Latest query to ICO

On 02/07/14 14:27, casework@ico.org.uk wrote:
Barry Wadeson - Case Officer
Telephone number: 01625 54XXXX
I have a question for you regarding these junk calls.

Would I be, in any way whatsoever, committing an offence if I was to divert each and every one of the junk calls I get to 01625 54XXXX?

If not, then I suggest that is the next course of action in trying to encourage you to actually take enforcement action.

If you are unable to identify any offence that I would be committing by doing so in the next 7 days, I'll start doing that.


  1. I wonder if the ICO might make an argument that you are doing this to annoy them sufficiently that they take action, and that, as such, you are doing this to cause annoyance or inconvenience, and argue that you are thus within the scope of s127, Communications Act 2003 (a much hated provision, capable of easy over-extension).

    1. Interesting - but I am entitled to ask them to take enforcement action and this is just my way of doing that?

    2. That might indeed be your defence to such a charge, but do you want to get into a position of needing to defend yourself against a criminal allegation? Even if you were to win, would the hassle (and potential risk) be worth it?

      However, I wonder if someone might argue that, whilst you have a right to request that the Commissioner exercises his enforcement powers (Reg. 32, PECR), this is not an unlimited right, and has to be interpreted in the light of the wider regulatory framework, which includes an onus not to make intentionally irritating calls. You have raised the issue to the Commissioner('s Office) in exercise of your right and, whilst you are not satisfied with the response, it could not be said that prohibiting you from forwarding calls in this fashion contravened your right to request enforcement, since there would be other ways of exercising your right in a less intrusive manner. As such, since your approach is one of forwarding numerous calls "to encourage [the ICO] to take enforcement action", you are intending to be a nuisance, and thus overstepping the mark, and that an attempt to disguise it as the exercise of the Regulation 32 right is but a sham.

      (It's probably not the best devil's advocate argument available, but the best I have right now...)

      Out of interest, have you tried Ofcom? They seem to be doing more on the nuisance calls front at the moment, with the ICO looking after nuisance SMS, and might have a greater chance of actually getting the calls stopped.

  2. Why not establish a list of junk caller numbers and forward them randomly to each other?


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...