1471 and callback rip-off

BTcustomerservicehaha

A Canadian company: "European Lottery Guild", it seems,wrongly programmed its caller line identification and omitted the first 0 from the international number. Its call centre dialled customers in the UK.
Most customers got silent or missed calls and saw a twelve digit number displayed or 1471 notified them of this number. (UK numbers have eleven digits.)
When the customers tried to call the number back back manually or dial 3 for auto call back, they got connected to a UK domestic telephone corresponding to the first 11 digits of this incorrect number. They were charged for callback and perhaps the call as well, to a poor beleaguered subscriber who took hundreds of calls from angry and disbelieving people.
The subscriber reported the matter to BT faults - clueless! - and repeatedly chased BT before complaining to Ofcom and dealing with BT " High Level Complaints" managers.
BT's bottom line: It is the Canadian company's fault for using a wrong CLI, nothing to do with us....
So BT are perfectly content it seems to have 1471 give out non-existent 12 digit numbers, and to charge for callback trying to dial them.
Research on the web suggests that this is not unusual. How many people have paid for callback and been wrongly connected I wonder?
Presumably BT boffins could program their system not to give out 12 digit numbers and to prevent callback from applying to such numbers - but that would lose revenue wouldn't it?

cajef

BTcustomerservicehaha wrote: »

Most customers got silent or missed calls and saw a twelve digit number displayed or 1471 notified them of this number. (UK numbers have eleven digits.)

When the customers tried to call the number back back manually or dial 3 for auto call back, they got connected to a UK domestic telephone corresponding to the first 11 digits of this incorrect number. They were charged for callback and perhaps the call as well,

So it is BT's fault that people are stupid enough to call back a strange unidentified number that does not leave any message.

I would never ring one of these numbers, if it is someone important trying to contact you they will either leave a message if an answerphone comes on or ring back again.

st999

Why is it a rip off? If I am out and come home I never dial 1471 to see if anyone called when I was out. Same if I am in the garden and they hang up before I reach the phone.

Tough, they phoned me. If it is that important they will call back.

Stan

Jemma-T

cajef wrote: »

So it is BT's fault that people are stupid enough to call back a strange unidentified number that does not leave any message.

Because the OP is obviously stupid and won't accept responsibilty.

Blame everyone apart from yourself. Convenient yes, but you'll not learn much in life.

I have weeds the size of trees in my garden. Bloody BT!

BexTech

I have never and would never call back a number I do not recognise. That's just something fools do.

cajef

Jemma-T wrote: »

I have weeds the size of trees in my garden. Bloody BT!

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

bunking_off

I'm interested in the source of this story, because there's a couple of things don't add up. In addition to the CLI, there are other flags that are sent in the (internal) network signalling that aren't necessarily passed on to the end user. One of these is whether the call has come across an international link, which sets the CLI as being international in nature.

Now, BT tends to take that flag, and if it is set, does not display the CLI, but displays international or unavailable or "we do not have the caller's number to return your call" in the case of 1471. They do this because CLIs received internationally are so unreliable and easily spoofed. Other networks, particularly mobiles, do display the CLI regardless : it's a tightrope for network operators because if they do display they can be subject to accusations of collusion like this thread, don't display accusations of covering up the origin on legimately formatted CLIs.

So, back to the story, I'm somewhat surprised that a Canadian company could misformat their number and get it into the UK network without the international flag being set. This points to either a UK international operator not running their network per the agreed technical standards, or a UK national operator re-originating calls from Canada directly into the UK network.

Either way, it isn't BT who are at fault for displaying it. Ofcom's CLI Guidelines refer the technical details to NICC, the relevant standard being ND1016. Section 2.3 of this makes it pretty clear that the terminating CP should simply display the CLI as received, and it's the responsibility of either the originator (UK call, Section 2.2.4) or international network (overseas call, Section 2.6.1) to get the CLI right.

BTcustomerservicehaha

Thanks for the links. I am trying to understand the CLI process and I guess must accept that the blame doesn't attach to BT - apparently.
I am the unfortunate subscriber who took hundreds of calls from mainly old people who were calling to find out why they were being called repeatedly and never had time to get to answer the phone. Despite what other posters have said, I don't think it unreasonable that someone would try and contact a nuisance silent caller to find out what's what.
I'm reliant on the "explanation" for this chaos on (1) European Lottery Guild in Vancouver and (2) BT. I don't know what to believe.
The calls to the people who rang me, came from a call centre in Canada so should have been flagged as international. If an extra 0 had been applied to the start of the CLI, it would have related to an unallocated mobile phone on the Rogers network in British Columbia. This seems iffy in itself and I still have some doubts about the bona fides of ELG. However, after I had some of the callers to me contact ELG customer Service, the latter did confirm the calls originated with them and agreed to check tapes in respect of alleged abusive, unprofessional or dishonest calls that some of the old folk who did manage to speak to the caller, reported. Initially ELG blamed BT for a switching (?) issue, but then admitted they may have mis-programmed something. Whatever was the case, they altered something and the calls to me dried up.
BT referred me to the Ofcom CLI guidelines and maintained it was nothing to do with BT.
The point I was trying to make was that hundreds of people were being charged by BT for calling back to an incorrect "impossible" 12 digit number and I didn't think the system should allow that. I stand corrected but would still like to understand how it happened, in plain language!

Paul_Varjak

It's a bit like saying the Royal Mail are to blame for delivering a letter with the wrong return address on the envelope!

bunking_off

When this has happened in the past (e.g. in 2000 when 020 7 / 020 8 numbers were introduced there were a lot of misdials to 01207/01208, and in 1998 when 0870 was introduced there were a lot of misdials to 01870), I think BT offered customers a new number or had an intercept service whereby calls were verified as being valid before being passed through. Might be worth asking.