SAYNOTO0870.COM
https://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi
Main Forum >> Geographical Numbers Chat >> Ofcom and Silent Calls
https://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1256240092

Message started by SilentCallsVictim on Oct 22nd, 2009 at 8:34pm

Title: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Oct 22nd, 2009 at 8:34pm
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.

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by sherbert on Oct 22nd, 2009 at 8:53pm
I have just started getting a load of silent calls and as I am on the Telephone Preferance Service, I assume these are coming from abroad, which I believe Ofcom have no powers to do anything about, and I have to put up with them (the calls) until they move on to another block of numbers and pester those subscribers.

If I am right, then all the UK based companies that have been pestering us over the years have moved their call centers overseas out of the reaches of the UK authorities.

I hope this issue will be also covered in the forthcoming debate.

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Oct 22nd, 2009 at 11:35pm

sherbert wrote on Oct 22nd, 2009 at 8:53pm:
I have just started getting a load of silent calls and as I am on the Telephone Preferance Service, I assume these are coming from abroad, which I believe Ofcom have no powers to do anything about, and I have to put up with them (the calls) until they move on to another block of numbers and pester those subscribers.

If I am right, then all the UK based companies that have been pestering us over the years have moved their call centers overseas out of the reaches of the UK authorities.

I hope this issue will be also covered in the forthcoming debate.

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.

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by sherbert on Oct 23rd, 2009 at 7:51am
However, as it is a silent call and the number  is annonymous, it is a bit difficult to  know if the call center or company has a UK presence.

It has got to be difficult to know where the call is coming from and as I said I can only assume that mine are coming from abroad as I am with the TPS.

So, how do we manage to stop/report them? BT can't do anything unless you know the number.

See here for the latest......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6408229/Silent-cold-callers-will-face-2m-fines.html

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by Barbara on Oct 23rd, 2009 at 9:11am
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.

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by sherbert on Oct 23rd, 2009 at 9:34am

Barbara wrote on Oct 23rd, 2009 at 9:11am:
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.



Well, I complained to BT about this very subject and also about an abusive call from a company when I said I did not want to know.

BT say they are 'powerless', unless we know who is making the call. They said change your number if you want, but as one member said on thos forum previously, that is a waste of time, as when they (the caller)  have finished with one block of numbers, they move on to another and your new number could be one of them

Has SilentCallsVictim any solution to this problem as he is very knowledgable on this subject?

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Oct 23rd, 2009 at 9:56am
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.

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by sherbert on Oct 24th, 2009 at 10:37am



I see that BT offer this service....Anonymous Call RejectBlock calls from withheld or anonymous numbers


as they explain.....

If a caller withholds their number, they will not be able to get through to you. They will only be able to get through if they reveal their number.

Anonymous Call Reject will not bar incoming calls when the number is 'unavailable' (when the caller has not made any attempt to withhold their number). This can happen in a number of cases, like, for example, if the call originates from an overseas provider.

However it comes at a price....wait for it......

£3.91 a month

Which I would guess is ex VAT.

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Oct 24th, 2009 at 11:25am

sherbert wrote on Oct 24th, 2009 at 10:37am:
I see that BT offer this service....Anonymous Call RejectBlock calls from withheld or anonymous numbers

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.



Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by Heinz on Oct 24th, 2009 at 4:22pm

sherbert wrote on Oct 22nd, 2009 at 8:53pm:
I have just started getting a load of silent calls and as I am on the Telephone Preferance Service, I assume these are coming from abroad, which I believe Ofcom have no powers to do anything about, and I have to put up with them (the calls) until they move on to another block of numbers and pester those subscribers.

If I am right, then all the UK based companies that have been pestering us over the years have moved their call centers overseas out of the reaches of the UK authorities.

But Ofcom must have the power to force BT to deliver CLI (even if they cannot guarantee its veracity).  That would eliminate the 'International' calls which you don't know whether to answer or not (could be a friend using 18185 or the like or could be an Indian call centre).

I get a CLI for all but 'Private' numbers on my mobile (I can recognise at least which country a call is coming from) so why aren't BT forced to do likewise?

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by sherbert on Oct 24th, 2009 at 4:34pm

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

sherbert wrote on Oct 22nd, 2009 at 8:53pm:
I have just started getting a load of silent calls and as I am on the Telephone Preferance Service, I assume these are coming from abroad, which I believe Ofcom have no powers to do anything about, and I have to put up with them (the calls) until they move on to another block of numbers and pester those subscribers.

If I am right, then all the UK based companies that have been pestering us over the years have moved their call centers overseas out of the reaches of the UK authorities.

But Ofcom must have the power to force BT to deliver CLI (even if they cannot guarantee its veracity).  That would eliminate the 'International' calls which you don't know whether to answer or not (could be a friend using 18185 or the like or could be an Indian call centre).

I get a CLI for all but 'Private' numbers on my mobile (I can recognise at least which country a call is coming from) so why aren't BT forced to do likewise?



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.

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by Dave on Oct 24th, 2009 at 6:15pm

Heinz wrote on Oct 24th, 2009 at 4:22pm:
I get a CLI for all but 'Private' numbers on my mobile (I can recognise at least which country a call is coming from) so why aren't BT forced to do likewise?

I don't understand the question. The main fixed and mobile telephone providers do provide CLI services though. :-?

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by terryhickmott on Oct 26th, 2009 at 5:50pm
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.


Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by sherbert on Nov 4th, 2009 at 8:42am
More on silent calls from today's Daily Telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/6494360/Silent-calls-to-increase-after-Ofcom-changes-rules.html

Looks as if Ofcom is allowing more silent calls as they have changed the rules

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by sherbert on Jun 1st, 2010 at 3:05pm
This may be of interest.....

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

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Jun 1st, 2010 at 3:23pm

sherbert wrote on Jun 1st, 2010 at 3:05pm:
This may be of interest.....

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

Ofcom-detractors may be interested to tune their radios to BBC Radio 5Live around 5:45PM today, when live coverage of this story is planned.

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Jun 2nd, 2010 at 1:51am

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jun 1st, 2010 at 3:23pm:
Ofcom-detractors may be interested to tune their radios to BBC Radio 5Live around 5:45PM today, when live coverage of this story is planned.

The item went ahead as planned - listen to the item here.

More anti-Ofcom stuff here.

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by sherbert on Jun 2nd, 2010 at 11:04am
From The Daily Telegraph


Nuisance calls
Curbs on cold-calling are cold comfort are like telling naughty children not to play Knock-Down Ginger at the same house more than once a day.


By Telegraph View
Published: 8:09PM BST 01 Jun 2010


On the evening of January 10, 1876, Alexander Graham Bell's assistant heard historic words from an earpiece at the end of a wire: "Mr Watson, come here. I want you." Sometimes one is tempted to regret that Messrs Bell and Watson ever succeeded in their experiments. It is bad enough to be summoned from the bath by a telephone call seeking your custom for banking or double-glazing, but to stand dripping at a silent receiver is doubly chilling.

Ofcom says that from next year no company may ring the same household more than once a day if there is no one available to speak down the tube when the call is answered. Such curbs on cold-calling are cold comfort. They are like telling naughty children not to play Knock-Down Ginger at the same house more than once a day. Telephones are a shortcut to our hearthsides, and we rightly object to silent intruders.

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by Dave on Jun 25th, 2010 at 7:27am
Ofcom Consultation: Tackling abandoned and silent calls

Consultation published: 01|06|2010
Consultation closes: 27|07|2010

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/silentcalls/

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Jun 25th, 2010 at 2:14pm

Dave wrote on Jun 25th, 2010 at 7:27am:
Ofcom Consultation: Tackling abandoned and silent calls

Consultation published: 01|06|2010
Consultation closes: 27|07|2010

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/silentcalls/

My initial reaction and links to extended comment may be found here - "Gobsmacked by Ofcom's foolishness".

We wait to see if parliament will debate the issue of Ofcom's failure to use its powers properly (as admitted by the terms of the proposals in this consultation) before the Summer recess - which occurs 2 days after the consultation closes. If the debate is scheduled in time, I hope that this will cause Ofcom to undertake far more radical revisions to its policy than what is contained in the proposal out to consultation.

Specifically, Ofcom should now acknowledge that pretending to have powers of regulation which it does not hold is one of the reasons why its attempts to address the problem of Silent Calls have admittedly failed. Furthermore, stating a policy under which some Silent Calls are tolerated (by declaring that only a second Silent Call within a 24 hour period is to be deemed to be a misuse of a telecommunications network or service) is a clear breach of the expectation imposed on Ofcom by parliament when it was last granted an increase to the maximum penalty -

"We expect you to use your powers to eradicate the nuisance of Silent Calls".


Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by Dave on Sep 28th, 2010 at 12:02pm
Ofcom is permitting silent calls, so long as a company does not make more than 3% of its total amount.  :'(

Is this 3% per day or per week or per month?

Any company which makes lots of silent calls will just make lots of proper calls (the type it should have made all along), so as to stay under the 3% threshold.  ::)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11326809

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Sep 28th, 2010 at 12:33pm

Dave wrote on Sep 28th, 2010 at 12:02pm:
Is this 3% per day or per week or per month?

If we want to get into the ridiculously precise detail that Ofcom uses in making a determination of what is "persistent misuse of a telecommunications network or service" we can start off by saying that the 3% limit applies to calls made on a particular campaign in a 24-hour period. If we want to get further into the detail we can start to look at what is meant by "calls", but lets not.

The simple fact is that despite receiving complaints detailing 100,000 cases of Silent Calls from identified callers in 2009 and having undertaken 22 secret investigations into unnamed companies, nobody has been found to have been committing "persistent misuse" by making Silent Calls since 2007.

Unless all those complaints and investigations, not to mention the evidence held by Telcos and made available to Ofcom, are missing the point, all Silent Calls currently being received are approved by Ofcom.

News on this topic can be viewed at this link, where one can also subscribe to updates by email or in a feed viewer.

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Oct 9th, 2010 at 3:41am
Those following this thread may be interested to note a parallel discussion on the MSE forum.

Some heat was added to the issue by the vigorous defence of Silent Calls and Ofcom provided by "Watchdog" on Thursday evening. The only call for Ofcom to change its policy was for an even more inappropriately consumerist approach. (This reflects the argument being conducted in the MSE forum.) That is however only to be expected from this highly political programme and its radical-minded key external contributor. I comment on the respective political positions as well as addressing some factual errors and misleading information in the broadcast in a strongly campaigning blog posting.

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by Dave on Oct 21st, 2010 at 10:56pm

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Oct 9th, 2010 at 3:41am:
Those following this thread may be interested to note a parallel discussion on the MSE forum.

Some heat was added to the issue by the vigorous defence of Silent Calls and Ofcom provided by "Watchdog" on Thursday evening. The only call for Ofcom to change its policy was for an even more inappropriately consumerist approach. (This reflects the argument being conducted in the MSE forum.) That is however only to be expected from this highly political programme and its radical-minded key external contributor. I comment on the respective political positions as well as addressing some factual errors and misleading information in the broadcast in a strongly campaigning blog posting.

This is trully shocking. Ofcom has managed to bury the news that silent calls are now permitted (within a limit) under the headline that the fine for those exceeding the limit has been increased.

It will bode well for the director of communications at Ofcom getting a job in politics.


It is of deep concern to me that silent calls to telephone users are permitted. The rule (as it should be) is quite simple; you don't ring someone and then hang up once the recipient has answered without saying anything.

It's also important to bear in mind that the same telephone could receive multiple silent calls in a single day without any sanction against any company. I thought that Ofcom was acting to stop repeated silent calls; so why only ban multiple silent calls from each organisation?

Also, the wholly unorthodox solution of TPS registration can only be enacted where the subscriber is aware of it. I think it's safe to say that vulnerable groups such as the elderly will more be very disconcerted and not certainly not appreciate this as being a solution.

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by sherbert on Nov 19th, 2010 at 2:49pm
This letter was in today's edition of the Daily Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/8144109/Kate-Middleton-has-every-right-to-follow-a-refreshingly-conservative-dress-style.html

I think he has a very good point.....


Anonymous phone calls

SIR – In this technologically sophisticated age, why is it not compulsory for unsolicited phone callers to be required to reveal their identity?

At the very least, the industry should make it possible for the recipient of a call to be able to trace the caller’s number.

Registration with the Telephone Preference Agency was once a good way of cutting out such calls, but sadly the service is no longer effective. Most of these calls are simply a nuisance, but some could well be regarded as sinister.  

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Nov 21st, 2010 at 7:25am

sherbert wrote on Nov 19th, 2010 at 2:49pm:
This letter was in today's edition of the Daily Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/8144109/Kate-Middleton-has-every-right-to-follow-a-refreshingly-conservative-dress-style.html

I think he has a very good point.....


Anonymous phone calls

SIR – In this technologically sophisticated age, why is it not compulsory for unsolicited phone callers to be required to reveal their identity?

At the very least, the industry should make it possible for the recipient of a call to be able to trace the caller’s number.

Registration with the Telephone Preference Agency was once a good way of cutting out such calls, but sadly the service is no longer effective. Most of these calls are simply a nuisance, but some could well be regarded as sinister.  

Technology is utterly irrelevant, the industry has always been able to trace calls.

The only point worth making is that any voice caller who fails to identify themselves by voice when their call is answered should be treated as misusing the telephone network. Giving a telephone number instead is not acceptable - what does that tell someone who does not recognise the number? Most outbound call centres would use outgoing only lines, so an aggrieved victim would not be able to make a nuisance call in return to let off steam!

The right to withhold one's number from the person you are calling is rightly protected and quite irrelevant. Anyone who suggests that only those who choose to conceal their identity should be required to reveal it should think more carefully about what they are asking for.

The correspondent appears to believe that the ICO is failing to enforce the regulations requiring respect for TPS registration or is pointing out that not all Silent Calls are unsolicited direct marketing calls. Both are true.

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by sherbert on Nov 21st, 2010 at 10:55am

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 21st, 2010 at 7:25am:
Technology is utterly irrelevant, the industry has always been able to trace calls.



Not at all. Last year I received an abusive call and the number was withheld. I telephone BT and they informed me that with out a number there was nothing they could do to help me >:(

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Nov 21st, 2010 at 5:28pm

sherbert wrote on Nov 21st, 2010 at 10:55am:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 21st, 2010 at 7:25am:
Technology is utterly irrelevant, the industry has always been able to trace calls.



Not at all. Last year I received an abusive call and the number was withheld. I telephone BT and they informed me that with out a number there was nothing they could do to help me >:(

The BT Nuisance Call Bureau would not deploy their most advanced capabilities in such a case. This is a matter of policy, not capability. If the call in question had, for example, been an accurate warning about a bomb, the call would have been traced.

The standard call tracing facility would be deployed if there were a pattern of such calls. This enables the recipient to signify that the most recently received call is to be logged. The number of the caller (even if "withheld") is thereby made available to the NCB who can identify the caller under a reciprocal arrangement with the originating telco and pass the information to relevant bodies, e.g. the Police, and (since a policy change was made in 2003) Ofcom.

I do not fully understand the detail, but I am happy to accept that there are probably good reasons (probably cost, which bears on the price of telephone services,) why this logging facility is not provided to all at all times. It is provided where deemed necessary for period of one month, without charge. It has been used to identify Silent Callers, however Ofcom generally does little with the information.

The point I seek to make is that if an abusive caller does not identify themselves during the call, it is unlikely that they would comply with a requirement to provide a number when making abusive calls. I accept that the moral right to withhold their identity should be forfeit if the call is abusive, but as with other similar situations it is not easy to apply such a principle. Anyone undertaking a burglary should be required to wear a striped T-shirt and an eye-mask, carry a bag with the word "swag" on it and give their name and address to anyone challenging them, saying "its a fair cop, gov". Its a great idea, but I cannot see how it would work.

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by Dave on Nov 27th, 2010 at 1:57pm

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 21st, 2010 at 7:25am:
The only point worth making is that any voice caller who fails to identify themselves by voice when their call is answered should be treated as misusing the telephone network. Giving a telephone number instead is not acceptable - what does that tell someone who does not recognise the number? Most outbound call centres would use outgoing only lines, so an aggrieved victim would not be able to make a nuisance call in return to let off steam!

The right to withhold one's number from the person you are calling is rightly protected and quite irrelevant. Anyone who suggests that only those who choose to conceal their identity should be required to reveal it should think more carefully about what they are asking for.

Whilst I agree that anyone who fails to disclose their organisation's name is misusing the telephone network, the fact that they are calling without presenting a CLI number may give rise to an aura (prior to answering the call) of suspicion.


On a similar note, although not directly related to whether CLI should be presented or not, it is the case these days that we must be wary of scams. How can we be sure that people calling are who they say they are?

The telephone is an instantaneous mode of communication, which puts receiving parties on the spot. Is the caller really from my insurance company, or are they trying to elicit personal information from me for malicious purposes?

This rather greatly diminishes the value of the responsible telephone marketeers (who do abide by the rules) to telephone users. The only people who are likely to buy what they're offering are those who give out personal data on request.

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by sherbert on Nov 27th, 2010 at 2:37pm
Going slightly off topic, but thought I would send out this warning.......

My wife took a phone call this week from a foreign woman, with chattering in the back ground, saying that she was calling from 'Windows' saying that our computer was sending out error messages to them. At that point my wife put the phone down. I think this is a scam that has been going around for some time and it seems to be still going on. Of course when I dialled 1471 the number was withheld. >:(

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Nov 27th, 2010 at 4:44pm
Good points made, especially the pc scam which is a widespread horror.

The important point to note is that one has to always be on one's guard when undertaking any type of commercial transaction. There are no fool proof ways of confirming a stranger's identity, other than verification by a known friend. This essentially rules it out for commerce these days, which is mostly undertaken with people we have not met before.

Providing a string of digits to accompany a telephone call does nothing to change the situation; many companies one knows are not averse to scams.

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by Dave on Nov 29th, 2010 at 10:19am

sherbert wrote on Nov 27th, 2010 at 2:37pm:
My wife took a phone call this week from a foreign woman, with chattering in the back ground, saying that she was calling from 'Windows' saying that our computer was sending out error messages to them. At that point my wife put the phone down. I think this is a scam that has been going around for some time and it seems to be still going on. Of course when I dialled 1471 the number was withheld. >:(

This is a typical example of someone quoting a company name which will dupe those less-savy amongst us. Other instances of scams purport to be calling from large companies when they are not. As well as the potential for a call recipient to be unwittingly taken and believing that the call is from said company, by coincidence they also could be a customer of that company and therefore feel even more happy to divulge personal information.



SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 27th, 2010 at 4:44pm:
The important point to note is that one has to always be on one's guard when undertaking any type of commercial transaction. There are no fool proof ways of confirming a stranger's identity, other than verification by a known friend. This essentially rules it out for commerce these days, which is mostly undertaken with people we have not met before.

Being on one's guard really doesn't address the issue. If someone says they're from one's bank, how can we verify that they are? Also, the first thing a legitimate caller is likely to do for "data protection" is ask for an address and date of birth. Unsurprisingly, that is also the first thing that a scammer will do.

All in all, it would seem that the best thing to do is not to trust any caller, unless they can be specifically identified, perhaps by voice. Signing up to TPS will cut down greatly the number of calls received, thereby saving oneself some time having to say "I'm not interested".

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by catj on Nov 29th, 2010 at 11:07am

Quote:
My wife took a phone call this week from a foreign woman, with chattering in the back ground, saying that she was calling from 'Windows' saying that our computer was sending out error messages to them. At that point my wife put the phone down. I think this is a scam that has been going around for some time and it seems to be still going on.


This is indeed a scam, where you are directed to download some software from a website. The caller even talks you through it. Once installed, the caller has compete control of your machine and will steal all your passwords, alter the passwords of all your email accounts and take control of them, access all your online bank accounts, change the passwords for those and then empty all the funds.

Since the passwords for your bank account have been changed, you cannot access your bank account. Requesting a new bank password is also futile as you won't be able to access your email to get the see that new password, because the password has also been changed on your email account.

This was recently featured on TV. Not sure if Watchdog, some consumer programme, or just the news.

Oh, and the "callcentre chatter" in the background?  It's played from a recording, there's probably no-one else in the room.

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by Stoday on Nov 29th, 2010 at 11:40am

Dave wrote on Nov 29th, 2010 at 10:19am:

the first thing a legitimate caller is likely to do for "data protection" is ask for an address and date of birth. Unsurprisingly, that is also the first thing that a scammer will do.


Always respond with a false address and DOB. A scammer will accept the false information, but that's no skin off your nose; a legitimate caller should know it's false but you can correct it since you are now more certain that the caller really is legitimate.

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by Heinz on Nov 29th, 2010 at 4:13pm
I had a call this morning purporting to be from from my electricty supplier.  My Caller Display showed 'WITHHELD' but the woman asked for me by name and said she was calling about my email.  

I remembered sending a meter reading in via their website a few days ago so said, "What did I say in my email then?"

She immediately said, "I'll have to ask you some security questions first" and I replied, "No, you're calling me, remember?  You tell me my account number and the last 4 digits of the bank account I use to pay you monthly direct debits" (it would have taken me a few minutes to find that informastion myself but she should have had it on her screen).

She went silent and eventually said, "I'll have to reply by email then."

Now why could she not have done that in the first place?

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by Dave on Nov 29th, 2010 at 7:15pm

Heinz wrote on Nov 29th, 2010 at 4:13pm:
I remembered sending a meter reading in via their website a few days ago so said, "What did I say in my email then?"

She immediately said, "I'll have to ask you some security questions first" and I replied, "No, you're calling me, remember?  You tell me my account number and the last 4 digits of the bank account I use to pay you monthly direct debits" (it would have taken me a few minutes to find that informastion myself but she should have had it on her screen).

She went silent and eventually said, "I'll have to reply by email then."

Now why could she not have done that in the first place?

Precisely!

These organisations are quick to follow Data Protection rules, but they only operate effectively where those receiving calls are happy to divulge sensitive information.

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Nov 30th, 2010 at 3:56am

Dave wrote on Nov 29th, 2010 at 7:15pm:
These organisations are quick to follow Data Protection rules, but they only operate effectively where those receiving calls are happy to divulge sensitive information.

They only follow "rules" to protect themselves.

The rules are designed for their protection, so they can avoid taking serious responsibility. This also enables them to assign important tasks to incompetent staff.


My personal reaction to the electricity supplier scenario would have been quite different. A telephone call can be a more useful way of making contact than an email - it depends on the nature of the transaction.

On being asked a "security question", I would have returned the question - "do you suggest that I answer that?". This could have led to an interesting discussion about the security policy of the company. If they invite customers to give certain information to telephone callers then clearly it cannot be considered as "secure".

We must always be careful to distinguish between "identity" and that which is considered by some to represent adequate "proof of identity" for particular purposes.

If any set of items of information that could be considered to be proof of "identity" are made available to agents of an electricity company then that "identity" has already been stolen by the electricity company. Obviously agents have to handle information that is itself confidential, but they should never have access to a complete set of information that is considered sufficient to prove identity. If this were so, then every past and current agent would have to come under suspicion in the event of any case of fraud - it is quite unacceptable to place employees in such a position.


The other point is to question what information provides an effective assurance of the identity of a person able to provide it. My date of birth (age and birthday), my mother's maiden name, my bankers and my preference for Direct Debit are all items of information that are in the public domain in one way or another. I would certainly expect anyone who is able to answer my home or mobile telephone to be well aware of them from memory. This data may be adequate for the purpose of distinguishing me from someone else with a similar, or identical, name and as such it provides a means of establishing an identity - i.e. which person with a certain name one is talking about. It cannot however offer proof of the status of any person who knows this information, nor any protection against deliberate deceit.

The apparent belief that I am the only person able to present a printed copy of an electricity bill bearing my name and address is quite absurd. If asked to show such a document, it is most unlikely that I would accidentally present that of someone else, so it would provide a useful and convenient means of seeing a printed version of someone's name and address. It is however no protection against fraud.

No company can arbitrarily declare what it believes to be adequate "proof of identity" and expect this to be accepted by the world. It can only do its best to avoid being deceived and then suffer the consequences for any failure. I simply cannot understand how we have allowed ourselves to get into this position where citizens are expected to take action to prevent our identity being stolen by some financial institution to be applied to transactions that we have not personally authorised. It is the same, or similar, financial institutions that try to take money from us to provide protection against this danger. The explanation is perhaps there for all to see; it is simply a protection racket.


The issue of withheld CLI is raised. CLI is perversely and wrongly seen as being relevant to the issue of Silent Calls, so I will address this briefly, in the context of the case that is being discussed, by posing two questions:

  • If the well known customer service telephone number of the electricity company in question had been presented as CLI would this have provided proof of the identity of the caller?

  • If invited to call back to the number given as CLI, should that have left one content to go through the normal "security" procedure, when the call was answered?

I must urge everyone to answer "NO" to both of these questions. CLI proves nothing. It has its uses, but they are far more limited than is widely assumed, and are in fact quite different.

Please nobody suggest that scammers should be put under a regulatory requirement not to use fake CLI - they are already. Alternatively, it could be suggested that honest callers be compelled to give CLI and scammers compelled to withhold it. This might seem to be a brilliant idea, because then everyone could be sold caller display devices for each telephone handset and the associated service for the line, so that they would be able to detect scammers without even having to answer their calls.

I am sorry to say that any regulation that has the purpose of forcing those intent on deceit to declare themselves requires a little more thinking through.


Returning to the topic, more directly.

Ofcom provides "rules" so that companies can hang up in silence, whilst being able to say that they are compliant with the "Ofcom persistent misuse policy". This enables them to evade their responsibility to use the telephone properly.

There are some similarities with the data security issue.

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by sherbert on Nov 30th, 2010 at 11:44am
I recently had to send a utility bill or council tax bill (amongst other things) as proof of identity to make a claim on a pension. Printed off the computer or a photo copy was not acceptable, only the original was all they would accept. Now for those folk who have paperless billing like with BT and also for gas, electricity and bank statements, this could well be a problem.

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by sherbert on Dec 29th, 2010 at 2:33pm
Here is an extraordinary story.

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1342398/Businessman-bombarded-calls-30-seconds-premium-rate-phone-scam.html

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Dec 29th, 2010 at 7:49pm

sherbert wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 2:33pm:
Here is an extraordinary story.

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1342398/Businessman-bombarded-calls-30-seconds-premium-rate-phone-scam.html

This sad case arises from the mistaken belief that CLI is of value in the context of nuisance calls.

Essentially, anyone can give any number as CLI. It is a breach of regulations to give an inappropriate or false number, however detection is not that easy and misuse of CLI is not seen as a priority by Ofcom.

My advice is - provide CLI if you can do so in a manner that is of value, withhold it if you cannot; never make a call unless you know who you are calling and expect your call to be answered and handled in the way that you wish.

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Jan 31st, 2011 at 8:37pm
Those following the Silent Calls story may be interested to watch BBC1 / BBC News at 7:50 AM on Tuesday 1 February.


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 31st, 2011 at 11:43pm:
CORRECTION - RE-SCHEDULED FOR 6:40 AM


Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Jan 31st, 2011 at 11:43pm

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 31st, 2011 at 8:37pm:
Those following the Silent Calls story may be interested to watch BBC1 / BBC News at 7:50 AM on Tuesday 1 February.

CORRECTION - RE-SCHEDULED FOR 6:40 AM

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by loddon on Feb 1st, 2011 at 8:41am
Coverage of the silent calls issue was eventually broadcast on BBC Breakfast at 6.50 am and consisted of a brief interview with an Ofcom representative following a short introductory video.

The answers offered by Ofcom were extremely disappointing as the Ofcom attitude is that some silent calls to members of the public is quite acceptable and would be technically difficult for commercial companies to avoid.  I called the BBC on 0370 0100125 and complained about the Ofcom attitude to this utterly unacceptable anti-social behaviour.   I urge others to do the same to let both the BBC and Ofcom know that Ofcom are failing in their duty to the public.

Both Ofcom and the BBC seem to have missed the point that by allowing one silent call per day to a private phone number it is possible that one individual member of the public might get 5 or 50 or 500 silent calls in one day all from different companies who according to Ofcom are doing nothing wrong.

When are Ofcom going to stand up and protect the public from this abuse?????

There is no excuse.

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by sherbert on Feb 1st, 2011 at 9:40am
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12331160

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by loddon on Feb 1st, 2011 at 12:50pm
The BBC have now published a video of the Ofcom interview which was broadcast at 6.50am today within an item titled  "Ofcom introduces new measures to limit silent calls".   The interview may be seen here :---


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12333661

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by Dave on Feb 1st, 2011 at 8:22pm

loddon wrote on Feb 1st, 2011 at 8:41am:
The answers offered by Ofcom were extremely disappointing as the Ofcom attitude is that some silent calls to members of the public is quite acceptable and would be technically difficult for commercial companies to avoid. …

Indeed.

Am I right in saying that Answering Machine Detection is a system whose purpose is to detect mechanical answering machines. That is ones that plug in to a subscriber's line and has a tape. Does this also work for electronic answering machines?

As most answering services are network based (i.e. they are not an answering machine box plugged into subscribers' lines but operated by telephone companies an example of which is BT1571) then are more appropriate solution should be installed to cope with these.

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Feb 1st, 2011 at 9:06pm

Dave wrote on Feb 1st, 2011 at 8:22pm:

loddon wrote on Feb 1st, 2011 at 8:41am:
The answers offered by Ofcom were extremely disappointing as the Ofcom attitude is that some silent calls to members of the public is quite acceptable and would be technically difficult for commercial companies to avoid. …

Indeed.

Am I right in saying that Answering Machine Detection is a system whose purpose is to detect mechanical answering machines. That is ones that plug in to a subscriber's line and has a tape. Does this also work for electronic answering machines?

As most answering services are network based (i.e. they are not an answering machine plugged into subscribers' lines but operated by telephone companies an example of which is BT1571) then are more appropriate solution should be installed to cope with these.

AMD was designed for the purpose of detecting mechanical answering machines by listening to the sound made when the call is answered. When use of an answering machine was clearly and promptly indicated by the clicks and whirrs of a tape starting up, this was very effective. It has been adapted to try to detect different speech patterns thought to be used when preparing answering service announcements as against anwering the phone in person. Clearly this approach could never be expected to be reliable - therefore live people are commonly mistaken for recordings.

Ofcom has now decided that these inevitable mistakes should be limited to one per caller per person per day.

AMD also causes "supposed Silent Calls". The period of silence at the beginning of every call when AMD is deployed commonly creates the impression that the call will remain Silent. Even though an agent would have spoken eventually, the effect is exactly the same as a Silent Call.

The revised Ofcom policy, implemented today, signifies approval of both of these types of Silent Call.

There are acceptable alternative approaches available to avoid all Silent Calls without impacting on the effectiveness or efficiency of the call centre industry.

Those interested in the campaign to stop Silent Calls may wish to follow my comments and noted coverage of the topic by viewing and perhaps subscribing to this feed. (Note - this is currently being updated to reflect many developments today - please email or PM me with suggestions of items for inclusion.)

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by sherbert on Feb 10th, 2011 at 9:50am
From today's Daily Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/8311323/Ofcom-needs-to-do-more-to-stop-silent-calls.html


Ofcom needs to do more to stop silent calls

Ofcom, the telephone and internet regulator, needs to do more to stop the nuisance of silent calls, according to an influential committee of MPs.

By Harry Wallop, Consumer Affairs Editor 7:00AM GMT 10 Feb 2011



Silent calls usually occur when companies dial several numbers at once but then fail to have a staff member lined up to speak when a call is answered. This leaves residents sometimes confused and frequently annoyed that their time has been wasted. Many older people complain of feeling harrassed by silent calls.

Ofcom said more than 9,000 complaints were made about silent calls last year.

Last year the regulator increased the maximum possible fine to £2 million, but the Public Accounts Committee said that more needed to be done to tackle the problem and that there was evidence that the number of silent calls was just as high as a few years ago.

Ofcom said that though the complaints had risen in recent years, the number of people affected by silent calls had actually fallen. However, it did admit to the committee that about 23 per cent of people who have actually experienced silent calls have been caused anxiety by it, which was too high a number.

The report into Ofcom found that the regulator had done mostly a good job at ensuring competition flourished in the telecoms market and that prices for consumers were falling. But it needed to do more to encourage people to switch their landline telephone provider to help further drive down householders' telephone bills


#################################################################################################



So, how are we able to report the silent calls to ofcom, when invariably the number is with held? :-/

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by catj on Feb 21st, 2011 at 8:30pm
Page 11 and 12 mention silent calls and some stats:

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/draftap1112/summary/ap201112.pdf

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Feb 21st, 2011 at 9:13pm

catj wrote on Feb 21st, 2011 at 8:30pm:
Page 11 and 12 mention silent calls and some stats:

This is sadly familiar twaddle.

Not one of the 15,000 complaints about Silent Calls made to Ofcom in 2009 and 2010 enabled it to identify a single company that was worthy of being issued with a Notification of Persistent Misuse, let alone being subjected to an enforceable requirement to cease, and therefore no-one could be subjected to a financial penalty.

The "Consumer Concerns" survey is clearly dodgy as it suggests that more people experience non-Silent "Abandoned Calls", where the caller plays an Informative Message giving their name and apologising, than receive Silent Calls. I have never even heard of anyone who has received an "Abandoned Call" (as defined by Ofcom).

One thing is for certain; far more people now understand what Silent Calls are and most of us now accept them as a fact of life because Ofcom is doing nothing effective to stop this nuisance.

Very very few cases of Silent Calls are actually reported to Ofcom. The level of complaints provides a very poor indicator of the extent of the nuisance. Because Ofcom measures its success by the number of complaints and more complaints are made whenever the issue comes up in the media, any action by Ofcom would be seen as failure.

The statistics that I would like to see are those for the number of Silent Calls that Ofcom knows are being made within its tolerances.

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by sherbert on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 11:07am
So, if Ofcom and the general public are unable to find the source of these silent calls, the threat of all these fines that Ofcom promise, seem very hollow to me. How can they fine these outfits if they do not know who they are? :-?


Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by Dave on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 11:11am

sherbert wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 11:07am:
So, if Ofcom and the general public are unable to find the source of these silent calls, the threat of all these fines that Ofcom promise, seem very hollow to me. How can they fine these outfits if they do not know who they are? :-?

Indeed.... And even if it did know, Ofcom would have to find evidence of a particular company making over and above its permitted number of silent calls before considering any such fine.

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 2:17pm

Dave wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 11:11am:

sherbert wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 11:07am:
So, if Ofcom and the general public are unable to find the source of these silent calls, the threat of all these fines that Ofcom promise, seem very hollow to me. How can they fine these outfits if they do not know who they are? :-?

Indeed.... And even if it did know, Ofcom would have to find evidence of a particular company making over and above its permitted number of silent calls before considering any such fine.

Forget about fines and the Silent Callers that Ofcom cannot identify ...

Ofcom's first power, which it has a duty to use whenever it can, is to issue a public Notification to anyone found to be engaged in persistent misuse of an electronic communications network or service (Communications Act S128). The imposition of specific enforceable requirements and financial penalties may follow (under the terms of Sections 129 and 130). Ofcom is actually misusing the powers which it has been given by parliament.


According to an analysis of Silent Calls complaints received by Ofcom in 2009 (see section 2.3, pdf page 10), 82% of these complaints included evidence from which the caller could be identified. This is hardly surprising, seeing as there would be appear to be little point in taking the trouble to make a complaint unless one is able to provide information that could lead to action. Furthermore, the instances of misuse which generate complaints to Ofcom are also likely to be those where the nuisance has been intense. Ofcom's apparent failure to take a balanced view, developing policy based on dubious statistical analysis of complaints, is a disgrace and a neglect of its duty.

A public body acting to further the interests of citizens should not behave like a consumer complaints department. It must however use the information that comes to its attention in the performance of its wider duties. (The first complaint about Silent Calls that Ofcom received reported only 2 Silent Calls to one person. The subsequent investigation revealed 1.5 million Silent Calls having been made in a three month period.)


The other information in this report is hard to process, but it seems that the complaints being analysed each related on average to around 20 calls (some were only about one, but others about over 200). A simple extension, assuming that the sample was representative, indicates that from the 6,648 complaints received in 2009 Ofcom had evidence of the originators responsible for over 100,000 Silent Calls.

Ofcom has confirmed that it undertook secret investigations into 22 unnamed companies around this time. Not one of these companies was considered by Ofcom to have misused an electronic communications network or service.

There will always be people who break the law and Ofcom's resources to conduct investigations must be finite.

Ofcom however fails to confirm that hanging up in silence as a matter of habit will be considered as "persistent misuse", whenever Ofcom becomes aware of it. It is also seen to have treated 100% of the information it is given by citizens (over 15,000 cases in 2009 and 2010) as worthless with respect to use of its statutory powers. In response to criticism from the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, an Ofcom representative appears on national TV to announce the implementation of a new policy which will allow one Silent Call per recipient per caller per day (see this comment).


I have always argued that Ofcom should deal with companies like British Gas and BT, which are prepared to admit to making Silent Calls (see their comments here), first. When we have cleared out the nuisance of Silent Calls from reputable companies, then we can see what needs to be done about the rest.

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Mar 2nd, 2011 at 4:34pm
Members may be interested to read an article about the closely related issue of fully automated calls - those where there is no intention of having an agent handle the call when it is answered.

Automated outbound calls: the good, the bad and the ugly

(I accept that this is strictly speaking totally off-topic. These calls are never Silent and generally not the responsibility of Ofcom to deal with them!)

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by Dave on Mar 17th, 2011 at 9:08pm
Source:

http://davidhicksonmedia.blogspot.com/2011/01/new-ofcom-rules-for-silent-callers.html


Quote:
The new rules only cover the practice of calling to the same person again on the same day after thinking a machine has answered. …

So does this mean that when the AMD thinks that a person has answered, and there is a silent call because no agent is available, the company in question is permitted to make multiple silent calls to the same person in the same day?

If so, then the "rules" only prevent repeated silent calls to any number when it is thought that an answering machine answers?  :-?

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Mar 17th, 2011 at 9:42pm

Dave wrote on Mar 17th, 2011 at 9:08pm:
... If so, then the "rules" only prevent repeated silent calls to any number when it is thought that an answering machine answers?

That is what the new "rules" cover.

We must remember that these are not actually "enforceable regulations", as Ofcom has no statutory authority to impose general regulations on the use of automatic diallers. They are simply indications of how Ofcom will consider whether or not citizens have been subjected to unnecessary inconvenience, annoyance or anxiety. Given that Ofcom accepts that any Silent Call may cause inconvenience annoyance or anxiety, it clearly deems it "necessary" that people may receive at least one a day.

We could of course receive Silent Calls from many different callers during a day, but find it difficult to know if we should feel inconvenienced, annoyed or anxious because all of the calls sound the same, so we cannot be sure if they are from different callers. It is even more difficult to know whether we should ever feel this way about Silent Calls because those who make sufficient non-Silent calls to remain within Ofcom's 3% limit are not deemed to be practising persistent misuse. No matter how hard you listen, you cannot know what other calls that caller may have made that day.

Rant over; I will address the question. Ofcom's existing, unchanged policy states that those who make Silent Calls because they are unable to provide an agent to speak, and do so in more than 3% of cases will be looked on more kindly if they have a policy of not calling back to those who they have subjected to this nuisance, so as to apologise and reassure them, for at least 72 hours, unless an agent attends the call from when it is dialled. Ofcom appears to be obsessed with the issue of "repeat silent calls" so it is likely that someone who has been found to have breached the 3% rule, but applied the 3-day rule will be deemed not to have misused the telephone network.

Back to the rant; My personal view is that this delay business just totally misses the point. Silent Calls are unacceptable and totally unnecessary. Anyone who could start to think about delays before subsequent calls has already decided that Silent Calls are acceptable. To expect someone to comply with a requirement to wait before making a subsequent Silent Call, implies that you are content for them to make the first Silent Call - it is just nonsense.

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by sherbert on Jul 7th, 2011 at 7:50pm



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/bills/article-2012258/Npower-HomeServe-facing-Ofcom-fine-2million-silent-calls.html

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by Dave on Jul 7th, 2011 at 7:59pm
I put npower silent calls into Google News and the top link was to the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/07/homeserve-npower-fines-silent-calls

Google quotes the article "The only acceptable limit for silent calls is 0%." which is a quote from a well known campaigner on this issue.

It couldn't be put any more succinctly!

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Jul 8th, 2011 at 3:29am
Those interested in following this topic may wish to view (and perhaps subscribe to) a feed of my digest and links to news items and bloggings - no charge, no advertising on my sites.

If anything is thought worthy of discussion, it could be brought into the forum with comments.

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by sherbert on Apr 19th, 2012 at 4:58pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17769761


HomeServe fined £750,000 for silent and abandoned calls
Telephone The calls were made between 1 February and 21 March 2011


 

The HomeServe insurance and home repair company has been fined £750,000 for making too many silent or abandoned calls to potential customers.

The telecoms regulator Ofcom said Homeserve had been guilty of a serious breach of its rules on such calls.

Ofcom said it hoped the fine would send a "strong message" to all companies.

The Walsall based firm has offered to pay compensation of £10 each to the estimated 51,000 householders who were called in February and March last year.

The company blamed faulty equipment at a call centre firm which had been contracted to make the calls on its behalf.

"HomeServe identified the issue and promptly reported it to Ofcom, following an internal audit of all of HomeServe's telemarketing operations," the insurer said.

"The problem was identified as having resulted from the incorrect use of Answering Machine Detection technology via an outsourcer.

"HomeServe can also confirm that all of its dialler systems have been fully compliant with Ofcom regulations since 22 March 2011, following the rectification of the errors identified during HomeServe's audit," it added.

Ofcom's Consumer Group Director, Claudio Pollack, said: "Our rules are there to prevent consumers suffering annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety from silent or abandoned calls."

"We hope today's fine will send a strong message to all companies that use call centres that they need to ensure they are fully compliant with the rules or face the consequences."

Barclaycard was fined the then maximum fine of £50,000 for a similar offence in 2008.

The maximum potential fine was raised to £2m in September 2010.

Adam Scorer at Consumer Focus said he was pleased with the regulator's action.

"While silent and abandoned calls are usually caused by glitches in the technology rather than a deliberate act by sales staff, they are a nuisance and firms that do not control the technology show a lack of respect to consumers," he said.

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by Dave on Apr 19th, 2012 at 5:04pm
The topic of the HomeServe fine for silent calls will be covered on Radio 5 Live at 18:20 this evening. A representative of the Fair Telecoms Campaign will commenting.

See also the story from the Telegraph:

Homeserve fined £750,000 for silent calls

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by sherbert on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 11:30am
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-2167553/Thousands-hassled-unwanted-cold-callers-despite-Government-scheme-block-them.html

Thousands still hassled by unwanted cold callers... despite Government scheme to block them

By Daily Mail Reporter

PUBLISHED: 08:39, 2 July 2012 | UPDATED: 09:50, 2 July 2012


The Information Commissioner is receiving thousands of complaints a month about telemarketing calls

Thousands of households are still being hassled by unwanted cold callers, despite signing up to a new Government scheme designed to stop them.

Telemarketing firms are flouting the service designed to allow the public to block cold calls, an inquiry has revealed.

Not a single fine has been imposed on an offending company for at least 18 months, it found. This is despite thousands of complaints being lodged with the Information Commissioner each month.

Around 17.5 million phone numbers are registered with the Telephone Preference Service – a scheme designed to prevent UK-based companies from making unwanted cold calls.

Industry rules say telemarketing firms should crosscheck their database to ensure those who have asked not to be cold called are left in peace.

But Mike Lordan at the Direct Marketing Association, which runs the TPS, told a Panorama investigation to be broadcast tonight on BBC1 that some companies were ignoring the rules.



He said: ‘Companies are not abiding by legislation and we should be seeing enforcement against those companies who are persistently breaching legislation.’

Richard Lloyd from Which? also told the programme: ‘Even if you have signed up to the telephone preference service now, it won’t make a jot of difference to those companies that are buying and selling that information you gave to that website maybe years ago.’

Panorama says the UK public receive up to three billion marketing calls a year.

One of its undercover reporters secretly filmed staff at Central Claims Group, based in Bury, near Manchester, allegedly tearing pages out of the phone book and calling people at random.

In a statement to Panorama, Central Claims Group said it took its legal and regulatory obligations very seriously and did not condone any lapses.

It said it had ‘informed all employees that using the ordinary telephone directory or introducing themselves as anything other than Central Claims Group will be regarded as gross misconduct warranting summary dismissal’.

A spokesman for the Information Commissioner’s office said that until  this year, it did not have suitable legal powers to act.

Although it now has the power to impose fines of up to £500,000, it said that enforcing the rules was not easy given the vast amounts of money that companies which flout the rules stand to make.



Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by catj on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 9:45pm
The DMA have produced a 'toolkit' to help marketers respond to criticisms...
http://www.dma.org.uk/toolkit/panorama-cold-calling-undercover-pr-toolkit

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by sherbert on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 8:37am
Watching the Panorama programme last night, it could have been a repeat from five years ago and no doubt the programme will be much the same if they do another one in five years time. Same old problems are still going on, nothing has been done or will be done to stop these outrageous practices. >:(

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by sherbert on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 12:05pm
This is the sort of nonsensical reply when you complain to The Information Commissioner’s Office........

Dear **************

Thank you for your correspondence about unsolicited automated direct marketing phone regarding PPI claims.

What we do
The Information Commissioner’s Office regulates the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 (PECR).  The PECR are concerned with the way organisations send marketing material by fax, text, email and telephone.  Marketing can include the promotion of goods, services, aims or ideals.

Automated direct marketing calls
Regulation 19 of the PECR says that automated direct marketing calls cannot be made without prior consent.   Automated calls usually take the form of a pre-recorded message.

Regulation 24 says that the caller must identify themselves when making automated marketing calls and must provide a valid business address or freephone number.

In most cases our approach to complaints is to educate organisations to help them understand what the PECR require.  We will also advise them to take any steps necessary to comply with the PECR in future.

Next steps
Where we receive a valid complaint about an identifiable organisation, we will raise a written complaint with the organisation in question, reminding them of their obligations under the PECR and asking them to suppress the complainant’s contact details. Please note that we are not able to physically prevent or ‘block’ any organisation from calling a particular number as it is not within the Commissioner’s powers to do so. 

Using the systems/databases available to us, we have unfortunately on this occasion been unable to identify the organisation that has called you.

The Information Commissioner’s Office is aware of a number of organisations making these types of calls.  Regrettably they can provide difficult to identify and take action against.

We will, however, keep a record of your complaint as these records may assist us in identifying organisations breaching the PECR in the future.

If we collate information from a number of different complaints we are much more likely to be able to identify those responsible with a view to taking further action against them.  Going forward, you can report any further automated calls which you receive via our website at: Receiving unwanted marketing texts or calls? Please use this link to report any further automated calls which you receive. 

Any action which we take as a result of these reports will be available on our website, www.ico.gov.uk. 

I am sorry we were unable to be of assistance on this occasion.

Yours sincerely

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by CJT-80 on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 2:14pm
Good Afternoon,

This may or may not be appropriate to post here, however after I did a Wikipedia search for the ICO, I found a link for the Telephone Preference Service (TPS), and this link has a petition to the Government - http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/34069 regarding the effectiveness of the TPS. I for one will be signing it.

:)

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by Barbara on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 7:35pm
CJT-80, thanks for the tip, two more signatures just added (subject to receiving the confirming email)

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by sherbert on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 8:02pm

Barbara wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 7:35pm:
CJT-80, thanks for the tip, two more signatures just added (subject to receiving the confirming email)


.....and moi! For all the difference it will make  ::) (My confirming email has been received.)

Total signatures at the moment is 193

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by idb on Jul 6th, 2012 at 3:40am

sherbert wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 12:05pm:
This is the sort of nonsensical reply when you complain to The Information Commissioner’s Office........

Dear **************

Thank you for your correspondence about unsolicited automated direct marketing phone regarding PPI claims.

[...]

I am sorry we were unable to be of assistance on this occasion.

Yours sincerely
As with almost any telephony or numbering abuse in the UK, enforcement action appears to be at a minimum, whether the abuse relates to 0844 numbers within the NHS, PRS and MT SMS text scams, or unsolicited calls. The onus is always on the customer to clear many hurdles to achieve what should be a simple resolution. The feckless regulator maneuvers such that it can absolve itself from getting involved in any activity that may assist the consumer.

A possible solution, that would soon stop much of the cold-calling activity would be to impose a fine, say 100 pounds, for each verifiable call made by a telemarketer to someone who has requested not to receive such calls. The money would be split between the victim and the body overseeing such a scheme. There's little point in threatening half a million pound fines where, realistically, they will never be collected. One hundred quid a pop will hit them where it hurts.

Additionally, telemarketers must be mandated to provide valid caller ID information. Here, federal law requires all telemarketers to transmit CID data. CID spoofing is also in violation of federal law, and whilst these measures do not eliminate junk and silent calls, they certainly help.

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by speedy on Jul 7th, 2012 at 1:15am
Have just added my name to the petition, now 224

I have recently started getting Reclaim PPI calls coming up as International - previously it was only Compuuter Scam calls - now the Scam calls are after Account Details PPI - the last Computer Scam was With-held so are these still coming from India and China - I thought With-held was only this Country.

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by SilentCallsVictim on Sep 3rd, 2012 at 12:58am
This issue is now being heavily pushed in Scotland.

See this article in the Sunday Post and the campaign being run in conjunction with Mike Crockart MP.



I believe that the photo used by the Sunday Post is not of Debbie Harry.


Blondie could however provide a most suitable theme song for some aspects of our campaigns.

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by sherbert on Jun 18th, 2013 at 2:30pm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-2343790/Call-centres-BBC-Three-programme-hit-225-000-fine-nuisance-PPI-calls.html

Title: Re: Ofcom and Silent Calls
Post by NGMsGhost on Jul 30th, 2013 at 2:54pm

speedy wrote on Jul 7th, 2012 at 1:15am:
I have recently started getting Reclaim PPI calls coming up as International - previously it was only Compuuter Scam calls - now the Scam calls are after Account Details PPI - the last Computer Scam was With-held so are these still coming from India and China - I thought With-held was only this Country.


International can come up even if people who are UK based use a cheap Voip or other similar service to connect to the call to UK.  PPI chasing call centres are normally UK based in my experience.

The position on International CLI's seems to have been changing lately as BT never provided them on my rural exchange but I nearly always got International CLI of the caller on my mobile.  But I now generally also get the CLI on my BT line.

Perhaps someone has finally got the OFT or Ofcom to do something about BT Openreach having the nerve to charge for a CLI service that is actually worse than the free equivalent service offered to all mobile phone users.

SAYNOTO0870.COM » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.