Anyone recognise this junk caller?

MB

I wonder if anyone recognises the name of this junk caller, it was so
distorted that it was very hard to understand what she was saying. I
think it was a Scottish call centre. They started with the usual
rubbish about doing a survey. I asked the name of the company and it
was something like WATHSALE?? WATHER SALES??

I told them that I was on the TPS list and the usual response implying
that I had not been registered long enough to show on the files, I
explained that I had probably been registered 10 years then got a not
very believable apology. The number was withheld of course.

I could not be bothered spending any more of my time trying to get the
name of the company to report them as all the regulators are about as
much use as the proverbial chocolate teapot. But will do if someone
recognise the name of the company.


MB

pugwash

Weatherseal?


"MB" <> wrote in message
news:...
>I wonder if anyone recognises the name of this junk caller, it was so
> distorted that it was very hard to understand what she was saying. I
> think it was a Scottish call centre. They started with the usual
> rubbish about doing a survey. I asked the name of the company and it
> was something like WATHSALE?? WATHER SALES??
>
> I told them that I was on the TPS list and the usual response implying
> that I had not been registered long enough to show on the files, I
> explained that I had probably been registered 10 years then got a not
> very believable apology. The number was withheld of course.
>
> I could not be bothered spending any more of my time trying to get the
> name of the company to report them as all the regulators are about as
> much use as the proverbial chocolate teapot. But will do if someone
> recognise the name of the company.
>
>
> MB

MB

The message <>
from "pugwash" <nobody> contains these words:

> Weatherseal?


> "MB" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> >I wonder if anyone recognises the name of this junk caller, it was so
> > distorted that it was very hard to understand what she was saying. I
> > think it was a Scottish call centre. They started with the usual
> > rubbish about doing a survey. I asked the name of the company and it
> > was something like WATHSALE?? WATHER SALES??
> >
> > I told them that I was on the TPS list and the usual response implying
> > that I had not been registered long enough to show on the files, I
> > explained that I had probably been registered 10 years then got a not
> > very believable apology. The number was withheld of course.
> >
> > I could not be bothered spending any more of my time trying to get the
> > name of the company to report them as all the regulators are about as
> > much use as the proverbial chocolate teapot. But will do if someone
> > recognise the name of the company.
> >
> >
> > MB



It was probably was Weatherseal, it was just so distorted that I never
thought of that even though I am sure I have had junk calls from them
previously.


MB

Jim Alexander

"MB" <> wrote in message
news:...
>I wonder if anyone recognises the name of this junk caller, it was so
> distorted that it was very hard to understand what she was saying. I
> think it was a Scottish call centre. They started with the usual
> rubbish about doing a survey.

Ha, there is a reason for this, see later....

I asked the name of the company and it
> was something like WATHSALE?? WATHER SALES??
>
> I told them that I was on the TPS list and the usual response implying
> that I had not been registered long enough to show on the files, I
> explained that I had probably been registered 10 years then got a not
> very believable apology. The number was withheld of course.
>
> I could not be bothered spending any more of my time trying to get the
> name of the company

well you need to trap them into turning a survey into a sales call if you
want the chocolate teapot to hold water. Not really worth the effort.
Most genuine sales companies as opposed to scam companies will take you off
the current campaign list if you mention TPS. Normally the best option.

> to report them as all the regulators are about as
> much use as the proverbial chocolate teapot. But will do if someone
> recognise the name of the company.

no point, it was a survey at the point the call was ended.

Jim A

MB

The message <SelWh.44988$.blueyonder.co.uk>
from "Jim Alexander" <.uk> contains these words:


> "MB" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> >I wonder if anyone recognises the name of this junk caller, it was so
> > distorted that it was very hard to understand what she was saying. I
> > think it was a Scottish call centre. They started with the usual
> > rubbish about doing a survey.

> Ha, there is a reason for this, see later....

> I asked the name of the company and it
> > was something like WATHSALE?? WATHER SALES??
> >
> > I told them that I was on the TPS list and the usual response implying
> > that I had not been registered long enough to show on the files, I
> > explained that I had probably been registered 10 years then got a not
> > very believable apology. The number was withheld of course.
> >
> > I could not be bothered spending any more of my time trying to get the
> > name of the company

> well you need to trap them into turning a survey into a sales call if you
> want the chocolate teapot to hold water. Not really worth the effort.
> Most genuine sales companies as opposed to scam companies will take you off
> the current campaign list if you mention TPS. Normally the best option.

> > to report them as all the regulators are about as
> > much use as the proverbial chocolate teapot. But will do if someone
> > recognise the name of the company.

> no point, it was a survey at the point the call was ended.

> Jim A


I thought the authorities had decided some time ago that the survey
claim would not be accepted as an excuse.

I am sure that I have reported Weatherseal previously and might even
have sent them a letter in the days when you had to do that.

She claimed that she would take my number off their list but I am sure
that will get more calls from them in the future.

MB

Mortimer

"Jim Alexander" <.uk> wrote in message
news:SelWh.44988$.blueyonder.co.uk. ..
>
> "MB" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>>I wonder if anyone recognises the name of this junk caller, it was so
>> distorted that it was very hard to understand what she was saying. I
>> think it was a Scottish call centre. They started with the usual
>> rubbish about doing a survey.

I had a most entertaining call last week from a guy with an American accent
(not sure whether it was Canadian or east coast USA) who was offering
investment advice for a company whose name I didn't catch. Number withheld,
as you'd expect.

The guy sounded insufferably cheerful and enthusiastic, as if he'd ODed on
happy pills because he sounded almost manic:

Him: Good morning. How are you today? I'm ABC from XYZ Company. I'm sure
you've heard of us.

Me: [dubiously] No. [thinking "Who the f*** are you and why are you
pestering me at 8 PM on a Sunday night?"]

Him: [rather crestfallen] Oh... I thought everyone had heard of XYZ. Well
did you know that Acme stocks are the best thing to invest in?

Me: No. And I'm not interested in investment advice. [sarcastically]
Thank you so much for pestering me. Goodbye.


And he phoned straight back.

Him: I think we must have got cut off. Now, as I was telling you, Acme
stocks are definitely the number one stock to invest in. Do you have
any investments.

Me: We didn't get cut off. I put the phone down. [spacing words out,
being as patronising as I can be] I am not interested in investment
advice. Also, I'm on the Telephone Preference database, so you
should
NOT be pestering me with sales calls.

Him: [sounding heartbroken and almost suicidal] You mean you don't want
to make a fortune buying Acme stock?

Me: That's right. [firmly] Goodbye - and please DO NOT PHONE ME AGAIN.

He must have got the message this time because he didn't try a third time.


I wish Oftel would make it a legal requirement for all companies to present
a phone number on which they can be contacted. It may not be the DDI number
of the person who is calling, but it must be a number at which the company
can be contacted - so I can officially contact them to say "Please do not
phone me again - ever". Businesses should never be allowed to withhold their
number.

Ideally I'd like to see cold calling made illegal altogether. I tell
companies who use this underhand technique that I do not do business with
people who pester me by phone or letter and that I will blacklist them and
spread the word to friends and family who take the same attitude.

I run a small business myself and I would not dream of using this technique.
Phoning someone at 8PM on a Sunday to advertise your business is simply not
an acceptible business practice.

Jim Alexander

"Mortimer" <a@b> wrote in message
news:462a09e1$0$8717$.net...
> "Jim Alexander" <.uk> wrote in message
> news:SelWh.44988$.blueyonder.co.uk. ..
>>
>> "MB" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>>I wonder if anyone recognises the name of this junk caller, it was so
>>> distorted that it was very hard to understand what she was saying. I
>>> think it was a Scottish call centre. They started with the usual
>>> rubbish about doing a survey.
>
>Businesses should never be allowed to withhold their
> number.

Agreed

Alternatively free or cheap ACR should be a telecoms licence requirement


Jim A

MB

The message <462a09e1$0$8717$.net>
from "Mortimer" <a@b> contains these words:


> I wish Oftel would make it a legal requirement for all companies to present
> a phone number on which they can be contacted. It may not be the DDI number
> of the person who is calling, but it must be a number at which the company
> can be contacted - so I can officially contact them to say "Please do not
> phone me again - ever". Businesses should never be allowed to withhold their
> number.

> Ideally I'd like to see cold calling made illegal altogether. I tell
> companies who use this underhand technique that I do not do business with
> people who pester me by phone or letter and that I will blacklist them and
> spread the word to friends and family who take the same attitude.

> I run a small business myself and I would not dream of using this technique.
> Phoning someone at 8PM on a Sunday to advertise your business is simply not
> an acceptible business practice.


I have said before that I think that OFCOM should run a call centre to
trap these junk callers and be able to trace back to the real number.
Any numbers presented on the CLI would be called back to check that they
were answered within a reasonable time.

The operation could be financed by high penalties on offenders.

At the moment it seems that you see the same names and get calls from
the same offenders with nothing being done. Occasionally you get lots
of publiciity about what they are doing but when you read the small
print you find that they have only issued a warning.

You can be sure that if the US was receiving large numbers of junk calls
from the UK then they would be extraditing people who would then be
sitting in American prisons awaiting trials along with other British
businessmen extradited under the terrorism legislation.

MB

Michael R N Dolbear

MB <> wrote

> You can be sure that if the US was receiving large numbers of junk
calls
> from the UK then they would be extraditing people who would then be
> sitting in American prisons awaiting trials along with other British
> businessmen extradited under the terrorism legislation.

International calls that ignore national "do not call" lists don't seem
to be illegal (last time round the Florida State people were willing to
do something but the FCC said go away).

How would *you* check the Latvian List ?

--
Mike D

Derek Geldard

On 21 Apr 2007 18:55:01 GMT, "Michael R N Dolbear" <>
wrote:

>International calls that ignore national "do not call" lists don't seem
>to be illegal (last time round the Florida State people were willing to
>do something but the FCC said go away).
>
>How would *you* check the Latvian List ?

Don't you pick on the Baltic states.

They are very switched on countries populated with law abiding people.

They are generally as poor as church mice because of :

a) Years under the Russians who just wanted them act as an inert
buffer zone between them and the West.

b) A climate which is so severe that they can't grow the wheat for
their own bread or much else except cabbage and beetroots.

As regards the "Latvian List" as and when the regulation of nuisance
telephone calls becomes harmonised it will be treivial. Until then ,
within the EU I'd expect it to far easier than trying to progress such
a matter even *within* the United States, let alone across an
iternational boundary.

IME people in the US simply expect that the rest f the world does
*everything* exctly the same as they do in "Con USA". If they don't
regulate it the won't counrenance anybody else regulating it. EOS.

DG