The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has handed out substantial fines to two companies, Outsource Strategies Ltd (OSL) and Dr Telemarketing Ltd (DRT), for making almost 1.43 million aggressive and unwanted marketing calls to individuals registered on the UK’s “do not call” register, the Telephone Preference Service (TPS). These calls, which occurred between February 2021 and March 2022, not only violated the privacy rights of individuals but also targeted vulnerable and elderly people, eliciting 76 complaints to the ICO and the TPS.
Outsource Strategies Ltd, based in Cardiff, was fined £240,000 for making 1,346,503 unwanted marketing calls despite individuals being registered with the TPS. Despite internal systems supposedly in place to prevent such calls, OSL failed to adequately screen numbers, resulting in numerous complaints of repeated and aggressive calls.
Similarly, Dr Telemarketing Ltd, located in London, received a £100,000 fine for making 80,240 unwanted marketing calls during the same period. These calls were highly exploitative, targeting vulnerable individuals with high-pressure sales tactics related to Lotto Express. DRT’s failure to effectively screen numbers and its lack of cooperation during the ICO’s investigation led to the imposition of the fine.
The ICO’s Head of Investigations expressed the unacceptable nature of these calls, particularly given that the victims had taken proactive steps to protect themselves by registering with the TPS.
These fines highlight the importance of companies adhering to data protection laws and respecting individuals’ privacy rights. Organisations engaging in direct marketing must ensure rigorous checks are in place to prevent unsolicited and aggressive communications. Failure to comply with these regulations can result in significant financial penalties and reputational damage.
To protect against unlawful marketing calls, individuals are encouraged to register their numbers with the TPS and report any unsolicited communications to the appropriate authorities. By working together, regulators and the public can combat nuisance calls and safeguard privacy rights in the digital age.
What Happened in the Investigations?
During the investigation into Outsource Strategies Ltd (OSL), the company attempted to shift the blame for its failure to screen numbers registered with the Telephone Preference Service (TPS) onto its contracted partners. OSL claimed to have internal systems in place to prevent such breaches, however, the ICO discovered that this assertion was unfounded. Despite OSL’s internal mechanisms, a staggering 141,914 calls were made to individuals marked as “do not call” on its own systems. Additionally, the investigation revealed that the directors of OSL had prior involvement with a separate company that had been fined by the ICO, further highlighting systemic issues within the organisation. Consequently, OSL was issued with an enforcement notice, and while they appealed the monetary penalty notice, the enforcement notice remained in effect.
Similarly, Dr Telemarketing Ltd (DRT), based in London, came under scrutiny for its involvement in making unwanted marketing calls regarding Lotto Express. Despite receiving only two complaints, the ICO uncovered evidence suggesting a broader network of individuals and companies deliberately engaging in unsolicited marketing calls.
DRT attempted to deflect responsibility by arguing that opt-in details were provided by its business partner and that screening was conducted by another company. However, the ICO found these explanations insufficient, highlighting the absence of effective mechanisms to prevent such calls and the failure to ensure comprehensive screening across all data providers involved. Despite repeated attempts to engage with DRT during the investigation, the company ceased communication with the ICO and failed to provide satisfactory explanations for its actions. As a result, DRT was issued with an enforcement notice, and with the company neither paying the fine nor appealing the notice, the ICO initiated financial recovery action against them.
