| Re: Nuisance Phone Calls - A reply [message #373812] |
Mi, 22 März 2006 13:43 |
|
tim (in sweden) wrote: [originally in uk.finance not seen in uk.telecom]
> From compliance [at] ico.gsi.gov
>
> Hope I'm not breaking any confidences by posting this
>
> Dear XXX,
>
> Thank you for completing a complaint form dated YYY regarding
> unsolicited direct marketing calls from ZZZ.
>
> The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations
> 2003 prohibit, amongst other things, those who engage in direct marketing
> by phone from making unsolicited telesales calls to individuals who have
> registered an objection to receiving such calls. This objection can be
> registered either specifically by informing the company itself, or generally
> by registering with the Telephone Preference Service.
>
> You have stated in your correspondence that you have registered with the
> TPS; therefore we have written to ZZZ to remind them of their obligations
> under the Regulations. We have provided ZZZ with your telephone number
> and instructed them to take the action they deem appropriate to ensure
> compliance with the Regulations in the future.
>
> I feel I should point out that we are currently in dispute with ZZZ over
> this
> issue and have been holding meetings to discuss the matter further. The
> Information Commissioner's view is that an individual who is registered
> with the TPS should not receive marketing calls from any company regardless
> of their relationship with the company, however as you are aware ZZZ
> disagree with this. They have written a small 'opt out' box into their
> agreements which customers can easily overlook; however we are of the
> view that customers should not automatically be opted in and should in fact
> be given the opportunity to 'opt in' to telemarketing calls.
>
> Although I feel this answer is probably not as satisfying as you would have
> hoped for I want to assure you that this is a matter we are taking very
> seriously and we are currently pursuing an agreement from ZZZ to comply
> with the Data Protection Act 1998.
>
> Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.
>
> ......
>
> Contrary to their expectations that is exactly the result that I had
> reasonably hoped for.
>
> Let's hope that they take this further, ZZZ are just not playing the
> game by the rules and deserve to be punished.
>
> The thing that really confuses me is: If I've gone to the bother of
> taking action to stop them phoning me for sales calls. Why do they
> think that if they ignore this decision I have made that I will do
> anything other than tell them to get lost when they do make a sales
> call to me.
> I'm not unreasonable, I accept that people make mistakes, but this
> isn't what this company have done.
>
> Tim
Name & shame...
|
|
|
| Re: Nuisance Phone Calls - A reply [message #373821 ] |
Mi, 22 März 2006 20:08 |
|
"Allan Gould" <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:48cv40Fi9u8jU2 [at] individual.net...
> tim (in sweden) wrote: [originally in uk.finance not seen in uk.telecom]
>> From compliance [at] ico.gsi.gov
>>
>
> Name & shame...
I feel very uncomfortable about doing this.
Having posted the ico's reply (more or less) verbatim without
asking if it was OK, I don't think it would be the thing to do.
Sorry.
Hopefully we will hear more about this as there are stories
that the regulator are actually looking to take legal action
against some transgressors (and not before time IMHO!).
Perhaps this company is on that list.
tim
|
|
|
| Re: Nuisance Phone Calls - A reply [message #373825 ] |
Mi, 22 März 2006 20:50 |
|
"tim (in sweden)" <tim_in_sweden2005 [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:48dlkfFjiuqtU1 [at] individual.net...
>
> "Allan Gould" <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:48cv40Fi9u8jU2 [at] individual.net...
>> tim (in sweden) wrote: [originally in uk.finance not seen in uk.telecom]
>>> From compliance [at] ico.gsi.gov
>>>
>
>>
>> Name & shame...
>
> I feel very uncomfortable about doing this.
>
> Having posted the ico's reply (more or less) verbatim without
> asking if it was OK, I don't think it would be the thing to do.
>
> Sorry.
>
> Hopefully we will hear more about this as there are stories
> that the regulator are actually looking to take legal action
> against some transgressors (and not before time IMHO!).
> Perhaps this company is on that list.
>
> tim
>
So company 'ZZZ' (IIRC) feels no compunction about phoning you up at all
hours of the day, but you feel bad about letting the rest of us know?
If they do take action its much more likely to be against out and out
transgressors than ZZZ isnt it, so I would't hold your breath. I was amazed
to find out that in fact they have never fined or taken action against
anyone in all the years the TPS has been operating. QUite amazing.
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
|
|
|
| Re: Nuisance Phone Calls - A reply [message #373826 ] |
Mi, 22 März 2006 21:11 |
|
Allan Gould <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote:
> tim (in sweden) wrote: [originally in uk.finance not seen in uk.telecom]
> > From compliance [at] ico.gsi.gov
> > Thank you for completing a complaint form dated YYY regarding
> > unsolicited direct marketing calls from ZZZ.
[]
> > You have stated in your correspondence that you have registered with the
> > TPS; therefore we have written to ZZZ to remind them of their obligations
> > under the Regulations. We have provided ZZZ with your telephone number
> > and instructed them to take the action they deem appropriate to ensure
> > compliance with the Regulations in the future.
[]
> Name & shame...
Well, ZZZ now know the number of the person that shopped them.
Do you trust them not to abuse that knowledge?
rgds, Alan
--
99 Ducati 748BP, 95 Ducati 600SS, 81 Guzzi Monza, 74 MV Agusta 350
"Ride to Work, Work to Ride" SI# 7.067 DoD#1930 PGP Key 0xBDED56C5
|
|
|
| Re: Nuisance Phone Calls - A reply [message #373829 ] |
Mi, 22 März 2006 21:37 |
|
"Tumbleweed" <thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:48dnuqFjbmu4U1 [at] individual.net...
>
> "tim (in sweden)" <tim_in_sweden2005 [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:48dlkfFjiuqtU1 [at] individual.net...
>>
>> "Allan Gould" <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:48cv40Fi9u8jU2 [at] individual.net...
>>> tim (in sweden) wrote: [originally in uk.finance not seen in uk.telecom]
>>>> From compliance [at] ico.gsi.gov
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>> Name & shame...
>>
>> I feel very uncomfortable about doing this.
>>
>> Having posted the ico's reply (more or less) verbatim without
>> asking if it was OK, I don't think it would be the thing to do.
>>
>> Sorry.
>>
>> Hopefully we will hear more about this as there are stories
>> that the regulator are actually looking to take legal action
>> against some transgressors (and not before time IMHO!).
>> Perhaps this company is on that list.
>>
>> tim
>>
>
>
> So company 'ZZZ' (IIRC) feels no compunction about phoning you up at all
> hours of the day, but you feel bad about letting the rest of us know?
No, I feel that perhaps I shouldn't have posted the verbatim reply
from the ico. I can't undo that now.
FWIW I have no evidence that they phone at all hours of the day,
just that they did it often.
TBH what does telling you the name of the company achieve?
What are you going to do with that information?
(Yes, I know that you will consider not using the company but
what does that achieve? Either you like the product that they
have to offer or you don't. Are you really not going to buy it
because you have to tell them not to ring you at home?)
> If they do take action its much more likely to be against out and out
> transgressors than ZZZ isnt it, so I would't hold your breath. I was
> amazed to find out that in fact they have never fined or taken action
> against anyone in all the years the TPS has been operating. QUite amazing.
I agree, apparently things are to change. Let's see shall we?
tim
|
|
|
| Re: Nuisance Phone Calls - A reply [message #373834 ] |
Mi, 22 März 2006 22:53 |
|
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 21:37:18 +0100, "tim \(in sweden\)"
<tim_in_sweden2005 [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>(Yes, I know that you will consider not using the company but
>what does that achieve? Either you like the product that they
>have to offer or you don't. Are you really not going to buy it
>because you have to tell them not to ring you at home?)
I automatically shun spammers yes, and everyone else ought to,
otherwise they will continue.
MBNA for one, for a deluge of post spam.
Tiddy Ogg.
http://www.tiddyogg.co.uk
|
|
|
| Re: Nuisance Phone Calls - A reply [message #373836 ] |
Mi, 22 März 2006 23:49 |
|
"tim (in sweden)" <tim_in_sweden2005 [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:48dqrrFju987U1 [at] individual.net...
>
> TBH what does telling you the name of the company achieve?
> What are you going to do with that information?
>
> (Yes, I know that you will consider not using the company but
> what does that achieve? Either you like the product that they
> have to offer or you don't. Are you really not going to buy it
> because you have to tell them not to ring you at home?)
>
absolutely it would make a difference if I thought it would be an
organisation that was going to start cold-calling me. For a start I'd give
them your phone no :-)
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
|
|
|
| Re: Nuisance Phone Calls - A reply [message #373837 ] |
Mi, 22 März 2006 23:51 |
|
"Tiddy Ogg" <tiddyogg [at] madasasheep.com> wrote in message
news:vlh322lf1ng1g0kmnak5abocqp7dkhhvte [at] 4ax.com...
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 21:37:18 +0100, "tim \(in sweden\)"
> <tim_in_sweden2005 [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>(Yes, I know that you will consider not using the company but
>>what does that achieve? Either you like the product that they
>>have to offer or you don't. Are you really not going to buy it
>>because you have to tell them not to ring you at home?)
> I automatically shun spammers yes, and everyone else ought to,
> otherwise they will continue.
> MBNA for one, for a deluge of post spam.
I like MBNA, I've had 10K on one of their 0% interest cards for 9 months
earning me about 8% interest, and hopefully they'll give me another one.
Postal spam doesnt bother me at all, first of all its not the same type of
intrusion as someone phoning you, secondly it subsidies our post.
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
|
|
|
| Re: Nuisance Phone Calls - A reply [message #373838 ] |
Do, 23 März 2006 00:06 |
|
"Tumbleweed" <thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:48e2iaFjp2lfU1 [at] individual.net
[snip]
> I like MBNA, I've had 10K on one of their 0% interest
> cards for 9 months earning me about 8% interest, and
> hopefully they'll give me another one. Postal spam doesnt
> bother me at all, first of all its not the same type of
> intrusion as someone phoning you, secondly it subsidies
> our post.
I used to be a postman and let me tell you carrying bagfuls of that spam
around when you *knew* that people are just going to chuck it out was
galling in the extreme..!
Ivor
|
|
|
| Re: Nuisance Phone Calls - A reply [message #373839 ] |
Do, 23 März 2006 00:22 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Nuisance Phone Calls - A reply [message #373841 ] |
Do, 23 März 2006 00:31 |
|
"tim (in sweden)" <tim_in_sweden2005 [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:48dlkfFjiuqtU1 [at] individual.net...
>
> "Allan Gould" <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:48cv40Fi9u8jU2 [at] individual.net...
>> tim (in sweden) wrote: [originally in uk.finance not seen in uk.telecom]
>>> From compliance [at] ico.gsi.gov
>>>
>
>>
>> Name & shame...
>
> I feel very uncomfortable about doing this.
>
> Having posted the ico's reply (more or less) verbatim without
> asking if it was OK, I don't think it would be the thing to do.
>
> Sorry.
>
> Hopefully we will hear more about this as there are stories
> that the regulator are actually looking to take legal action
> against some transgressors (and not before time IMHO!).
> Perhaps this company is on that list.
>
> tim
>
Tim-I think you have acted in a thoughtful and professional way.
Naming and shaming could cause you problems so I realise why you do not wish
to name the culprit.
One can not have trial by newsgroup.
Alan G sent me a pornographic film. Named and shamed--and a total lie.
|
|
|
| Re: Nuisance Phone Calls - A reply [message #373843 ] |
Do, 23 März 2006 09:54 |
|
In uk.finance, Ivor Jones wrote:
>I used to be a postman and let me tell you carrying bagfuls of that
>spam around when you *knew* that people are just going to chuck it out
>was galling in the extreme..!
Are we to understand that you weren't doing the job for the money? You
were doing it for the benefit and/or pleasure of the recipients?
--
Mike Barnes
|
|
|
| Re: Nuisance Phone Calls - A reply [message #373848 ] |
Do, 23 März 2006 14:18 |
|
Rupert wrote:
>
> Alan G sent me a pornographic film. Named and shamed--and a total lie.
If only! :-)
|
|
|
| Re: Nuisance Phone Calls - A reply [message #373849 ] |
Do, 23 März 2006 14:20 |
|
tim (in sweden) wrote:
> "Allan Gould" <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:48cv40Fi9u8jU2 [at] individual.net...
>> tim (in sweden) wrote: [originally in uk.finance not seen in uk.telecom]
>>> From compliance [at] ico.gsi.gov
>
>> Name & shame...
>
> I feel very uncomfortable about doing this.
Fair enough. Happy to accept your wishes.
|
|
|
| Re: Nuisance Phone Calls - A reply [message #373851 ] |
Do, 23 März 2006 14:49 |
|
"Rupert" <reply [at] newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:4421de6d [at] 212.67.96.135...
>
> "tim (in sweden)" <tim_in_sweden2005 [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:48dlkfFjiuqtU1 [at] individual.net...
>>
>> "Allan Gould" <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:48cv40Fi9u8jU2 [at] individual.net...
>>> tim (in sweden) wrote: [originally in uk.finance not seen in uk.telecom]
>>>> From compliance [at] ico.gsi.gov
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>> Name & shame...
>>
>> I feel very uncomfortable about doing this.
>>
>> Having posted the ico's reply (more or less) verbatim without
>> asking if it was OK, I don't think it would be the thing to do.
>>
>> Sorry.
>>
>> Hopefully we will hear more about this as there are stories
>> that the regulator are actually looking to take legal action
>> against some transgressors (and not before time IMHO!).
>> Perhaps this company is on that list.
>>
>> tim
>>
> Tim-I think you have acted in a thoughtful and professional way.
> Naming and shaming could cause you problems so I realise why you do not
> wish to name the culprit.
> One can not have trial by newsgroup.
>
> Alan G sent me a pornographic film. Named and shamed
Can I have it when you're done?
:-)
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
|
|
|
| Re: Nuisance Phone Calls - A reply [message #373854 ] |
Do, 23 März 2006 17:30 |
|
> > Tim-I think you have acted in a thoughtful and professional way.
> > Naming and shaming could cause you problems so I realise why you do not
> > wish to name the culprit.
> > One can not have trial by newsgroup.
> >
> > Alan G sent me a pornographic film. Named and shamed
>
> Can I have it when you're done?
I hope you brought some for the whole class!
|
|
|
| Re: Nuisance Phone Calls - A reply [message #373858 ] |
Do, 23 März 2006 20:38 |
|
"Nomen Nescio" <nobody [at] dizum.com> wrote in message
news:a511eeb2e68628740c92b3259b6b6471 [at] dizum.com...
>> > Tim-I think you have acted in a thoughtful and professional way.
>> > Naming and shaming could cause you problems so I realise why you do not
>> > wish to name the culprit.
>> > One can not have trial by newsgroup.
>> >
>> > Alan G sent me a pornographic film. Named and shamed
>>
>> Can I have it when you're done?
>
> I hope you brought some for the whole class!
>
>
<scenario 100 years in the future>
Alan G descendant uses Googles AI to search for posts from relatives
<goggles at what great great grandad was up to>
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
|
|
|
