It took me ages to find he was calling from NRG Installs Ltd.
- He could not say who he was calling from, just "NRG Installations"
- He did not know the company number, and thought his phone number was the "company number" no matter how hard I tried
- He did know his web site, but thought that the web site/domain was actually the "company name"
So then we have the fact he called a number on the TPS...
- He told me the number he called, which I presumed was one of my numbers, I have a few. It is a number on the TPS!
- It turns out he made the number up (i.e. lied), but then rants at me for lying about it being one of my numbers!
- He refuses to say which number he actually called - to be a "dick head" (his words)!
- He has no idea how to say a phone number, i.e. area code, pause, number
- When I did track down which number he did call, from the incoming call logs from our PSTN gateway, he is adamant that is not the number he called. Now, in theory it could be some sort of re-direct but that is unlikely (I don't recall setting one up and would not have to that specific number), but we normally see redirection headers on the incoming logs in that case.
- The number he actually called is in the TPS and has been for a long time.
But it gets worse, I mean really bad!
- He says the TPS gives them numbers and they call them
- He actually has no idea who the TPS are even
- He thinks we should sue the TPS and not NRG Installs Ltd for the PECR breach
- "I thought we were meant to call the numbers that the TPS give us"
I have muted the number he called from the recording here... It is well worth listening to...
Sadly there is little point in talking to the ICO on this, they don't care.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have listened a few times and definitely heard that as www.nrginsulation.co.uk not www.nrginstallations.co.uk. The one you found is not an 0800 number, so I suspect I have the right one. Confusing, I agree!
DeleteI misidentified the domain in the call recording; sounded very much like nrginstallations.co.uk (what I thought I heard) and nrginsulation.co.uk (which is what actually belongs to this company).
DeleteThought it best to delete my previous comment as it is not fair on the 'other company' if it were to negatively affect their reputation.
That muppet sounds remarkably, worryingly like Will on W1A, of you ever watched it!
DeleteWill you be suing? If so, I'd love to hear how it goes.
ReplyDeleteI have actually simply complained to TPS first, to see if any better than complaining to ICO. For a change this is a TPS related one. Previous have been pre-recorded message which is not TPS related (and unlawful regardless of TPS registration).
Deletehttps://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10370742 these could be the guys. On the nrginsulation website it lists the company name as NRG INSTALLS LIMITED. The "registered in England and Wales" but without the company number on their website is a nice touch
ReplyDeleteIt is right under their company name, on their web site. They have that right, even if they employ dick heads.
DeleteI would also point out, him admitting they're withholding their number has been illegal since 2016 when the PECR rules were amended to require CLI on all marketing calls.
ReplyDeleteI just wish we could get to the logical next step and disallow number-withheld calls entirely (or at least stop blocking them being an extra-cost option, while using that irritating non-feature is "free"). Has anyone got a legitimate use-case for making anonymous calls? If so, why shouldn't it carry a per-use charge, say £1, to prevent this abuse?
DeleteThere are plenty of legitimate reasons: charging would be outrageous. Doctors - because they don't want patients calling directly when they are with other patients or off duty. Hospitals - because of patient confidentiality. Anyone calling for an insurance quotation who doesn't want a deluge of calls from the unsuccessful companies. Whistleblowers. The list is endless.
DeleteMy doctor's outgoing calls show with the reception phone number, which is of course the one patients already have and should call anyway. Ditto hospitals, with a switchboard number. Any insurance company that wants to be called will surely be using an 0800 number - in which case, withheld numbers don't apply anyway, the calling number is still revealed to the recipient.
DeleteEndless? The list is, so far, entirely spurious! The only examples I've found of actual uses of anonymous calls are the uses which should be stamped out as nuisance calls!
I'm referring to doctors calling from their private lines and private mobiles. They won't want to transmit the surgery's CLI when making personal calls. It's also standard NHS practice to withhold numbers. And your reference to an 0800 number is irrelevant, I'm talking about withholding my own number when I call a company for a quotation.
DeletePerhaps a doctor needing to make a business call on a personal mobile or landline represents a genuine but tiny niche use case, yes. Indeed, in 2015 there was a petition to Parliament to prohibit the practice, but the General Election interrupted that process: https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/65438 - certainly, my local GP surgery doesn't use anonymous calls, nor do the nearest hospitals I've dealt with, so hardly "standard NHS practice"! Hopefully, it will soon be prohibited, as it already has been for commercial/marketing calls. (In any case, if they try calling me anonymously, they won't get through, nor will they with any TrueCall user; as time goes on, the number of people you can actually call anonymously seems sure to shrink significantly.)
DeleteI know you were talking about calling an insurance company for a quote, but on some networks freephone numbers still receive the number whether "withheld" or not; at least one UK service only masks the last 3 digits, revealing the rest. Worrying about getting called back by somebody you contact seems more than a little way into tinfoil hat territory, though.
Personally, I found it outrageous that telcos charge for opting out of receiving anonymous calls, while allowing them to be made without a charge. The standard message is also quite unhelpful, apparently failing to explain about the 1470 prefix; a simple "this line does not accept anonymous calls; press 3 to be connected without withholding your number, or re-dial without the 141 prefix" would be much more user-friendly IMO.
We'll have to agree to disagree about the NHS: my surgery called this afternoon about my annual BP check, and as usual the number was withheld. Similarly, the automated appointment reminders from the hospital are always withheld.
DeleteYes, I've noticed that Flextel only withhold the last three digits of withheld incoming calls to my 0701 number: they're probably sailing a bit close to the wind. But I do I find it very useful when websites insist on being given my phone number, it doesn't accept text messages and costs a fortune to call !
The Office of the Chocolate Teapot has told telcos that Caller Display info must be provided as a free of charge default, but not until October. If they weren't so useless they'd have done the same for Anonymous Call Reject, Choose to Refuse and 1477 Automatic Call Trace, but they've always been on the side of the telcos, not the consumer.
Absolutely standard practice for NHS to withhold number, and so it should be.
DeleteSome people don't want anyone to know the hospital has been calling , so switch board number wouldn't cut it.
There's 101 legitimate reasons for withholding a number. There's isn't a snowy day in hell's chance they will ban them.
It's very easy to automatically reject withheld numbers anyway. Either as a service from the telco, or through settings on the receiving phone. Both landline and mobile phones can easily block them.
"Absolutely standard practice for NHS to withhold number, and so it should be."
DeleteNot if they want the call to get through!
Yes, there are silly tinfoil-hat "concerns" from people who fail to understand that anyone who could monitor the *identity* of callers could then also monitor the *content* of those calls, rendering an anonymous call from the STD clinic no less of a concern than a regular call if you actually think about it properly.
If you actually have this spurious concern, dialling 1475 after the call will fix it, without inconveniencing other patients in the process.
Yes, banning 141 entirely is out of the question for now - it's an EU directive - though they've already been banned from marketing use, so hopefully that will be extended in future. (The stupid practice of businesses making anonymous calls seems to have largely died out now; I did switch opticians over this about a decade ago, since Boots were using 141, but they seem to have stopped now.)
My main objection right now is that (a) telcos are allowed to charge for ACR, but not for making the problem calls in the first place, and (b) the current ACR implementation seems very crude, not making it easy enough for people to correct the issue - hence my suggestion of "press 3 to re-try without anonymity".
Can A&A tell which telecoms operator originates a call? Apart from CLI I mean which is so easily spoofed.
ReplyDeleteSubscribers need a right to trace nuisance calls back to the originator so that they can complain to ICO etc.
Definition of nuisance obviously a bit tricky and there are legitimate cases for withholding calling identity that shouldn't be traceable.
The people who call my 75 year old Dad several times a day from anonymous and play him recorded messages about boiler replacement or other such rubbish easily qualify as 'nuisance'.
Pre-recorded messages are not allowed - breach of PECR (unless he explicitly agreed to them). So yes, I would love to see a way to trace these. The police can ask telcos to, and I think even the ICO can, neither can be bothered, sadly.
Delete1477 Automatic Call Trace is the answer: it stores the caller's number at the victim's exchange for investigation and enforcement, even if the number is spoofed or withheld.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, most telcos have never heard of it, and it's not available by default. Crazily, it seems to be available only on BT business lines.
Err not really that relevant here - we have PSTN to SIP coming in via various carriers. That does not apply.
DeleteNice. Go-on take them to the cleaners. He clearly works for an outsourced call centre and is about 16 and utterly gormless. But irrelevant. Illegal and ignorance is no defence.
ReplyDeleteDo those call blockers for sale on Amazon work? I get a lot of international numbers ringing. Thank you
ReplyDeleteremixed it for you
ReplyDeletehttps://soundcloud.com/user-302185346/i-thought-we-were-meant-to-call-the-numbers-that-the-tps-give-us
"I don't have a clue"
Deleteme.uk not you.uk - lol
ReplyDeleteThis is comedy gold
ReplyDeleteThis is unfair clearly the fault of the training the company gives their employees and not the employee himself. He is clearly young and doesn't know how to react in this situation. As someone that has worked for a call centre it is horrible when we get shouted at, most are teenagers trying to make money to move out of home with not enough experience to get a proper job. In this situation I would be asking to take it up with a manager or whomever trains them, not the caller. Imagine if it's your first job, no training, no-one has told you the company number or info you need to know and then some man is saying he will sue you on the phone. Pretty daunting right? Not his fault
ReplyDeleteI'd actually like to have a telephone number that costs people £10 a minute to ring me. I'd be up over £150 on that NRG call alone.......
ReplyDeleteI think I'll continue to belittle people engaged in unlawful activity, and feel fully justified in doing so, sorry. If he really has no clue and is first day on job, then his employers, engaged in unlawful activity, have done a really crap job at the most basic training, but they are crap are following the law too, so worthy of all the belittling they get. The whole "just doing my job" falls down when that job is unlawful. I have a lot more sympathy and patience for people that are doing a lawful job and through no fault of their own lack basic training, but not in this case.
ReplyDeleteA couple of points from someone who shares a building with these cowboys:
ReplyDeleteTheir staff know what they're doing. They brag about it constantly.
The OP will be pleased to know that this morning their entire office was loaded into police vans. We won't miss them.
Read this then find them on
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/16833496.pictures-police-seize-top-of-the-range-bentley-as-seven-are-arrested-in-loft-insulation-fraud-probe/?ref=ebmpn
Companies house
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06565677
This is a brilliant call. Found your blog after reading the Echo article! I'm not sure whos enjoying the call more, him or you! Most sales people would put the phone down after 30secs - 1min, so I'm not sure why he stayed on it for so long?
DeleteOops companies house is
ReplyDeletehttps://companycheck.co.uk/company/10370742/NRG-INSTALLS-LIMITED/companies-house-data
Err, companycheck.co.uk Company Check Ltd (04905417) is not Companies house.
Deletehttps://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10370742
DeleteHey there RevK,
ReplyDeleteMy name is Sam and i literally just watched your video and having previously been an employee of the exact same Bournemouth branch you got the call from, i can tell you that the data that is given does specifically say the letters TPS next to them so other callers do not call them.
They also tell us to ONLY give out that exact 0800 number that the caller gave you. Its virtually impossible to give people a company number since we were never told one apart from the 0800 one on a massive board that is also with the website.
if there is anything else you want to know, reply with a question and ill be in touch. Hope this helped.
Sam