Please add your review about this phone number.
Write a long comment about your experience with phone number 01903609311. You can also use the buttons to describe calls. The last button clicked changes the rating. Here's what they mean:
- Positive - all good, friendly, or safe.
- Neutral - neither good nor bad, just alright.
- Annoying - like unwanted or automated calls.
- Dangerous - dodgy stuff, like scams or spam.
After rating, don't forget to share your experience by clicking the SHARE social buttons!
Scam
childrens and babywear - retail ann's childrens ware bacup lancashire
electrical engineers and contractors all electrical repairs (London)
sports equipments - manufacturers leisure sport international rochdale lancashire
printers regal printing ltd (London)
SCAM / SPAM Car accident scam
household removals and storage matlock services removals littlehampton
Pet Supplies F H Wardlow and Son Trade Only Bridlington North Humberside
didn t get past bt call guardian phone so definitely a cold call
This line should belong to some company, but no remark on internet about it. Haven't found any info for this one, does anyone have some experience with this number? Be aware if this number calls, it is for a shared costs, so better not to call back. Have checked also different formats of this number, but no luck. As people do search for this number, it should be used, so be aware.
we hve been called several times caller claiming to be from bt about internet conection, cut him off and blacklisted his number
surveyors and valuers smith hodgkinson mcginty preston lancashire
shades window blind specialists
chemicals cri/criterion catalyst co ltd fareham hampshire
Caller called then hung up, pressed 1471 and was directed to an American sounding answering service that said I was held in a que and my call will be answered shortly. Hung up a...
Training centres and products r g I t ethos health & safety ltd
fiber mark bolton
mini cabs docklands car service (London)
printers bright printers & stationers (London)
electrical engineers and contractors d v henman longfield