Cold callers will have to display their phone numbers
![The change is expected to be enforced from May [Image: Getty Images].](https://voxpoliticalonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/160424coldcallersGetty.jpg)
The change is expected to be enforced from May [Image: Getty Images].
Sometimes I have to pick up those calls because I may be waiting for a call from a medical professional or government department about Mrs Mike, who also hide their numbers.
At least with the cold callers’ numbers displayed I will know what I’m getting.
Cold callers will soon be forced to display their telephone numbers.
If companies withhold their identities and persistently break the rules they can expect to face fines from the Information Commisioner’s Office (ICO).
The minister responsible for data protection Baroness Neville-Rolfe – who is expected to confirm on Monday that the change will kick in on May 16 – said nuisance calls particularly harmed the elderly.
Firms that are registered in the UK, even if their call centres are abroad, will have to provide their phone numbers when making unsolicited calls once the change in legislation comes into force.
It will make it easier for frustrated recipients to note down the numbers and report them.
The Government said the amendment would also ensure the ICO could investigate and take enforcement action against callers who carried on deliberately breaking the rules.
Source: Cold callers will have to display their phone numbers | UK Politics | News | The Independent
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
Display their phone numbers where? (BT charges for that.)
About time.
Will it include the PPI vultures who are the most persistent of the lot?
This sounds like a great idea but will probably not stop companies and government departments withholding their numbers. That is due to the switchboards used by most organisations being pretty basic.
The company has a switchboard number, with each employee having an extension of their own. If an employee calls a customer, say, the number displayed to the customer is that of their switchboard. If the call is unanswered, unless they leave a message saying exactly who they are, or leave their individual number, the customer will call the number displayed. This ends up with the switchboard being inumdated with calls that they have no idea where to pass them.
I’m sure the technology must be out there to enable private numbers by extension to be passed to the customer, but any switchboards I have configured were not that advanced.
I’ve done some phone canvassing for our local CLP we use the free minutes on the mobile or home phone so prefix with 141. Will this rule affect canvassing?
(I’m not a great fan of phone canvassing personally, I prefer face to face contact).
About time too!
How are we supposed to report cold callers who don’t leave their numbers if – we don’t know their numbers? How can you trace the companies which buy information from offshore call centres? I answered one such call, telling the caller he was wasting his time because I never deal with number withheld calls: he told me he understood, but ‘we don’t give our number because then we get calls back from people complaining we’ve annoyed them’ – what can you do with logic like that?
cold callers have it down to a fine art. several randomly chosen numbers are called. first one to respond gets the callers attention. those responding later have been disturbed and left to wonder had called.
This ploy is both annoying and unacceptable.