‘Regulators must punish more nuisance callers’

The worst thing for me is receiving a nuisance call while out of the country. I get charged to receive these calls at an extortionate rate and I can’t do anything about it.

– Businesses should not be allowed to call without sending their number.
– BT actually knows the calling number even when withheld, but wont tell you unless investigated by the police.
– When a number is reported lots of times the ICO should force BT (or whoever) to do a search of it’s database to see how many texts or calls that number sent and fine them for each number registered on the TPS.
– The punishment must make if financially unviable for companies to text / call TPS registered numbers.

When I’m not in the UK, I have a Flextel 07010 number which forwards to the mobile number of a SIM card from the country I’m visiting. This costs the caller a lot, but costs me nothing. Even better, Flextel sends me an e-mail with the caller’s number, but with the last three digits blanked out if they withheld it. It helps to identify exactly where the caller is, even if I don’t have their full number. When I’m abroad, I put a voicemail greeting on my usual UK mobile number asking callers to redial the Flextel number. This way I don’t miss any genuine calls and I don’t pay to receive incoming calls. Even better, I pay the same as a local for data and local phone calls without paying any rip-off roaming charges.

While I have nothing against FleXtel, and have used their service in the past, I think that unless you warn callers the cost for dialling 070 numbers is higher, they might mistakenly assume that it costs the same as for “ordinary” UK mobile numbers (when from a mobile it can work out very expensive).

Also, while I accept your solution works for you, the days of “rip-off roaming charges” may alter in coming years, not only because of legislation within the EU for cross-border calls, but because some networks, such as Three, allow customers visiting anumber of countries (OK, only about 10 or so at present), to “roam” while using their UK allowance and being charged little or no extra. If they open up services in more of Europe, and further afield, then excessive charges (at least for Three customers) could be a piece of history.

Can you confirm what you say about BT having reversed a policy change made in 2003?

In 2003, the BT nuisance call bureau adopted a policy of providing information about callers who withheld their CLI, to Ofcom and the ICO, as being “proper authorities” when investigating cases of nuisance. Previously the Police and the courts had been regarded as being the only “proper authorities” able to receive such information.

This information, in relation to a particular caller, provided the basis for the first investigation into Silent Calls by Ofcom. It remains the only such investigation undertaken in response to a complaint from a citizen. Ofcom has subsequently changed its policy, and now refuses to investigate individual complaints – claiming that it is unable to do so.

Unfortunately the outcome of this case, which formed the basis for Ofcom’s continuing policy, was for Ofcom to tolerate the habitual practice of hanging up in silence, so long as sufficient other calls were made to leave those terminated in silence as a low percentage.

More information about that particular case, and the BT change of policy (allegedly now reversed), is available from the complainant. I can be contacted through the fair telecoms website.

Genuine market research calls where only anonymised data is collected (i.e. they don’t collect your name, address, date of birth, etc) should be allowed.

Lead collection calls should not be allowed (whether the caller claims the call is “market research” or not is irrelevant).

Even genuine market research calls are nuisance calls. They must be opt-in.

It is unlikely that a sufficient number of volunteers would be found to make market and opinion research by telephone worthwhile if respondents had to consent before the call was made, rather than when asked by the caller.

The fair telecoms campaign believes that the relevant regulators of each sector of activity have to make the fundamental decision about whether to permit unsolicited calling and if so, under what terms – regardless of whether it be classed as “direct marketing” by the terms of the PECR. In many cases we believe that total prohibition is justified.

There may be a case for general market and opinion research by telephone to be banned. Collecting information only from those who volunteer to have their opinions and preferences noted would be a very different exercise – little more than a large “focus group”.

My personal view is that properly conducted genuine market or opinion research calls cannot be considered to be a “nuisance”, in general. Like many other perfectly proper calls, they may occur at inconvenient times and not be “wanted”. I believe that we must focus our attention on effective measures to prohibit calls that may be generally classified as a nuisance and get on with the reality of life – we may choose to answer a ringing telephone when we would rather have not done so.

The few seconds taken to decline an invitation to participate in a genuine survey are as nothing when set against the true “nuisance” that we are fighting.

A genuine market research call is likely to begin with the caller announcing their name and which company they work for, and it’s likely to be one you have heard of such as mori, gallup, populus, etc. Additionally, the first questions asked are likely to be general demographic data (two residents aged 30 to 40, one working, one dog, two kids) rather than name, address, exact age, etc. It will be obvious from the questions that they are collecting anonymised aggregated data rather than specifics that can be tied to a particular identity.

Genuine market and opinion and research requires the largest possible sample size from the largest possible pool. Selective research, i.e. using “focus groups” of volunteers, is another method used by the industry. It is for those who use and undertake the former to make the case for it being allowed to continue – following proper methods – against the suggestion that unsolicited telephone calls should be prohibited from this sector.

Whilst any telephone call can be answered when one may have preferred not to answer it, I believe that our focus must be on the improper activity – e.g. direct marketing activity purporting to be market research. All improper activity must be identified for what it is and prohibited, using methods that can be effectively enforced. The powers of the ICO and the policies adopted by Ofcom have been shown not to be effective.

I recognise that there are those who regard their telephone number as private personal information and only wish to receive calls from invited callers. There are also those who are unable to handle calls from unknown callers properly. Both groups should be provided with the facilities and devices they need to maintain this limited relationship with the outside world by telephone. It is however an open question as to how far this should be at the expense of us all.

I am reluctant to allow the long standing failure to deal properly with those who break the law to damage the benefits to society of an open telephone network.

We will have to agree to disagree on this issue. 🙁

Would you support people at least being given the opportunity to opt-out of market research calls, David?

Firstly, I demand that proper and effective action be taken against those who illegally make unsolicited direct marketing calls without consent. That is the bulk of the problem that we are concerned with. Furthermore, I demand that Ofcom treat all cases of habitually hanging up in silence as the persistent misuse which it is, rather than tolerating the practice by those who make many other calls.

Secondly, I demand that unsolicited telephone calls be prohibited from all sectors where a significant history of misconduct had been seen (e.g. claims management) and no good case for the possibility of reasonable practice, compliant with existing regulations and new stricter rules, could be expected. I regret that none of the loud voices heard on this subject, including those of Which?, the CMS committee or the APPG share my view.

If the MRS, or some similar organisation, wished to follow the action of the DMA by establishing a opt-out register for use by its members, then I would not object. I would not however agree with the action taken over 10 years ago by adopting the absence of a number from that register as representing “consent” with reference to an instrument of law intended to prohibit inappropriate action. (This is a reference to the TPS.)

The key point is that if someone answers a call from an unknown caller, genuinely and properly conducting market research, there is no way that they should be compelled to continue the conversation. Is that not enough of an “opt-out”?

Is there an underlying assumption that if genuine market research calls were prohibited then those conducting direct marketing activity, under the guise of “research”, would also stop calling?

I fear that this may be similar to the assumption that callers who fail to provide CLI, so as to conceal their identity, would happily provide CLI that identified them, if the ability to withhold it were withdrawn.

“Is there an underlying assumption that if genuine market research calls were prohibited then those conducting direct marketing activity, under the guise of “research”, would also stop calling?”

I’m coming from a position of, the industry is broken ( albeit by the wrong uns ). So ban the practice whilst coming up with an effectively policable solution. If it takes them 100 years then tough. At least everyone will know market research calls are illegal and then hang up. At present its the wrong uns that are exploiting the market.

“I fear that this may be similar to the assumption that callers who fail to provide CLI, so as to conceal their identity, would happily provide CLI that identified them,”

Make every phone provider provide a free to opt out of no CLI’d calls. Genuine companies will soon stop hiding their CLI. Wrong uns will stop too, but at least people then have a number to complain about. At present too many calls have no number to report them, especially silent ones.

And accident chasing shouldn’t be allowed over the phone. Although that goes back to banning passing on details. I got sworn at by an accident chaser last week whilst I was trying to get details of where he got my details from. ( Its wasn’t the phone book ) so someone has passed my details on. Next time I’ll see if he;s got my car reg, but I doubt it.

“Wrong uns will stop too” actually I don’t think they will, they’ll just keep calling the USA , Canada and other countries.

The only thing I can suggest is to unplug your phone(s) at night to get a full night’s sleep.

Most adults have a mobile phone, and while I’m reluctant to suggest you unplug the landline [NB not any internet router, just phone handset(s), (or in the case of cordless, have the base unit power cable come via a timer switch, so it can automatically be off from say 2300 to 0630) ], the fact you probably have a mobile would mean that if necessary, your own parents could still contact you in an emergency, via the mobile, if they are already familiar with calling that and/or have their own mobiles with your mobile number in the address book.

If you and your children are losing sleep over this, then unplugging the phone to get unbroken nights seems a relatively harmless solution. Obviously it is not very convenient, and while cordless phones are very popular, the recommendation is still to have one fixed line phone (for emergencies if there is a power cut, when cordless phones won’t operate), but even some of the fixed cord phones have a ringer volume switch, for high, low, and a few have On/Off switches… more convenient than unplugging, and if you have cordless phones on a mains timer, you can leave a wired phone plugged in (ringing off or minimum) and rely on the power to the cordless base unit being off to “silence” the rest of your household phones.

‘Unknown’ numbers are not as common as ‘International’ but cannot easily be blocked on the phone network (because it is easier to block calls where number is ‘Withheld’ but not where the number is ‘unknown’).

Also, while some might want to ignore ‘Withheld’ those calls may be made by NHS staff, so probably worth screening using an answerphone that allows the caller to be heard… Of course, for confidentiality reasons, some NHS callers would not leave any information, because asking an individual to call a particular unit would in itself divulge information the recipient might not want to be known to anyone else in the same property.

I think the 0800 reverse call service (very expensive, runs to about £4-5 for receiving a call) which was aimed at teenagers needing to “phone home” but who have seen the adverts and not known that one can ring the operator and ask for a reverse charge call, does just that – gets the caller’s name and rings the destination, asking if they will accept the call. Not sure if the caller could give their location (and then parent would know where their teenager was to be found!).

BT offers it to existing customers (but not available for new supply) as one of their 4 levels of “Ex Directory” service, but it is far more than 1 Euro – £30 per quarter (inc VAT). It’s shown in the Price List ( http://www.bt.com/pricing/current/Inland_Operator_boo/sectoc.htm Section 39, Part 3 )

My estimate of £4-5 for 0800 Reverse is out of date. Seems it is £6.00 for connection and then either £1.20 per 30 seconds (from a Payphone) or £2.40 per minute (from a landline). From a mobile, the network might charge the caller for the 0800 call, and then similar charges come into force. As can be seen from the web link above, two other services (08000 MumDad and YAK!) offer similar services to 0800 Reverse, but 08000 MumDad is about half the price of the other two.

Those services do something similar to the France Telecom service in taking a caller’s name. However the services I’ve outlined are for providing a “free to the caller, expensive for recipient” connection, but the technology must be similar – ‘A’ makes a call, records a very brief message/name…. recording played to recipient ‘B’, who decides whether to continue with the call and speak to ‘A’

I know I would be willing to use a service like that of France Telecom, at £1/ month, if it was to screen all calls. The ‘reverse charge’ systems were designed to make money for the service providers, in the main (else they would not have put up money for TV ads for the 0800 Reverse service 5+ years ago).

Isn’t this essentially what the trueCall system does?

But the problem is not “of their own making” – it’s because of

A) firms (such as a number of solicitors) making it financially attractive to have others make cold calls on the basis of the solicitors acting (for a hefty fee) on behalf of some of the public, and

B) fraudsters, making calls to con people, vulnerable or not, into handing over credit/debit card details, either because the caller is selling services or goods (which may or may not exist) or selling such things as timeshare holidays, etc, or simply scaring a recipient (the “you have a virus”, “your card details have been used”, etc)

Yes, it would be nice for the telecom services to provide Caller Display/Caller ID services for free, and given that “System X” features were introduced in the late 80s, it MIGHT be the case that the Government, OFCOM, and any other authorities could now demand an investigation as to whether the costs for the software have already been met and charging customers extra for these services is now unjustified, with the original ROI having now been more than covered (for all I know Openreach may have been paid 10 times over what the software cost was back in the 80s, and now the charges are simply profit out of customer misery).