CRTC Complaint - Regulation required

I'm posting this complaint as it's a good summary of the regulation I believe is needed to ensure that companies using this calling practice do not infringe on innocent citizens rights in their zeal to reach the person they seek. It also attempts to rebalance the costs so that the citizens inconvenienced by erronous calls are not also subsidizing the calls through long que time and invasive questioning.

Complaint:
I have for some time been receiving automated dialer messages intended for an individual I have never known, and who has not lived at my address – at least for the 22 years I have resided here.

I have received over 140 of these messages since May when they started.

Since these calls are from a Collection Agency I contacted Ontario’s Market Place Standards Branch of Consumer Affairs. On November 3 in an email from Mrs. M that department indicated “the automated dialer system is a matter for the CRTC and not this ministry.”

This complaint is in relation to that assertion.

It seems to me that the company calling me – Canadian Bonded Credit – does not use reasonable tests to verify the number they call is associated with the person they are trying to reach before they call it repeatedly. I expect all they do is a reverse look-up on what is purported to be the sought persons address. I do not believe that this constitutes a sufficeint test if you are going to call a number – repeatedly – until someone from that number calls them.

I believe that this approach deminishes the rights of Canadian citizens because it requires erronously called citizens give up their right to choose the businesses they contact because, in this case, they are forced to call the company if the calls are ever to stop. This proceedure also shifts a lot of the cost to stop the calls onto the citizen being called because they must take time out of their schedule, wait in the calling que to deal with an agent, answer the questions required to verify that you’re not the person sought etc. This doesn’t seem right. The problem is the lack of regulation. First there should be a requirement that the number identified by the reverse look-up is also tested against the names registered to that number. Where they do not match the name of the person sought the company should be probibited from using an automated message dialler until they have used traditional outbound calling to verify that the person they are trying to reach regularly uses that number.

There also should be a requirement that companies using automated message systems to force people to call it must maintain independent number that provides priority service to citizens called in error. Performance standards to answer and resolve these erreor should be specified as well as clear regulations on what they may ask people mistakenly called – and how they handle the data collected.

I also think that there should be clear definitions of what is a reasonable frequency for leaving automated messages. To me hearing the same company call 6 day a week for over 6 months borders on harassement.

Given the frequency of calling, the apparent lack of rigor in identifying the proper party to call, and the implications on rights for erronounsly called citizens new, and strongly enforced regulation is in order.