MSE News: Silent calls targeted in Ofcom crackdown

savemoney

I route my calls through truecall which I can say with confidence I haven't had one cold call since I got it back in March

I have lost faith in regulator I have made repeated complaints before now with them and they seem powerless to act. They may well be tighting up but no doubt companies will some how get around the rules they always do

DVardysShadow

Silent_Calls_Victim wrote: »

BUT ...

when the return call is made after the original was missed and the number was retrieved by dialling 1471 ... how does the switchboard operator deal with it?

This is a one of a number of very sound reasons for many organisations not providing CLI.

Unless you know all the actual / presentation numbers of people who you would like to receive calls from, then caller display does not tell you whether or not to answer a call. If you wish to take a call from an unknown caller you have to answer the call and let them announce themselves. I see no significant difference between unknown and withheld CLI in the context of caller display.

If you miss a call and the caller would be happy for you to call back they will leave a number or a message. Unfortunately, too many callers leave numbers when they cannot handle a return call. I think that people actually get too excited over missed calls - they are "non-events", nothing happened, it takes two to make a conversation. If we have an answering service and no message is left, then clearly the caller wants to leave it there.

The term "anonymous" in the name of ACR is going too far. Unless you know who ever number that could be presented as CLI belongs to, the only anonymous callers are those who do not say who they are when you answer their call. There are quite enough of them, and many use presentation numbers that are either false or lead to a worthless recorded message.

CLI can do 2 things

• Provide a number for calling back
• Provide a traceable ID which associates the call with the calling line

Originally CLI was invented as a solution to nuisance calls. And this is what it is good at. If you get 12 calls in a week and they are from 0845 xxx and you know it is Kitchens Direct, you have evidence to press a complaint. Unfortunately IMO misguided 'privacy' activists insisted on the facility to withhold CLI, which substantially neuters the power of CLI to make callers accountable for their calls.

CLI is now understood as a means of allowing call backs. Indeed, you seem to think that this is all CLI is for. It works for that to some extent, but as you have explained, there are drawbacks.

Going back to my original post, the reason I believe that silent calling companies should be forced to use CLI is not so that you can call them back, but so that you can make them accountable for their behaviour. Please understand that I don't find cold calls acceptable and silent calls is another level of perversion. I believe that Ofcom have taken a particularly limp wristed approach to this problem. But waht they have done would be more effective in making silent calling companies accountable if they were forced to use CLI.

Silent_Calls_Victim

DVardysShadow wrote: »

CLI can do 2 things

BT claims a third - it enables you to "display the caller".

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Originally CLI was invented as a solution to nuisance calls.

I was not aware of that - what a stupid idea!

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Going back to my original post, the reason I believe that silent calling companies should be forced to use CLI is not so that you can call them back, but so that you can make them accountable for their behaviour.

Using CLI to make callers accountable for their behaviour, without call backs would require reverse telephone directories to be published and distributed to everyone.

Did I catch the suggestion that only Silent Calling companies should be required to present CLI? - we are getting back to my burglar. I believe that if we can require Silent Callers to do anything, it should be to stop making Silent Calls!

Those who use predictive diallers may hit an "overdial" situation, where there is no agent available to complete an answered call. In this case the obligation to state one's name and the purpose of the call must be achieved in another way - by use of a recorded Informative Message. The message can only be informative, because other regulations prohibit use of recordings to fulfil a direct marketing purpose.

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Please understand that I don't find cold calls acceptable and silent calls is another level of perversion. I believe that Ofcom have taken a particularly limp wristed approach to this problem. But waht they have done would be more effective in making silent calling companies accountable if they were forced to use CLI.

I make many cold calls. I do however agree with the regulation that prohibits making marketing calls to those who have registered with the Telephone Preference Service.

Unlike me, Ofcom approves of Silent Calls, given that enough non-silent calls are made by the caller on the same day to satisfy a percentage tolerance limit. Ofcom even believes that use of AMD technology, an inevitable cause of Silent Calls, serves the public interest. Ofcom's policy actually reflects the stated position that Silent Callers should provide CLI. In practice however this is only applied in mitigation of cases where the tolerance limit is exceeded. Despite tens of thousands of complaints and 22 investigations, nobody has been found to be exceeding the tolerance limit since 2007.

DVardysShadow

Silent_Calls_Victim wrote: »

BT claims a third - it enables you to "display the caller".

That is not a third reason, it is just how CLI fulfills the 2 reasons I gave.

Silent_Calls_Victim wrote: »

Originally CLI was invented as a solution to nuisance calls

I was not aware of that - what a stupid idea!

Using CLI to make callers accountable for their behaviour, without call backs would require reverse telephone directories to be published and distributed to everyone.

Nuisance calls includes abuse, sexpests and the like. CLI is not a stupid idea, the police can go through to the telecom operator and use their 'reverse directory'. Plus if it is repetitive sales calls, then it does not matter that individuals don't have access to the reverse directory - the regulator will and even posting the number here on MSE will often yield a culprit.

Silent_Calls_Victim wrote: »

Did I catch the suggestion that only Silent Calling companies should be required to present CLI? - we are getting back to my burglar. I believe that if we can require Silent Callers to do anything, it should be to stop making Silent Calls!

No you did not get a suggestion from me that only Silent Call companies should present CLI. Just that they should. I agree that Ofcom have failed by allowing silent calls. Their stipulation is useless because without CLI, there is no way of gathering evidence that companies are ignoring Ofcom's pathetic attempt at regulation.

Silent_Calls_Victim wrote: »

Those who use predictive diallers may hit an "overdial" situation, where there is no agent available to complete an answered call. In this case the obligation to state one's name and the purpose of the call must be achieved in another way - by use of a recorded Informative Message. The message can only be informative, because other regulations prohibit use of recordings to fulfil a direct marketing purpose.


I make many cold calls. I do however agree with the regulation that prohibits making marketing calls to those who have registered with the Telephone Preference Service.

Unlike me, Ofcom approves of Silent Calls, given that enough non-silent calls are made by the caller on the same day to satisfy a percentage tolerance limit. Ofcom even believes that use of AMD technology, an inevitable cause of Silent Calls, serves the public interest. Ofcom's policy actually reflects the stated position that Silent Callers should provide CLI. In practice however this is only applied in mitigation of cases where the tolerance limit is exceeded. Despite tens of thousands of complaints and 22 investigations, nobody has been found to be exceeding the tolerance limit since 2007.

The investigations will be limited and at source. CLI will allow the problem to be identified at destination.

Without CLI, if someone gets 3 silent calls in a day, there is no way of saying that 1 particular company is breaching Ofcom's limit. Everyone can say 'wasn't me, guv' quite plausibly. With CLI, if someone gets 3 silent calls in a day, regularly from different companies, Ofcom cannot say that it must be 1 rogue company, they have to face up to the fact that too many companies are doing it.

Silent_Calls_Victim

I do see "displaying the identity of the caller", before you decide whether or not to answer a call as an additional feature. This is claimed by some, but is true only where the necessary equipment and service is in place and the number is recognised. I understand that this may in part be an unintended spin-off benefit of the introduction of CLI. Those callers I recognise are generally not regarded as a nuisance, although it is good to know that I can deliberately leave them to speak to the answering service when they are.

Perhaps I was not being sufficiently clear in what I meant by CLI being a stupid idea as the answer to nuisance calls. I was referring only to what we see as CLI - often a presentation number, not the underlying true line identity that is always available to the telco - and hence "appropriate" authorities. Faking a presentation number is very easy to do. This is why I have no problem with those who choose instead to simply withhold their CLI - so long as they announce themselves when I answer their call.

I understand that whilst reciprocal arrangements for the release of caller details exist with some overseas countries, this is not universal. There still remains the problem of identifying the UK client who has placed their work offshore, but is still governed by regulations and statutes.

We also have the problem that BT does not trust the CLI from many overseas countries and therefore chooses to withhold it.

If those who do not wish to receive return calls are to be required to provide CLI, then we lose the benefit of CLI as a means of providing a number for a return call, unless we are prepared to take the risk of making a useless call.


I continue to struggle with the idea that if we cannot get those who cause nuisance to stop causing nuisance, we could get them to show who they are, so that they can be caught doing it.

There are some who believe that it is OK to hang up in silence so long as you provide a number which routes to a meaningless recorded message from an agency call centre. I profoundly disagree and do not wish to offer any comfort to those who hold this view. Those who in any way suggest that CLI is any part of the answer to Silent Calls are used to support this position.

I am not in the slightest bit interested in helping Ofcom to implement its current absurd policy which states that repeat Silent Calls do not cause harassment if they occur once a day and that Silent Calls in general do not cause annoyance inconvenience or anxiety if the caller makes lots of non-silent calls on the same day. Every Silent Call is an example of misuse, whoever it is from and whether or not a presentation number is given. Ofcom was aware of 100,000 instances of Silent Calls where the caller was identified in 2009 and it did not use its statutory powers once. I have no reason to assume that a higher percentage of identified instances would have made any difference.

I do not want to help Ofcom to implement a Catch #22 - "If you know who it was we do not need to do anything about it, if you don't then we can't".

Heinz

Silent_Calls_Victim wrote: »

We also have the problem that BT does not trust the CLI from many overseas countries and therefore chooses to withhold it.

Not so. BT has told me in writing that the reason they do not pass incoming international CLI information is (ridiculously) that they do not know whether the overseas caller wanted to withhold their number - so they withhold them all!

DVardysShadow

Silent_Calls_Victim wrote: »

...
I continue to struggle with the idea that if we cannot get those who cause nuisance to stop causing nuisance, we could get them to show who they are, so that they can be caught doing it.

There are some who believe that it is OK to hang up in silence so long as you provide a number which routes to a meaningless recorded message from an agency call centre. I profoundly disagree and do not wish to offer any comfort to those who hold this view. Those who in any way suggest that CLI is any part of the answer to Silent Calls are used to support this position.

The idea is to show who is doing it, not to ring them back. I don't feel I am being 'used'. I believe that rigorously applied CLI is essential to making callers accountable. At the moment, the system is unaccountable - and Ofcom's feeble decision has allowed the perpetrators to remain unaccountable.

Silent_Calls_Victim

DVardysShadow wrote: »

The idea is to show who is doing it, not to ring them back.

We must remember that the true calling line is always known to the telcos. We are discussing what is provided as CLI to the receiving subscriber. Apart from the "big society" solution, where responsibility for identifying callers falls to commercially sponsored websites such as "whocallsme", the only way that a caller may be identified from their CLI is by calling back.

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Ofcom's feeble decision has allowed the perpetrators to remain unaccountable.

Ofcom has a clear policy that all users of Automated Calling Systems should provide CLI; that is its decision - which some may describe as feeble, because it is unenforceable. If we are discussing Ofcom policy, then the advocates of CLI have already won the debate.

Ofcom cannot impose a specific regulatory requirement that CLI be provided to call recipients. The law is very clear on the point that a means of tracing a caller must be available to "appropriate" authorities, but that callers have the right not to reveal a contact number to those they call. BT relaxed its interpretation of the term "appropriate" to include Ofcom in 2003, that is how Kitchens Direct came to be investigated.


If one believes that every caller should be accountable to those they call and that this can be achieved by provision of CLI, then one should campaign for the right to withhold CLI to be withdrawn.

I believe that accountability is achieved by a duty to say who you are and why you are calling when your call is answered. Blatant failure to fulfil that duty should be subject to use of Ofcom's powers covering misuse of the telecommunications network.

If the issue is about holding perpetrators of Silent Calls accountable, there is a simple question to be asked - how would one hold those who fail to provide CLI accountable?

Ofcom already has a policy of requiring CLI from Silent Callers; if it were to have a policy of not tolerating Silent Calls, then which of these should have priority in implementation?

kevanf1

It just bugs me that it is us, the consumer, the telephone company customer, who have to pay to stop these nuisance calls. We are currently getting a mix of silent calls and actual manned calls from a well known UK home shopping catalogue company. My son was a customer but this was a few years ago. I have personally asked this company to stop phoning us. They have not listened. Yes, our number is ex-directory and we have signed up to the TPS years ago.

Now, a question. Is there a set time limit (hours of the day) when a company can 'legally' call you? Just lately this catalogue company previously mentioned has started to call us at just after 8:00am. Being disabled I don't sleep well and this happens to be a time when I am finally getting some sleep. Let's just say I am getting angrier by the day.

kevanf1

Well, waste of time complaining to OFCOM. This is what I've just had from them:

"Thank you for providing Ofcom with the information below.

As explained, this will be used for monitoring purposes only as Ofcom do not become involved in the resolution of individual consumer complaints."

Why have I bothered?