I will be happy for this thread to be removed if the topic it is not seen to be valid.

Silent Calls are however commonly mentioned and a bit of Ofcom-bashing always goes down well in the forum.

Notwithstanding my primary commitment to issues close to the heart of forum members, I have been drawn back onto some old territory.

I trust that I am not breaching any embargo by stating that the BIS department recently announced that it would shortly be conducting a consultation on a request from Ofcom for the maximum penalty available for use against those making Silent Calls to be increased again. The issue will be covered by the BBC on Breakfast TV shortly after 8am tomorrow morning - Friday 23 October.

My own view is that an increased penalty may have some deterrent effect, however the size if its weapon is not the primary reason for Ofcom's failure to satisfy parliament. When the last increase to the maximum penalty was granted in 2006 it came with the demand "we expect you to use your powers to eradicate the nuisance of Silent Calls".

Ofcom has simply used the increased penalty to take long delayed punitive action against a few who have breached its guidelines, which do not simply cover Silent Calls anyway. Ofcom continues to misuse its powers, taking many months over a few extensive investigations rather than taking immediate and proportionate action in response to complaints from victims.

As I did in 2006, I will oppose the increase being granted, except on the condition that Ofcom corrects its guidelines to focus properly on the issue of Silent Calls and starts using its powers in the way that they are framed, rather than pretending to be a regulator of those who are not providers of telecommunications services.

sherbert wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2009 at 8:53pm:

Ofcom has made it clear that the location of the call centre (home or overseas) makes no difference to the responsibility of any company with a UK presence not to "make" Silent Calls. Simply contracting with an off-shore rather than an on-shore call centre makes no difference.

Calls from overseas may however be more difficult to trace and a caller from overseas with no UK presence cannot be subject to UK law, although there are reciprocal arrangements within the EU.

Off topic I know but I would value some advice and information.   We are on TPS and have recently started to receive a number of those automated calls where an electronic voice babbles on for ages and you can't cut off the call even by replacing the receiver.   What is the "official" title of this sort of call and under whose jurisdiction does it come?  There is never a number on 1471 and it is often impossible to understand the name of any company, if given.  They seem largely to relate to sales & debt companies.   They are an appalling nuisance so any ideas on what action the subscriber can take would be welcome.

I have been awakened from my semi-retirement from the Silent Calls campaign in contributing to broadcast coverage this morning, and possibly to be repeated on the BBC News Channel through the day. I am now getting geared up to deal with a flow of requests for information such as those posted here, that has already started. I will shortly be publishing some updated information for general use on the web, covering the points raised here.

If members bear with me for a few hours, I hope to post again with some relevant links.

In the meantime, I will be happy to think about points that may may need to be covered. Contact me by PM or email, or post to this thread if appropriate.

N.B. I will not be totally distracted from the main focus of my campaigning activity.

sherbert wrote on Oct 24^th, 2009 at 10:37am:

This is NOT the answer to Silent Calls. Many Silent Callers use genuine CLI, others use false CLI to get around this feature.

There are also many genuine calls where a CLI is not provided. Some individuals (e.g. MP's) withhold their personal numbers as standard. Some organisations (e,g, the BBC) do this as a matter of policy, not to hide, but simply because they cannot guarantee a direct dial number to enable someone who misses a call to find out why they were calling. This policy may affect individuals calling from their workplace. There are also many other wanted calls that could be missed, e,g, from friends abroad or calling from a hotel; there may also be cases where helpful calls in emergency type situations would not get through.

I have long maintained that whilst CLI can be a useful positive feature for various purposes, is not the answer to anything and it should NOT be mandated as a general rule. It is far less relevant to the issue of Silent Calls than many claim. It certainly does not identify the "caller". Nor does if even offer a gauaranteed means of identifying the caller and the purpose of the call for those who are preared to spend lots of time and money trying to investigate.

---

This will be one of the topics that I will be covering when I get my new Blog fully loaded with information.

IT IS NOW OPEN - http://scvictim.blogspot.com/.

There is some stuff there already, much more will follow and it will keep changing. Feeds are available for those who want to keep up to date.

Heinz wrote on Oct 24^th, 2009 at 4:22pm:



I don't know, but as I said in a previous post, when I did ask BT to do something about an abusive 'with held' number call, they said it was impossible for them to do anything unless I gave them a number. Whether they were just fobbing me off I don't know.

I received a silent call from 0871 265 9865 on Saturday. After a bit of research I find that they're a firm of warranty salesmen who seem to have gotten wind that I had a repair on my Skybox recently. I've had a couple of letters from them, and now the call on Saturday, during which you could hear the receiver being replaced after I answered the call. The caller-number didn't come up on the display at the time, but is listed in the received calls part of my phone.

First of all what can I do to report them for using silent calls? Secondly, has someone broken the rules regarding issuing my address & phone number to a third party? This could be either Sky or the firm who Sky sub-let the repair to.

I'm ex-directory and on the TPS.

This may be of interest.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1283118/Repeat-silent-calls-firms-banned...