The ICO agree, excellent

The ICO have a complaint form for spam, here.

I was fooled by question 2c which referenced waiting 28 days after asking someone to stop. What I had missed was that question 2a says to skip that if you have no relationship with the sender.

The ICO sent a helpful response to my query and explained this. I am impressed.

They also stated, very very clearly :-

"Firstly, I would confirm that your understanding of Regulation 22 is correct; that is, if a company sends an unsolicited marketing email to an individual subscriber without their prior consent and/or without satisfying the conditions of the soft opt-in, then they will be breaching the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations."

You don't get clearer than that - thank you ICO. I will be quoting that in future letters and emails to spammers.


  1. Why the ICO can't have a web form and insist on Word/PDF documents, I do not know. I wonder if somebody were to make a "Web form -> PDF -> auto submit to ICO" service whether they'll get enough complaints to actually do something about spam.

  2. Impressive... my experience of complaining to the ICO is that they sit on it for 3 months, then send a letter saying they haven't forgotten and apologise for the delay, then sit on it for a further 3 months before replying saying that they have sent the offender a "strongly worded letter"...


Comments are moderated purely to filter out obvious spam, but it means they may not show immediately.

ISO8601 is wasted

Why did we even bother? Why create ISO8601? A new API, new this year, as an industry standard, has JSON fields like this "nextAccessTim...