Battle Against Nuisance Calls Continues

The Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has proposed changes to regulations, in response to the ongoing battle against nuisance calls.

What is happening?

Under the current regulations in the Data Protection Act, companies can only be prosecuted in the event that they cause “substantial damage” to members of the general public.

Under the proposed changes, however, the word “substantial” will be replaced with “annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety” – subsequently widening the pool of cases which can be taken to court.

The plans currently in motion are expected to come into effect early in the new year.

“The majority of rogue marketing firms make hundreds, rather than thousands, of calls and the nuisance is no less a nuisance for falling short of the ‘substantial’ threshold,” said Christopher Graham, Information Commissioner. “This change means we could now target those many companies sending unwanted messages – and we think consumers would see a definite drop off in the total number of spam calls and texts.”

Network operators should encourage clients to comply with regulations

The industry seems generally supportive of the move to get rid of rogue operators.

“We have no problems with what is being proposed and are pleased to see the ICO getting more involved at last,” said Michael McKinlay, CEO at Sytel.

“Consumers are still receiving sales and marketing calls because they have given unknowing consent to be contacted,” said Martyn King, Managing Director at Nexbridge. “Network operators can help by offering their services with the right intentions, and encouraging clients to comply with regulations.”

“Some networks offer TPS compliance services to call centres and other businesses, allowing sales and marketing calls to be blocked at network level if the called person has opted out,” continued Martyn. “To help change the industry for the better, all organisations should choose to use such services and all network operators should offer them.”

The changes may only have a limited impact

However, campaigners believe that the proposed changes may only “scratch the tip of the iceberg” – as a number of limitations remain in place:

• Any fine issued must be proportionate to the scale of damage done. All fines are also capped at half a million.
• The Information Commissioners Office (ICO) – who handle matters of privacy in conjunction with the Data Protection Act – do not have the power to put a company out of business.
• Organisations such as the Claims Management Regulator – who do have the power to suspend business licences in the event of a serious complaint – are not currently in a position to make a difference.
• Prosecuted companies can liquidate their businesses – and start them up again under a different name – in order to dodge the fine.

“The most obvious response would be to scrub out the entire definition of the damage caused – to stop companies getting off on a technicality in court,” said David Hickson of The Fair Telecoms Campaign. “While the proposed measure would make sense if it was just a case of tidying up a remaining handful of small offenders, there are still a number of larger companies – and issues – which have yet to be properly addressed.”

What do you think about the proposed changes?