back to article Stop calling, stop calling... ICO goes gaga after home improvement biz ignores warnings

A Welsh home improvement firm has been fined after ignoring a warning to stop contacting people who had opted out of marketing calls. In March last year, Swansea-based Direct Choice Home Improvements was handed a £50,000 fine after 167 people complained about nuisance calls. On top of the civil monetary penalty, Blighty's …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Come on, at least find out if they paid the £40000!

  2. msknight

    Hang on a minute...

    Correct me if I'm wrong.... but they broke the law, got a fine of £40,000... continued to break the law and effectively got another fine of £1,000. Am I missing something?

    1. chivo243 Silver badge

      Re: Hang on a minute...

      @msknight

      Must be a profitable business?

      Fines, taxes, levies, tariffs, duties etc All just the cost of doing business my friend, the cost of doing business. Just like <insert big internet platform here> They can afford it.

    2. Tom Paine

      Re: Hang on a minute...

      I make it £804

  3. kain preacher

    £400 ? Why would the show up for just £400

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Why would the show up for just £400

      Just drafting a motion would cost you Why would the show up for just £400. I mean it would of cost them more to show up then the fine. There is some thing wrong with that,

      1. Tom Paine

        Re: Why would the show up for just £400

        The new GDPR-compliant DPA comes into force in May. Fines are capped, as they are under the current (1998) DPA... at £18m.

        That'll get their attention.

        1. Cynical Pie

          Re: Why would the show up for just £400

          Not strictly true, fines are capped at €20m or 4% of turnover, whichever is greater.

          As this is a private company they could use the % and so in theory fine them way north of €20m if their turnover allowed it.

          Its also worth noting that while the ICO currently has the power to issue MPNs (not fines) up to £500k at present the fine here was imposed by the courts and beyond the ICO's control.

        2. fajensen

          Re: Why would the show up for just £400

          The new GDPR-compliant DPA comes into force in May.

          One of those things that Brexit will fix for you?

  4. The Mole

    From the ICO report

    "Criminal penalties are imposed by the courts and not the ICO. Direct Choice had paid off £40,500 of its previous civil fine. The ICO has recently been informed that the company has applied to go into liquidation and will be working with the Insolvency Service on recovering the outstanding balance."

    Not sure anybody is going to see this as a deterrent though if the punishment is so low - though that may be that they chose to use the lowest possible court who can't impose significant fines.

    1. Adam 52 Silver badge

      You don't get to pick your criminal court, it's up to the Magistrate to refer up if they feel their powers are insufficient.

    2. Alan Brown Silver badge

      "The ICO has recently been informed that the company has applied to go into liquidation"

      The ICO and insolvency service need more powers to not only veto liquidiation of such companies but also to ensure company directors are prevented from phoenixing anything.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        "The ICO and insolvency service need more powers to not only veto liquidiation of such companies but also to ensure company directors are prevented from phoenixing anything."

        ITYF the insolvency service has those powers.

        Also, it's about time that directors were tried directly. I'm pretty sure that while a Ltd company limits shareholders risk it doesn't shield against criminal behaviour.

        1. Alan Brown Silver badge

          "I'm pretty sure that while a Ltd company limits shareholders risk it doesn't shield against criminal behaviour."

          Correct. The limit is on financial risk to shareholders, NOT risks to directors for knowingly engaging in illegal activities.

      2. Tom Paine

        Kinda tricky to force them to keep trading if they're insolvent.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Since this was a criminal case why weren't the fines imposed on the directors and principles as well as the company?

      Doing that would stop the shut down this company, activate the next one in line system we see in all cases like that.

  5. Dwarf

    Bigger teeth

    This is all meaningless until it hurts the companies and individuals who ignore the laws - otherwise the are simply laughing all the way to the bank.

    1. Blockchain commentard

      Re: Bigger teeth

      But if they're going under, they're stuffed already. Only real deterrent in cases like this is to ban the current bosses from being directors for the next 10 years.

      1. Warm Braw

        Re: Bigger teeth

        ban the current bosses

        It's not just the bosses - their staff are equally culpable for their collusion. This is supposedly a review of the place from an employee perspective:

        Would recommend anyone to work here who isn't shy and likes a challenge. I worked here for a period of nearly 6 months and was treated like family. The workers were really friendly. Such a fun atmosphere with good incentives every week and prizes to win. Direct choice are a very welcoming company and help you to reach your targets.

        If they were spamming as many people as claimed, they'd certainly be aware of the hostile response from their victims and presumably happy to view it as a "challenge" that might net them a "prize".

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Bigger teeth

          "If they were spamming as many people as claimed, they'd certainly be aware of the hostile response from their victims and presumably happy to view it as a "challenge" that might net them a "prize"."

          Presumably some of those employees were job seekers sent along by a Job Centre. Refuse the job - or quit - and they are likely to have their benefits reduced/stopped.

          Personal high principles are all well and good - but hard to uphold if government policy then makes you and your family homeless.

          Such companies are always attracted to areas with high unemployment.

          1. Sir Runcible Spoon

            Re: Bigger teeth

            If the jobcenter places you in a job where you believe you are being asked to break the law, then you have every right to complain about it and get the JC people on the case and get you something else, or add some weight to the penalties being imposed.

            There must be a law where 'incitement to break the law' is a crime?

            Mind you, if none of this is possible that wouldn't surprise me at all these days, it seems we didn't just throw the baby out with the bathwater, we burnt the house down as well.

            1. Scroticus Canis
              Big Brother

              Re: "There must be a law where 'incitement to break the law' is a crime?"

              It's called conspiracy and used to be used quite a bit*. However it has been under scrutiny of the Law Commission for some time and appears to have fallen out of favour. Not sure if it's still on the statute books or not.

              There is also a civil version 'conspiracy to commit fraud' which should be applicable now if they are still making marketing calls while the company is going insolvent.

              * not always in a good way unfortunately

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: "There must be a law where 'incitement to break the law' is a crime?"

                "It's called conspiracy and used to be used quite a bit."

                IANAL

                IIRC it was a very convenient law that could be used on fishing expeditions on people marginally related to people being investigated. It was a serious offence in the letter of the law that appeared to require nothing in the way of evidence except "association". Thus facilitating an arrestable offence search in the hope of turning something up.

            2. Alan Brown Silver badge

              Re: Bigger teeth

              The reality is that if you refuse to take a job because you are being required to break the law then you will be sanctioned.

              This kind of thing will only stop when JC employees start facing criminal charges for forcing people into criminal activities.

            3. Tom Paine

              Re: Bigger teeth

              I believe messrs Strummer, Jones, Simenon and Headon had some relevent observations.

              https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5lfInFVPkQs

        2. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: Bigger teeth

          "This is supposedly a review of the place"

          "Supposedly" being the operative word. More likely a schill review.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Bigger teeth

        (1) Create new company

        (2) Earn M.

        (3) Get fined m < M.

        (4) Liquidate.

        (5) Go to 1

        But 10 years really isn't enough. Just ban them from being a director for the rest of their life.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Bigger teeth

          The regenerative powers of bankrupt home improvement companies rival that of the good Doctor himself.

      3. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

        Re: Bigger teeth

        ban the current bosses from being directors for the next 10 years.

        They'll just start the next one in the name of their wife/boyfriend/dog.

        For deliberately ignoring the law they should get fined personally, with jail time for the second offence.

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: Bigger teeth

          "They'll just start the next one in the name of their wife/boyfriend/dog."

          That really is serious territory. I think it carries the risk of jail time.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Bigger teeth

          “The titular owner of this plant is Canary M Burns”.... so often humour is based in near fact

  6. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge

    ...Direct Choice failed to turn up on the day, but was found to be in breach of the Data Protection Act nonetheless and fined £400, ordered to pay £364.08 and a victim surcharge of £40....

    Ooogh! I AM scared....

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    grand

    (under)

    bargain

    carry on

    ICO

    wel fucking done

    again

    pat on the back

    and

    a bonus

    from MY FUCKING TAX MONEY!!!!

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's about time the ICO fined "Green Deal Funding". They are behind an "international" recorded message for double glazing. I'm on TPS and have been getting it several times a week for months. The "rogue" number web sites have lots of entries for them.

    Have even reported the mobile number they apparently use to call back if you press the "contact" button. Twice the call centre have promised to remove me from the list - and still my mealtimes are getting interrupted. That same number is on the "rogue" call web sites for unsolicited cold calls for "Green Deal".

    1. Not also known as SC
      Happy

      I've given up on the TPS. I now have a landline phone which allows you to either force the caller to respond to a screening message or simply to block the number. If get home from work and find a number I don't recognise and that didn't leave a message it goes straight on the block list. I've gone from about 10 nuisance calls a day down to less than two or three a week.

      Edit: As the numbers are blocked the phone doesn't even ring - hence no interruptions.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Surely you'd be interested in putting them through to the sales line abyss https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/29/it_helpdesk_creates_oh_hold_hell/

        Though I guess you'd get more people calling in that instance just to have a listen

    2. Alan Brown Silver badge

      "Have even reported the mobile number they apparently use to call back if you press the "contact" button"

      I'd arrange for someone to come visit. Then "deal" with them personally.

    3. handleoclast

      Twice the call centre have promised to remove me from the list - and still my mealtimes are getting interrupted.

      A couple of years ago I started getting a shitload of calls/texts for Amanda Softwoman (name has been changed so I don't embarrass Mrs Hardman). From the content she had either applied for a payday loan and got her phone number wrong when she gave it to them or some "friends" of hers applied for a payday loan in her name and got her phone number wrong. No, it wasn't "friends" of mine because this was a backup phone with a PAYG SIM that I'd never given the number of to anyone.

      I did the obvious things. Telephone Preference Service. Some web site I don't remember the name of (I think it was something like USUB) that gets your number taken off compliant SMS lists (I checked it was for real, first). Both helped, but the calls kept coming. So I'd explain the situation (No, you can't speak to Mrs Softwoman because this is not her phone and never has been so please remove me from your list) and they said they would. And still the calls kept coming.

      One day, in desperation, I told them they couldn't speak to Mrs Softwoman because she was dead. They apologized and said they'd remove name. Did that a few more times and the calls pretty much dried up. Down from 10 or 20 texts/calls a day at its worst to maybe one or two a month.

      Only one of them asked why I had the phone if she was dead. I explained it was because she wouldn't give me the phone when I demanded it from her, and that's why she was dead. Yeah, I was in a shitty mood at the time. Upon reflection, it probably wasn't a wise thing to say, but a year later and still no visit from the plod, so I think I got away with it.

      1. JimboSmith Silver badge
        FAIL

        Payday loans

        I received a call on my new mobile number from one of the loan firms that require you to have a guarantor for the loan. They too were looking for someone else had apparently applied for a loan from them. I said that I wasn't that person and that I was glad they'd called because I wanted to ask a question. I said I'd spotted a flaw in their business plan in requiring a guarantor. If I did need to borrow £5k my guarantor would doubtless be chosen as someone who actually had £5k to spare. The guarantor was therefore taking a lot of risk for sod all reward. So why did I need this firm and their 50% interest rate when I could borrow the money off the guarantor at say half that interest rate saving me money and generating them some?

        Bloke was very quiet for a few seconds and then asked if I needed to borrow £5k to which my response was no thank you.

      2. Dr Scrum Master
        Pint

        @handleoclast have a double up-vote, or even trebles!

  9. adam payne

    £400 for breach of data protection now that made me laugh.

  10. batfink
    Unhappy

    Bah!

    That is all.

  11. Alan Brown Silver badge

    Already phoenixed

    Apparently they've already phoenixed by added "The" in front of their name.

    Looking them up shows a raft of convictions, including standover tactics refusing to leave a house until sale documents were signed. This lot make Dell boy look like a saint.

  12. dnicholas

    Telemarketers shout be extruded through a fine sieve, feet first. Slowly

    1. TDog

      So Mr ... I suppose you expect me to squalk.

      No, Mr Telemarketer, I expect you to die.

  13. Pirate Peter

    only way to do this is make the directors liable for the whole fines and banned from being a director, and each time they commit the same offence (regardless of company name) the previous fine is doubled and length of the ban doubled

    while they can hide behind a company and walk away and start up again the same day under a different name they will not stop

    too much lip service is paid to data protection with just the odd "look what we did" big fine published to justify the ICO and make it look like they are working for the people (B******ks)

  14. Andy Livingstone

    fined £400, ordered to pay £364.08 and a victim surcharge of £40.

    Aieee Pain.

    No wonder they are a bit of a joke.

  15. SonofRojBlake

    My recent strategy with sales calls

    "Hello, is that Mr. Blake?"

    "Speaking..."

    "[blah blah blah blah blah]".

    "What are you wearing?"

    (usually they hang up, but sometimes...)

    "What?"

    "What sort of clothes do you have on?"

    (mostly they've hung up, but recently one hardy soul queried...)

    "Why do you want to know what I'm wearing?"

    "How am I supposed to masturbate to the sound of your voice if I can't picture you in my head while I'm doing it?"

    ...

    I'm not sure where I'd go next with this approach because so far nobody has made it past that last line without a stream of heavily-accented invective followed by hanging up on me. And oddly, the rate of unsolicited calls to my number has *plummeted* since I adopted this approach.

    I can report this approach works AT LEAST as well on men as it does on women, and anyone preparing to have a go at me for anything related to sexual harassment should consider that these people rang me, not the other way round.

    1. handleoclast

      Re: My recent strategy with sales calls

      Excellent idea!

      I'm nicking it. :)

  16. Unoriginal Handle

    I'm surprised no-one has posted this yet:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIVfrBFc5og

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like