TIO Annual Report 2005/06

Case Studies

Telemarketing

The complaint

The proprietor of a small business had two business numbers and one home phone number. During business hours, all three numbers were diverted to a mobile phone in her car. The complainant said that she had to answer all calls, as the caller might be an existing or potential customer. She said she had been receiving telemarketing calls on all three numbers and was paying to answer them as they were diverted calls.

She contacted all the providers and asked to be taken off their telemarketing lists. She also contacted the Australian Direct Marketing Association (ADMA) and asked to be placed on its Do Not Contact list. She contacted the TIO after the calls failed to stop. After calling a high level customer service section at one of the providers, the complainant said the calls stopped for a while, only to begin again about six months later. The complainant then got back in touch with the TIO.

TIO response

The TIO contacted the provider who had called the complainant most frequently and asked how it had sought to prevent the complainant from receiving further telemarketing calls. The provider said that it had placed the complainant on a Do Not Contact list, which had been circulated to all its dealers, agents and sales staff. It said that it had very clear telemarketing guidelines and that staff and agents who breached the guidelines could be disciplined or dismissed. Despite the company’s assurances, the complainant continued to receive its telemarketing calls. The TIO sought a further response from the provider.

The outcome

The provider said that as the complainant was not one of its customers it could not find any records pertaining to her. This made it difficult to determine which of its staff or agents had made the calls. The company said upon investigation it had found that some numbers on its Do Not Contact list had mistakenly been placed on its telemarketing calling list. The provider said it had taken steps to rectify this.

The provider said that as the complainant’s details were on its updated Do Not Contact list it was confident she would not receive any more calls. The company said that it had reissued the advice to its staff and agents that they would be disciplined if anyone on the updated Do Not Contact list received telemarketing calls. As no further communication was received from the complainant the case was closed.

> NEXT Case Studies cont...