Tonight I received another of those annoying silent calls. The difference this time was the caller ID being 0866 4776450 instead of "withheld".

I could not find 0866 on the Ofcom number plan. Does anybody know what classification this falls under and the charge rate might be?

It could be, you are getting a telesales computer phoning your number? (as i was) I was told their computer auto dials numbers in blocks and if there is no telesales staff  there then you just get silence or you get hung up on

You can stop this by getting you telephone number removed for free via telephone pref service  http://www.mpsonline.org.uk/tps/  good luck
;D

I have been registered for some months now. It has stopped most telesales, but some cowboys seem to ignore it. The worst being Space Kitchens.

I really wanted to know what the 0866 number was.

I am not sure what the answer to your question is but here is a clue:

Indian Railways have many 0866 numbers, such as for example:

R. Ramanathan, Divisional Railway Manager  0866-572690

It may be far fetched but in view of many call centres being transferred to India perhaps somehow the Indian geographic number 'leaked through'.

Interesting. I thought that foreign numbers normally came through with the country code (?)

Nope, not all BT exchanges can handle the full international CLI and so one might see (almost) anything. Since the field can be filled with pretty much anything all manner of numbers might be displayed.
The real problem is people hiding behind UNAVAILABLE, rather than WITHHELD now that many people use the overpriced Anonymous Call Rejection (ACR) service. >:(

wrote on Mar 15^th, 2005 at 3:09pm:

The real problem is people hiding behind UNAVAILABLE, rather than WITHHELD now that many people use the overpriced Anonymous Call Rejection (ACR) service. >:(

I personally can't believe that anyone subscribes to the Anonymous Call Rejection Service unless they are David Beckham or Tony Blair.

Think of all those large companies on 0870 who need to call you back who have Number Withheld.  I just don't see how people can use this service unless they are suffering a genuine stalker/pest who makes unwanted calls at 3am in the morning?

My number is listed with directory enquiries but I am also registered with the TPS and the only sales call I have had all year from a company based in the uk is from my former University trying to sell me a 4 year donation plan at £180 a year.  This started off on the pretext of a market research call and then switched to the agressive hard sell donation front.  I have made a complaint to the TPS and am probably also going to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner.

I do of course get calls once a fortnight or so from Las Vegas telling me I have won a Jackpot and to call a certain number.  The last one invited me to call an 0800 number rather than the usual 0906 so I have no idea how they make money on that.  Of course all these prizeline calls are International and then Number Withheld or Unavailable.  The problem will stop when ICSTIS introduces a one month payment delay between the making of an 0906 call and the transfer of the money to the companies concerned.

wrote on Mar 15^th, 2005 at 10:40pm:

I personally can't believe that anyone subscribes to the Anonymous Call Rejection Service unless they are David Beckham or Tony Blair..

My mother is neither, but I still baulk at the cost - if not the benefit to her.

wrote on Mar 15^th, 2005 at 11:58pm:

My mother is neither, but I still baulk at the cost - if not the benefit to her.

I just find it hard to credit that some people have this closed a circle of likely callers.  And if they do then surely the odd unexpected call is hardly going to bother them that much?  So long as they have also registered with the TPS as a much cheaper and more cost effective alternative to using Anonymous Call Rejection.  Also using an answerphone to screen calls would surely be more effective than ACR?

Also surely all the Las Vegas Jackpot calls are Unavailable instead of Withheld so what good does this anonymous call rejection service actually do her?  Obviously it is going to make BT richer though so perhaps she is a loyal BT shareholder then?

Is your mother a full time recluse then or just old and confused so probably gets very upset when someone she doesn't know calls?  Or perhaps you are worried that some pushy salesman will try and sell her something to her although again the TPS should deal with that better than ACR will.

Has anyone actually tried to call this 0866 572690 ??? . . . does it actually ring ?

According to Magenta Systems code lookup utility, it doesn't seem to exist, at least not any more (see below).

I suspect that it is supplied to get around the Reject call if number witheld feature by putting anything in there. I've had quite a few from 0870's that don't exist, so why not go the whole hog and just put rubbish in there.

0866 used to be one of the pager numbers for Motorola if my memory serves correct. They were all dumped recently so I've now got 2 useless (working) pagers if anyone wants them !   :-/

wrote on Mar 16^th, 2005 at 12:55am:

I suspect that it is supplied to get around the Reject call if number witheld feature by putting anything in there. I've had quite a few from 0870's that don't exist, so why not go the whole hog and just put rubbish in there.

The block of central London flats that my mother lives in provides a phone service to residents via a business PBX system and that provides a false CLI number of 020 7698 2000 that does not exist so as to overcome the automated rejection thing for withheld number calls.

At present it doesn't seem to actually be illegal to provide a fictitious CLI, although I assume there might be problems if you picked a CLI number that actually belonged to another real subscriber?

wrote on Mar 16^th, 2005 at 12:09am:

Is your mother a full time recluse then or just old and confused so probably gets very upset when someone she doesn't know calls?  Or perhaps you are worried that some pushy salesman will try and sell her something to her although again the TPS should deal with that better than ACR will.

No to the first part. We registered with the TPS, but took against receiving calls that might be better dealt with by BT's Malicious Calls Bureau. A friendly and efficient body, but this was the quick solution.

wrote on Mar 16^th, 2005 at 11:38am:

No to the first part. We registered with the TPS, but took against receiving calls that might be better dealt with by BT's Malicious Calls Bureau. A friendly and efficient body, but this was the quick solution.

OK if you are receiving genuinely malicious calls with people hanging up or making threats then this would be the one good reason to employ the facility for automatically rejecting calls from number withheld.  But there do seem a lot of downsides to activating such a facility in terms of preventing genuine callers from also being able to reach you.

By the way do BT let you have this facility in their package of up to 4 network services for £10.50 a quarter or is it like Call Minder by having its own special higher charge and not being available in a network services package deal?

Nope, excluded from select services, hence my original complaint about cost.

And, of course, genuine callers can release their number.

wrote on Mar 16^th, 2005 at 12:27pm:

And, of course, genuine callers can release their number.

They can't release their number if they are calling you back from any sort of large corporate office with a PBX or from most large customer service centres.

But perhaps you and your mum never receive any calls from those kinds of places.

I take your point, but then I expect large PABXs to be properly managed - my clients' are.
Hence my original comment about using UNAVAILABLE to avoid releasing a number.
And, of course, BT use an 0800 number to a recorded message to address this for many of their outbound calls.
My mother's line and our own home lines (and office for that matter) accept anonymous calls, but with less of a welcome at home  :)

wrote on Mar 16^th, 2005 at 12:55am:

Has anyone actually tried to call this 0866 572690 ??? . . . does it actually ring ?   :-/

It returns NU

wrote on Mar 20^th, 2005 at 11:02pm:

It returns NU

It is pretty easy to present a fictitious CLI if you want to and this is what appears to be happening here.

Thats ironic!

The tpsonline site states

If you have been troubled by calls where the phone rings but on answering there is no one there, you may wish to register your number on the Silent Callgard Service on 0870 4443969.

wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2005 at 7:47pm:

If you have been troubled by calls where the phone rings but on answering there is no one there, you may wish to register your number on the Silent Callgard Service on 0870 4443969.

The TPS have an 0845 number I believe................

Yes, the standard registration line is 0845 070 0707,
but apparantley you have to pay more to block the silent calls. It doesn't make sense that it is treated differently.

wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2005 at 7:58pm:

Yes, the standard registration line is 0845 070 0707, but apparantley you have to pay more to block the silent calls. It doesn't make sense that it is treated differently.

Since when did anything about the telecoms companies make sense from a consumer perspective

I do sometimes see a UK caller ID (translated into a stored name) on my US cell phone when I get a call from the UK, so obviously the caller ID does get transferred on an international call? It doesn't appear to be consistent - sometimes it will just show no number.

However, since it works one way, it may work the other. 1-866-xxx-xxxx (866-477-6450) is definitely within the US numbering range of 1-800 numbers (ie toll free calls). So could the silent call be from the USA?

Just a thought  ;)

wrote on Mar 24^th, 2005 at 3:31am:

However, since it works one way, it may work the other. 1-866-xxx-xxxx (866-477-6450) is definitely within the US numbering range of 1-800 numbers (ie toll free calls). So could the silent call be from the USA? Just a thought

Good suggestion Mike.  Yes overseas numbers do sometimes get presented on our Caller Display here but again very erratically.  For instance a guy who was visiting here from Latvia a number of years ago had his Latvian mobile number come up on my caller display when using it roaming inside the UK.   And my uk mobile gets uk CLI's from uk numbers when in Greece, Spain etc, etc.

But most overseas fixed lines that I don't want to hear from are anonymous but obviously they have good reason to be so.  However as most silent calls seem to originate from random diallers in the USA (the centre of telesales marketing) then what you suggest about this number probably originating in the USA makes a lot of sense.

I'm unsure as to whether anyone else has had this experience, but we received a couple of calls about 6 months ago from what seemed to be a call centre.  We could hear general chatter in the background but nobody was actually speaking to us.

I put the phone down to cut them off, then picked up the phone a few seconds later, and they were still there :o.  Then I replaced the handset for a minute and when I picked up again, they were still there.  This went on as I left the phone for longer periods of time.  However, through all of this, I was unable to dial any number, even 999.

Anyone know who this may be and why it happened?? ???  

On the UK public system the person making the call controls it; after all they are the one paying the bill (save for 080 numbers).

So such a wrong number or misdial will seize your line, until the caller clears down.

wrote on Mar 24^th, 2005 at 1:43pm:

On the UK public system the person making the call controls it; after all they are the one paying the bill (save for 080 numbers). So such a wrong number or misdial will seize your line, until the caller clears down.

Or until it times out, providing the receiving party puts the handset down.

But I was the receiving party and I did put the phone down... for a long time and afterwards they were still there! ???

wrote on Mar 24^th, 2005 at 9:32pm:

But I was the receiving party and I did put the phone down... for a long time and afterwards they were still there! ???

wrote on Mar 24^th, 2005 at 1:43pm:

On the UK public system the person making the call controls it; after all they are the one paying the bill (save for 080 numbers). So such a wrong number or misdial will seize your line until the caller clears down.

As I said above.

wrote on Mar 24^th, 2005 at 9:32pm:

But I was the receiving party and I did put the phone down... for a long time and afterwards they were still there! ???

I'm sure that's how it works, I don't know how long it is. It is most probably a mobile in someone's pocket.

OK, so if I wanted to say, Murder someone (not that I ever would :o), all I have to do is phone their landline from my mobile and not cleardown, thus preventing them from being able to use their line and call for help??

I think not... ::)

wrote on Mar 25^th, 2005 at 10:48am:

I think not... ::)

But actually the case, hence outgoing-only lines, RedCare and so on.

:o Well I've learnt something! :o

Shouldn't Ofcom be made aware of this blatant flaw in our telephone system?

See here. It seems that MKD Holdings Ltd (trading as Kitchens Direct) are still making loads of silent calls. They appear to have been doing it for well over a year now. See this complaint on Ofcom's site.

There is also an interview with one Mike Peacock of Ofcom on the BBC News clip.

wrote on May 25^th, 2005 at 11:10pm:

There is also an interview with one Mike Peacock of Ofcom on the BBC News clip.

You mean Matt Peacock I believe although I agree that the BBC have misquoted his name a couple of times.

wrote on May 26^th, 2005 at 12:09am:

You mean Matt Peacock I believe although I agree that the BBC have misquoted his name a couple of times.

You may be interested to know that someone else who appears in that BBC clip has found your site.

Anyone interested in the issue of stopping Silent Calls may wish to look at www.users.waitrose.com/~SilentCalls.

As the only consumer to have pursuaded Ofcom to use its powers under Sections 128 - 131 of the Communications Act 2003, I may be of help to the SayNoTo0870 campaign.

Using these same powers that cover Silent Calls, Ofcom may take action against those who use revenue-sharing "presentation numbers".

(These powers relate to Ofcom's duty to protect citizens, and are quite separate from Ofcom's involvement in the numbers themselves and the charging, which relates to its regulation of the telecomms industry.)

The examples of "persistent misuse of a telecommunications network" given in Ofcom's Statement of Policy include:

"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".

Has anyone considered making a complaint to Ofcom in relation to any of the more serious cases covered on this site?

I am still busy fighting the Silent Calls battle myself, but would be happy to offer any tips.

Dave.
Excellent site keep up the good fight.
If you havent already done so you might like to post an item  in the Telephone Chat Forum on
www.moneysavingexpert.com

They support this site and it is read by oodles of consumers.

wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2005 at 2:55am:

"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". Has anyone considered making a complaint to Ofcom in relation to any of the more serious cases covered on this site? I am still busy fighting the Silent Calls battle myself, but would be happy to offer any tips.

What does one regard as serious I wonder?  And where does one start and finish?

What about continued insistence in BUPA' call centres at supervisor level that this is "local call rate" and that they are saving me money by subsidising the price difference between a local and national rate call.  Or continued insistence by call centre staff for Surrey Police that this is a special local rate and denial that it can be costing me 11p per minute from a BT Phonebox.

Or is it the fact that the National Rail Enquiries 0845 number now suddenly takes ages to get through to while they encourage you to call their automated 0871 number instead where they neglect to state that calls cost 10p per minute.  Or is it staff manning TopUpTvs 0871 customer service who swear blind that its an "ordinary national rate call"

Or is it BT who will only let me use the call diversion facility on my line by using them as the call carrier instead of the 100 or so companies that I can use if I call the number myself when I am at home.  Or what about BT phoen boxes where all the pubicity materials still state that calls cost 15 minutes for 30p for local and national rate calls.

And what does Ofcom do about any of this stuff?  Precisely Nothing?   Just as they will shortly do nothing about preventing 084x and 087x still being charged massively above the cost of national geographic phone calls.  Well they may make these companies have a price announcement on the line but I bet they won't make it illegal for a company's captive customers to have to pay more than their providers standard geographic phone rates to make a call.

Their predecessor OFTEL is the souce of nearly all these problems as if ever there was a regulator that was in the pocket of the industry it was supposed to control then OFTEL was it.  And what about BT phone rental at £168 a year (Option 1 + 2 Select Services) before I pick up the line to make a single call.  By contrast the water company charges me £20 a year before I turn on my tap.

Like you I have managed to be interviewed on a BBC Radio 4 program about this but I am far from convinced that it will do any good as empirical evidence suggests that almost nobody of consequence listens to You & Yours.

wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2005 at 7:44am:

What does one regard as serious I wonder?  And where does one start and finish?

The powers I refer to begin and end with use of 0870 numbers as CLI - the number shown on caller display, and given on dialling 1471.

The clearest example I can think of is where a company is making calls and hanging up before the call is answered, so as to make money out of people calling back to this number. Someone involved with this site may have a case that fits the example quoted in my previous post and would wish to take it forward.

I am no champion of Ofcom, but if one believes in having public bodies to protect the public interest, this is the only one we have to work with in this area. I am trying to get it to perform its first duty to protect the interests of citizens. This is separate from its second duty, which is to work with the industry to provide a competitive market for the benefit of consumers. (ibid Communications Act 2003 3(1))

Because Ofcom tends to be focused more on the second of these duties, it is struggling, but so am I.

Ofcom is answerable to parliament and some of my present efforts are aimed at making that accountability effective. Anyone concerned about Silent Calls - please write to your MP and get them to join the small group who are already working on this.


wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2005 at 7:44am:

Like you I have managed to be interviewed on a BBC Radio 4 program about this but I am far from convinced that it will do any good as empirical evidence suggests that almost nobody of consequence listens to You & Yours.

Congratulations on getting to appear on Y&Y. I have contributed to their own web site, drafted scripts for them and continue to brief their reporter, but have not appeared yet.

Media appearances are not going to make much difference directly. They do provide a useful way of making contacts and getting statements "on the record". Organisations who have a public reputation to protect are also very conscious of what may be said or reported.

I hope this helps.

David

Why is it that having the first name David seems to make people especially disposed to opposing the use of 084/7x. ;D

So far as Ofcom and 084/7x is concerned the submission from BT asking for new regulations requiring that 0845 and 0870 in future only be billed at geographic call rates must have a powerful influence on Ofcom's though processes.  But on the other hand New Labour has been re-elected and it seems to be New Labour strategy to impose yet further secret stealth taxes by moving almost every major government agency call centre in the land (Passport Agency, DVLA, Inland Revenue etc) onto 084/7x so running costs can be subsdised by the caller.  So are Ofcom going to dare to do anything that might upset New Labour's strategic telecoms plans at a ministerial level.

The BT submission to the Ofcom NTS Options for the Future consultation is a curious affair since it proposes stopping the 0845 and 0870 ripoff whilst allowing the 0844 and 0871 ripoffs to continue unregulated by ICSTIS.  Yet the inevitable consequence of this logical consistency are surely blindingly obvious (namely that virtually all 0845 and 0870 abusers will simply move to 0844 and 0871 thus further increasing caller costs).

Unless Ofcom go for the right solution on this (namely ban all 084/087x revenue sharing and force revenue sharing dial up ISPs to move to another unused number prefix like 04 or 06) I will have no further confidence in any of their actions.

For one moment there I thought from your comments and the timing of your appearance in this forum that you were the former MP Paul Tyler.  But reading your post again I can see that you are not since Paul Tyler has been interviewed on You & Yours.

wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2005 at 11:57am:

Why is it that having the first name David seems to make people especially disposed to opposing the use of 084/7x. . . . . . For one moment there I thought from your comments and the timing of your appearance in this forum that you were the former MP Paul Tyler.  But reading your post again I can see that you are not since Paul Tyler has been interviewed on You & Yours.

I am not sure how strongly to take the insult, if at all. My name is declared on the "Silent Calls" home page and on the BBC caption on the clip referred to, where Matt Peacock is misidentified as "Mike". This can be seen at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/41110000/rm/_41110237_silent_vi.ram

The essential point on what Ofcom are going to do about NTS in general is visibility. I think we agree on this.

Charging users for public services is unquestionably the way the present Thatcherite government is going. Ofcom already refer to me as a customer. I have pointed out that they really should wait until they charge a fee for making a complaint before using this term, but I can see that they are getting ready for this.

I will continue my battle for a public body to do its duty and act in the general public interest, not simply to satisfy the requests of individuals who have a justifiable personal complaint.

wrote on Jun 6^th, 2005 at 11:12pm:

I will continue my battle for a public body to do its duty and act in the general public interest, not simply to satisfy the requests of individuals who have a justifiable personal complaint.

David,

Thanks for your helpful response.  No insult was really intended on my part and my comments were intended mainly in jest given our 2 moderators in this forum - Dave and DaveM.

I note the work that you are doing on Silent Calls but I wonder if these are in fact as great a menace as receipt of non silent calls that play a message and tell you that you have won a prize draw with televisons and all expenses paid holidays and to contact the following 0906 number to claim (the cost of the 0906 call is never given even thoug it is usually £1.50 a minute).

Speaking personally I have received a lot more of these recorded announcement calls (always showing International Number Unavailable) than any Silent Calls, especially from Casinos and lotteries in Las Vegas.  Although their numbers have been declining steeply of late as ICSTIS takes more steps to introduce delays in paying those who run these lines (to allow payment to be blocked if there is a flood of complaint  about the particular 0906 line).

I also can't actually remember the last time that I received a silent phone call depsite the fact that my number is printed in the BT phone book although I am of course registered with the TPS.

wrote on Jun 6^th, 2005 at 11:44pm:

No insult was really intended on my part and my comments were intended mainly in jest

I hope you took my response, as intended, in the same spirit.


wrote on Jun 6^th, 2005 at 11:44pm:

I note the work that you are doing on Silent Calls but I wonder if these are in fact as great a menace as . . .

I got the bug for the Silent Calls thing when I started to get some response from Ofcom (back in December 2003). I thought - "I wonder if I could make a difference here?" and so I have stuck with it. There are many greater ills in the world, I did not choose this one because I believed it to be the greatest.


The use of 0906 numbers is, as you say, an issue for ICSTIS. I have the impression that ICSTIS does actually achieve things. This could be because those who want to continue to make a living out of premium rate services run it.


The recorded messages are an issue for the Office of the Information Commissioner. I have attempted to pursue two complaints about these here. There is nothing that can be done about companies that are totally based overseas and the reluctance to deal properly with a UK company that was prepared to admit to me that it was doing it was breathtaking.

I am preparing the ground for the sorting out the Information Commissioner, once I have finished with Ofcom. ;)


wrote on Jun 6^th, 2005 at 11:44pm:

I also can't actually remember the last time that I received a silent phone call depsite the fact that my number is printed in the BT phone book although I am of course registered with the TPS.

Thank you for this comment. I have heard this many times before. It helps to deny the claim made by the Direct Marketing Association that most Silent Calls are coming from cowboys and from overseas, rather than from its own "responsible" members, who respect the TPS.

If the TPS is effective in stopping Silent Calls, then it should be fairly easy for Ofcom to be effective in stopping those who are making them from doing so.

I don't want to get away from the focus of this forum. I posted here to make the point about 0870 return numbers being covered by the same powers, and to offer tips to anyone who wanted to follow the path that I have helped to beat down.

wrote on Mar 25^th, 2005 at 10:48am:

OK, so if I wanted to say, Murder someone (not that I ever would :o), all I have to do is phone their landline from my mobile and not cleardown, thus preventing them from being able to use their line and call for help?? I think not... ::)

wrote on Mar 25^th, 2005 at 12:08pm:

But actually the case, hence outgoing-only lines, RedCare and so on.

I've checked this out and it isn't true.  

I wonder if anyone here is able to give a more proficient opinion on this as the reply above (with all respect to Tanallan) is incorrect.  It is not possible to invade the privacy of someone's home and prevent them from dialling numbers or calling 999 simply because you don't put the phone down when calling them! ::)

Nobody at BT seems able to explain what I'm on about and consistently treat me like some sort of moron... send their jobs to India - that'll teach them... >:( (whinge whinge)

If you hang your phone up against the incoming call it should clear down after about 15 seconds or so.

Years ago this was not the case and the incoming caller could keep your line open.

This seems to be the source of the disinformation now being spread.

Of course there is nothing to stop the caller from calling back again straight away but as long as you can manage to call 999 or whatever before they do then you should be ok.

Yes it is what is technically called a "Caller Hold" system in the UK, but this now has a time-out to prevent the previously mentioned problems (added after I had realised that I omitted that, sorry).

On 16 June Ofcom opened another own-initiative investigation into silent calls. This time it is looking at the following companies: Promote IT, Toucan Telecom, The Listening Company Ltd, ANT Marketing UK, Thompson Directories Ltd, Fax Information Services Ltd, Firestorm Marketing Ltd. More information here.

wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2005 at 10:46pm:

On 16 June Ofcom opened another own-initiative investigation into silent calls. More information here.

.. and here.

It is really simpler than it sounds.

First, you are NOT legally obliged to answer the telephone just because it rings, no matter who is calling you at home.

Second, lets make the realistic assumption that you have broadband internet, all your friends are online, you have a mobile phone, if they really want to talk to you they just text you or chat online and let you know they'll ring you on your landline (most calls landline to landline are free anytime you call up to an hour in the UK).

Third, do the following:

1) Dial a wrong number that you know does not exist (or an old phone number of yours that has been disconnected).

2) Tape the recording "beep beep beep the number you have dialed has not been recognized beep beep beep" and create a sound file with it repeating for 2 minutes or so.

3) Put that in your answering machine.

Be rest assured, all those annoying telemarking and whatever else calls share databases and won't bother dialing invalid numbers forever.  Once they get your recording enough times they'll stop calling you.

Of course you can sue them (as if you'd go to India to take them to court) or give your name and address out to make a formal complaint (sooner or later they may find a way to get that and start sending you paper mail as well) or forever complain and get upset.  But reality is, the £4.85 or equilavent of £1 a day person on the other end of the phone line will probably quit the job long before anyone remembers his or her name and you're hitting a brick wall.

wrote on Jul 9^th, 2005 at 12:43pm:

Dial a wrong number that you know does not exist (or an old phone number of yours that has been disconnected). Tape the recording "beep beep beep the number you have dialed has not been recognized beep beep beep" and create a sound file with it repeating for 2 minutes or so. Put that in your answering machine.

Personally I find registering with the TPS to be more than adequate rather than going through all this rigmarole.

The overseas prize lines asking me to call an 0906 number have stopped calling lately since ICSTIS began delaying their payment stream long enough to stop these people getting the money if the public make any complaints.

But if you really have nothing better to do with your time than jump through all these elaborate hoops to make a phone call then that's entirely up to you.

Also your preferred contact methods do not seem to allow for the existence of spam text messages. ::)

wrote on Jul 9^th, 2005 at 1:38pm:

Personally I find registering with the TPS to be more than adequate rather than going through all this rigmarole. But if you really have nothing better to do with your time than jump through all these elaborate hoops top make a phone call then that's entirely up to you.

0866 numbers are not yet regulated in the UK because the calls originate abroad; the Information Commissioner is still looking into how to deal with them.  As far as the TPS, even if they find a way to include them numbers, all the overseas companies will claim is they were trying to contact a Mr Smith (who never existed) at your number.

My problem is that I live in an area where everyone has two or three part time jobs and has time off in the middle of the day. These calls usually happen at around lunchtime between 12noon and 2pm UK time in our area.

If I don't answer, they let the phone ring for half an hour (literally) before their computer terminates the call.  If I do answer (whether I say hello or nothing) then it takes 30 seconds for the call to hangup, and about 20 minutes later a different 0866 number calls.
Changing telephone number does not help as they are apparently targetting the entire exchange and will ring again sooner or later.

I consider that to be harrassment (and indeed in the USA it is illegal to "cause the phone to continuously ring" and that is rigidly enforced - but not in the UK).  I only managed to get rid of the calls using the answering machine trick above, and even then they ring 2-3 times a month.  The triple beep in the answering machine is what deters them.

Wse05. Is 0866 a new dialling code that has just been introduced,or did you mean 0844?

wrote on Jul 10^th, 2005 at 8:19am:

Wse05. Is 0866 a new dialling code that has just been introduced,or did you mean 0844?

0866 is what comes up on the caller display;  nothing to do with 0844.  Calls showing this number originate from overseas (some say India, but definitely overseas and from a relatively non-modern network because you can hear the hissing on the line).   Examples are 0866 656 9890 and 0866 849 3243.

Thanks for that info,it was a new one to me.Perhaps other members could throw some light on the origin of these calls.

wrote on Jul 10^th, 2005 at 8:10am:

My problem is that I live in an area where everyone has two or three part time jobs and has time off in the middle of the day. These calls usually happen at around lunchtime between 12noon and 2pm UK time in our area.

Must be a funny area if "everyone" has 2 or 3 part time jobs and has time off in the middle of the day?  Where is this Peckham or deepest darkest Toxteth.

I work at home 5 days a week on a residential BT line and have never yet had a call from an 0866 number at any time.

You will actually find that the uk phone network disconnects any call after the line has been ringing for 2 or 3 minutes without answer but if you have a distorted sense of time that makes you think they ring for half an hour well that's clearly up to you.

Perhaps they target your area because IQ and income levels are such that people really believe that if they call an 0906 number costing them 2 or 3 quid that someone will then send them a 5 thousand pound prize.  On my exchange near Dorking their hit rate for call backs to their premium rate number would undoubtedly be very poor indeed - hence they seem to leave us alone.

wrote on Jul 10^th, 2005 at 1:07pm:

Must be a funny area if "everyone" has 2 or 3 part time jobs and has time off in the middle of the day?  Where is this You will actually find that the uk phone network disconnects any call after the line has been ringing for 2 or 3 minutes Perhaps they target your area because IQ and income levels are such that

The area is Hamilton in Scotland, 11 miles out of Glasgow, where a lot of people take the Telewest option....  And yes a lot of people have more than one job (including students working before and after uni during the year anywhere they can get to/from uni), and the phone does ring forever.  

You'd be lucky to find a job here that's more than part time, and 90% of the time it's such an industrial area that people change shifts every week (mornings one week, evenings one week, nights one week).  This makes it paricularly hard on them when these calls pester them.  Imagine working two eight hour shifts in a row, going to uni, then coming home to have those calls all the time.

Technically you are correct, a lot of people have not much hope of money than winning the lottery or responding to those calls which is why this area is targeted.

If Telewest let your phone ring forever I suggest you complain to their Chief Executive and to Ofcom.

This is not something that BT allows to happen on its lines where calls are disconnected after 2 or 3 minutes of ringing unanswered.

There must be regulatory standards on such things.

I ring my local radio station (They now use 0870, but I use their old geographical number that still wokrs) when they do a competition, and with only the presenter answering the phone, the lines are often engaged as they only have a set number of lines, or ring for ages whilst he/she deals with other callers.

When I call from my BT line, I think it takes about 6 minutes before I get the message that there's no answer.

When I call from a mobie phone (I have been on various networks, under current and old names), then they give far less time before I get the message that the call isn't answered.

In fact, I have even tried calling friends, and the call times out before I hang up.

Therefore, I think it's the telecoms provider of the originating call that sets how long before giving up on a call if there's no answer.

One of the reasons that telecoms operating companies have been reducing the ringing period is because of the devices which have become available which use this period to make toll-free calls. By reducing this period the telcos have limited the potential for the fraudulent use of such devices which can work even with international calls.

wrote on Jun 7^th, 2005 at 9:32pm:

If you hang your phone up against the incoming call it should clear down after about 15 seconds or so. Years ago this was not the case and the incoming caller could keep your line open.

The BT SIN 351 states:

7.1.2 By the Called Terminal

When a callis ended by the called terminal, the BT network interface will detect an off-line condition [...] and initiate a time-out process lasting between two and three minutes. After the time-out period has expired, network initiated clearing [...] is provided to the calling terminal.

Calls that are made to certain services [...] are subject to first party clearing. In these circumstances, when the called terminal ends the call, there is no time-out process and the calling terminal is provided with network initiated clearing immediately.

Full details here: http://www1.btwebworld.com/sinet/351v4p3.pdf

Thanks for that.

Some BT staff in their Nuisance Calls Bureau were maintaining that I needed to hang up for 30 minutes to clear the call which I disputed.

In practice hanging up for over 10 seconds normally works but it would seem that with calls from India the full 3 minutes worth is required.

I got the 10 seconds of hanging up figure from a BT Operator 2 or 3 years ago.  But that was before Indian call centres became the norm.

I didn't even know there was a BTwebworld website!  One learns something new every day.

Ofcom has today published a statement on silent calls:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2006/03/nr_20060301


Quote:

The new rules include three key requirements:   1. Abandoned call rates must be below three per cent of all calls made in any 24 hour period for each campaign. An Ofcom investigation into silent calls last year found that some call centres' abandoned call rates can be significantly higher than the five per cent maximum required by existing voluntary industry codes. Ofcom believes that setting an enforceable three per cent limit will significantly reduce the volume of abandoned calls, while allowing the legitimate and responsible use of automated calling systems;   2. All abandoned calls must carry a short recorded information message identifying the source of the call;   3. Calling line identification (CLI) must be included on all outbound calls generated by automated calling systems. CLI allows people to dial 1471 and access the telephone number of the person or organisation calling them.

The second one is a very good idea and should go some way to allaying the nuisance of silent calls. I do question how Ofcom will actually enforce this because it's one thing coming up with 'rules' and its another to ensure those who don't operate by them are delt with accordingly.

Dave wrote on Mar 1^st, 2006 at 12:28pm:

The second one is a very good idea and should go some way to allaying the nuisance of silent calls. I do question how Ofcom will actually enforce this because it's one thing coming up with 'rules' and its another to ensure those who don't operate by them are dealt with accordingly.

Ofcom are long on fine words and worthy statements and short on action against the most crooked and deceitful abusers in the telco industry.

As a result of obtaining a household insurance quote I received a Silent Call that I know came from MoreThan as after getting the silent call with number Unavailable then three minutes later I received another call with Unavailable from a live More Than sales person preceded by a delay on the line after I picked up before anything happened.  I asked why they had made a Silent Call 3 minutes earlier and they denied it was them and so I asked why they showed number Unavailable and they offered no explanation.  As that is the only Silent Call (as opposed to unwanted sales calls from a human despite my TPS registration of which I get one may be every 2 or 3 months) I have received in the last 12 months it isn't generally a big problem but it is the reason why I am absolutely certain the Unavailable call was from MoreThan.

As to small companies selling carpet cleaning services I have had 2 or 3 of these in the last year and each time it has been Number Unavailable.  I have listened to the sales spiel and said I am busy at the moment so can I have a number to call back on and each time been refused.

When I tried to ask both the TPS and Information Commissioner if they had the power to force BT to obtain and provide them with the CLI of such a call if I gave the time and date they said they did not and there was nothing I could do about such calls.

My experience of Ofcom is that they only bother investigating matters where they have had several hundred complaints about the same companies and if the companies carry on with using Unavailable as the CLI there will be no way to stop the abusers.  Unfortunately the whole Ofcom regulatory system relies on everyone being a "Jolly Decent Chap" so the abusers simply walk away unchallenged. :o >:( >:(

wrote on Mar 1^st, 2006 at 12:41pm:

My experience of Ofcom is that they only bother investigating matters where they have had several hundred complaints about the same companies and if the companies carry on with using Unavailable as the CLI there will be no way to stop the abusers. ...

Ain't that the case!

I've had calls on a number I never give out and is TPS registered. These often start by asking for the house owner. Unfortunately, these people who want information from the person they're calling don't want to provide information on where they're calling from.

These people/companies are a blight on the telephone system, no-one invites them to call, they just do it!

Dave wrote on Mar 1^st, 2006 at 12:50pm:

These people/companies are a blight on the telephone system, no-one invites them to call, they just do it!

I usually start off seeming as though I am interested in their service and trying to get a number to call them back on and/or who the company is.  Then if they are obstructive I ask them if they are not aware of the TPS list and why they are not screening their call set against it.  I then usually give them a piece of my mind about calling people on the TPS list like this that centres on them clearly not being able to find a better way to earn a living and so on and I suggest that they never darken my telephone number again. Curiously by this point they often already seem to have hung up on me.  Now I wonder why?  [smiley=huh.gif]:-/ ::) ;)

Dave wrote on Mar 1^st, 2006 at 12:50pm:

These people/companies are a blight on the telephone system, no-one invites them to call, they just do it!

I feel the same way about FreePay being a blight on the good name of the Cashback website industry Dave. ;) ::)

Of course happily in the end the powers that be on this website did finally get the message.  Now we have a link to a website actually designed to help people not be ripped off and one that also lists suppliers which don't pay them any commission on transfers to boot.  And with the latest British Gas and Powergen price increases there couldn't be a much more moral money saving website link for this site to promote. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]