andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2006-04-27 11:24 am
andrewducker) wrote2006-04-27 11:24 am
Legal Telemarketers (#17 in a series of things which have really pissed me off)
I'm far too fucking polite with the horrifically amoral scum who phone me up to offer me things I would only want if I was so far down the food chain that pond scum looked like a shining role model to work towards.
In principle I think that no win, no fee legal arrangements are a good thing. They remove the inequity which meant that only the rich could afford legal representation, making it easier for those who have been legitimately harmed to obtain some kind of redress through the courts.
What isn't a good thing is legal companies phoning up people at random to ask them if they've had any kind of incident at work ove rthe past three years. And making it clear that it doesn't have to be anyone's responsibility, but that it could be as simple as a minor brush with another driver, or a slip at work. And then. when I say that no, I'm fine, offering me a £50 finders fee if I pass them along to anyone else who _has_ had any kind of incident in the last three years.
Offering your services to people in genuine need is one thing, asking people if they have a genuine problem is fine, but these scumbags were clearly looking for the kind of thing that could be settled out of court for a nice tidy sum, in order to avoid publicity.
Oh, and as I'm registered with the Telephone Preference Service they shouldn't have been phoning me in the first place - if I'd had my brain in gear I'd have written down the name of their company and reported them. The whole thing makes me feel slightly ill.
In principle I think that no win, no fee legal arrangements are a good thing. They remove the inequity which meant that only the rich could afford legal representation, making it easier for those who have been legitimately harmed to obtain some kind of redress through the courts.
What isn't a good thing is legal companies phoning up people at random to ask them if they've had any kind of incident at work ove rthe past three years. And making it clear that it doesn't have to be anyone's responsibility, but that it could be as simple as a minor brush with another driver, or a slip at work. And then. when I say that no, I'm fine, offering me a £50 finders fee if I pass them along to anyone else who _has_ had any kind of incident in the last three years.
Offering your services to people in genuine need is one thing, asking people if they have a genuine problem is fine, but these scumbags were clearly looking for the kind of thing that could be settled out of court for a nice tidy sum, in order to avoid publicity.
Oh, and as I'm registered with the Telephone Preference Service they shouldn't have been phoning me in the first place - if I'd had my brain in gear I'd have written down the name of their company and reported them. The whole thing makes me feel slightly ill.
no subject
The TPS exists thanks to the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, which is a European directive which has duly been enforced with national legislation in each member state. It therefore should cover companies calling from within the EU. Of course it will not have any authority over companies calling from outwith the EU.
I wonder if it would have any authority to stop a third party (in say India) calling you on behalf of a British company?
no subject
And I don't know about your last point, but if it's not the case now it almost certainly will be within a few years...
no subject
In theory I think DP law jurisdiction can be founded on you having "equipment" in the UK, and various other heads: it probably means the UK Information Commisioner does have juridsn but they certainly don't have the resources to enforce agaisnt Indians (actually the UK Inf Commr has never brought a single action agaisnt spammers EVEN IN THE UK - the worst enforcement record in the E.)
I've never ever heard of UK lawyers cold calling like this. Not only is it against PECD/DP law but it's also I suspect solidly against lawyers advertising rules (which are strict as hell). get their name next time :-)