A news release has been issued to draw attention to a story in the Sunday Post - with an additional story and comment, and an article from the Kirkintilloch Herald.
Some of our commentary follows.
Some of our commentary follows.
We do not oppose the efforts of those who wish to make the present methods of dealing with the problem a little more effective, but they cannot pretend that this will have a serious impact on what is seen to be a lucrative industry, albeit fundamentally illegal.
Even with the removal of some of the limitations on the powers of the ICO, it will still be unable to put an offender out of business. Direct regulators, such as the Claims Management Regulator in the case of PPI and accident claims, and the FCA in the case of so-called “payday loans” companies, have much stronger and more effective powers over sales and marketing activity by those they regulate and their offshore agents. The first action by the Claims Management Regulator on investigating a valid complaint is to suspend the operator's licence! This is the complete opposite of what the ICO may do.
It is however vital that evidence of nuisance is easily presented and effectively used. With an extensive network of regulators and a wide variety of powers, we see it as essential that a single public-facing agency is established to consolidate the existing dispersed resources. This agency could truly represent the interests of citizens and consumers, by pressing each regulator to apply their specific powers to the maximum, in fulfilment of their particular duties. We see this as a far more proper and effective way to address the issue than having the various bodies trying to work together, as this dilutes responsibility and precludes proper accountability.
Our proposal primarily addresses the issue of public protection from Nuisance Calls in total. This particular story is one of many current examples of how the current approach to this is essentially flawed and will continue to fail. There is the also the issue of special individual measures that some are able to take and which the most vulnerable need to have in place. These are an important part of the general issue of Nuisance Calls, which must be tackled on ALL fronts.
Even with the removal of some of the limitations on the powers of the ICO, it will still be unable to put an offender out of business. Direct regulators, such as the Claims Management Regulator in the case of PPI and accident claims, and the FCA in the case of so-called “payday loans” companies, have much stronger and more effective powers over sales and marketing activity by those they regulate and their offshore agents. The first action by the Claims Management Regulator on investigating a valid complaint is to suspend the operator's licence! This is the complete opposite of what the ICO may do.
It is however vital that evidence of nuisance is easily presented and effectively used. With an extensive network of regulators and a wide variety of powers, we see it as essential that a single public-facing agency is established to consolidate the existing dispersed resources. This agency could truly represent the interests of citizens and consumers, by pressing each regulator to apply their specific powers to the maximum, in fulfilment of their particular duties. We see this as a far more proper and effective way to address the issue than having the various bodies trying to work together, as this dilutes responsibility and precludes proper accountability.
Our proposal primarily addresses the issue of public protection from Nuisance Calls in total. This particular story is one of many current examples of how the current approach to this is essentially flawed and will continue to fail. There is the also the issue of special individual measures that some are able to take and which the most vulnerable need to have in place. These are an important part of the general issue of Nuisance Calls, which must be tackled on ALL fronts.
RSS Feed