want to do it-nope ! international trade agreements with countries like India . Yes I know but my long lost relative in southern Borneo cant call me , in that case give her your mobile number in any case you can say I will deactivate it at such and such a time . Its not impossible just because of international politics and international BB.

The wishes of government and business take priority over those of the citizens. This seems to be the underlying problem in some of the other issues we debate.

Thanks James. I had a call – withheld – with an Indian gentleman wanting to ask some questions. I asked who it was for. Life UK. Not heard of them. So how can rules deal with this? You can outsource “market surveys” for a “fictitious” UK company and I cannot see how anyone can be penalised.

I was really asking whether reporting the time of a withheld unwanted cold call would enable the telecom provider to identify the source and, given enough reports, block the number.

I ask them to prove how they are 1st, if its your bank, they should be more than happy to do that as it shows you’re on the ball.

If asked to confirm my details I just say OK and wait. When they eventually speak I tell them to tell me what they know about me and I will confirm it to them. Normally this is end of the conversation.

An experiment on Myth Busters, or some such TV show, showed that a chocolate teapot was quite capable of holding hot liquids for some considerable time. This is due to chocolate being a poor conductor of heat.

I fear your comment has unnecessarily denigrated the usefulness of chocolate teapots.

None of the regulation introduced in the last decade or more has had any effect. Continuing to tinker with minor details in a completely failed strategy is dooming to continued failure.

Quite correct Ian but the question should be asked WHO is helping to support the continuing strategy =BB with government help (of any political pursuance ) over decades .

Helena -while BT isnt going to be too helpful in this issue and not provide a complete answer there is somewhere you can try its called –spamcop.net/ register with them and report all your spam to them . This is a long time kosher company and is no “fly by night “organisation but a world well respected website that is used by many organisations . Do not “muck them about ” or you will be banned for GOOD !

Thankyou for your reply. I couldn’t get that address but was supplied with several others. My worry is that I don’t know how secure they all are or if they might turn out to be fraudulent. There is a free Microsoft site but I’m not sure of all the Ts & Cs. I would like to send them all these emails that I get so they’d know what to block. Strictly speaking, they are not (to my knowledge) Scams but Junk

Helena the reason I mentioned Spamcop is not for advertising but because it is a world recognised high quality World service for many big companies and the public . It has a very good reputation built up over the years , it does what is says – polices the Internet. Have Nothing to do with Microsoft or you will be open to all sorts of third party emails/ letter post /advertising and all you personal details will be logged . Spamcop dont do that . I have tried – spamcop.net/ again and have no problem getting through to them . But you have presented a clue Helena , if you are getting loads of spam/junk it could be your email service is hacked or even your computer as the first thing they do is block access to spamcop and others like it . Try that email address again and tell me what your browser says or try another browser like Firefox . And let me know what other people have told you to use to remove spam/junk so that I can evaluate them.

Hi Duncan, I’ve just tried again to visit -spamcop.net/ & get the “we cannot find it” message up but there is a spamcop site to find out why my email is being blocked (which it isn’t) but I get pages of related items e.g. titanhq. I’ve investigated some of these sites but haven’t tried what they tell me to do as I’m not sure that I can access the instructions on mycomputer. As you may gather, I am a complete dinosaur with computers. I’m away now to see if one set of instructions works but don’t hold your breath! Thankyou.

Hi Duncan, it’s been a couple of days since I tried to do anything about all this spam. i got Duck-Duck-Go up & was able to get into Spamcop & have ploughed thro’ most of their literature, then I had to send my email address & was told to check my emails for confirmation but now cannot getback into my inbox; a message comes up:- “Account Error. Default Mail Account” so I don’t know what to do. Thanks for your patience.

It sounds like you have a virus on your computer if you are being blocked from the inbox of your email service . Where that virus is , is another thing , what type of protection have you got ? Is it a free one or is it a paid for one and does it cover both computer and Internet ? . If you have a protection service run a scan on your whole computer and tell me what make the of protection is. Are you using Windows 10 with their own protection ? or is it a private one . Get back Helena I will stay with you to try and resolve this , some of those viruses are well hidden and hard to remove. If your email service worked okay before then the virus is blocking it as they are intelligent and block protection programs and any other that would interfere with their operation . It could be a root-kit , they are hard to remove , the latest ones are dug in deep.

Funnily enough,my emails came back to normal immediately &, tho’ I’m still getting a lot of these spams, the ones hat I hate most (starting with “-?Q£=8==64 etc” or something similar) have mostly stopped; no doubt they’ll be back in force soon. I am using Windows 7, it was upgraded from XP a couple of years ago & my protection is AVG free & I ran a free tune-up from them on28th

Helena -what I should have asked you is what email service you are using ? . Try downloading Thunderbird email client and try that or add an email service on . I have several but try Yandex that has a built in virus control thats better than BT Mail and its easier to block bad emails , it puts all that type into junk/trash immediately , the drawback is you would need to input a new email address like helena ***** @yandex.com but you can add your original email address and it will get those as well but be more secure . While AVG is okay for free it is not comprehensive and you dont get priority updates and when I used Win 7 I had to get a payed protection programme . The benefit is that it covers not only your computer but the whole Internet as well blocking bad websites and checking your emails as well . AVG free is quite good but Avira free is a bit better but you could have done worse . So if you are sticking with AVG then try the addition of an email client and another email service so you can compare the difference . I take it you have run a full scan using AVG ?

I am using b.t.’s email service. I am not at all clever about computers & am not sure what you mean about “adding my original email address” to this yandex one, & “addition of an email client”. Yes, I did run a full scan with AVG, apparently I had thousands of errors of one type or another. Again, many thanks for taking the trouble to help me.

Hello Duncan, I’ve just done as you suggested & opened a yandex account so don’t yet know if it works, tho’ somewhat to my surprise (as I’m so utterly useless on the computer) my emails have appeared in it straight away, so hopefully, in a few days time I can report real progress in the spam eradication stakes. I hadn’t been on the computer for nearly a week & was snowed under with hundreds of spams, often the same one straight after itself 4-5 times; I’m looking forward to crushing the lot!!!

Good Helena – keep me informed of the progress Yandex should automatically put all the spam into the junk/trash , BT Mail certainly does NOT do that . I still get all the rubbish emails through as ordinary mail . BT couldnt care less about this service and it pulls the companies prestige right down to the ground , but the shareholders seem to be happy .

Well, Duncan, A bit disappointing, I’ve just looked at my bt emails & there they all were; some in spam & some mixed in to my ordinary mails, I emptied the older ones (2 days old) from the spambox & transfered all yesterdays’ ones from the inbox to the spam box & then looked up the yandex site but there were none in its spam box & only 2 in the inbox. I was on the Which site as there was a quiz about scams & I thought light may have been thrown on my problem but it didn’t. I’m going for coffee now as my computer-tolerance levels are pretty low! — — I’ll try again later, — — ha-ha, I’m really fed up with it all.