call forwarding problem - original caller ID garbled by RingCentral when forwarding to answering service
Our office uses a RingCentral phone system, we forward to an outside answering service at night. The forwarding works, but the caller ID is messed in a specific way by RingCentral. For instance, if a caller with the phone number 312-456-7890 calls our office after hours - the call will get forwarded to our answering service, but our answering service will see the call as coming from 567-890-0000. So the first 4 digits of the original caller ID are removed and four trailing 0's are added. This is a major problem for us and if it can't be fixed we'll have to find another vendor.
Hi Chuck - thanks for the quick reply. To be honest in both our offices we've had a lot of issues with RingCentral forwarding - and this garbled caller ID is happening consistently in the one office. In the other office we have RC also but it's never garbling the caller IDs when forwarding to the very same answering service. Any insights you have would be awesome, we just want a direct forward without the office phone system even picking up the call (which seems to be working, it's just the caller ID issue). Thanks!
One of my colleagues got notified by RC that the issue was resolved and the test call we just placed worked fine (caller ID was not garbled) - but out of curiosity shouldn't stuff like this never really happen? What could be an explanation?
Good to hear this seems to be resolved. I have set up a few RingCentral systems to forward to answering services like this and never seen this issue. It is hard to say what the cause might have been. I would ask RingCentral support for details and if you find out share here because I am curious.
There is some chance it was a configuration error in your forwarding rule, I suppose too. But you would know better than I if that is the case.
We are an answering service and use RC 100% for all of our phone numbers, I have seen this happen a few times and it really threw us of because we answer based on the caller id reading of the called number. I have not seen this happen for awhile so I hope all has been fixed.