Have a look here

http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/08450268990

Not an awful lot of help but they seem to think it is some phone company.

In that case report the number to the TPS and your telephone phone provider

Quote:


Probably many organisations know your phone number and even if they are not selling their databases, as some unscrupulous ones do,  remember the small print on application forms where you may have agreed for your details to be communicated to  "trusted third parties " or suchlike.  

BTW - Did you detect a Vietamese accent in the caller's voice?  

Of course there are some legitimate callers, such as anyone from a court you are charged with an offence in or say a sexually transmitted diseases clinic who are probably rather keen to establish they are speaking to the person they wanted to call before they reveal who they are or what they are calling about.  And all of this is protect the person they are calling from other people in their own household (who could be anyone including the cleaner) getting to know about the call.

NGMsGhost wrote on May 22^nd, 2009 at 11:43am:

This is a good and fair point, that came up in the context of the Informative Message used to identify the caller when they are unable to complete a call from an automated dialler, to prevent the nuisance of Silent Calls.

My view is that any anonymous telephone call is a misuse of the telephone network, unless anonymous calls to the number are explicitly invited (e.g. Crimestoppers, Samaritans). Provision of, or withholding of, CLI has got nothing whatsoever to do with anonymity in the context of a voice telephone call. Ofcom has powers and a statutory duty to take action against persistent (i.e. habitual) misuse of the telephone network. It is the anonymity of a totally Silent Call that is the key to it being nuisance.

We are talking here about directed calls using a number made available by the person being called. If that person is unhappy to receive personal calls on that number (because it may be answered by others) then the number should not be made available to personal callers.

Most of the methods used to establish identity over the telephone are inadequately secure as they simply require information likely to be known by another member of the household to be revealed. For many of us, our full postal address, date of birth and mother's maiden name are even in the public domain. Our choice of bank is rarely something which we keep secret.

It is a matter of simple principle that one should never reveal any information that may be used to establish one's identity to anyone of whom one is in the least uncertain. An anonymous telephone caller should be first on that list, so the whole approach is a waste of time anyway.

Unless a caller is ready to advise, and allow verification of, their identity in the type of circumstances referred to, then all they can do is request a call back on a known or published telephone number.

As it is the financial services industry that practices identity theft, through its own use of sloppy procedures (foolishly endorsed by Ofcom), this situation is however unlikely to change from the present nonsense.

(Use of false CLI is already classified by Ofcom as an example of misuse and so this case could warrant attention on that basis. Although the failure to provide identification in a voice call is not regarded as misuse, if any victim succeeds in getting a case opened, I will be happy to press my arguments on the broader front.)

NGMsGhost wrote on May 22^nd, 2009 at 2:21pm:



History in the making!!!

My policy when I receive an unexpected call from somebody trying to ascertain my identity is to try and find out who they are first.  I generally ask *them* for some form of identification, such as my account number.  After all, they could be anybody!!  Sometimes it doesn't work: I had a call from somebody who would only identify themselves as "calling from the bank" demanding my name, d.o.b., etc, before they would talk to me.  I refused, as how did I know who they were?  I deal with several banks,  and it took their calling back several times before they even admitted which bank they were from.  Even that could have been a lucky guess by a scammer.  They wouldn't give me a name or number I could call them back on.  I eventually called that banks normal customer service number and discovered the problem and sorted it.  It amazes me how some people cannot understand why I would not wish to give all my security and passwords etc to somebody who phones me up out of the blue!