eyo technlogies For your PC needs
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Dealing with nuisance phone calls

  1. #1
    Ext User(Dave) Guest

    Dealing with nuisance phone calls

    In the past you could report nuisance calls to the phone company and they
    would block the caller. Today they no longer offer that service and instead
    refer everyone to a national "Do not call list." The law, however, now
    exempts bill collectors and they can use automated dialers to call and leave
    recorded messages.

    Such callers often ignore requests to stop calling even after being informed
    they have the wrong number. Consequently use of the following solution
    may be necessary:

    No one has phone service for free. Even though the phone system is a public
    utility a subscriber must rent or least a "private" subscriber line in order
    to have phone service. The service you are renting or leasing involves
    incoming and outgoing calls. In many places renters or leasers of "private"
    subscriber lines charge a fee for use of the line for outgoing calls. Some
    places also charge for incoming calls and for use of any associated
    equipment such as a fax machine of a computer. The logic for doing this is
    that the renter or leaser is being deprived of the opportunity to use the
    line (or bandwidth in the case of a cell phone) for either outgoing or for
    incoming calls. A hotel may charge for instance not only for outgoing and
    incoming calls but for the use of any associated equipment.

    Whenever anyone calls me I let my computer handle answering the call. The
    message I have setup is that if the purpose of the call is to solicit
    payment then there will be a charge for making the call and tying up the
    line for whatever time it takes to leave a message and there will be a
    charge for leaving the message on the computer as well as a charge for
    storage of the message until it is retrieved and that the caller may avoid
    such fees by not leaving a message or by limiting the length of the call and
    the length of the message and by stating how long they agree for the message
    to be stored subject to a minimum storage fee and the default fee for
    calling, recording and storing.

    Since SITEL is usually the parent of such companies in Canada and the US I
    have also faxed and mailed such notices to them and informed them that any
    future calls will constitute their agreement to pay for all prior call at
    triple the rate in addition to a sizable inconvenience fee for have
    necessitated the issuance of such notice.





  2. #2
    Ext User(Andy) Guest

    Re: Dealing with nuisance phone calls

    On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:11:27 -0400, "Dave" <aceblink@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >In the past you could report nuisance calls to the phone company and they
    >would block the caller. Today they no longer offer that service and instead
    >refer everyone to a national "Do not call list." The law, however, now
    >exempts bill collectors and they can use automated dialers to call and leave
    >recorded messages.
    >
    >Such callers often ignore requests to stop calling even after being informed
    >they have the wrong number. Consequently use of the following solution
    >may be necessary:
    >
    >No one has phone service for free. Even though the phone system is a public
    >utility a subscriber must rent or least a "private" subscriber line in order
    >to have phone service. The service you are renting or leasing involves
    >incoming and outgoing calls. In many places renters or leasers of "private"
    >subscriber lines charge a fee for use of the line for outgoing calls. Some
    >places also charge for incoming calls and for use of any associated
    >equipment such as a fax machine of a computer. The logic for doing this is
    >that the renter or leaser is being deprived of the opportunity to use the
    >line (or bandwidth in the case of a cell phone) for either outgoing or for
    >incoming calls. A hotel may charge for instance not only for outgoing and
    >incoming calls but for the use of any associated equipment.
    >
    >Whenever anyone calls me I let my computer handle answering the call. The
    >message I have setup is that if the purpose of the call is to solicit
    >payment then there will be a charge for making the call and tying up the
    >line for whatever time it takes to leave a message and there will be a
    >charge for leaving the message on the computer as well as a charge for
    >storage of the message until it is retrieved and that the caller may avoid
    >such fees by not leaving a message or by limiting the length of the call and
    >the length of the message and by stating how long they agree for the message
    >to be stored subject to a minimum storage fee and the default fee for
    >calling, recording and storing.
    >
    >Since SITEL is usually the parent of such companies in Canada and the US I
    >have also faxed and mailed such notices to them and informed them that any
    >future calls will constitute their agreement to pay for all prior call at
    >triple the rate in addition to a sizable inconvenience fee for have
    >necessitated the issuance of such notice.


    Ever do any good with it?

    I did something similar after an online casino kept spamming me a few
    years ago. Despite promising I'd be taken off their mailing lists
    several times, their adds continued to arrive. I issued a similar
    warning by fax and then promptly followed that up with an invoice for
    a short review I also included, which detailed my opinion on the
    likely effectiveness of their next add.

    They of course denied my claim but I kept at them by email and fax and
    ended up talking to their legal people. Cut a long story short, the
    result was that they ended up giving me about a $100 USD in casino
    credits just to shut me up! I played those credits and collected some
    winnings too. Never got spammed by them again either. :)

    I know I probably just got lucky because if push came to shove, their
    pockets would have been a hell of a lot deeper than mine to fight the
    matter, but geez it felt bloody good to see their payment appear on my
    credit card in the end!

  3. #3
    Ext User(Dave) Guest

    Re: Dealing with nuisance phone calls

    > Ever do any good with it?

    If you are not indebted to them then they will generally stop as soon as
    they verify that you are not indebted to them. The real advantage is when
    you are indebted to them. Once you give them notice that they will be
    charged for using your line and equipment for their business purposes they
    know they either have to stop calling or start deducting what they owe you
    from what you owe them. In most cases they pick the former but if you are
    lucky and they just happen to be stupid you will end up not owing them
    anything at all. Just be sure your records are accurate and you verify your
    notices to them by using a fax or by using certified mail.





  4. #4
    Ext User(Andy) Guest

    Re: Dealing with nuisance phone calls

    On Mon, 1 May 2006 00:12:07 -0400, "Dave" <aceblink@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >Andy:
    >> Ever do any good with it?

    >
    >If you are not indebted to them then they will generally stop as soon as
    >they verify that you are not indebted to them. The real advantage is when
    >you are indebted to them. Once you give them notice that they will be
    >charged for using your line and equipment for their business purposes they
    >know they either have to stop calling or start deducting what they owe you
    >from what you owe them.


    Heh.. Call me a skeptic, but I just can't see the latter ever
    happening.

    Have you ever succeeded in getting a bill reduced based on what
    amounts (in real terms) to a bogus invoice that you've sent them?

    Note that I only say bogus because if push came to shove and a dispute
    of this nature got pushed all the way to the courts, my belief is that
    you would end up not only paying everything you owe them, but probably
    their legal expenses to boot. :)

    >In most cases they pick the former but if you are
    >lucky and they just happen to be stupid you will end up not owing them
    >anything at all. Just be sure your records are accurate and you verify your
    >notices to them by using a fax or by using certified mail.


    I'm still interested to know if you've ever been successful with
    getting payment for one of these invoices you're talking about, or
    whether this is all just wishful theory on your part?

    As I mentioned earlier, I believe the only reason the Casino coughed
    up for me that time was pure luck on my part and/or because they
    decided it was easier and perhaps good PR to humour me with giving me
    credits to the value of the invoice I'd faxed them.

    They probably thought that if they rewarded me with the few bucks I
    was asking for upsetting me with their inability to remove me from
    their mailing lists, ( $100USD to an online casino would be like 5
    cents to an average person) I might later keep my account and play
    more money at their online casino.

    Hehe.. Truth be told, if that was their motive, then they were pretty
    spot on. I like a bit of a gamble every now and then so I've played
    many times at that casino since collecting my freebie winnings. ;^)

    Cheers...

    Andy

  5. #5
    Ext User(Craig Welch) Guest

    Re: Dealing with nuisance phone calls

    On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:11:27 -0400, "Dave" <aceblink@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >Whenever anyone calls me I let my computer handle answering the call. The
    >message I have setup is that if the purpose of the call is to solicit
    >payment then there will be a charge for making the call and tying up the
    >line for whatever time it takes to leave a message and there will be a
    >charge for leaving the message on the computer as well as a charge for
    >storage of the message until it is retrieved and that the caller may avoid
    >such fees by not leaving a message or by limiting the length of the call and
    >the length of the message and by stating how long they agree for the message
    >to be stored subject to a minimum storage fee and the default fee for
    >calling, recording and storing.


    All good fun. But to no end.

    So long as it keeps you amused.

    --
    Craig

  6. #6
    Ext User(Kirilenko) Guest

    Re: Dealing with nuisance phone calls

    On Tue, 02 May 2006 21:15:12 +1000, Andy <ask_for_email@here.com>
    wrote:

    >On Mon, 1 May 2006 00:12:07 -0400, "Dave" <aceblink@hotmail.com>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>Andy:
    >>> Ever do any good with it?

    >>
    >>If you are not indebted to them then they will generally stop as soon as
    >>they verify that you are not indebted to them. The real advantage is when
    >>you are indebted to them. Once you give them notice that they will be
    >>charged for using your line and equipment for their business purposes they
    >>know they either have to stop calling or start deducting what they owe you
    >>from what you owe them.

    >
    >Heh.. Call me a skeptic, but I just can't see the latter ever
    >happening.
    >
    >Have you ever succeeded in getting a bill reduced based on what
    >amounts (in real terms) to a bogus invoice that you've sent them?
    >
    >Note that I only say bogus because if push came to shove and a dispute
    >of this nature got pushed all the way to the courts, my belief is that
    >you would end up not only paying everything you owe them, but probably
    >their legal expenses to boot. :)


    That's why you don't ask for a lot. They pay small amounts just to
    shut you up as it's not worth it going to court.

    I've heard people sending supermarkets invoices for time spent in
    checkout queus and the supermarket paid them



  7. #7
    Ext User(Andy) Guest

    Re: Dealing with nuisance phone calls

    On Wed, 03 May 2006 01:51:59 +1000, Kirilenko
    <im@somewhereoutthere.com> wrote:

    >On Tue, 02 May 2006 21:15:12 +1000, Andy <ask_for_email@here.com>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>On Mon, 1 May 2006 00:12:07 -0400, "Dave" <aceblink@hotmail.com>
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>>Andy:
    >>>> Ever do any good with it?
    >>>
    >>>If you are not indebted to them then they will generally stop as soon as
    >>>they verify that you are not indebted to them. The real advantage is when
    >>>you are indebted to them. Once you give them notice that they will be
    >>>charged for using your line and equipment for their business purposes they
    >>>know they either have to stop calling or start deducting what they owe you
    >>>from what you owe them.

    >>
    >>Heh.. Call me a skeptic, but I just can't see the latter ever
    >>happening.
    >>
    >>Have you ever succeeded in getting a bill reduced based on what
    >>amounts (in real terms) to a bogus invoice that you've sent them?
    >>
    >>Note that I only say bogus because if push came to shove and a dispute
    >>of this nature got pushed all the way to the courts, my belief is that
    >>you would end up not only paying everything you owe them, but probably
    >>their legal expenses to boot. :)

    >
    >That's why you don't ask for a lot. They pay small amounts just to
    >shut you up as it's not worth it going to court.


    They don't owe anything so it's not them that would need to push a
    bogus claim to court. Most debt collectors wouldn't touch small
    amounts without up front payment and of the few that might, all they
    would likely do is send a standard form letter. (Toilet paper)

    Only way it "might" get to court that I can see, is if the OP was
    silly enough to try and push for payment himself, in which case he'd
    end up even more out pocket and also possibly find himself in hot
    water for issuing a bogus invoice in the first place.

    >I've heard people sending supermarkets invoices for time spent in
    >checkout queus and the supermarket paid them


    But have you ever heard of a supermarket owner silly enough to pay the
    invoice? :)

  8. #8
    Ext User(Seppo Renfors) Guest

    Re: Dealing with nuisance phone calls



    Andy wrote:
    >
    > On Wed, 03 May 2006 01:51:59 +1000, Kirilenko
    > <im@somewhereoutthere.com> wrote:
    >
    > >On Tue, 02 May 2006 21:15:12 +1000, Andy <ask_for_email@here.com>
    > >wrote:
    > >
    > >>On Mon, 1 May 2006 00:12:07 -0400, "Dave" <aceblink@hotmail.com>
    > >>wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>Andy:
    > >>>> Ever do any good with it?
    > >>>
    > >>>If you are not indebted to them then they will generally stop as soon as
    > >>>they verify that you are not indebted to them. The real advantage is when
    > >>>you are indebted to them. Once you give them notice that they will be
    > >>>charged for using your line and equipment for their business purposes they
    > >>>know they either have to stop calling or start deducting what they owe you
    > >>>from what you owe them.
    > >>
    > >>Heh.. Call me a skeptic, but I just can't see the latter ever
    > >>happening.
    > >>
    > >>Have you ever succeeded in getting a bill reduced based on what
    > >>amounts (in real terms) to a bogus invoice that you've sent them?
    > >>
    > >>Note that I only say bogus because if push came to shove and a dispute
    > >>of this nature got pushed all the way to the courts, my belief is that
    > >>you would end up not only paying everything you owe them, but probably
    > >>their legal expenses to boot. :)

    > >
    > >That's why you don't ask for a lot. They pay small amounts just to
    > >shut you up as it's not worth it going to court.

    >
    > They don't owe anything so it's not them that would need to push a
    > bogus claim to court. Most debt collectors wouldn't touch small
    > amounts without up front payment and of the few that might, all they
    > would likely do is send a standard form letter. (Toilet paper)
    >
    > Only way it "might" get to court that I can see, is if the OP was
    > silly enough to try and push for payment himself, in which case he'd
    > end up even more out pocket and also possibly find himself in hot
    > water for issuing a bogus invoice in the first place.


    The scenario was that they be informed first of an OPT IN provision.
    They are informed that if they send faxes/continue calling they will
    be charged a stipulated fee - they accept the fee by continuing to
    send said faxes/masking calls, this is OPTING IN. The opt-in provision
    is quite common practise for banks, telco's and any number of
    businesses - a continuation of use is seen as an acceptance of
    changes.

    Consider that lawyers charge for receiving and reading faxes, taking
    phone calls and listening to clients, then the fees are legitimate -
    IF it can be proven that a service has been provided AND a fee has
    been accepted by the sender/caller.

    [..]

    --
    SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
    misled.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------

  9. #9
    Ext User(Andy) Guest

    Re: Dealing with nuisance phone calls

    On Wed, 03 May 2006 01:13:22 GMT, Seppo Renfors <Renfors@not.com.au>
    wrote:

    >Andy wrote:

    [ ~ ]
    >> They don't owe anything so it's not them that would need to push a
    >> bogus claim to court. Most debt collectors wouldn't touch small
    >> amounts without up front payment and of the few that might, all they
    >> would likely do is send a standard form letter. (Toilet paper)
    >>
    >> Only way it "might" get to court that I can see, is if the OP was
    >> silly enough to try and push for payment himself, in which case he'd
    >> end up even more out pocket and also possibly find himself in hot
    >> water for issuing a bogus invoice in the first place.

    >
    >The scenario was that they be informed first of an OPT IN provision.
    >They are informed that if they send faxes/continue calling they will
    >be charged a stipulated fee - they accept the fee by continuing to
    >send said faxes/masking calls, this is OPTING IN.


    I understand the intent, I just believe that it would end up being
    laughed out of court if it were ever to be tested.

    >The opt-in provision
    >is quite common practise for banks, telco's and any number of
    >businesses - a continuation of use is seen as an acceptance of
    >changes.


    The difference to the scenario you're discussing is that you
    approached them for a service first. Making a marketing call to the OP
    is not a request for work and could not be billed under the
    circumstances you're describing.

    The only "OPT IN" provision to consider in the OPS scenario is an
    imaginary one, otherwise referred to as "wishful thinking". :)

    >Consider that lawyers charge for receiving and reading faxes, taking
    >phone calls and listening to clients, then the fees are legitimate -
    >IF it can be proven that a service has been provided AND a fee has
    >been accepted by the sender/caller.


    Heh.. I'm aware that lawyers charge for taking phone calls and reading
    instructions given to them by fax. Hell, some probably even charge if
    they happen to think about your case while they're taking a dump. Once
    again though, *you* would have commissioned the lawyer to do paid work
    for you in the first place.

    Send a lawyer that you have no established client relationship with
    marketing faxes, or phone calls, advertising your window cleaning
    services and he won't stand a chance of billing you for them,
    regardless of the fact that he might tell you that you'll be billed if
    you continue to advertise.

    If that were possible the courts would be filled with lawyers making
    claims for all manner of junk mail they receive. :)

    Cheers...



  10. #10
    Ext User(Tony Burns (permanent dismisser of Andy, AJS and ]v[etaphoid) Guest

    Re: Dealing with nuisance phone calls

    As usual Andrew, your post contains no substance or intellectual
    content. Wont you ever learn?

    Andy wrote:
    >
    > On Wed, 03 May 2006 01:13:22 GMT, Seppo Renfors <Renfors@not.com.au>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Andy wrote:

    > [ ~ ]
    > >> They don't owe anything so it's not them that would need to push a
    > >> bogus claim to court. Most debt collectors wouldn't touch small
    > >> amounts without up front payment and of the few that might, all they
    > >> would likely do is send a standard form letter. (Toilet paper)
    > >>
    > >> Only way it "might" get to court that I can see, is if the OP was
    > >> silly enough to try and push for payment himself, in which case he'd
    > >> end up even more out pocket and also possibly find himself in hot
    > >> water for issuing a bogus invoice in the first place.

    > >
    > >The scenario was that they be informed first of an OPT IN provision.
    > >They are informed that if they send faxes/continue calling they will
    > >be charged a stipulated fee - they accept the fee by continuing to
    > >send said faxes/masking calls, this is OPTING IN.

    >
    > I understand the intent, I just believe that it would end up being
    > laughed out of court if it were ever to be tested.
    >
    > >The opt-in provision
    > >is quite common practise for banks, telco's and any number of
    > >businesses - a continuation of use is seen as an acceptance of
    > >changes.

    >
    > The difference to the scenario you're discussing is that you
    > approached them for a service first. Making a marketing call to the OP
    > is not a request for work and could not be billed under the
    > circumstances you're describing.
    >
    > The only "OPT IN" provision to consider in the OPS scenario is an
    > imaginary one, otherwise referred to as "wishful thinking". :)
    >
    > >Consider that lawyers charge for receiving and reading faxes, taking
    > >phone calls and listening to clients, then the fees are legitimate -
    > >IF it can be proven that a service has been provided AND a fee has
    > >been accepted by the sender/caller.

    >
    > Heh.. I'm aware that lawyers charge for taking phone calls and reading
    > instructions given to them by fax. Hell, some probably even charge if
    > they happen to think about your case while they're taking a dump. Once
    > again though, *you* would have commissioned the lawyer to do paid work
    > for you in the first place.
    >
    > Send a lawyer that you have no established client relationship with
    > marketing faxes, or phone calls, advertising your window cleaning
    > services and he won't stand a chance of billing you for them,
    > regardless of the fact that he might tell you that you'll be billed if
    > you continue to advertise.
    >
    > If that were possible the courts would be filled with lawyers making
    > claims for all manner of junk mail they receive. :)
    >
    > Cheers...


  11. #11
    Ext User(Seppo Renfors) Guest

    Re: Dealing with nuisance phone calls



    Andy wrote:
    >
    > On Wed, 03 May 2006 01:13:22 GMT, Seppo Renfors <Renfors@not.com.au>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Andy wrote:

    > [ ~ ]
    > >> They don't owe anything so it's not them that would need to push a
    > >> bogus claim to court. Most debt collectors wouldn't touch small
    > >> amounts without up front payment and of the few that might, all they
    > >> would likely do is send a standard form letter. (Toilet paper)
    > >>
    > >> Only way it "might" get to court that I can see, is if the OP was
    > >> silly enough to try and push for payment himself, in which case he'd
    > >> end up even more out pocket and also possibly find himself in hot
    > >> water for issuing a bogus invoice in the first place.

    > >
    > >The scenario was that they be informed first of an OPT IN provision.
    > >They are informed that if they send faxes/continue calling they will
    > >be charged a stipulated fee - they accept the fee by continuing to
    > >send said faxes/masking calls, this is OPTING IN.

    >
    > I understand the intent, I just believe that it would end up being
    > laughed out of court if it were ever to be tested.
    >
    > >The opt-in provision
    > >is quite common practise for banks, telco's and any number of
    > >businesses - a continuation of use is seen as an acceptance of
    > >changes.

    >
    > The difference to the scenario you're discussing is that you
    > approached them for a service first. Making a marketing call to the OP
    > is not a request for work and could not be billed under the
    > circumstances you're describing.
    >
    > The only "OPT IN" provision to consider in the OPS scenario is an
    > imaginary one, otherwise referred to as "wishful thinking". :)
    >
    > >Consider that lawyers charge for receiving and reading faxes, taking
    > >phone calls and listening to clients, then the fees are legitimate -
    > >IF it can be proven that a service has been provided AND a fee has
    > >been accepted by the sender/caller.

    >
    > Heh.. I'm aware that lawyers charge for taking phone calls and reading
    > instructions given to them by fax. Hell, some probably even charge if
    > they happen to think about your case while they're taking a dump. Once
    > again though, *you* would have commissioned the lawyer to do paid work
    > for you in the first place.
    >
    > Send a lawyer that you have no established client relationship with
    > marketing faxes, or phone calls, advertising your window cleaning
    > services and he won't stand a chance of billing you for them,
    > regardless of the fact that he might tell you that you'll be billed if
    > you continue to advertise.
    >
    > If that were possible the courts would be filled with lawyers making
    > claims for all manner of junk mail they receive. :)
    >
    > Cheers...


    --
    SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
    misled.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------

  12. #12
    Ext User(Seppo Renfors) Guest

    Re: Dealing with nuisance phone calls



    Seppo Renfors wrote:
    >
    > Andy wrote:
    > >
    > > On Wed, 03 May 2006 01:13:22 GMT, Seppo Renfors <Renfors@not.com.au>
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > > >Andy wrote:

    > > [ ~ ]
    > > >> They don't owe anything so it's not them that would need to push a
    > > >> bogus claim to court. Most debt collectors wouldn't touch small
    > > >> amounts without up front payment and of the few that might, all they
    > > >> would likely do is send a standard form letter. (Toilet paper)
    > > >>
    > > >> Only way it "might" get to court that I can see, is if the OP was
    > > >> silly enough to try and push for payment himself, in which case he'd
    > > >> end up even more out pocket and also possibly find himself in hot
    > > >> water for issuing a bogus invoice in the first place.
    > > >
    > > >The scenario was that they be informed first of an OPT IN provision.
    > > >They are informed that if they send faxes/continue calling they will
    > > >be charged a stipulated fee - they accept the fee by continuing to
    > > >send said faxes/masking calls, this is OPTING IN.

    > >
    > > I understand the intent, I just believe that it would end up being
    > > laughed out of court if it were ever to be tested.
    > >
    > > >The opt-in provision
    > > >is quite common practise for banks, telco's and any number of
    > > >businesses - a continuation of use is seen as an acceptance of
    > > >changes.

    > >
    > > The difference to the scenario you're discussing is that you
    > > approached them for a service first. Making a marketing call to the OP
    > > is not a request for work and could not be billed under the
    > > circumstances you're describing.
    > >
    > > The only "OPT IN" provision to consider in the OPS scenario is an
    > > imaginary one, otherwise referred to as "wishful thinking". :)
    > >
    > > >Consider that lawyers charge for receiving and reading faxes, taking
    > > >phone calls and listening to clients, then the fees are legitimate -
    > > >IF it can be proven that a service has been provided AND a fee has
    > > >been accepted by the sender/caller.

    > >
    > > Heh.. I'm aware that lawyers charge for taking phone calls and reading
    > > instructions given to them by fax. Hell, some probably even charge if
    > > they happen to think about your case while they're taking a dump. Once
    > > again though, *you* would have commissioned the lawyer to do paid work
    > > for you in the first place.
    > >
    > > Send a lawyer that you have no established client relationship with
    > > marketing faxes, or phone calls, advertising your window cleaning
    > > services and he won't stand a chance of billing you for them,
    > > regardless of the fact that he might tell you that you'll be billed if
    > > you continue to advertise.
    > >
    > > If that were possible the courts would be filled with lawyers making
    > > claims for all manner of junk mail they receive. :)


    Sorry accidentally clicked send before typing in a reply - so here it
    is instead.

    Please note that I stipulated specific conditions had to be met.

    1 - that notification of a fee had top be made.
    2 - the amount of the fee to be made known at time of notification.
    3 - A service os some form is provided.
    4 - A clear, unmistakable OPTION provided for the contract to come
    into effect

    In the case of a fax machine, it is the use of said fax machine and
    consumables for it. On a call it could amount to the evaluation of the
    effectiveness of the sales pitch - and the communication of it to the
    caller -perhaps like "F-off" that indicates to the caller the
    effectiveness of the call.

    IF an opt in provision is NOT legal then no increases in fees from
    banks, telcos, businesses etc would be enforceable - but they are.
    They have been tested often enough, and it has been found that
    notification of the increases and the continued use of a service is
    sufficient to establish the acceptance of a new/variation of the
    contract.

    --
    SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
    misled.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------

  13. #13
    Ext User(Al Foyle) Guest

    Re: Dealing with nuisance phone calls

    Seppo said....

    > Consider that lawyers charge for receiving and reading faxes, taking
    > phone calls and listening to clients, then the fees are legitimate -
    > IF it can be proven that a service has been provided AND a fee has
    > been accepted by the sender/caller.


    What happens in the case when the lawyer rings YOU, and does so for what
    you may consider as inconsequential items, and then while chatting to
    you, talks about the footy or something.

    Now, to get a bill about how poorly your footy team's going would be the
    ultimate insult, I reckon...



  14. #14
    Ext User(Al Foyle) Guest

    Re: Dealing with nuisance phone calls

    Andy said....

    > Send a lawyer that you have no established client relationship with
    > marketing faxes, or phone calls, advertising your window cleaning
    > services and he won't stand a chance of billing you for them,
    > regardless of the fact that he might tell you that you'll be billed if
    > you continue to advertise.


    Probably the same as when a lawyer sends a bill for an outstanding debt
    on behalf of a client. We got one once. The bill was in dispute. The
    biller sicked his lawyer onto us with the cost of the bill plus "legal
    costs". We wrote back telling the lawyer to stick his legal costs and
    that the bill in question was in dispute.

    We provided documentation to prove our case. Needless to say (but I'll
    say it anyway), we heard nothing more from either the lawyer or the
    biller.




  15. #15
    Ext User(Seppo Renfors) Guest

    Re: Dealing with nuisance phone calls



    Al Foyle, the son of Al Can, wrote:
    >
    > Seppo said....
    >
    > > Consider that lawyers charge for receiving and reading faxes, taking
    > > phone calls and listening to clients, then the fees are legitimate -
    > > IF it can be proven that a service has been provided AND a fee has
    > > been accepted by the sender/caller.

    >
    > What happens in the case when the lawyer rings YOU, and does so for what
    > you may consider as inconsequential items, and then while chatting to
    > you, talks about the footy or something.


    On a similar thing to that I had an accountancy firm I engaged once
    attempt to charge me for talking to one of their accountants, also a
    friend, about non business matters. They pulled their horns in and
    dropped the $4000 bill when informed that it was "unacceptable" and
    the reasons why.

    > Now, to get a bill about how poorly your footy team's going would be the
    > ultimate insult, I reckon...


    The lawyers may try - but in reality the "discussions" have to be
    relevant to the business at hand to qualify being charged for. But
    then you might be thinking of suing your footy club for poor
    performance.....


    --
    SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
    misled.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------

  16. #16
    Ext User(Tony Smith) Guest

    Re: Dealing with nuisance phone calls

    Seppo Renfors wrote:

    > > What happens in the case when the lawyer rings YOU, and does so for
    > > what you may consider as inconsequential items, and then while
    > > chatting to you, talks about the footy or something.

    >
    > On a similar thing to that I had an accountancy firm I engaged once
    > attempt to charge me for talking to one of their accountants, also a
    > friend, about non business matters. They pulled their horns in and
    > dropped the $4000 bill when informed that it was "unacceptable" and
    > the reasons why.
    >


    Yeah sure Septic, that would be just like the "famous" legal victories
    you had won, at least you had won them right up to the point when the
    existence of the Australian Case Citator was belted into your stupid
    head.

    Although, to be fair, if you handle your accounts the same way as you
    ran your publically reported legal matter ( http://tinyurl.com/27lh8 )
    then I could understand an Accountant charging extra to even try and
    sort out the flyshit from the pepper.

    > But
    > then you might be thinking of suing your footy club for poor
    > performance.....


    Sadly about as much chance as suing your mother for not strangling you
    with your own umbilical cord.

    --


Similar Threads

  1. Can I get MS Fax to stop answering my phone calls?
    By Ext User(MLB) in forum microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 20-12-2005, 05:43 PM
  2. Phone Dialer ANNOYINGLY Defaults to Internet Calls
    By Phil Ellett in forum microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 14-07-2005, 03:03 AM
  3. phone calls
    By cornontyne in forum microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-07-2005, 02:43 AM
  4. Free Phone Calls >
    By AJ in forum General Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 24-07-2004, 12:05 AM
  5. "Obscene" Phone calls
    By leebee in forum aus.tv
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 23-05-2004, 12:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •