“Cold Calling” company fined £75K for breach of privacy

17 April 2015 by

iStock_000018110696XSmallReactiv Media Limited v The Information Commissioner (Privacy & Electronic Communications Regulations  (2003) [2015] UKFTT 2014_0213 (GRC) (13 April 2015) – read judgment

Although an individual’s right to privacy is usually thought of in the context of state intrusion in one form or another, in reality the real threat of intrusion in a society such as ours comes from unsolicited marketing calls.

What many people may not be aware of is that if an individual has registered with the Telephone Preference Service, these calls are unlawful and the company responsible may be fined. It is therefore worth making a complaint, even if one instinctively feels that taking such a step will invite more intrusion. This case is a nice illustration of privacy being upheld and the rules enforced against an unscrupulous and persistent offender.

TPS is operated on behalf of the direct marketing industry by the Direct Marketing Association (DPA) and subscribers’ rights not to receive such calls may be enforced under Regulation 21 of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003

Legal and Factual Background

Between 13 November 2012 and 31 December 2013 TPS received 481 complaints from persons registered with them who had received direct marketing calls from Reactiv – each call was a breach of the regulations. The majority of these calls were made in spite of the fact that the DPA had found Reactiv to be in breach of the regulations in April 2013.

In July 2014 the Commissioner found that Reactiv had made 601 direct marketing unsolicited calls to subscribers who had been registered with TPS and who had not given consent to receive the calls. These included two examples of repeated calls on the same day to disabled persons, a call to the work mobile telephone of a 999 centre operator and one call to a complainant’s mother, who has dementia.

The Commissioner decided that a penalty of £50,000 should be imposed. On their appeal against this fine, Reactiv argued that a good proportion of the calls had not been theirs, and denied that they had caused “substantial damage or distress to individuals”.

They submitted, in particular, that

The company offered a service to the public, it had a right to trade, it was trading well in an area of high unemployment.

These and other arguments were rejected. The Commissioner drew the Tribunal’s attention to the aggravating factor of continuing calls made after Reactiv had been made aware of TMA’s findings against them, when it had

stonewalled the investigation and failed to engage with the Commissioner and had come to the Tribunal asserting that it had resolved the issues but not provided evidence.

The Commissioner also submitted that a penalty of £50,000 was too lenient for a company with an annual turnover of nearly six million pounds.

The Tribunal’s Decision

The Tribunal found the evidence “overwhelming” that the company carried on its business “in conscious disregard of its obligations”. In view of the financial robustness of the company and the aggravating factors in the case, “a culture of denial… weak governance of the company and a tendency to blame others rather than accept responsibility” the penalty originally imposed by the Commissioner was raised by 50% to £75,000.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

4 comments


  1. Mark Dawkin says:

    Reactive have mis-sold my infomation many times before, I have asked to opt out they say they have done this but continue to sell my information. This is about time this happened I think companies like this should be fined more, bloody scandelous

  2. […] post originally appeared on the UK Human Rights Blog and is reproduced with permission and […]

  3. daveyone1 says:

    Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..

  4. sdbast says:

    Reblogged this on sdbast.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: