Teaming up with... AVIVA

Welcome to the UKGI weekly regulation update service for Aviva ABC brokers

We hope you find the Updates useful. If you are
interested in subscribing to our affordable
ABC compliance support package, please
email us at ABC@ukgigroup.com or
call UKGI on our dedicated ABC
contact line 01925 767893.

ICO takes enforcement action against claims management company for making calls without consent

Link(s): https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-and-events/news-and-blogs/2020/10/greater-manchester-claims-management-company-fined-250-000-for-making-millions-of-nuisance-calls/

Context

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has fined Reliance Advisory Limited (RAL) £250,000 for breaking electronic marketing law. The ICO’s investigation found that over a six-month period, RAL made 15.1 million calls in relation to claims management services such as mis-sold PPI. All the calls, of which 1.1 million connected, were made to people who had not consented to receive them.

RAL was unable to provide evidence of consent for the majority of calls it made and, where it did provide evidence for data that it had purchased in the previous 30 days, the consent was found to have not been freely given, specific or informed.

RAL argued that it was not aware of its responsibilities under the law.

Full findings from the investigation have been published, which can be read in full here: https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/mpns/2618506/reliance-advisory-ltd-mpn-202010.pdf

Key points to note

  • The ICO found that RAL ought to have known that the issue of unsolicited calls in relation to claims management would be a contravention of the rules, given the wide publicity which resulted in a change to legislation.
  • The guidance states such calls must not be made in relation to claims management services unless the individual being called has specifically consented to such calls or has a defined existing client relationship.
  • The making of unsolicited direct marketing calls is a matter of significant public concern.
  • The ICO felt that a monetary penalty in this case would act as a general encouragement towards compliance with the law, or at least as a deterrent against non-compliance, on the part of all persons running businesses currently engaging in these practices.