The Call Centre Wind-up Thread

[manxcat2206]

I'm finding that just confusing them with facts seems to work quite nicely. When they phone you, it's actually them that has to answer security questions for you not the other way round - they know who they've phoned, but they actually need to prove to you who they are. So, pointing out to them that they clearly don't understand the DPA which states this and that, if they don't understand it, this would indicate that they haven't had their required training which is in itself a breach of the Act on the part of their employer usually ties their little brains in knots. If they are switched on enough to answer, I ask them a number of questions - name, position within their company etc and then tell them that as they've phoned me from a number that doesn't appear anywhere on their company literature (or from a withheld number), I'll need to phone back to their head office to confirm that the details they've just given me are correct. In addition, that I'll be doing this at my convenience not theirs - failing to mention that I might just find it convenient to call them in about 2050 or so.

 

If they still proceed with the call, which of course they shouldn't even try but some do, they will often go on to 'advise' you that you should still make minimum payments even if the account is in dispute. I ask at this point if they are a qualified IFA. The answer, invariably, is no. At which point, I ask them to confirm that their employer is FSA regulated, because if they're not qualified they are actually not permitted to give any financial advice at all under FSA rules and that I will report them for this breach as well as for the Data Protection training breach.

 

None of this, of course, stops them calling back but it's quite satisfying to be able to give them legitimate reasons why they can't get me to talk to them using their standard procedures when talking to me. And it confuses them completely because I've messed with their script - they clearly don't understand that some of us do actually know what we're talking about.

[locutus]

I'm finding that just confusing them with facts seems to work quite nicely. When they phone you, it's actually them that has to answer security questions for you not the other way round - they know who they've phoned, but they actually need to prove to you who they are. So, pointing out to them that they clearly don't understand the DPA which states this and that, if they don't understand it, this would indicate that they haven't had their required training which is in itself a breach of the Act on the part of their employer usually ties their little brains in knots. If they are switched on enough to answer, I ask them a number of questions - name, position within their company etc and then tell them that as they've phoned me from a number that doesn't appear anywhere on their company literature (or from a withheld number), I'll need to phone back to their head office to confirm that the details they've just given me are correct. In addition, that I'll be doing this at my convenience not theirs - failing to mention that I might just find it convenient to call them in about 2050 or so.

 

If they still proceed with the call, which of course they shouldn't even try but some do, they will often go on to 'advise' you that you should still make minimum payments even if the account is in dispute. I ask at this point if they are a qualified IFA. The answer, invariably, is no. At which point, I ask them to confirm that their employer is FSA regulated, because if they're not qualified they are actually not permitted to give any financial advice at all under FSA rules and that I will report them for this breach as well as for the Data Protection training breach.

 

None of this, of course, stops them calling back but it's quite satisfying to be able to give them legitimate reasons why they can't get me to talk to them using their standard procedures when talking to me. And it confuses them completely because I've messed with their script - they clearly don't understand that some of us do actually know what we're talking about.

I don't get any calls anymore, but that was much like my tactic. If you can record your calls, post some of them up here... we'll have a good laugh!

[manxcat2206]

I am recording calls, yes. I'll try and post up some transcripts, but it won't be immediate as I'm away taking my son to university and visiting friends over the next couple of weeks.

 

If I'm really, really lucky one of these idiots will try and discuss something with our house-sitter. Then I can drop them right in it with the regulators, Information Commissioner etc. Their problem, of course, being that they think I'll be bothered if they discuss it with someone else whereas my friends already know what's going on because I'm helping them to do the same thing.

[manxcat2206]

Well, not had time to go through my earlier recordings - too many things to get ready for our trip. But I did have an interesting call with one of them. It's not the best call I've had with one of these call centres, but they were definitely struggling at some points and did eventually terminate the call when they ran out of answers.

 

Them: I need to ask you a couple of security questions to confirm who I'm speaking to.

 

Me: No, you have that wrong. That would be a breach of the Data Protection Act. You've just called me from a withheld number and I have no idea who you are. It's you that needs to answer my security questions so I know who's calling me.

 

Them: Yes, I do understand that. We work with the Data Protection Act all the time. If I give you the end of your postcode, can you give me the first two letters. You see, anyone could have just answered your phone and be pretending to be you. Or your phone could have been stolen.

 

Me: No, I can't do that. I've just explained it to you. I think you'll find it would be quite difficult for someone to steal my landline anyway and I'm not in the habit of inviting the whole street in to answer my phone for me. But if you answer my security, then I might be able to talk to you. You're not understanding the Data Protection Act though. If you call me on a number you have listed for me and I confirm that I am me before you tell me where you're calling from, then that should be sufficient for you.

 

Them: Yes, I understand. Can you call me back on our freephone number then if I give it to you?

 

Me: No, because if you are trying to [problem] me, then you'll just have a friend there to answer the number you're about to give me who will then take me through security etc etc and I still won't be sure who I'm talking to.

 

Them: OK, yes. Well can you call our head office then. We really need to speak to you to try to arrange a way forward with you.

 

Me: No, I don't have anything to say to your head office either. If you want to talk to me, you'll have to put it in writing.

 

Them: But we need to talk to you about the arrears on your account. (And they've still not managed to ID me before telling me it's about arrears)

 

Me: But I'm not going to call them. I have asked 3 times for a true copy of my Agreement with you and had no response - not even an acknowledgment. A phone call will not get me this document. The request has to be in writing - you will only ignore anything I ask for verbally. You are in breach of the Consumer Credit Act and will remain so until you supply the information I've asked for. As a result, you are not legally entitled to pursue any alleged debt until you rectify this breach. The account is in dispute and I do not acknowledge any debt with you unless or until you can supply me with a true copy of my agreement and it is deemed enforceable.

 

Them: Right, but if you would just call our head office, they could speak to you about this and we could look at sorting it out.

 

Me: But there IS nothing to sort out. When you send me the information I've asked for, then I will review the situation and, if necessary, I'll speak to you then.

 

Them: You will continue to receive calls. We can't stop them. They're computer generated.

 

Me: Well, somebody must have programmed the computer to make these calls. I'm going to tell you again, you cannot request payment on this account while you're in breach of the Consumer Credit Act. I will be sending you a phone harassment letter tomorrow because you're pursuing a debt that can't be pursued and you've been phoning me several times a day over the last few days. After that, if the calls don't stop, I will report you to Ofcom, Trading Standards and the OFT. I'm not in the least bit worried about making these complaints.

 

Them: I can't continue this conversation as you haven't confirmed your identity. If you won't call us back....we're trying to help you.

 

Me: No you're not. If I answer your security questions, you're going to try to convince me to make a payment.

 

Them: Yes, we're trying to sort this out for you.

 

Me: Well, as I already explained twice, I acknowledge no debt to you so there isn't anything to sort out is there?

 

Them: But there is.

 

Me: Not without the information I asked for, there isn't.

 

Them: I would really advise that you call our head office to sort this out.

 

Me: What, by making a payment on a debt I don't acknowledge?

 

Them: Well, yes but you do have a debt.

 

Me: No I don't. Not while you're in breach of the Consumer Credit Act.

 

Them: But the debt is on our records.

 

Me: But not on mine - until I get my information. Then I'll review it.

 

Them: I would still advise you call our head office.

 

Me: But I'm not going to. And as you could now be said to be giving me financial advice to call and make a payment - are you a qualified IFA?

 

Them: No, but I wasn't giving you financial advice.

 

Me: But you were...you just advised me to call head office who only want a payment from me. You've already admitted that's all they want so you're actually advising me to make a payment. You are FSA regulated aren't you?

 

Them: Yes, but...

 

Me: But are you regulated by the FSA to give advice?

 

Them: No, I don't think so.

 

Me: Well then you've just breached FSA regulations haven't you. You do realise that you as a company could get into a lot of bother for that with your regulators.

 

Them: I can't continue to discuss this with you. You still haven't confirmed your ID.

 

Me: OK then, bye

[InformedSearcher]

Blimey 'manxcat2206' - purely amazingly good stuff! Did anything happen though?

Michael

[manxcat2206]

That call was only earlier today, so not much action yet....but they haven't called back again and usually they would have called back about an hour later.

 

Some days, I know I don't have the patience for them - I try not to answer their calls then. I hate reaching the point where I lose control and end up shouting at them, particularly because I know I can get rid of them calmly and effectively.

 

But, I do have an advantage because, although it's a completely different area, I do work in financial services so I do have to work to FSA and Data Protection guidelines every day so I can say these things to them confidently which helps.

 

I'm guessing the next call I get will be from the guy they put on to me last week who just talked over everything I said - to the point where I had to tell him to shut up and listen because he might actually learn something!