Saw this add on feature on OneTel's website.

Anonymous Caller Reject - GBP1.50 a month
Stop calls coming in from withheld numbers.

Is this a good development???

It's something that BT have had for a while, at least
5-10 years ever since the 1471 option came out.

One of the problems we , and a lot of other, companies
have is that with the routing through the switch it
can tend to not display a CLID tag anyway.

This leads to us getting "The recipient has chosen not to
receive calls where the number is witheld."

One of the things I have done is make sure all outgoing calls
have an 0845 tag on them so have an ID.

This has done wonders when we've asked customers.

If they call back the 0845 All it says is "You were called
today by XXXXXXXX, we will attempt to call back later."

Very simple, keeps A LOT of people happy.

Looking at the BT website they charge GBP4.00 per month
for the same service. I would have thought given the
current market they'd have at least matched a price like that.

HTH

DaveA

'Looking at the BT website they charge GBP4.00 per month
for the same service. I would have thought given the
current market they'd have at least matched a price like that.'

Onetel's moto is to offer the basic package tel line/bb/mob at close to non-profit and make the money on the extras whilst still undercutting BT

I think its always good when someone offers a competitive deal that puts some pressure on bigger companies like BT that have a large share of the market to reduce their prices. That said in my experience of BT their standpoint would be one of 'We still have the biggest customer share and we dont care what anyone else offers'

'If they call back the 0845 All it says is "You were called
today by XXXXXXXX, we will attempt to call back later."'

I wish more companies would do this because there is nothing worse than just missing the phone call and then getting the caller witheld there number on 1471

Just a thought, if all UK cc's (ideal world) complied with TPS and also supplied a CLID, using these services would help to stop some of the issues discussed in thread Holiday Rewards: let us out them!

I worked for a major law firm for many years.

They too insisted on witholding the CLI.

So not all repeated unknows are CCs

I wish more companies would do this because there is nothing worse than just missing the phone call and then getting the caller witheld there number on 1471

Originally it was very difficult to do this - many ACD's would simply not allow you to change the outgoing CLI. It would default to the root of the DDI range which tended to be the switchboard. This meant that a lot of call centre's withheld CLI to stop the switchboard getting flooded with "Hello, it's Dave. You called earlier?" type calls.

Just a thought, if all UK cc's (ideal world) complied with TPS and also supplied a CLID, using these services would help to stop some of the issues discussed in thread Holiday Rewards: let us out them!

Hopefully all Call Centre's have complied with TPS. I'm TPS registered and the only telemarketing calls I've received recently were:
* Several Holiday Rewards calls. Discuss in the other thread.
* A mobile phone company who were trying to call the previous resident. The previous resident was a customer and so they were within the regulations.

If anyone's getting marketing calls to a TPS registered number then I'd be interested to hear about it.

Supplying a CLI is something that the industry is now finally coming around to and the DMA has added it as a requirement into their code. However, this code has no legal basis and only applies to DMA members.

If anyone's getting marketing calls to a TPS registered number then I'd be interested to hear about it.


Interesting,

I've just had a conversation with someone in the office here about a cold call from a Tele(Something or other, he can't remember). Who when asked where they
got the number was told they were a part of BT :-)

Obviously an attempted Slam, however with a witheld number the only
thing I could suggest was going to BT and the Infomation Comissioner.

Any other ideas?

TIA

DaveA

...I'm not quite up to speed.

Do you mean...the caller said they were part of (ie, owned by) BT, or they said that they got the number because the subscriber was part of (ie customer) of BT?

Apparantly the line used was.

"We are part of BT".

The person in question IS TPS'd.

Ta,

DaveA

I've heard this before - in fact, I know a couple of people that used to use the line themselves when they worked for slightly less reputable companies than they do now. It was a great way of getting attention. People are far more willing to speak to someone if they think they're from BT.

When questioned they used to claim that they didn't mean to mislead and what they meant was they were a Partner of BT's. Very dodgy...

Anyway, you're right. The only thing they can do is complain to BT and also ofcom about the TPS failure. Even if they are part of BT then it'd probably still be frowned upon if they weren't calling specifically about the live account they have with them.

I find it very interesting how practically all of the users on this (call centre) website are not too keen on cold calls themselves (I am, after all, registered with the TPS), even though many of us are in the business are making them. Anyone got any thoughts on that subject?

>>>>Anyone got any thoughts on that subject?

NIMBY syndrome and a reluctance to address an obvious conflict of interests.

Cold calling must work from an economic point of view else all these outbound centres would soon run out of cash and shut down?

Given that, then people need to work there making the calls and running the place.

Given that these jobs are available and we (this community) have the skills to fulfill those roles and get paid reasonably well for doing so, why wouldn't we take the jobs to better ours and our families lives?

Ask a traffic warden whether he likes receiving tickets when he parks somewhere illegal, i'm assuming that (s)he will say no, but they've got to earn a crust like everybody else?

But surely there must be a point where something becomes so opposed to our own moral view that we would not be able to do it.

For example, you wouldn't see a moral vegetarian working in an abbatoir.

I agree with darryl that there must be a point where something moral will stop you doing your job. I suppose that would come down to an individuals personal preferences and situation

Hypothetically, if a vegetarian was stuck on a desert island with nothing but meat to eat, Would they starve themselves to death to avoid breaching their own moral choices?

With regards to the question about NIMBY, I have been in the call centre industry for almost ten years now and I now have no objection to people calling me at home (i'm not TPS'd), But when i first started I hated being called at home unsolicited.

I can say that my change of opinion was not based on 'earning a crust' but on a better understanding that most agents calling are only trying to do their job(even if they are exceptionally inept), not trying to conn us into something that we don't want, Unfortunately as we are all probably aware there are agents taht do this.

Those agents that call you up cold with a hard sell approach are the calls that i find most annoying, mainly due to the agents attitude that they are going to do you a favour even if you dont want whatever product they have for sale. I think its not such a case of NIMBY, but more GOOMF(Get out of my face)

scott

"Anyway, you're right. The only thing they can do is complain to BT and also ofcom about the TPS failure. Even if they are part of BT then it'd probably still be frowned upon if they weren't calling specifically about the live account they have with them"

I am also TPS and still receive at least a dozen marketing calls each week, from mortgage companies, kitchens, telecoms companies all the usual suspects.(and holiday rewards, of course!)

I have to say I have found almost no difference in the cold call volume, it is just a bit easier to get them on their way.

However regarding the above statement,

I took a blatant marketing call from Sky the other day, even as a Sky subscriber I still do not wish to recieve calls that are not directly connected with my account, but the caller was having none of it. According to this lady, I am a customer therefore it is their right to contact me regarding special offers etc, I couldn't be bothered to argue as I was doing something else at the time, so put the phone down. Whereupon she called me back to continue the argument!

Are they entitled to call me for the purpose of cross and up-selling? I thought not.

Before I continue I should say that one of my last comments was wrong (and Dave was right). A TPS related complaint should go to the OIC and not OFCOM.

I am also TPS and still receive at least a dozen marketing calls each week

That's very strange. Most people I know have found TPS successful. As long as you've been on the list for more than the 28 day "sandbox" period, it may be worth checking with the DMA that you're registered.

Anyway, on to the interesting bit...

Are they entitled to call me for the purpose of cross and up-selling? I thought not.

The DMA used to say that you could call as long as they were an existing customer. I've just checked out the latest legislation (Priv & eComm 2003) which doesn't mention anything about this. Regulation 21.4 says that...

"Where a subscriber who has caused a number allocated to a line of his to be listed in the register kept under regulation 26 has notified a caller that he does not, for the time being, object to such calls being made on that line by that caller, such calls may be made by that caller on that line, notwithstanding that the number allocated to that line is listed in the said register."

Which is a long winded way of saying that if you've opted out (TPS) you must then opt in with each company specifically for them to contact you.

Therefore, it probably comes down to what the Sky T&C's said when you signed up. If there was a section that said that you agreed to them calling you about anything, then it's OK. Otherwise it may contravene the regulation.

On a side note, I think calling you back to continue the argument is a little daft. Any agent could've realised by that point they weren't going to get a sale and moved on to a more juicy looking lead!

I've checked the previous regulations and the rules regarding TPS have changed very little. It leads me to believe that it's not legal to call your customers for marketing purposes (a lot of people assume it is legal).

I looked through the guidance notes produced by the OIC for further information. The guidance does not at any point say that you can call your customers, although it does give the following example:

I asked a company for a quote and now they won't stop calling me. Should I register on TPS to stop them calling me?
TPS registration may not prevent calls from any organisation whose calls you have previously invited and which has assumed that you are happy to receive calls from them. You should write directly to the company and ask them to stop calling you. You should remember to tell them which number(s) they should no longer call. They must comply with this request.

If asking a company for a quote is sufficient for them to "assume you are happy to receive calls", then this would suggest that there is no discrimination between different types of calls from a company.

This is by no means legal advice...I'd suggest that anyone involved in outbound calling to customers where no TPS checking is taking place should ensure that they've taken steps to ensure what they are doing is legal.

Regards,
Current Act
Old Act
OIC Guidance

The parking attendant probably (but not definitely) makes a deliberate choice not to break parking laws) - being more aware of the consequences - (s)he doesn't deliberately break the law in order to keep others in a job, lets not use that spurious argument. The refuse collector is also probably more keenly aware of recycling issues and doesn't deliberately litter, (s)he too makes a moral choice.

By using TPS one has made a moral choice to ban ALL calls not just the badly made ones but the well conducted and useful ones as well. A unilateral approach such as this is inherently NIMBY.

In this week of "Make Poverty History" how many charity or worthy cause calls does a TPS listing eradicate?

Hi Darryl et al,

Thanks for the response, I have checked and I was definitely registered, after the 'bedding in period' I did notice a change for the better but that has gradually eroded over the last six months or so. What have got much better are the 'silent calls', which presumably means that the bods with the diallers are more responsible than those without - oohh - contentious, sorry, that should get a few going.

I was interested in the other interpretations of the DMA guidelines, I did look into this in some depth a while ago and could not come up with anything hard and fast then - I guess it hasn't changed much!

I DO find it a great pity that I miss the good calls, I still take time and trouble over cold callers in the workplace and have made valuable business contacts over the years.

However NIMBY my TPS registration may seem, there are always valid reasons for most things people do, that might defy explanation at first sight. Like a lot of other people in the world I have children of an age that they are at home on their own for a part of the day after school, after two years of constant homework interruptions, prior to GCSEs, I decided enough was enough. As adults we are able to make judgements on whether to take an incoming call etc but children have to be able to pick up the phone with some confidence that it will be relevant to them. I suppose I could have given them a personal mobile for the purpose but why should I?

Additionally, I support charities and other organisations that have relevance to me and will actively seek them out if I wish to - including MPH. I recently subscribed to a phone based scheme involving a very well known charity, had to give personal details etc, I have never had any form of response and can only conclude that I was scammed.

This I can do without.