In 2020 the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) started its investigation into home improvement predatory marketing calls. The investigation was started after vouchers of up to £5,000 were offered to home owners to improve energy efficiency.
The ICO received calls from members of the public who had been contacted regarding loft, window, and wall insulation. All of the complaints were from individuals who had registered with the Telephone Preference Service (TPS). The TPS is a statutory register of people who have confirmed that they do not want to receive marketing calls. Live marketing calls should not be made to anyone who has registered with the TPS.
Following the investigation, the ICO found that the companies complained of had been deliberately or negligently infringing electronic marketing laws to make a profit. The ICO, therefore, decided to take enforcement action and fined four companies a total of £370,000.
The law
The relevant piece of legislation is the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/2426) (PECR). Regulation 21 paragraph (1) of PECR provides that:
“(1) A person shall neither use, nor instigate the use of, a public electronic communications service for the purposes of making unsolicited calls for direct marketing purposes where-
(a) the called line is that of subscriber who has previously notified the caller that such calls should not for the time being be made on that line; or
(b) the number allocated to a subscriber in respect of the called line is one listed in the register kept under regulation 26.”
Section 55A of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018) gives the ICO the power to levy a monetary penalty if there has been a serious contravention of the PERC.
Eco Spray Insulations Limited
The ICO found that between 2 January 2020 and 30 September 2020, Eco Spray had made 178,190 unsolicited calls for direct marketing purposes to people registered with the TPS. Eco Spray confirmed to the ICO that the data was purchased from JH Data and DBS Data. Notwithstanding this, Eco Spray had made multiple errors that contributed to the contravention of PERC. They had failed to conduct due diligence on the data that they had purchased and they had also failed to check the data against the TPS register.
When deciding what enforcement action to take, the ICO considered the aggravating and mitigating features of this particular case, which are detailed in the enforcement notice published on the ICO’s website. Taking this into account, the ICO decided that a penalty of £100,000 was reasonable and proportionate.
Euroseal Windows Limited
The ICO found that between 1 January 2020 and 2 December 2020, Euroseal made 169,830 calls to people registered with the TPS. Euroseal confirmed to the ICO that the data they used was sourced through door-to-door canvassers and data brokers. The ICO within their enforcement notice confirmed that Euroseal would need to pay a penalty of £80,000 by 18 August 2022 at the latest.
Green Logic UK Ltd
Green Logic made 11,825 calls in 2020 using data that it had sourced from a number of companies. Green Logic assumed the data was compliant but did not check the data against the TPS register. Green Logic used three different company names when making the calls, Greener Homes, Spray the UK, and Green Logic. When deciding what enforcement action to take, the ICO considered the aggravating factors in this case including:
- The inconvenience caused – The calls were persistent, misleading and caused annoyance and anxiety;
- Complaints against Green Logic continued throughout the ICO’s ongoing investigation;
- Green Logic’s actions were carried out for financial gain; and
- Green Logic failed to engage with the ICO’s investigation.
The enforcement notice confirms that Green Logic needs to pay a penalty in the sum of £40,000 by 30 October 2022.
Posh Windows UK Limited
Between August 2020 and April 2021 Posh Windows made 461,062 calls using data that they had sourced from a data marketing company. During the investigation, Posh Windows provided the ICO with vague, evasive, and contradictory responses. They were fined £150,000.
Comment
Andy Curry was the head investigator, he commented:
“The complaints we received showed that people were distressed, upset, worried, and inconvenienced by the calls. For people to feel this way, in their own homes where they should feel safe, is unacceptable.
These companies all aggressively pestered people, including some vulnerable individuals, forcibly trying to make them buy products that they didn’t need or want. All of the calls were driven solely by the companies wishing to make a financial gain.
We will continue to take strong action to protect the public by investigating and taking enforcement measures against companies where we find that they have flouted the law.”
How can we help
Ruby Ashby is an Associate in our expert Dispute Resolution team.
If you need any advice concerning the subjects discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact Ruby or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us