More to this than pensions

Tweet

I’ve noted previously that one major disadvantage of working partly from home is that I’m at home when more of the nuisance phone calls arrive.

Most are just downright annoying – why anyone would believe that I’m likely to say ‘yes’ the tenth time they call when they were told otherwise on several previous occasions (by the ninth time in rather robust terms as well) is beyond me.  Proving their own incompetence, inefficiency, and willingness to ignore both the TPS rules and a clear message from potential customers doesn’t look like the best of advertisements for their services or reliability.  And telling me (as one did recently) that they’ve deliberately put their call centre in Dublin to circumvent TPS rules doesn’t do a lot for their credibility either.

Some provide a degree of amusement, particularly if I’m bored with whatever I’m working on and looking for a break.  I’m afraid that I do have a tendency to play along with, and then wind up, the Asian callers from the “Windows Technical Centre”.  I know I really shouldn’t: but then ‘Dave’, ‘Brad’, and the rest of the improbably-named callers shouldn’t be trying to con people out of their money either.  I regard it as a minor achievement when they resort to effing and blinding whilst I calmly respond; for some strange reason, they don’t seem to appreciate my sense of humour.

But what for me is a minor irritation or amusing diversion, depending on my mood at the time, is a real nuisance for many.  And far too many vulnerable people are taken in – or even bullied – by these callers, and at best end up paying over the odds for services that they could get cheaper by shopping around, or at worst by having substantial sums fraudulently taken from their bank accounts.

So the announcement that the government is going to take action to clamp down on one particular type of nuisance call – those trying to persuade people to reinvest their pension pots – is something that I welcome in principle.  I wonder, though, why this particular sector is being targeted.  It surely can’t be that people with transferable pension pots are more likely to be Conservative voters – could it really be that cynical?

And even then there’s a lot of (missing) devils in the detail – it has been clearly stated that international callers will be excluded, despite the fact that anyone who’s being plagued by these calls will immediately identify that the worst ones come from international numbers (followed by ‘unavailable’ and then ‘withheld’).  And how are they going to identify the perpetrators?  My own experience of receiving at least half a dozen nuisance calls per week is that they never give the name or address of the company doing the calling, and invariably hang up when politely asked for such, apparently irrelevant, details.

But how difficult can it be in this day and age, if the will were there, to use technology to identify and prosecute the perpetrators?  Some might well be out of direct range of UK law – they don’t use Indian call centres for nothing.  But some of those call centres wouldn’t still be in business if there weren’t unscrupulous companies in the UK (‘entrepreneurs’, no doubt) prepared to pay them for ‘leads’ to circumvent the TPS rules.  And even where they are beyond the reach of UK law, surely it’s technically possible in this day and age to identify where they are from and simply bar all calls from those people to the UK?

I suspect that part of the reason for the inaction – and the continued suffering of the vulnerable – is the vested interest of the telecoms providers.  Presumably, telecoms companies are making money on each and every one of these nuisance calls; so why would they want to stop them?  I’m sure it’s no coincidence that I’ve been receiving more or less weekly marketing e-mails from one telecoms provider trying to sell me call-blocking equipment.  Those making money from the calls would, it seems, prefer to make more money from selling me equipment to stop them than simply take action themselves.

There can surely be few elected politicians who are not aware of people in their own areas who have suffered from this plague, though.  So why the apparent reluctance to introduce tougher legislation and control?

Rabbits and lettuce

Tweet Yesterday, a group of AMs discussed the question of unwanted callers, particularly in the context of the old and vulnerable. Their concern was primarily around the element of scam and fraud of which many of the callers - whether in person or by telephone are guilty.

I’ve posted previously on the pernicious nuisance calls which I receive regularly when I’m working at home.  It goes wider than the Windows support scams, though. I also suffer regularly from the ones which leave recorded messages on my answerphone, but which never name the company nor leave any contact details.  Leaving me a recorded message telling me that I must press 9 to stop the calls is singularly unhelpful – even if I were to believe that it would actually have any effect anyway.

These calls are a real nuisance, and particularly so for the elderly and vulnerable who are at serious risk of being taken for a ride.  I find them a nuisance, and I don’t think I’m in either category - yet. It’s not easy to determine which calls are honest and which are not, although I start from the simple supposition that any organisation which chooses to ignore or attempt to circumvent TPS rules is unlikely to fall into the ‘totally honest’ category. 

I recently came across this report on the whole issue commissioned from GFK–NOP by Ofcom.  In principle I welcome any attention being given to this problem; we need to shine a bit of light on a murky part of our entrepreneurial sales based economy.

The report lists different types of calls indicating the proportion that fall into different categories.  One of those categories is “other” and this is the one into which “surveys” fall.  “Surveys” is a neat way of circumventing the TPS rules, because they’re not actually selling anything - according to them.  Some of them do, however, pass the details they collect on to other companies who will then try and sell you something.  And those companies can semi-legitimately claim that the TPS rules do not apply because by completing a survey you’ve agreed to be contacted.  A neat circumvention – the best response is never to answer any surveys; which is my standard response.

It’s a pity however that the report from GFK-NOP doesn’t really get to grips with the international callers, one of the big loop holes in the whole TPS system.  Nor does it name, let alone shame, the miscreants.  I wondered whether that might not be because a number of the "survey" calls that I get – despite having told them a number of times that I never answer surveys – are from a company called GFK-NOP; a company which itself uses an Indian call centre to make some of the calls.

At least nobody can say that Ofcom didn’t commission an expert in the field.  Some of us might think, though, that this particular expert has something of a vested interest in the subject.  I had a boss once who used to talk about never “putting rabbits in charge of lettuce production”.  Using a company which makes nuisance calls to produce a report on the subject sounds not dissimilar.

More than a Nuisance

Tweet One of the disadvantages of working from home on a regular and extended basis is actually being at home more of the time when the scammers phone. It's not that they restrict themselves to office hours; more that being able to answer the phone over a longer period means that you get more of them.

Most of us are familiar enough with the men with Asian accents and highly improbably English sounding names from the "Technical Support Department of the Windows Operating System", who know nothing about IT that isn't in their script. They’re good for a wind-up and a laugh if you have a bit of time to waste, although they can get very bad-tempered and abusive if you keep them talking too long.

The ones that are most likely these days however are the ones claiming that “our records show” that "you are owed" a sum of money. Or even the newer one that claims that I will lose out on a number of thousands of pounds unless I act now because of "government legislation changes". They're not even real humans at the other end of the line, just computers playing recorded messages. And don't even get me started on double glazing or loft insulation calls from "your government grant adviser".

For those even less compos than me, it can be more than a nuisance of course; it can cost them dearly as well. The nuisance alone is a real issue, as the Consumers' Association have identified today; but the way in which vulnerable people can be persuaded to part with their money is an even more important issue.

TPS and the Information Commissioner's Office are a complete waste of time – all I’ve ever had from them is form letters telling me that the calls will stop within four weeks. But they never do, even if the number being reported is the same one that you’re already reported several times previously.

Any party or politician who wants to stop this nuisance would be doing us all (and me in particular!) a huge favour. They have to do a proper job though.

Alun Cairns earned himself a headline or two with his call for a code of conduct for companies with-holding their number; but his call did make me wonder whether he really understands the nature and extent of the problem as it currently exists. His concerns seemed dated.

Whilst it's certainly true that some companies operating in this game do withhold their telephone numbers, many no longer even bother to do that. They know that we can easily block withheld numbers; and they know that modern phones can block specific numbers, so they simply change the number regularly or use a range of different numbers.

(There’s some interesting psychology there, though. Why would they believe that somebody who has gone to the trouble of blocking their call on one number would be desperately keen to speak to them if they call from another?)

And they know that TPS and ICO are toothless tigers, not likely to cause them any bother. Anyway it’s difficult to complain about them when they won’t even tell you the name of their company if you do get to speak to a human. (And I know - I've tried it).

No – if Alun Cairns (or any other politician) wants to stop this widespread and persistent nuisance (I reckon to get 5 to 10 calls per week), they have to do better than a code of practice on withheld numbers. It surely can't be that difficult for the police and telecoms operators to trace the people behind these scams and mount a few more prosecutions. The Telecoms companies don’t help much either – they’re happy to sell the lines and the calls to what are little short of criminal gangs, effectively acting with the complicity of the regulatory authorities.

Criminalising calls which breach the TPS guidelines, prosecuting the perpetrators – that might be a good start, not just in preventing nuisance, but in protecting the vulnerable and the gullible. It would certainly be better than doing as some have done in the past, namely feting the people behind these calls as "successful entrepreneurs".