Cell Phones Forum

Do I wish had done my homework properley, after having being toasted
some time ago by a n other online phone shop and finally extricating
myself from the disaster area that is 3, honestly thought that OSPS
being owned by Carphone Warehouse would be some sort of mark of
reliabilty. Doh!

Basic checks like review centre and here would have avoided the current
debacle.

OSPS is inextricably linked to CPW, the PAC code department is CPW`s
and it is them that are attemting to hold my number to ransom. It was
transferred after contract was  formally cancelled, which was more than
naughty.

Attempting the to hold number against return of handset reaches new
lows and directly involves CPW.

Question, with a `free` handset deal to who and when does ownership of
the handset transfer?

Looking at CPW`s corporate website opens up a few more contact details:

http://www.cpwplc.com/cpw/services/contact/

Main switchboard are trained to not let any complaining customer any
further than a probably unchecked voicemail.

For a communications company though, their website is almost as broken
as OSPS`s malfunctioning web blight:

http://www.cpwplc.com/cpw/services/contact/

Thanks to the out of office reply from rivierp@cpwplc.com

discover that the bounce from given address sosahc@cpwplc.com should
read
sosach@cpwplc.com

One way of keeping investors at bay.

Can also see frrom quick glance at books:

http://www.cpwplc.com/cpw/ir/

That overall turnover has increased little, 0.4%, but retail turnover
has jumped by 61.5% . Which means that they are increasingly reliant on
retail sales presumably through aquisition of places like OSPS, for
sales and growth.

Poor publicity, which is increasing with a cowboy operation like OSPS,
could have significant impact on the company as a whole. Especially as
they move away from wholesale to the fickle retail market.

Wholeheartedly agree with JR Hartley that wider spread bad publicity
for CPW and its home on the range divisions is necessary to stop more
victims like us being created.

Review centre is a bit of an eyeopener in sheer volume of unhappy
customers and fully intend to help get the warnings out as far and wide
as the web will allow.

I have had a reply from CPW telling me that my complaint has been
passed to their ` High -Level Complaints Team`

Trading standards is on my to-do list for Monday.

Thanks for the support guys.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

< toxniqcsajuu@mailina
tor.com> wrote in message
news:1119114639.994957.122120@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

quote:


> I have had a reply from CPW telling me that my complaint has been
> passed to their ` High -Level Complaints Team`
>
> Trading standards is on my to-do list for Monday.
>
> Thanks for the support guys.

How are you getting on so far? Any replies from trading standards or CPW
yet?

I've had no response from CPW so far, but trading standards have already....

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <1120514191.272453.190270@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
 toxniqcsajuu@mailina
tor.com says...
quote:


> The person who telephoned also told me thay had reviewed recordings of
> my telephone calls between myself and members of OSPS staff, unless
> something has changed no announcement is made on telephoning OSPS that
> the call may be recorded and or monitored. This I believe is illegal.

Do they not say "your call may be recorded for training purposes"?
--
Obey, conform, consume
Break the cycle
http://sausagefans.com

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On 4 Jul 2005 14:56:31 -0700,  toxniqcsajuu@mailina
tor.com wrote:

quote:


>The person who telephoned also told me thay had reviewed recordings of
>my telephone calls between myself and members of OSPS staff, unless
>something has changed no announcement is made on telephoning OSPS that
>the call may be recorded and or monitored. This I believe is illegal.

The Lawful Business Practice regulations 2000 says it is legal to
record conversations without a warning under limited circumstances.
These include effective operation of the phone system, unauthorised
use, National security, and to establish evidence of a 'fact' (ie
business transaction).  This last clause allows many companies to
record your conversations without warning.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 17:59:59 +0100, Woof <.@.> wrote:

quote:


>The Lawful Business Practice regulations 2000 says it is legal to
>record conversations without a warning under limited circumstances.

I'd never heard of this. I think most people would recognise it better
as part of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers legislation.

The telephone class licence requires that one party must be aware that
the call is being (or may be) recorded, but not that both know.

So if you didn't tell the call centre staff, you had to tell the
customer.

The RIP seems to require that you have to seek consent from both
parties, not just inform one of them. However, it also has a big
loophole.

"This latter action, however, is not a criminal offence where the
person intercepting the communication is a person with a right to
control the relevant private telecommunications network"

So if it is a company's private switchboard and phone system...

And in any case, there is an exception:

"To establish the existence of facts to ascertain compliance with
regulatory or self-regulatory practices or procedures or to ascertain
or demonstrate standards which are or ought to be achieved" And this
does not require consent from the parties being intercepted.

So it is OK to record calls to check that self-regulatory procedures
are being followed. That would cover just about every business call.


--
Visit the Hairydog Guide to Mobile Phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html - maintainers of
http://www.mobileshop.org - the on-line mobile phone guide
sponsored by http://www.mobileshop.com - the online store

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]