Skip to main content

Taxman makes 300,000 nuisance calls a year

A written parliamentary question by Silent Calls Campaigning MP John Hemming has revealed the shock fact that the government is making at least 300,000 nuisance calls a year.

"After trying to pretend they didn't use predictive dialling, they finally admitted on Tuesday that the taxman made 7.5 million calls in 2004/5 using a predictive dialler. The DMA (Direct Marketing Association) code called for a limit of 5% of these to be silent, nuisance calls. It is clear that the taxman made at least 300,000 (4%) nuisance calls in 2004/5. The government claim that 'Full information is not available on the number of calls where contact was made but operators were not available' that is because they do not want to admit that they contribute to the many millions of times that people are disrupted and caused anxiety by 'silent calls'." said John Hemming

"Ofcom produced new guidelines on 31st October, but the tax man is still "considering" Ofcom's guidelines. It is quite clear that the taxman is responsible for "persistent nuisance" and could be liable to fines of £50,000. A fine of £50,000 (the new rate) for each of the 300,000 calls would be fifteen billion pounds. I am surprised that the taxman believes that following the law is optional. "

"The point about the Inland Revenue, however, is that registering under the telephone preference service does not prevent the revenue phoning you and making silent calls."

John Hemming has also written to a charity that is still making silent calls. "I had a charity referred to me that was making silent calls recently. It would be unfair to mention which charity, but I have written to them to ask them to stop doing so. It is quite clear that a message can be played to remove the major anxiety that is caused by silent calls. I am not sure what Ofcom are doing to enforce their code, but my team of campaigners are monitoring the situation and will continue campaigning until Silent calls stop."

ENDS

Note for editors
The question should appear on the online version of hansard soon.

The figure of 300,000 is estimated at 4% of the number of calls made. The government are avoiding answering the question as to precisely how many silent calls were made claiming that they don't have "full information".

The Direct Marketing Association's code used to say that a limit of 5% of silent calls should be made. Ofcom on 31 Oct reduced this to 3% dropped calls and banned silent calls. The fine of £50,000 did not apply for financial year 2004/5 it was at that time £5,000. In any event it would be unlikely that a fiine would be issued for each call although it is arguable that it could. In any event as soon as a fine of £50,000 was issued for a couple of calls they would stop making silent calls. It is, however, an arguable case if a mite exaggerated.

The first question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer elicited the response "The treasury does not use predictive diallers", so the question was asked again.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…