Nuisance calls

Written evidence submitted by J Birrell [NTC 043]

Nuisance Calls

The current bodies involved with nuisance calls are not fit for purpose. There are three. The TPS registers individuals who do not wish calls. Complaints made to the TPS are forwarded to the other two for action.

In practice 4 or 5 companies have been prosecuted and fined. Reported nuisance calls should initiate an active policing action .

All the different types of calls are known and should be dealt with in the same way.

http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/2012/10/tackling-nuisance-calls-and-messages/

A single body e.g. the TPS with prosecuting powers would suffice if the laws were suitably changed and fixed penalties applied. These would escalate for repeat violations. Currently the impression is that no action is taken until a very lengthy monitoring of violations has been completed. Almost always no action is taken.

The ACT passed in the USA seems to cover most eventualities.

FCC Congress passed the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in 1991 in response to consumer concerns about the growing number of unsolicited telephone marketing calls to their homes and the increasing use of automated and pre-recorded messages. In response, the Federal Communications Commission adopted rules requiring anyone making a solicitation call to your home to provide his or her name, the name of the person or entity on whose behalf the call is being made and a telephone number or address at which that person or entity can be contacted.

Working with the Federal Trade Commission, the agency developed the national Do Not Call Registry, which applies to all telemarketers and covers interstate and intrastate telemarketing calls. Commercial telemarketers are not allowed to call you if your number is on the registry, subject to certain exceptions.

http://www.fcc.gov/topic/do-not-call.

Occasionally a company is given permission to make contact by phone. This number is sometimes sold on. After 3 months the permission could lapse.

There are many ways to prevent unwanted calls. They usually involve an expensive box or an added fee to the phone company. This should not be necessary.

In many cases the caller’s number is withheld. The phone company, time and date of the call should be sufficient if the enforcing company is given the necessary powers. Nuisance callers are HACKING into a line paid for by an individual. It should be treated as HACKING.

July 2013