Targeting the worst offenders and cutting nuisance calls

By Simon Entwisle, ICO Director of Operations.

There has been no let-up in our pursuit of those responsible for nuisance calls and texts. Since I last blogged on this issue we have had some notable successes. The penalty and enforcement notice issued to Amber Windows today means that we have now issued fines totalling over £1,000,000 in the last year against some of the worst offenders.

A man looking at his mobile phoneOur office has also seen a decline in the number of reports made to our office since a peak in March 2013. However, while the number of nuisance calls being made appears to be reducing, this is still a developing area of the law and we recognise the challenges this represents to our work.

In September last year, two of the first penalties we issued to the owners of a company called Tetrus Telecoms were overturned on appeal. The tribunal judge ruled that while the spam texts were being sent out ‘on an industrial scale’, it was highly unlikely that this resulted in substantial harm or substantial distress to the recipients. This was a significant decision, as the existing legal bar requires us to meet this condition in order to use our penalty powers.

We’re in the processes of appealing this decision and while this has not stopped us issuing penalties, it has created renewed vigour in our efforts to change the law.

Last year, we provided the government with a business case to make our monetary penalties more effective. These calls and texts are annoying and a nuisance, and we believe that showing that should be sufficient to let us consider a fine. We very much welcome the publication of the government’s nuisance calls action plan earlier this week, with a consultation on lowering the threshold set to take place later in the year. We must avoid any further delay.

While we await this change to the law, we are not only continuing to use our existing penalty powers, but also looking at other ways to deter and ultimately punish companies that we find to be recklessly and knowingly breaking the law.

One of the options that we have been increasingly exploring is our power to issue companies with an enforcement notice. The notice is a legal order that, if breached, can lead to the criminal prosecution of a company’s owner.

Just last month, we issued two companies – Isisbyte Limited and SLM Connect Limited – with enforcement notices after discovering that both companies were responsible for making nuisance calls, while giving out false information in order to hide their identity.

While the level of complaints against both companies currently remains too low for us to issue monetary penalties, ordering them to improve their practices with an enforcement notice places their owners in the firing line and still leaves us with an option to fine them at a later date if they continue to break the law and we can prove their actions are causing substantial damage and distress.

Another approach we are adopting is the active pursuit and prosecution of marketing companies that have failed to register their processing of personal information with our office. Registration is a legal requirement under the Data Protection Act. Prosecuting marketing companies in this way not only punishes them for failing to meet their legal requirements, but also shows that the company is firmly on our radar and we will be taking a keen interest in their wider marketing activities.

Much of this work is only possible thanks to the concerns sent into to us by the public using the online reporting tool on our website. We would urge anyone who has received a nuisance call or text to send us the details using the tool and we can then monitor the worst offenders and take action as required.

Last updated 03/04/2014 10:00

Simon EntwisleSimon Entwisle is responsible for all the ICO’s operational functions, including Customer Contact, Case Resolution, Enforcement and Good Practice as well as the Assistant Commissioners in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
This entry was posted in Simon Entwisle and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Targeting the worst offenders and cutting nuisance calls

  1. You say, “Much of this work is only possible thanks to the concerns sent into to us by the public using the online reporting tool on our website. We would urge anyone who has received a nuisance call or text to send us the details using the tool”
    If we are registered with the TPS and report there do we also need to visit your website?
    Please keep up your good work on nuisance calls. If I get one call I rate that as ‘substantial harm’ to my privacy!

    • icocomms says:

      Complaints made to the TPS are passed to the ICO on a monthly basis, but if you have time to fill in our online survey, that provides us with more detail to help us investigate the organisations responsible for nuisance calls.

  2. ray says:

    i certainly do have damage and distress so much so that i was forced to buy a blocking phone and am not now able to normally answer my own ex-directory TPI registered phone anymore ….i would say its more than damaging and distressing i call it harassment which for sure is illegal in ANY shape or form and i would like compensation for having to buy a blocking phone and for my “human rights” to peace and quiet being continuously disturbed day and night when i did not request that and i know for certain the data protection act is being broken as they are obviously illegally trading my private and personal details and making money from that process now are you saying that’s not in anyway damaging ??? I make that at least three laws they are breaking and flouting on a continuous daily basis….. perhaps you can inform the judge from me a member of the concerned public, as i would like to speak to him or would he not mind me ringing him 30 times a week for two years at anytime i felt ???

    • icocomms says:

      We agree that the calls can cause damage and distress. A tribunal judge did not agree, and so we’re now appealing that decision.

      • jim says:

        This is completely hypothetical but what would this out of touch Judge say if someone was to call his private/home residence continually disrupting his leisure time, after several weeks of this maybe he would come to a different conclusion.

Leave a Reply