Pension scheme cold caller fined £130,000 by UK data watchdog

Britain’s data watchdog says it has snared Swansea-based business CPS Advisory for making more than 100,000 “unauthorised direct marketing calls” to people about their pensions, and subsequently fined the company £130,000. Under a change to the Private and Electronics Communications Regulation (PECR) in 2019, a firm can only …

[Mark192]

It's a con

The Watchdog is useless.

The article stated:

"CPS Advisory filed abbreviated accounts [PDF] for the year to March 2019 showing negative assets of £58,882"

The business will fold, the directors -untouched by the fine- will set up another company and carry on.

[GlenP]

Re: It's a con

The ICO can, and do, pass the fine directly to the Directors if the company folds. They'll also potentially be banned from being directors for, usually, 7 years.

[Phones Sheridan]

Re: It's a con

The ICO can also apply for an administrator to be assigned to take over the company, prior to it going into liquidation, once this happens, the directors are forbidden from involvement in any other company until the outcome, which usually results in the directors being banned from running a company for xxx years.

Where the ICO went wrong in the first year, was that they fined companies, and then did nothing until the company either paid or went bust. Now they intervene before that happens.

[Mark192]

Re: It's a con

It's all very well voting down my "it's a con" post and saying they could fine the directors and they could ban the directors... but the ICO didn't. They only fined the limited company. This despite one of the directors being done for something similar before.

ICOs report here:

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/mpns/2618232/cps-advisory-limited-mpn.pdf

[Phones Sheridan]

Re: It's a con

And you are getting ahead of the process. Your post above is akin to reading in the paper that a local miscreant has been arrested, charged and scheduled to appear before a judge. You then complain that he could have been fined or he could have been sent down for life. However this is the first stage of the process, just as has happened with the ICO. The ICO has issued the fine, which is the first step in the process, if the company fails to pay by the date, I believe which is end of Oct 2020, then the ICO will take the next step in the process. A company cannot simply go bust immediately, there is a minimum time period which is at least 3 months if you have planned it ahead, or longer if you decided to do it today, but such steps are what the ICO are now monitoring, and intervene well before that going bust process can complete.

[Anonymous Coward]

fined the company £130,000

why not £1.3M. For knowingly breaking the law? So that they can recover quickly and make sure they don't get caught doing the same again? :(

[rh16181618190224]

Does not seem enough, if they scan 13 pensioners at 10K each they have covered the fine.

[Anonymous Coward]

so sad :(...

No jail time, no arrest record, just rip people off, get caught, pay the fee (fine) to the higher up organization and move on.

People get the short stick while scammers and government get their money. Situation Normal All F'd Up.

Who watches the watchmen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: so sad :(...

So what's new? As long as a company pays the fine to the state, the problem is solved. The people? Fck them, they are not important.

Cynical? Moi?

[Blackjack]

Re: so sad :(...

Google, Facebook and Microsoft.

[DJV]

"This company clearly flouted the law when they should have known better"

This company clearly flouted the law while they thought they could get away with it.

FTFY

[Jamie Jones]

Re: "This company clearly flouted the law when they should have known better"

Why not? That's how our government operates.

[katrinab]

Re: "This company clearly flouted the law when they should have known better"

106,987 calls is not breaking the law in a limited and specific way ...

[adam payne]

“This company clearly flouted the law when they should have known better......."

Of course they flouted the law because they know they can get away with it time and time again.

How long before they start up another business doing the same thing?

[Eclectic Man]

I wonder..

if the company could have been guilty of 'obtaining a money transfer by deception'. That is a serious offence in the UK Under the Theft (Amendment) Act 1996, publishable by an unlimited fine and a prison sentence not exceeding 10 years on first offence.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/62/contents

Of course, as I am currently trying to figure out (no pun intended) how to invest my pension and so as to provide for myself in my later years, I am somewhat biassed against thieving b%^&*(rd pension scammers who ought to be %^&* (*%%(*^ and %^&*()ed, IMHO.