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

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England.

The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity.

The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back.

This is an issue that needs further work.

In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.

Problems with Outlook Express - emails lost dbx corruption

In the light of the enthusiasm shown for my post relating to the OCX control that must not be named (and probably Microsoft's most embarrassing error of recent years) I thought I would write someting about Outlook Express.

Outlook Express is the email client that comes as part of windows. I use it myself, although I have my emails filtered through a spam filter of my own devising written in java. It takes email off a number of servers using POP3 (Post Office Protocol TCP Port 110) and sends it using SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol port 25).

I have recently spent a few hours dealing with the problem that arises when .dbx files get corrupted during compacting.

Outlook Express (OE) stores the emails (and other things) in files with the suffix .dbx. Each folder has its own .dbx file. They are stored in hidden directories. This makes it harder to deal with things when OE goes wrong.

It is very important to back up your stored *.dbx files as otherwise if you have a disk crash/stol…

Statement re False Allegations Campaign

Many people will know that my family and I have been subject to a campaign of false allegations by Esther Baker for the past 4 1/2 years. Yesterday there was a court judgment Baker v Hemming [2019] EWHC 2950 (QB) which formally confirmed that the allegations were false. Esther Baker, who had brought a libel claim against me, dropped her defence of Truth to my counter-claim and was taken by the judge as no longer trying to prove her allegations. Due to Baker's various breaches of court rules and orders, she has been barred from further repeating her allegations even in the court proceedings. Further claim of mine in libel against Baker are ongoing. There is a good summary in the Daily Mail here.

This demonstrates the challenge in fighting false allegations in today's Britain. A substantial campaign was built up to promote allegations which had no substance to them. Various Labour MPs and in pa…