“When a company can’t clearly explain how they got your number, the real problem isn’t the mistake — it’s the system behind it.”

How This Started — A Call Out of Nowhere

On Monday 23 March 2026 at 11:50am, I received a missed call from +64 6 777xxxxx5051. There was nothing unusual about it at first glance. Like most people, I assumed it might be something legitimate — a courier, a business enquiry, or someone trying to reach me for a valid reason. Unknown numbers are part of everyday life, and most of the time they turn out to be harmless.

Later that afternoon, at 3:23pm, I returned the call. That’s when I was introduced to Insurance Network Ltd (insurancenetwork[.]co[.]nz or mortgagenetwork[.]co[.]nz), a company offering what they described as a “free insurance questionnaire.” The conversation itself was polite, but the situation immediately raised a red flag — I had never contacted this company, never requested information, and had no reason to be on their contact list.

I made my position clear. Calmly, directly, and without any ambiguity, I told them I was not interested and did not want to proceed. It wasn’t a vague response or something open to interpretation. It was a clear and final “no.”

That should have been the end of it.

The Calls Didn’t Stop

The following day, on Tuesday 24 March at 4:19pm, my phone rang again. It was the same number, the same company, and the same approach. At that point, it was already clear this wasn’t a one-off mistake or a simple mix-up — I had already declined their offer the day before.

What should have been the end of the interaction had instead become the beginning of a pattern.

Then, the very next day — Wednesday 25 March at 2:14pm — my phone rang again. This time from a slightly different number, +64 6 777xxxx5055, but it was still the same company continuing the same line of contact. By now, there was no ambiguity left. This wasn’t miscommunication. It wasn’t an isolated error.

It was repeated unsolicited contact after I had already declined.

And that’s the point where this stops being a nuisance and starts becoming something else entirely.

The Call Back That Never Came

During one of these conversations, I was told something that suggested the matter would be escalated and addressed properly. I was informed that the owner would call me back within 10 minutes, implying that someone senior would take responsibility for what had happened.

That call never came.

Ten minutes passed. Then twenty. Then thirty. There was no follow-up, no acknowledgement, and no attempt to resolve the situation. On its own, that might seem like a minor failure. But in the context of repeated unsolicited calls, it reinforced a broader impression — that communication from this company was inconsistent and lacking accountability.

This Wasn’t Just Me — A Pattern in Public Reviews

After the third call, I decided to look into the company further. What I found was not a single complaint or an isolated bad review, but a consistent pattern of similar experiences.

Multiple people describe receiving unsolicited calls, including contact on private or unlisted numbers. Others report missed appointments, poor follow-up, and a lack of professionalism when issues are raised. One reviewer explained how they were contacted, agreed to an appointment, and then heard nothing — only to be contacted again later as if nothing had happened. Another highlighted that the company refused to clearly explain where their contact details had come from.

Individually, these might be dismissed. Together, they begin to form a pattern — one that closely mirrors my own experience.

Giving Them a Fair Opportunity to Respond

Before publishing anything, I gave the company a Right of Reply. This wasn’t about making accusations — it was about giving them the opportunity to clarify their processes and explain what had happened.

I asked clear, reasonable questions around:

  • How my phone number was obtained
  • Whether any consent existed for me to be contacted
  • Whether I had been referred by someone
  • Why I was contacted multiple times after declining
  • How their practices align with privacy and telemarketing expectations

These are fundamental questions for any business handling personal data and making outbound calls.

Their Response — In Their Own Words

Two days later, I received the following explanation:

“I have investigated the source of your contact information and can confirm that your details were obtained last year through a hockey tournament sponsorship. The adviser involved had a referral prize, and the location recorded was Hastings. The form was completed by an individual named Danni in Punjabi, and the address and phone number provided at that time were based in Tauranga. The phone number was originally written in Punjabi. When we converted it into English numerals, a mistake occurred, which led to the incorrect call being made.”

“We do not hold personal information about you.”

That is their explanation.

Who Actually Responded — And Who Didn’t

One detail that stands out in this entire process is who responded — and who didn’t.

During the phone calls, I was clearly told that the owner of the company would call me back within 10 minutes. That statement carries weight. It suggests escalation, accountability, and a willingness from someone at the top to address the issue directly.

That call never came.

Instead, two days later, I received a written response from Tina Ngarotata, not from the owner, and not from either of the company’s directors. While the response itself attempted to explain how my number was obtained, it did not address why I had been told the owner would personally follow up — nor why that commitment was never honoured.

Looking into the company records adds another layer to this.

Insurance Network Limited (Company Number: 4016358, NZBN: 9429030509917) was incorporated on 18 September 2012 and operates under trading names including Insurance and Mortgage Network and Insurance Network Fire and General Ltd. The listed directors are:

  • Manisha Bothra — 50% shareholding
  • Piyush Bothra — 50% shareholding

These are the individuals ultimately responsible for the governance and direction of the company.

Which raises a reasonable question.

If a customer is told that “the owner” will return their call, but no such call is made, and the only response comes later from a team member, what does that say about internal communication and accountability within the business?

This isn’t about who sent the email. It’s about the gap between:

  • What was promised during the call
  • What actually happened afterwards

And in a business that promotes trust, advice, and personal service, that gap matters.

The Contradiction at the Centre of It All

This is where the explanation becomes difficult to reconcile.

In order for this sequence of events to occur, the company must have:

  • Received a phone number
  • Stored or recorded it
  • Used it to make multiple outbound calls

That is, by definition, processing personal information.

So when a company states that they do not hold your personal information, while simultaneously explaining how they obtained and used that information, it creates a contradiction that cannot be easily ignored. Both statements cannot logically be true at the same time.

This isn’t about interpretation — it’s about basic consistency.

What They Didn’t Answer

What stands out just as much as their explanation is what was left unanswered.

There was no clear explanation of what consent mechanism was relied on before contacting me. There was no detail on how they verify whether a third party has the authority to submit someone else’s information. There was no clarification on whether my details were stored, even temporarily, despite being used multiple times.

Perhaps most importantly, there was no explanation for why the calls continued after I had already declined.

When direct questions are asked and not answered, it leaves a gap — and that gap speaks for itself.

A System That Relies on Third-Party Data

What their response does confirm is that my number came from a third-party submission, not from me. That introduces a broader issue about how their system operates.

If individuals can submit other people’s contact details — whether through events, referrals, or promotions — and those details are used without verification, it creates a situation where people can be contacted without ever engaging with the company themselves.

In my case, I have no connection to the person named, no recollection of any such submission, and no reason to believe I ever consented to being contacted.

Yet the calls happened anyway.

The Gap Between Branding and Reality

The company presents itself as offering trusted advice, personalised service, and open communication. That’s the image they project publicly.

But my first interaction with them wasn’t built on trust or a relationship. It didn’t begin with a request or a conversation I initiated.

It began with an unsolicited call — followed by another, and then another — after I had already declined.

That gap between how a business presents itself and how it actually operates at first contact is worth paying attention to.

Cold Calling vs Common Sense

Cold calling is not illegal in New Zealand. Businesses are allowed to contact individuals, provided they follow expectations around fairness, transparency, and respecting requests to stop.

But there is a difference between what is technically allowed and what people consider reasonable.

In this situation, I made it clear I was not interested. Despite that, the calls continued.

That’s not a legal argument — it’s a matter of basic respect for boundaries.

Why This Matters

This situation highlights how easily personal data can move through systems without the individual ever being aware of it. When businesses rely on third-party submissions, manual data handling, and assumed consent, it creates an environment where situations like this can occur.

And in most cases, people never get an explanation.

Final Thoughts — You Decide

I gave this company the opportunity to explain their position, and they did respond. But their explanation raises significant questions about how data is collected, how consent is handled, and how those processes are applied in practice.

At the centre of it all is a simple, verifiable fact:

I was contacted multiple times by a company I had no relationship with, using data I never knowingly provided.

Everything else follows from that.

You can decide for yourself whether that is acceptable, whether it reflects good business practice, and whether it’s something that deserves closer scrutiny.

Because once your number enters a system like this, you may never know how it got there — only that the phone starts ringing.

Disclaimer: How This Investigation Was Conducted

This investigation relies entirely on OSINT — Open Source Intelligence — meaning every claim made here is based on publicly available records, archived web pages, corporate filings, domain data, social media activity, and open blockchain transactions. No private data, hacking, or unlawful access methods were used. OSINT is a powerful and ethical tool for exposing scams without violating privacy laws or overstepping legal boundaries.

About the Author

I’m DANNY DE HEK, a New Zealand–based YouTuber, investigative journalist, and OSINT researcher. I name and shame individuals promoting or marketing fraudulent schemes through my YOUTUBE CHANNEL. Every video I produce exposes the people behind scams, Ponzi schemes, and MLM frauds — holding them accountable in public.

My PODCAST is an extension of that work. It’s distributed across 18 major platforms — including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, and iHeartRadio — so when scammers try to hide, my content follows them everywhere. If you prefer listening to my investigations instead of watching, you’ll find them on every major podcast service.

You can BOOK ME for private consultations or SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS, where I share first-hand experience from years of exposing large-scale fraud and helping victims recover.

“Stop losing your future to financial parasites. Subscribe. Expose. Protect.”

My work exposing crypto fraud has been featured in: