Culture, Media and Sport CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Brookmead Consulting [NTC 041]
REVEALING THE IDENTITY OF NUISANCE CALLERS
1. Summary
We propose that Ofcom’s current Persistent Misuse Statement is amended to include the following provisions:
1.
2.
3.
This is proportionate—these provisions are already part of the Direct Marketing Association’s self-regulatory code of conduct, they mirror provisions already in Ofcom’s Persistent Misuse Statement for calls made with Automatic Calling Equipment, and the key provision has been a legal requirement in the USA since 2004.
They can be introduced quickly without primary legislation. Similar changes were made by Ofcom in 2010 in just four months. Allowing for a three to six month transition period for call centres, these changes could become effective within a year.
This would give information and power to consumers who would feel less helpless in the face of these calls.
2. The Problem
2.1 The anonymity that the telephone system can offer makes it difficult for individuals and regulators to identify and report nuisance callers. Many calls centres do not transmit a Caller-ID. Recent research identified that around 48% of nuisance calls arrived without a diallable Caller-ID. Of these, 26% were from international call centres, 11% from call centres which withheld their number, 6% were from call centres where the caller’s number wasn’t available (generally VoIP numbers), and 4% do transmit a Caller-ID but the number is invalid eg “0”, “0000” or “0501”.
2.2 Even where the Caller-ID is valid it often only gives the unobtainable tone or continuous ringing when called so the caller cannot be identified.
2.3 Many individuals find it disturbing that they can’t identify who is calling them. Alun Cairns MP made the point about call centres withholding their numbers very clearly:
“I suppose it could be compared to someone knocking your door wearing a mask or balaclava. Would we answer the door to such an unknown caller? Of course we wouldn’t. Then why do we allow it over the phone?”
2.4 Even when companies do give their names during a telemarketing call they often use misleading or generic names that can’t be traced back to a real company—for example “The Debt Advice Line”, “Personal Injury UK”, “The Energy Advisory Front”, “The UK Energy Assessment team”.
3. The Solution—Changes to Ofcom’s Persistent Misuse Statement
Consumers need to be able to use the Caller-ID information presented with a call to identify the company that called them. They should be able to do this either by calling the Caller-ID provided with the call, or by looking up the Caller-ID on a public database. The solution shouldn’t place an undue burden on legitimate calls centres.
We propose that Ofcom implements this by introducing three provisions into its Statement of Policy on the Persistent Misuse of an Electronic Communications Network or Service.
3.1 Provision 1—All telemarketing calls, charity fundraising calls and debt collection call should carry a Caller-ID
3.1.1 This provision already applies to call centres who call using Automatic Calling Systems—we are just proposing that it is extended to all call centres.
Potential objections
3.1.2 A company could argue that it has a need to protect its identity. If a company can prove it has a particular need to withhold its number then there could be an exemption granted by Ofcom, but it is difficult to think of a circumstance where this is required. An exemption of this sort isn’t part of the US legislation nor part of the current Ofcom Automatic Calling System requirements.
3.1.3 Some call centres use the same number to call on behalf of a variety of clients, so when the individual calls them the agency may find it difficult to easily identify which client they called from. Agencies that use Automatic Calling Equipment should be already be compliant with this provision, so there are systems available to do this.
3.1.4 Overseas call centres cannot easily send a Caller-ID. Ofcom’s Persistent Misuse Statement in 2010 said “Ofcom reluctantly accepts that the technological limits of international networking may result in some dialler calls being delivered to the UK without CLI identification but flagged ‘international’”. Telecoms technology has advanced since 2010 and it is possible for calls from overseas networks to “break out” into the UK network via a UK number. Overseas call centres would complain that this would add costs for them, but we would argue that it would be unfair for a UK call centre to be subject to more stringent regulation than an overseas call centre (in any case many of these companies are calling on behalf of a UK call centre). A large proportion of nuisance call complaints are about international call centres so they should be required to be compliant.
3.2 Provision 2—The Caller-ID must be returnable, must identify the company and allow the individual to opt out from future calls
3.2.1 When the individual calls back the Caller-ID that was delivered they must either speak to a live agent or hear a recorded message. They must be able to identify the company who called them and have the opportunity to opt out of receiving further calls. Companies mustn’t use this call as an opportunity to market their product unless the individual asks to be put through to a sales agent.
3.2.2 It is important that sufficient details are given for the caller to identify the company. “You were called by The UK Energy Assessment team” is not sufficient. Callers should be told the full company name and address
Potential objections
3.2.3 Companies may object on the basis of cost, but with a simple answering machine you can play a message to a caller giving details of your company, and record any caller’s request not to be called again. This is already a requirement for those who use Automatic Calling Systems.
3.3 Provision 3—If a company carries out telemarketing it must register the Caller-IDs it uses with a central public register
3.3.1 There are already a number of databases on the web to help you look up a company name from a phone number—most notably www.WhoCallsMe.com. Since these are crowdsourced the data is unvalidated and may be maliciously manipulated.
3.3.2 We are proposing that a database be set up and managed that holds the Caller-ID and details of the calling company. This would include the company’s full name and address, and an email address that the individual could use to ask them not to call again.
3.3.3 The database would be “open access” so developers can access or download the data and write their own tools to use the information, for example:
Existing crowdsourced database such as www.WhoCallsMe.com could link to this database and alongside public comments could show accurate and verified information about the company that made the calls.
Nuisance calls to mobile phones are a growing problem. If access to the database were made open to third parties then app developers could provide services that tell you the name of the company who is calling you when you receive their call. This open interface model has been hugely successful for Transport For London who, by allowing access to real time data about bus and train arrivals and the availability of bicycles for hire have encouraged a huge variety of apps to be developed (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/businessandpartners/syndication/16493.aspx)
3.3.4 Someone would have to build and maintain this database—the natural place for this is the Telephone Preference Service and it could be funded by the telemarketing industry by a small increase in fees (Note that fees for call centres access to the TPS have fallen in recent years).
Rogue companies
3.4 It can be argued that the rogues will ignore all three provisions, but this is not a reason not to introduce them. The costs of these provisions on call centres are modest, and once they are introduced it will be very evident when a call centre doesn’t comply. It will be easy for enforcement agencies to prove non-compliance and take action.
Spoofed Caller-IDs
3.5 It is possible for call centres overseas or those using VoIP systems to send a Caller-ID that is not their own either to hide them or to implicate another company. We have submitted a proposal to Ofcom and the NICC about how this problem could be addressed.
4. Is this Proportionate?
4.1 It is important that any new regulation introduced is proportionate—that it doesn’t unduly impact the legitimate telemarketing industry.
4.2 It would be difficult for the industry to argue that the provisions we are proposing were disproportionate because all three have been part of the Direct Marketing Association’s Code of Practice for a number of years (see note 1 below). We would expect the industry to welcome these changes to level the playing field and introduce this best practice across the whole industry.
4.3 The first provision we are proposing—the mandatory use of Caller-ID for telemarketing calls—has been a legal requirement in the USA since 2004 (USA Telemarketing Sales Rule 16 CFR Part 310—see note 2 below). The Telemarketing Sales Rule also requires this to be a number “which is answered during regular business hours”. It has also been required in the UK since 2008 for those who use Automatic Calling Systems under Ofcom’s Persistent Misuse Statement (see note 3). This Statement also requires that this is a number “to which a return call may be made”—this is the key element of the second provision we are proposing.
4.4 The provisions we are proposing pass the test of proportionality—they are already implemented in the legitimate call centre industry, parts of them are already a requirement in the UK under certain circumstances, and parts of them have been a legal requirement in the USA for nearly 10 years.
5. Implementation
5.1 Ofcom already have powers to fine those who persistently misuse an electronic communications network or service. The definition of “Misuse” was set out in a Statement in 2006 that was revised in 2008, 2009 and 2010 to reflect changes in the telecoms landscape. Generally Ofcom revise the Statement after a consultation. This was the process that was carried out when they amended the Statement in 2008 to require users of Automated Calling Systems to pass on a Caller-ID to which a return call can be made.
5.2 This can be done in just a few months—in 2010 Ofcom published a consultation paper on 1st June, closed the consultation on 27th July and published the new Statement on 1st October.
5.3 It wouldn’t be reasonable to expect call centres to become compliant immediately. It may take three to six months for call centres to reorganise themselves to meet these new requirements.
6. Conclusion
6.1 The three provisions we are proposing would give consumers much more information about who was calling them. With more information available market forces would then take over:
The companies who abused their relationship with their customers would be identified and would lose business.
People would receive fewer calls from organisations which didn’t pass on a Caller-ID, so rogue operators who didn’t comply with these provisions would find fewer people prepared to answer their calls.
The proposed approach will be effective, is proportionate, will not damage the legitimate call centre industry, and can all be achieved quickly without primary legislation.
August 2013
Note 1
DIRECT MARKETING ASSOCIATION CODE OF PRACTICE, 4TH EDITION, FEBRUARY 2012 VERSION
|
Caller Line Identification |
21.40 |
When undertaking outbound calls, members must provide caller line identification to which a return call may be made which is either a geographic number or a non geographic number adopted as a Presentation Number which satisfies the Ofcom Guide to the use of Presentation Numbers |
|
|
|
|||
|
Information to be given when calling through CLI |
21.41 |
Consumers calling back on the number provided through caller line identification must, either by live operator or a recorded message, be informed: |
|
|
a) |
the identity of the organisation on whose behalf the call was made (which may not necessarily be the same organisation that makes the call) |
||
|
b) |
an opportunity to decline further calls from that organisation. Where the recipient phones to decline further calls, they may be informed that this is not an option because of the circumstances of the call, for example debt recovery, customer service, credit management. If a further call is required, this must be on the same basis as 21.33 below |
||
|
c) |
the message must not include any marketing material and must not be used as an opportunity to market to the recipient. |
||
|
|
|||
|
Publication of network and presentation CLIs |
21.42 |
Members will record and keep up to date details of: |
|
|
— |
Organisation name |
||
|
— |
Contact details for those who wish to be added to their in house do not call list |
||
|
— |
Network CLIs that they use |
||
|
— |
Presentation CLIs that they use |
||
|
— |
CLI text that they forward. |
||
|
This data must be supplied to the Association and will be kept by them on an internal database. This information will be available to the Nuisance Call Bureaux and the public for purpose of allowing them to quickly identify the companies that are calling them. |
|||
http://www.dma.org.uk/sites/default/files/PDF/Code%20of%20practice/COP_scheme4-Feb2012.pdf
Note 2
USA TELEMARKETING SALES RULE 16 CFR PART 310
Telemarketing means a plan, program, or campaign which is conducted to induce the purchase of goods or services or a charitable contribution, by use of one or more telephones and which involves more than one interstate telephone call.
§ 310.4 Abusive Telemarketing Acts or Practices
(a) Abusive conduct generally . It is an abusive telemarketing act or practice and a violation of this Rule for any seller or telemarketer to engage in the following conduct:
(8)
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title16/16cfr310_main_02.tpl
* In the UK the networks don’t allow the transmission of the name of the telemarketer
Note 3
REVISED STATEMENT OF POLICY ON THE PERSISTENT MISUSE OF AN ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK OR SERVICE 2010
For Calls made using Automated Calling Systems
|
A1.56 |
For each outbound call a Caller Line Identification (CLI) number is presented to which a return call may be made which is either a geographic number or a nongeographic number adopted as a Presentation Number which satisfies the Ofcom Guide to the use of Presentation numbers. |
|
|
|
|
A1.57 |
Ofcom reluctantly accepts that the technological limits of international networking may result in some dialler calls being delivered to the UK without CLI identification but flagged “international”. In these circumstances it is even more vital that such centres use the information message and a UK based number so that they may be contacted by called parties after an abandoned call. |
All Telemarketing Calls—Misuse of a CLI Facility
|
A1.69 |
CLI (as defined earlier) is a technology that identifies the number from which a call is made or enables a return call to be made. Ofcom will regard the repeated forwarding of inauthentic or misleading CLI information as persistent misuse. Where users have the ability to choose the CLI number that is forwarded (this is known as a Presentation Number), the deliberate sending of an inauthentic or misleading number from which it is not possible to identify the caller and which does not enable the recipient of a call to return a message is a form of misuse. This is without prejudice to a caller’s right to preserve their anonymity by withholding their number. |
|
|
|
|
A1.70 |
It will also be regarded as a form of misuse to forward a CLI number that has been allocated to a Premium Rate Service provider. A return caller may suffer annoyance or inconvenience by unwittingly making a return call for which they are charged more than they may reasonably expect. |
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/silentcalls/SilentCalls.pdf