irresponsible calling

WordPress - Where's my Domain?

2009-02-24T10:23:00.003-05:00

I used to blog at PetesView.net as well, since Nov 23, 2006. I can’t any more because my domain is in no-mans land.

Wordpress says some one else owns it, I can’t understand how that can happen as I renewed with them well in advance.

I first bought the domain through Wordpress.com on Nov 23, 2006 and renew it annually.

This year I renewed on Nov 17 using Wordpress.com’s PayPal link. PayPal transferred the funds to them on Nov 18 and Visa billed me on Nov. 19th.

That’s 4 days to renew my domain – an eternity for the automated systems that actually do the registration.

Through the rest of November and December things looked ok. In early Jan I went to post and PetesView was off line so I wrote Wordpress support. Here’s what they said:

You purchased the credits on 2008-11-18 but the upgrades were not renewed. This happens if the PayPal transaction doesn't clear right away. I'm sorry but someone else registered the domain and there is nothing we can do. You'd need to lookup the domain and contact the current owner of the domain if you want to attempt to buy it back from them.

Or as I read it: “It's PayPal fault. You’re on your own”.

That doesn’t make sense given the financial tracking through both PayPal and Visa shows they had their money no later than Nov 19. And it doesn’t explain why a search of WhoIS shows that the domain is valid until Nov 23, 2009 - which would have happened if my Nov 18, 2008 renewal through Wordpress occurred as ordered. And if it’s someone else’s why does it displays what appears to be an RSS feed of my content.

WordPress’s answer - refund my registration fee and wash their hands of it.

That’s not satisfactory for several years building a brand and domain. Surely 4 days is sufficient to register a domain. Surely a company focused on blogging recognises the value of both the content and the links associated with a domain.

Has anyone else had similar experiences with WordPress.com domain registration?
Can anyone speculate what might be the cause?
Is the refunding the registration fee acceptable?
How can I get WordPress to correct this?

Looking forward to your thoughts?

Guilty until Proven Innocent

2007-03-19T15:11:00.000-04:00

That's the title of an emai I recieved with a great suggestion of how to deal with erroneous automated collections calling.

To quote form the email:

"I decided not to waste any time/energy on dealing with them directly and instead lodged a formal complaint with the Better Business Bureau. They were extremely efficient (indeed you can do it all online) and the agency was informed of their error through the BBB's review of my case. The harassing calls stopped immediately, and I got a written apology from the ombudsman."

Sounds so much better that waiting on the line and having to convience some agent there's an(other) error in their system.

Will probably work until the Better Business Bureau decides that it too shouldn't be paying it's staff to fix what the agency should in the first place - if it simply compared the name sought to the name registered to the number.

If you try this let me know how it works.

Calling (the wrong) Cell Phones

2006-12-28T13:46:00.000-05:00

In the past few months I’ve noticed an increase in the number of people telling me that they are receiving calls to their cell phones from agencies trying to reach people the numbers owner doesn’t know. (see comments to last post for example)

Cell phones, unlike landlines, are often billed per minute on both incoming and out going calls. This means that erroneous calls have both a financial and irritation effect – especially if the agency calls day after day – filling limited mailboxes and racking up bills for an unintended user.

In my mind its fundamentally wrong – especially as it can be so easily avoided. All that’s required is a simple look-up comparing the registered owner to the debtor sought – simple for companies that can program automated dialers hundreds or thousands of people across the country, each subject to different government calling regulations.

Like the erroneous calling of landlines – Isn’t it time the government stepped up and required checks before automated calling, mandated calling by an individual in cases where there wasn’t an exact match between the numbers registered owner and the debtor sought. Or is this another case where the civil action (and possibly jurisprudence) leads to responsible civil policy.

I am One Voice - Add Yours

2006-11-30T08:32:00.000-05:00

It’s been months since I’ve posted yet I continue to be contacted by people having problems because of calls received by collection agencies.

The people who’ve contacted me fall into two broad groups – those who have no actionable debt and are called because agencies due diligence processes appear weak or non-existent. The other group is people with actionable debts who called and treated in ways they think they shouldn’t be.

I my limited experience suggest that both types of calling have a common root in regulatory oversight and limited investigation of complaints.

It is only through political action and engaging the press that this will change.

Called in error
If you’re called, call your MPP – repeatedly if necessary – until they intervene for you. In Canada agencies are regulated – generally at the provincial level – so don’t let them put you off. If lack of regulation is why you believe you’re called tell them that changing regulation is a political responsibility – so you’ll keep calling until there is regulation – because you don’t believe you should have to call a company just because they call you.

But be nice. Always be nice! – But also talk and talk – tell your story to anyone who will listen and ask lots of questions. Write down what you’ve asked and follow up. Turn every call you receive into a make work project for the MLA’s office. This helps get their attention – and out of that work you’ll learn lots of interesting and useful things.

Send emails to anyone in government that you think should know about your plight. And don’t forget the press. The local consumer help people are good – as are the investigative journalism sites.

Set up a blog or comment on this one.

Consider each call a reminder to take an action to bring about a change in the law and regulation – ending unwarranted calls for everyone. You may learn what I did – that political activity is fun and the skills learned doing this can be applied to other things you care about.

Called because of a legitimate debt
First I can’t make specific recommendations, as individual circumstance is important – as is local law. Also I believe that if you can pay (by either the states or your definition) you should. Sometime circumstances change and you're still called. I can suggest that:

Always be nice – no matter how frustrated and angry you are.

Keep clear records – of call times, issues raised etc

If you’ve been threatened with legal action get a legal opinion. Legal Aid, and legal clinics can be helpful if you can’t afford one directly. As I understand it courts will not make you do without basic necessities – though each province has slightly different rules about what those are. Learn your rights.

Learn how to tape your conversations with the agency – for quality and agreement purposes of course. Don’t hide the fact that you’re taping though – begin every conversation with a simple statement such as “I’m recording this conversation for quality and to ensure I’m clear about what we’ve agreed” Let them decide if they want to talk under such circumstances – if not they can use mail. You may need to check the regulation in your area – but it’s likely that if call centers can record with upfront notice and no beeps you can as well – as long as there is notice and legitimate purpose in recording – like ensuring you’re clear about agreements.

Broken Windows - A Call to Action

2006-03-05T07:29:00.000-05:00

Have you ever heard of the ‘broken windows’ approach?

It’s a method of stopping undesirable behaviors that says if you ignore a small incident, like a broken window’ the perpetrator accepts that as ok and escalates. Left unchecked broken windows turn into social behaviors that undermine society.

What does this have to do with automated outbound calling? To me this is a ‘broken window’ for personal privacy and freedom of choice. If we let companies like Canadian Bonded Credit force owners of a phone number to call them because that number somehow was linked to a debtor – we have all lost a little bit of freedom.

It’s like throwing rocks. Kids do it all the time, and have for as long as history. That’s not the problem. The problem starts when responsibility for action gets divorced from its effects.

It’s a choice to choose a window. It’s also a choice to either not check who the number is registered to, or worse to check, know it’s not registered to the debtor, and call repeatedly anyway.

‘Broken windows’ says that forcing responsibility for ones actions is how you change behavior. Treat it as an aberration – a childish mistake or error, as I believe the regulator does, and it’ll grow and morph potentially into something much worse.

What are you going to do when about the broken window?

Why the collections industry needs new regulation

2006-02-05T08:47:00.000-05:00

I want to thank Collector Joe for so eloquently expressing why the industry needs regulation. "the vast majority of these debtors are deadbeat scumbags, We have to run our business with a little edge." ( Collector Joe - to see the whole comment click comments under "Response to Joe Collectors comments" two items below).

Collector Joe seems to think that if agencies are constrained in any way from treating every citizen like 'scumbags' deserving of a 'little edge' our economic system will collapse. I don't believe that. I believe that:

When people who are not debtors are bothered, distressed and harassed by agencies, we need new regulation
When people who are not debtors are treated like 'scumbags' through repeat calling, we need new regulation
When people who are not debtors are forced to call an agency they owe nothing to, we need new regulation
When people who are not debtors have to give up their time to supply readily available information, we need new regulation
When a 'little edge' means notices returned as incorrectly addressed are ignored, we need new regulation
When a 'little edge' means using the most invasive methods without simple tests to make sure the number or address currently belongs to a debtors, we need new regulation
When a 'little edge' means a 170+ calls to a number that's never been used by a debtor, we need new regulation
When a 'little edge' means continuing to call after being informed the number does not belong to a debtor we need new regulation

I believe that agencies owe society a duty of care to make sure they contact only legitimate debtors, and then to only use the most invasive techniques on those that are truly deadbeats. If they won't do that without regulation then we need to change it - because treating every citizen as a 'scumbag' and allowing agencies to take away the freedom of choice and association for people who are not debtors, under the guise of 'a little edge', diminishes society and freedom for everyone.

Read below to learn how to change regulation and stop agencies from treating you as a 'scumbag'.

How we change regulation – Effective Complaints

2006-02-03T10:07:00.000-05:00

This site has been indexed by the search engines and I’m starting to get more requests than I can deal with individually so I’m posting these ideas.

Please keep sending your stories though (irresponsiblecalling at gmail dot com), as it’s important to know the extent and type of problems. I’d also like to be able to get in touch to coordinate action as this moves into the public agenda. If we work together we will change regulation, to do that we need to keep the issue in front of the politicians and in the media. Here’s how.

First you need to make a personal decision – is it more important to stop calls to you or is it more important to make sure that you and no-one else gets called repeatedly just because they got a new number, moved or some debtor or data base lists your address as the debtors. If you believe the former phone the agency and request they stop calling you. If you believe the latter (that the company owes you, and society, a duty of care before they call repeatedly), or if the agency calls after you’ve asked them to stop here some steps you can take:

Focus your effort on government and regulation and phone, email and write them, not the agency. Use each call you receive from the agency as a reminder to do something to stop the practice of calling citizens in ‘error’ and putting the onus on them to fix the mistake.
Try to complain to the ministry of government services. The web site is http://www.cbs.gov.on.ca/mcbs/english/2452_3fe.htm and the phone number is 416-326-8800 or 1-800-889-9768
If you’re not satisfied with the ministries service, and/or if you don’t believe the ministry should insist on taking your personal information and giving it an agency, when all that’s needed is the name of the sought person – call your MPP’s constituency office (CO) and get them involved. A link with all MPP’s contact information is here http://olaap.ontla.on.ca/mpp/daCurRdg.do?locale=en&ord=RDG_NAME

You’re talking to your MPP now what do you say and do?

I found in dealing with the ministry that they wanted proof that I’d been called repeatedly. Solution – from that point on I called the constituency office every time the agency called me. I asked what the CO was going to do to stop the calls and insisted that I wasn’t responsible – it was a lack of regulation and process and they’re responsible for that.
If you do this be pleasant, be nice but be insistent. If you call every time the agency calls everyone quickly gets the message about how distressing repeated calling is, and because CO’s want to help they learn where the roadblocks are. That’s going to be useful later on.
Remind them that repeated phoning is a criminal offense under Section 372(2) of Canada’s criminal code - unless there is a “lawful purpose”. If you believe, as I do, that even if collections is a lawful purpose is not a blank cheque. Agencies and collection regulation should regognise a duty of care to not harm the uninvolved through 'erronous' repeat calling.

What else can you do:

Keep me informed. I’d like to track which MPPs are supportive and which are not. As this moves into the public agenda we’ll need to know this.
Watch for media stories and tell yours when you see one. Call or email but remember to reference the original story so your instance can be put in context.
Talk to your friends and neighbors – they might be getting or have had calls and being able to demonstrate the extent of the problem increases the pressure
Write letters to the editor and the local media consumer watchdogs.

This will take time because the government moves slowly – but if we work together we will get regulation that offers more protection and easier resolution than is in place now.

Response to Joe Collector's comments

2006-02-02T13:27:00.000-05:00

An agent working for CBCL left some comments (click on comment under "Building a Coalition") that I believe should not go unchallenged.

His core contentions, if I can paraphrase and summarize, is that the ‘system exacerbates others errors’. And I should focus on getting a credit bureaus to change their practices, instead of the focusing on agencies and regulation.

Let’s address the latter point first. Collection agencies are doing the calling so that’s where I’m going to focus. If they want to ignore credit bureau information because its out of date they can do it now without my help. But no one should forget that it’s agencies that make the calls and control the processes that determine; who is called, how they’re called and how frequently their called. As a regulated industry, statute & regulation determine acceptable practice and minimal standards. Changing regulation redefines what’s permitted and legal for the entire industry, regardless of where or how the agency gets it contact information.

I also don't believe it’s the ‘systems’ fault. In my opinion these 'errors' are a result of business decisions made in light of a permissive regulatory environment and with assumptions about an unconnected public who (until now) were unaware of the commonality of these 'errors', and the changes to the system & regulation that could protect them.

To me it is a business decision to call a number dozens or hundreds of times without tests to compare the names registered to a number with the name of the person sought. Telephone companies don't reissue the number under the debtors name – it uses the new owners name. Same thing goes when agencies do a reverse look-up on an address to get a number – if someone’s moved the phone number for that address will be under a different name. Electronic phone directories are updated frequently making the window for 'errors' very narrow if they were used. My feeling is that because regulation doesn't require this, and because it has a cost, it isn't done. To me that’s not an error and regulation can correct it.

I also question why when agents (and likely management) know that the ‘system’ calls people they don’t intend to, there isn’t priority numbers to provide fast service to resolve these ‘error’. Again I see this as a business decision to treat people called in error like a debtors because it's easier, and cheaper, for the agency. Again regulation should address this.

I also think the choice of call type (repeat message vs outbound agent) is made for business reasons without consideration for intrusiveness or contact certainty again because there is no regulation.

Repeat message calling is incredibly cheap. By forcing people to call in, shifts some costs to the caller and it allows agencies to use service levels to manage the incoming call queue and achieve close to 100% agent utilization. Outbound agent calling is far less efficient because it’s only when an agent connects with a person that the agency can move a file forward. Even with auto-dialers managing connection agents end-up with unconnected and abandoned calls. Those are business issues.

Regulation needs to recognize calling someone repeatedly until they call you is considerably more invasive than having an agent call and ask for the sought person. It needs to recognize that if the person called is not the sought person they lose their right to do what they please with their time and have to subsidize an agency by waiting in a call queue. To me it’s a difference between compel and contact – and in a free society compelling uninvolved people to do something is unacceptable if it is avoidable – which I believe it easily is.

If agencies don’t see it as incumbent on them to confirm that you've got a current number for the sought person – which apparently they don’t – then we need regulation that outlines what tests an agency is required to make to confirm it has the right number for the sought person. We also need regulation that specifies the least invasive contact methods in all cases where there is doubt about the number or address being the right one for the sought person.

It's focus on agencies and regulation that's going to fix these problems with the current 'system'.

The economics of contact requires new regulation

2006-01-26T11:46:00.000-05:00

Technology has changed the economics of the collection industry. Regulation and oversight is not keeping pace. Even the most recent update, approved in 2002 and coming into force in March 2006 seem stuck in the late 1980’s - or earlier.

Look no further than section 22b to see the disconnect. The new 22b (approved almost 4 years ago) generalizes the concept of “communication” – by removing specific references to telegrams while not changing the underlying approach, which is permissive in terms of contact and silent on requirements for certainty on who is contacted.

What’s the matter with this? Technology, and business processes have radically reduced the cost and nature of ‘contact’ making it more pervasive, invasiveness and disturbing.

When the Act was originally drafted ‘contact’ meant a personal phone call, a letter or even telegraph. The costs per ‘contact’ of these methods ensured that agencies managed the accuracy of their contact list and frequency of contact. That’s not necessary now because instead of an individual calling (or telegramming) we now have auto-dialers leaving daily messages that require the recipient to call the agency to stop the calls. Agencies manage the incoming calls with little regard to service levels because they keep leaving messages until the recipient speaks to them.

Contact has morphed into compel without any restraint on who can be compelled.

The same technology advancement that permits this ‘contact’ can also ensure no-one who is not an actual debtor is ever contacted through these invasive methods – unfortunately the Act and regulations are silent on this - so agencies don’t use them. One would hope the bureaucracy that oversees collection agencies would push elected officials to keep the Act current – but that’s probably a lot to expect when their thinking is guided by the economics of the telegraph.

When anyone can be forced to call an agency and the regulator sees no problem – because the Act and regulation is out of date – something is seriously wrong. When systemic intrusion is seen as isolated cases of ‘mistaken identity’ something is seriously wrong. When agencies have more rights to compel indiscriminate contact in the course of their ‘investigations’ than the police something is seriously wrong.

It’s time to revisit this Act because the economic assumptions that underlie its definitions, and permissions are out of step with changes in technology and society.

Every canadian is not indentured to creditors – and regulation needs to recognize their rights.

A balance of Rights?

2006-01-25T09:57:00.000-05:00

The question in my mind is are my rights as an uninvolved Canadian citizen to control my time and who I choose to contact and provide information to, trumped by an agencies rights to to 'contact' sought persons under the Collections Act.

I'd beleive that to uphold their right over mine it means that you have to:

- See automated message delivery with the intent to compel contact as identical to calling in person (see below)
- See no differences in the agencies requirements to be certain they have the correct contact information for sought person as their contact method becomes more invasive
- Dismiss any responsibility to update their data when notices are returned
- Ignore any responsibilities to have procedures to protect the un-involved (ie:
- Take the numbers it thinks are for the sought person
- Do a look-up to get the names registered to each number
- Compare that list to the names sought at each number
- Don't use automated calling on any that don't match - at least until they've used traditional calling to confirm that the sought person uses the number.
- Agree that uninvolved people's time is at the agencies disposal, and no proceedures need to be in place to reduce the time it takes them to get off the call list when they are called in error

Do you think that repeatedly calling uninvolved people causes them forseeable harm?
What steps do you think the government should mandate agencies take to protect the uninvolved?

Repeated Calling, Privacy & Harassesment

2006-01-23T13:51:00.000-05:00

The Canadian Criminal Code 373(3) recognizes repeated calling as criminal except where there is “lawful purpose”. This implies repeated calling is recognized as generally offensive to the recipient. The fact that it can be criminal implies a duty of care to ensure its use is limited to only those circumstances where it is "lawful". Even if collections is a “lawful purpose” are agencies excused from:
- using the least invasive method of repeat calling possible
- ensuring its calling method is consistent with data certainty

Repeated automated message calling, where one calls a number daily leaving a message until the recipient contacts the caller, is fundamentally different from agent driven repeated calling in its invasiveness and implications for rights & privacy of unintended recipients. It's sole purpose appears to be to harass to the point of compelling the action of calling the company.

Agent driven contact is less intrusive as it’s possible to end the calling with a single connection and statement "I'm sorry you have the wrong number for x". The conversation is about the availability of the sought person not the identity of the person contacted.

Contrast that with the repeated automated calling method where ones choice is "Keep receiving automated calls" or "Pick up the phone, dial a company you have no association with, give up your time to wait in a call queue, provide your information not the information about the availability of the person sought to the company". It is the difference between ‘contact’ and ‘compel’ - with compelling typically implying a very high burden to proof, contact accuracy and limitation on alternative actions.

Automated message calling also devaluates uninvolved peoples time and their right to control and use it, while shifting many of the company’s costs onto the recipient. The uninvolved person must call, wait in a que etc. all to the companies financial benefit.

Is “lawful purpose" a blank cheque allowed because the Collections Act talks only about "contact"? Or is the agency responsible for both the accuracy of its call data? Certianly it is possible to match the intrusiveness of its contact technique with the certianty that they are contacting the correct person.

It may cost the agency some money to to do this - but not to do it cost every citizen a bit of fundamental freedom.

Building a coalition

2006-01-13T16:33:00.000-05:00

I'm trying to reach people who've been repeatedly called by Canadian Bonded Credit as part of a plan focused on the proceses and proceedures of this company. The more I know, and the more of us there are involved - the more likely we'll get change.

I'd like to understand the circumstances of your calls.

If you've been called please send me an email outlining:
- Whether the calls were intended for you
- If not

did you return any notices sent to the person they're calling for
did you recently move into the address they called
did you recently change your phone number

- How many calls did you receive?
- Are they still on-going?
- How would you describe the calls?
- Do you feel the government should control this type of calling?

Let me know if you'd be interested in participating in processes to control this activity as I have an number of ideas.

Please email me your story at irresponsiblecalling at gmail dot com.

Do you call this oversight?

2006-01-13T16:21:00.000-05:00

Section 6b of the Ontario Collections Act states that renewal of registration to operate in Ontario can be denied if:

" the past conduct of the applicant affords reasonable grounds for belief that he will not carry on business in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty;"

1. Does the Ministry keep records of complaints against specific agencies? Yes

2. If it does

how are reported incidents ranked for seriousness? They’re not!
what test does the ministry use to establish "reasonable grounds" It doesn’t!
Does the ministry monitor implementation of corrective actions as a result of complaints, and check for their continued use No!

3. Does the Ministry consider phoning people with automated diallers who have returned notices as misaddressed as acting with "Integrity" under the Act? No answered

4. Does the ministry consider repeatedly phoning uninvolved people (ie without indebtedness to the agency) as acting with Integrity under the Act? Not answered

5. When is CBCL's registration up for renewal? File a Freedom of Information Request

6. How does the public participate in this process? It doesn’t.

Is it any wonder that Ontarians have more problems with collections that any (all?) other commercial groups - no one seems to be looking out for citizens interests.

irresponsiblecalling at gmail dot com

Answers - Mainly Nope

2006-01-06T12:34:00.000-05:00

So I have the answers to the questions I posed below.

While my information is covered by privacy legislation (should I decide to give it) the bigger question - should I have to provide it at all will have to be determined through a Privacy Complaint - which will be forthcoming.

On the rest of the questions there is not an iota of regulation. Nada!!

1. Do companies have to update databases on returned & misaddressed notices - Nope
2. Descriptions on who can be called repeatedly - None - everyone is fair game
3. Minimum standards and tests to verifying the number matches the sought person? Nope!
4. Regulations covering frequency of calls - Dream on
5. Regulations requiring expedited handling of erroneously called individuals. - Not a chance

I suggested the ministry ask the caller to carry out this 4 step process (which can be easily automated) to remove my name from it's calling list:

1. Take it's database of called numbers
2. Do a reverse look-up to get the names registered to each number
3. Compare that list to the names sought at each number
4. Stop calling any that don't match

OK actually it's a two step process because they already have the database of numbers and what they do with the output is really not part of a sorting and qualifying process - but even at 4 steps it's so easy you wonder why it isn't done currently.

That will be a core question in my Privacy complaint - Is it my job to provide my data to the company to update the companies database or is it responsible through proceedures like the one above.

It certianly makes the calls, so it has the responsibility to ensure that it calls only the people it seeks.

Questions to the Ministry

2006-01-06T09:26:00.000-05:00

I've been working with my MPP to get some profile on this issue. He was able to get the ministries attention however all they wanted is a release from me to hand my information over to the caller. I'm not sure this addresses the underlying issue so I've asked they answer the following questions before I provide any release:

1. What is the company allowed to do, and not do, with my information?
2. What regulatory processes protect me from the misuse of my information if I release it to the ministry and through it to the company?
3. What regulations govern creditors and collection agencies responsibilities and handling of notices when are they are returned as misaddressed?
4. Are there regulations that cover the following issues related to repeated outbound collection calling:
a. Descriptions of who can be called?
b. Minimum standards and tests for verifying the number used matches the sought person?
c. Regulations covering frequency of calls over a set period? And maximum number of calls permitted?
d. Regulations requiring expedited handling of erroneously called individuals.
e. Regulations on the information that can be gathered from erroneously called individuals – and descriptions company’s obligations in handling, storing or using that data.

I'll let you know what I find out - and how long it takes.

CRTC Complaint - Regulation required

2005-12-22T07:54:00.000-05:00

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.

Four Complaints Filed

2005-12-22T07:06:00.000-05:00

Since starting this saga I have filed 4 complaints with Government agencies.

Two of these complaints are against practices of the Ontario Government and two are related to federal issues.

The Ontario complaints, both filed with the Ombudsman ask for review of
- regulatory enforcement and service at the Marketplace Standards and Services Branch
- the Attorney General's decision to allow Provincial Offences Offices to operate in administrative anonymity - because althought they operate independently, and without oversight, they cannot be uniquely identified.

The federal compalints ask the agency
- to rule whether the incremental disclosure of information about the person sought, as part of automated messages breaches their privacy rights
- a request for the CRTC to impliment regulation covering automated message dialers - specifically arount the tests required before a number can be called and the frequency of calling permitted.

If there is interest I will post these complaints as templates for others to use.

Bell Canada's Suggestion

2005-12-20T15:18:00.000-05:00

I called Bell Canada to ask what they could do about my 140 calls. Change my phone number was their suggestion!

I've had the same number for 30 years and don't want to give it up. Also they agreed that the calls would likely return the next time an index was published.

Seems to me that the problem is the company calling me doesn't use reasonable tests to verify the number they call is associated with the person they are trying to reach. I think that all they do is a reverse look-up and then call away.

What they should do is check that number identified by the reverse look-up is registered to the person they are trying to reach before they call. If it isn't they should be prohibited from using an automated dialler until they verify the person is at that number by calling the number in person first.

How does one get Bell Canada to join me in asking the CRTC to require this.?

2005-12-18T18:23:00.000-05:00

How would you like to hear this on when you answered the phone or checked your messages? (coming soon via audioblogger)

I did for almost 6 months - and just yesterday it started all over again. If this cycle is like last it will start with some ‘courtesy’ calls that identify the sought person (not me) and ask them to call. Not sure how that’s supposed to happen as I don’t know them.

Shortly they’ll drop all pretense of courtesy and leave this vaguly threatening message. I see it as telephone strong-arm tatics used against innocent citizens.

After listening to this I’d anyone’s thoughts on how an uninvolved person could stop the calls except by calling the company.

Don’t know what that says about canada when a company can force citizens to call them - provide their information - and the government does nothing.

Happy listening. Hope it doesn’t come to your phone.

2005-12-18T18:08:00.000-05:00

This blog is my response to recieving over 130 automated calls from a collection agency seeking someone else.

The only way I can stop these calls is by taking time out of my schedule and calling a company I owe nothing to and satisfing them that I’m not the person they seek. This seems wrong so I thought I’d see how many others have the same problems. I also hope we can figure out effective ways of addressing this.

In the coming days I post my story in detail - including copies of the emails and comments I’ve recieved from government bodies.

If you’ve got a story I urge you to post comments. It’s by understanding how our stories are similar, and how we need to act together, that will result in active enforcement and new regulation to solve this.