Nuisance calls nightmare: Blocking service 'fails to stop' phone pests

Households registered with Telephone Preference Service receive double number of calls



Which? research found 8 per cent of households receive 50 calls a month



Have called for change in the law t8o clamp down on trade in personal data

Research found households registered with Telephone Preference Service receive double number of telemarketing calls as those that do not use it

It was designed to help people plagued with constant nuisance phone calls.

But households signed up to the Telephone Preference Service still receive twice as many telemarketing calls as those who haven’t registered, research has found.

More than eight in ten people received an unsolicited call last month, with 8 per cent receiving 50 or more. This means hundreds of thousands of homes receive more than 50 nuisance calls every month.



Six out of ten householders say the unsolicited calls are so bad they no longer want to answer their own telephone.

Many of the calls turn out to be silent, which can be a worry for the elderly left in fear that a burglar is checking if they are at home.

Which? has now called for a change in the law to clamp down on the trade in personal data and stop the nuisance calls.



A survey of 2,000 people by the consumer group found that those registered with the TPS did report a decrease in calls. But they still received an average of ten in the past month, compared with five for those who had not signed up.

The poll found six out of ten TPS users were not satisfied with the free opt-out service.

The Which? research found that one in three people felt intimidated by the unsolicited calls and 85 per cent said the calls and text messages were an ‘annoying interruption’.

UK companies making telemarketing calls are legally required to screen their calling lists against the TPS register.

But firms outside the UK are not legally bound – and there have been warnings that some companies simply ignore the register.

Companies calling about mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance and accident claim firms were the biggest nuisance, it was found.

Which? executive director Richard Lloyd warned the nuisance calls had become a ‘scourge on people’s lives’.

He said: ‘ It’s outrageous that people are put off answering their phone for fear of getting another nuisance call.



Which? called for change in the law to clampdown on calls and said it had become a 'scourge' on people's lives

' The current system is failing the public and given the scale of this problem, it’s time for the Government to step in.

' ‘We urgently need to see a new approach, new laws and new technology to tackle this scourge on people’s lives. People must be put back in control of their personal data.’

John Mitchison, head of the TPS, said: ‘TPS registration stops unsolicited calls from law-abiding companies that check names against the TPS’s “do not call” list. However, it can’t physically block calls from rogue companies that flout the law.’

Telemarketing firms buy personal information, including phone numbers, gathered from consumers who have filled in forms and given permission to be sent marketing material from third parties.

Such information can then be sold on to an unlimited number of companies, for an unlimited time.

Which? said it wanted a time limit such as six months to be imposed on companies contacting consumers.

The watchdog also wants the introduction of a register where consumers can check who holds their data and who is selling it on.

Under the register scheme, firms would have to prove that a consumer had consented to their data being passed on.

Which? has asked the Information Commissioner’s Office, the Ministry of Justice, regulator Ofcom and the Office of Fair Trading to form a joint taskforce to tackle the problem of nuisance calls.

It said the Government needed to take a tougher approach on the use of personal data, and to give regulators greater powers to enforce the law and hit the culprits with heavy fines.

An Ofcom spokesman said it had issued fines of more than £1.5million against firms which had broken the rules on silent calls in the last year.