MSE News: Silent calls targeted in Ofcom crackdown

Silent_Calls_Victim

kevanf1 wrote: »

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?

This is Ofcom getting its different roles confused. As a regulator of telephone companies, Ofcom does not get involved in the resolution of individual consumer complaints, it demands use of independent resolution services by both parties.

In the case of Silent Calls, unless it is your telephone service provider that is making them, this falls within Ofcom's quite separate principal duty to further the interests of citizens in relation to telecommunications matters. Ofcom's decision not to respond to individual complaints about Silent Calls (which was implemented after it had responded to mine) is a neglect of that duty. I have proposed that the relevant powers be subcontracted to another body able to act in the public interest against those who cause nuisance, as Ofcom's primary role is as the regulator of providers of communications services.

Complaints about a failure to comply with TPS registration are nothing to do with Ofcom. The relevant statutory regulations are enforced by the Office of the Information Commissioner - see http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/privacy_and_electronic_communications.aspx

kevanf1

Silent_Calls_Victim wrote: »

This is Ofcom getting its different roles confused. As a regulator of telephone companies, Ofcom does not get involved in the resolution of individual consumer complaints, it demands use of independent resolution services by both parties.

In the case of Silent Calls, unless it is your telephone service provider that is making them, this falls within Ofcom's quite separate principal duty to further the interests of citizens in relation to telecommunications matters. Ofcom's decision not to respond to individual complaints about Silent Calls (which was implemented after it had responded to mine) is a neglect of that duty. I have proposed that the relevant powers be subcontracted to another body able to act in the public interest against those who cause nuisance, as Ofcom's primary role is as the regulator of providers of communications services.

Complaints about a failure to comply with TPS registration are nothing to do with Ofcom. The relevant statutory regulations are enforced by the Office of the Information Commissioner - see http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/privacy_and_electronic_communications.aspx

With no offence intended to you 'Silent Calls Victim' this is just about typical of this country. Prior to the 'clear English campaign' and the award of the 'Crystal Mark' people had to put with awful gobbledygook in documents. I view this in a similar manner. By that I mean that al of this should fall under one single banner. It should be dealt with by one single authority. The public should have one point of contact be that telephone, postal mail or web/e-mail to a united body. This body would then decide which part of itself dealt with specific problems.

Anyway, I received yet another call from this 'catalogue' company mentioned previously this very dinnertime. As soon as the operator started to speak I asked if she was calling on behalf of 'XYZ' (hope there isn't a catalogue co, called XYZ now)and she said yes. At this point I politely asked for our number to be removed from there call system (this is the second time and I told her this). I have also e-mailed the company requesting we be removed from their calls list. We shall see what happens.

Silent_Calls_Victim

kevanf1 wrote: »

With no offence intended to you 'Silent Calls Victim' this is just about typical of this country. Prior to the 'clear English campaign' and the award of the 'Crystal Mark' people had to put with awful gobbledygook in documents. I view this in a similar manner. By that I mean that al of this should fall under one single banner. It should be dealt with by one single authority.

You make a good point. Sadly the "clear English" campaign can mean that complex and difficult situations, why defy proper explanation in a few simple words, have to be left unexplained. I do not believe that the "clear English" campaign approves of misrepresentation, although it is seen to encourage it.

It is not easy to say whether it is better to have many different authorities, each of which has specific clear functions, or one which can present a simple face to citizens. Obviously life would be easier if everything was naturally clear and simple; I do not believe that we are right to kid ourselves that it is. We need to understand and tackle the complexities to address the many essential truths that lie within.


The need for the "persistent misuse" powers arose from a gap that was left when previous regulations that applied to telephone companies were simplified to enable and encourage competition. It was thought that Ofcom was the appropriate body to take on the additional responsibility of filling this gap, even though it did not fit it well with its other duties.

Silent Calls as a result of direct marketing could (and probably should) have been addressed in one of the regulations which the ICO enforces, however they were explicitly left out. The relevant regulation, which prohibits use of recorded messages for Direct Marketing, is separate from that covering the TPS as it applies to everybody. Explicit consent, rather than the absence of an "opt-out" is required for these.

It was decided that Silent Calls made with a direct marketing purpose should be covered, together with Silent Calls from debt collectors and genuine research organisations, by use of Ofcom's discretionary powers. The ICO-enforced regulations do not cover Silent Calls.


This means that Silent Calls from the catalogue company, where the direct marketing purpose is not declared, are covered by the discretionary "persistent misuse" powers exercised by Ofcom. Non-silent calls from the same company, where the direct marketing purpose is declared, represent a breach of the statutory "privacy" regulations which are enforced by the ICO. The company has a clear legal duty to respect both the explicit and implicit (via TPS registration) requests not to receive calls where they declare their direct marketing purpose by speaking.

Just to make the situation more confusing, only those companies subjected to a formal Enforcement Notification from Ofcom are under a legally enforceable duty to comply with Ofcom's "rules" limiting the number of Silent Calls they make. There is only one company (Ultimate Credit Services Limited) in this situation at present.

Oh, that life could be simpler!

Heinz

That's so ridiculously (and unnecessarily) complicated that I'm beginning to lean towards the whistle solution.

savemoney

Why indeed I could have saved you bother had I known

Waste of time this regulator another reason it need a kick up backside

Get truecall if you must stop silent calls I did what you did and it doesn't work. I Know it costs but it does work

kevanf1 wrote: »

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?

Rupert_Bear

I keep getting calls from telephone no. 01252 728895 and when I go to answer they just hang up. This has been going on for the last week. Sometimes I go to answer the phone and let it ring only about 3 times and it stops. I have found out this is one of those companys selling life insurance. I feel now I am just being harassed and playing a cat and mouse game now. Any ideas what I can do. Also I have never contacted them.

Heinz

whocallsme confirms it's Click Insurance, who probably got the number from a certain comparison website.

Silent_Calls_Victim

For the reasons given, a regulatory solution for the sake of all is very complicated, but some of us keep trying.

For a personal solution, "trueCall" is excellent, both in concept and delivery. I wish it could be offered more cheaply.

My general advice to victims is to remember that your phone line is for you to use as you wish. Never answer a call unless you are ready to speak to whoever may be calling. If you do not wish to speak to the caller, or they do not say who they are, put the phone down and get on with your life. If you want to speak to someone, try calling them to see if they are free to talk. We should be able to make life a little better than that, and we are trying to do so.

Silent_Calls_Victim

Oh dear, Oh dear - the BBC adds to the confusion. Watchdog has just broadcast some nonsense about criminal offences, calls originated overseas not being covered by regulations, random dialling being the cause of Silent Calls and Ofcom not being able to investigate individual complaints.

The effort of having to correct all of this rubbish diverts energy that should be directed against the culprits.

kevanf1

Silent_Calls_Victim wrote: »

Oh dear, Oh dear - the BBC adds to the confusion. Watchdog has just broadcast some nonsense about criminal offences, calls originated overseas not being covered by regulations, random dialling being the cause of Silent Calls and Ofcom not being able to investigate individual complaints.

The effort of having to correct all of this rubbish diverts energy that should be directed against the culprits.

I didn't think that calls originating overseas were covered? Unless they were from a call centre with a UK base? For example one of the many banks in this country who have call centres in India who ring offering bank loans. They can be stopped by the way if you request it at your local branch together with paper based loan offers.

Also, a little bit of good news. It's early days as yet but for 2 days now we've been free of calls from 'that catalogue company' Perhaps me being polite and asking them to stop has worked.... we'll see.