Many thanks for the response, appreciate your comments and links. I’ve posted some answers to your questions
1. I believe the numbers are not on the “do not call register” as the numbers in question are all on the company’s web site as commercial numbers and NOT used or maintained primarily for private purposes, and therefore illegible to be entered on the “do not call register”..
I am not satisfied that the Do Not Call Register is relevant here.
2. The calls would only be as frequent as the weight dropping noise disturbance. (generally 6am-8.30pm many times daily) The point being that as the perpetrator of the noise disturbance to residents we wish our real time advice to highlight to their management the date time and frequency of the disturbances we are suffering at their hand. These numbers find the people who have the power to act responsibly and stop the noise; the calls would only ever follow the noise.
You can do that with a diary. Or a sound recording.
What you propose with the phone calls is quite likely to amount to harassment.
3. While they have not opted to receive these calls they have advertised the numbers on their web site as their contact numbers for outside communication.
To suggest that this somehow makes them "fair game" is a nonsense.
4. These are not telemarketing calls, these are notification calls.
The concept of "notification calls" in the way you use the term
is unknown to the law in this area.
5. I’m sure they consider all our attempts thus far to have them stop the noise, as harassing their business. From our side, we would NOT consider this to be a “using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence”, rather we would consider this to be using a carriage service to advise and notify, of their noise disturbance causing offence.
What you think about it is irrelevant. And in any event, mistaken.
6. I have recently received similar message notification calls over multiple days from a bank, advising of changes to credit card processes. While somewhat annoying I didn’t see it as harassing. It was this that gave me the idea.
These are not similar at all.
Those calls are
bona fide communications with existing customers (some of which can have a basis in a legal duty by the bank).
And therefore irrelevant to what you propose.
7. Despite my feelings, I do think your raising section 474.17 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) – (using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence.) Is very relevant if reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, menacing, harassing or offensive. You considered it was and I suspect that in the eyes of the recipients they will consider it as being harassment, despite it being a notification them having the power to do their job and stop the noise and thus the calls., however, could you confirm if section 474.17 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth applies to ALL calls or just to calls to (a) an employee of an NRS provider; or (b) an emergency call person; or (c) an employee of an emergency service organisation; or (d) an APS employee in the Attorney‑General’s Department acting as a National Security Hotline call taker ?
This is irrelevant.
Look, your underlying purpose here is something to the effect of
"Maybe if we cause them as much inconvenience as we are suffering,
perhaps we can force them to do something."
To my mind, that is almost textbook harassment.
While I hear your your frustration, I feel bound to say
that what you propose is beyond foolish, and would, in my view,
almost certainly amount to using a carriage service to harass,
for which you could face prosecution.
