PECR

I am, once again, getting more spam. Someone must have put my email on some mailing list. This is a pain in the arse, takes up my time, and so effectively has a cost to me.

There are two rules covering this, one (as it is my name in the email address) is GDPR, and one is The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 which covers spam, basically.

GDPR is a problem as it has all sorts of exceptions and is rather subtle in how it works, and can be argued in various ways, notably that handling my "personal information" is in "legitimate interests", and the like.

But The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 are pretty simple in most ways, they ban unsolicited marketing calls, fax, and emails. Simples.

They have two big issues though.

Damages

The PECR allows me to claim damages as a civil case (sue them), but I have no way to show "damages". The regulations would massively benefit from a nominal sum that I can claim without proving tangible damages, e.g. £40 like the late payment of commercial debts regulations. Yes, if I can show more, then great, but a nominal base value would be idea. Cases would not have to go to court, I can claim the amount and nobody sending spam would be daft enough not to cough up, well, not a second time anyway once it has gone to court. Sadly without this the case can be (and was on one occasion) thrown out as no way to show actual tangible costs/damages from receiving spam.

Of course the ICO should act on such things, but they too are inept. A nominal cost allowed in civil cases would be way more effective, and something the government should consider when making the post brexit version of this law.

Individual subscriber

The other problem is that spamming "commercial" email addresses is allowed!

Why the fuck is that the case? At the end of the day a real person is on the end of these emails, even if they work in an office, and they are a nuisance to all. Arguably a business has more tangible losses as they pay someone for their time handling such spam. But that is the way it is.

The problem is how you define "individual" or "corporate", and that has always been an issue. I am pretty sure the ICO used to be a bit bad at this, but it seems the latest guidance from them is actually in line with the regulations, to my shock.

Specifically they say

"The marketing rules in PECR refer to “subscribers”. For example, this means the customer named on the bill for a telephone line or internet connection. There are two type of subscribers in PECR - corporate and individual."

This is in line with the regulations. The distinction between individual and corporate subscriber is a matter of the contract for the internet connection for the delivery of the email.

Usually, for an employee, in an office, the contract is between the company and their ISP. So a corporate subscriber, and not covered by PECR for spam.

But it gets interesting when people are working from home. Which contract applies. Which internet connection applies? Those home workers may be contracting for their internet connection as individuals, and then receiving that (corporate) email over that connection. Does that make them "individual subscribers".

At what point is the email "delivered" to them, or to "the email address"? and is it over their personal internet access, even if read from their office mail server. What if they read the email at the office, and later read it again at home or on their mobile? Was it delivered to an individual subscriber or a corporate subscriber or both?

My solution

For me I have made its easier. I contract with A&A for the A&A domain, email services, and my home internet access, as an individual. Indeed, I am even billed personally (albeit a nominal amount) for "Internet connection used for delivery of email to all @aa.net.uk addresses". I pay personally for all of the A&A email services, and for the domain, and whatever internet connection is used to deliver that email. So in my case all email to any A&A "business" email address is clearly delivered under a contract with an "individual subscriber", and so is subject to PECR.

The argument from some muppet insisting that as an employee I am not an individual subscriber seems to have gone quiet when I explained that. We will see.

At the end of the day any business, no matter how big, could have one of its directors contracted and invoiced personally for all business email at £1/month, making all that email subject to PECR if they want, and allowing them to sue, personally, for every spam the company gets.

Moral?

The moral of the story is don't send unsolicited marketing emails. At all. Ever. Simple as that!

Ask your MP?

W3W business plan

Latest spam (always spam isn't it? It was spam that started the investigation in to w3w.me.ss for example).

"I am getting in touch to see if you have thought about accepting a what3words address from customers to help couriers find an exact location for delivery."

I seriously do not understand the business plan here!

This is targeting businesses that themselves use couriers. Not targeting couriers.

So...

There are so many examples of close clashes

Couriers already have a long standing and well tested system for delivering to an "addresses". Royal Mail have a whole system of "postcodes" dating back to the '60s. These days there are "delivery points" with a DPS (Delivery Point Suffix) even. Couriers pay Royal Mail for access to the PAF (Postal Address File) which has all the data you could need, including, if you want, a grid references for the delivery point which can be down to 0.1m x 0.1m accuracy (AFAIK). It works, and they already pay for this.

This means that even selling W3W to couriers makes no real sense. They have a system. W3W cannot replace that system, and is not better. One key point is PAF updates. If an address changes, or even if a delivery point (e.g. the post room door in a large company) moves or was wrong, they can update that with no change to the "Address" used. This is spectacularly not the case with W3W.

I mean, if a courier takes W3W, is it:-

• The same as PAF, so why?
• Different, PAF is wrong, the W3W is actual delivery point - so update PAF?
• Different, some outbuilding, so when courier does not deliver to "northwest corner of garden" they are berated for wrong delivery?
• Way off, so where do they send the driver?

But this email is to a company that "uses couriers". So what the hell would they be "selling" to such a company? Whatever it is it only works if the courier we use "accepts" W3W as part of the delivery address somehow (I think they have convinced one courier to do that).

We use couriers, including Royal Mail. Now imagine if W3W convinced a courier we use to take a W3W address.

What is W3W *selling* us? The ability to "accept W3W address from customers". Well, I hate to say it but that ability comes with <input name=w3waddress placeholder="W3W address"> in a form, and we then feed in to the API or label to the courier. We don't need to *pay* W3W for that in any way, do we?

I mean they have a database right and copyright on the wordlist, and patent (questionable) on the algorithm, but they have no rights over individual W3W addresses, e.g. no copyright, just like Royal Mail have no right to individual "postal addresses", only their "database". We could "accept W3W address" from customers, and feed to "couriers" at zero cost. Indeed, if we had a courier which accepted W3W they would probably provide us with an address API which would check the real address and W3W address makes sense and reject, again at no cost to us.

So WTAF are they spamming companies?

Basically this is crazy... But...

1. Please, if you get this, troll them and ask how it is better than PAF?
2. Please, if you get this, and their plan really is to just use you (for free) to promote W3W as you "accept W3W addresses", ask how much they pay you per click on your web site and ordering for doing so.

Scammers are obvious

We all get scam emails and calls and the like.

I find them obvious, and so do my friends, but I live in fear that someone will be cunning enough to fool me.

Indeed, I ponder what steps would be needed to fool me, and feel there are not that many, and that worries me.

But I realised now, as several have pointed out, that this is deliberate. Scammers are not so stupid! There is a reason the emails have iffy logos and bad grammar. It is to weed out, well, me!

Basically, there are people with some clue and they are the people scammers do not wish to engage. They are the people that will both take up their time and not get them any money.

So the scams look obvious and broken and badly worded. They don't need to try and fool me. In fact they want me to immediately see through it and hang up or delete the email and let them concentrate on the muggles.

Why did I not realise this before - maybe I am not that smart?!

Editorial control

This is my blog and obviously I take responsibility for what I write.

There are a number of laws that could impact what I say, from Human Rights on freedom of expression, to Harassment and Defamation legislation. I try to be careful. I try to make it clear when expressing an honest opinion and not stating a fact. I try to be truthful and accurate. And no - this post is no because someone has had a go at me :-)

However, the comments section is perhaps more of a difficult issue. I don't take responsibility for the comments. They are posted by other people.

As a general policy I post all comments. Even if I do not agree with what they say. I'll respond if I don't agree, but I respect the basic right to freedom of expression of those that wish to debate the points I am making.

However, there is one exception, well, two actually. One is simple - duplicate posts - blogspot does not make it obvious that posts are moderated and so we get duplicates and I delete them. Not an issue I am sure.

However, the other area is spam. Where a post is deliberately just trying to get links to other sites to sell stuff, or in some cases just gibberish. Spam is usually very easy to spot, and quite a lot is clearly automated.

The issue is that this is a form of editorial control over the comments. That could, in theory, gain me some degree of liability for the comments if they are themselves defamatory. I don't want editorial control for that reason, but I don't want spam. I also don't want people thinking I only post favourable responses to my blog posts - that is not the case.

The editorial control to zap spam is not something that is in any way editing the comments people are genuinely making on my original post. So I hope it does not make me an editor.

However, it is also worth explaining the main criteria I use for this.

• If the comment is totally unrelated and looks automated, then I'll delete it. This is getting rarer, as the bots are looking for keywords in posts now and making related posts.
• If the comment links to some other product or site that is related, I make a judgement on whether I think it is a genuine person making a genuine helpful recommendation (which happens) or just a bot or spam post. I want to allow people to make useful comments obviously, but spammers are increasingly posting comments like "how very helpful my post was, and look I found a really good company that does this [link]". A big clue is a proper link in the comment rather than just the name of a company. Another clue is the wording style.

If you have made a genuine comment and I have deleted it, please do make it again and add some explanation. I would not want to zap a genuine comment.

But should I edit these at all, or just allow them unmoderated?

Is my judgement on this sensible or should I use other criteria?

Verso Group (UK) Ltd

I want to set the record straight here.

When I made a blog post on the 17th March (here) I honestly thought the unlawful junk call I had received had been made by Verso Group (UK) Ltd. I am TPS registered and this was a marketing call, so unlawful.

You can see how I might have jumped to that conclusion:

• The call was from 02081507530, a number from which they apparently call
• The caller claimed to be calling from British Savers Club, a name they apparently use
• This was apparently a "lead generation" type call, the very business they are in
• The caller claimed to be calling from Verso Group, even spelling it for me, and confirming when I said Verso Group (UK) Ltd.

It was an easy, and honest, mistake to make, as you can see.

It seems that I was wrong!

Someone has called today apparently from Verso Group (UK) Ltd, and stated in no uncertain terms that "We've actually never dialled him", and "the recording he's posted has nothing to do with our business", and "it wasn't a call that was made by our company".

So clearly, on the word of a man claiming to be calling from Verso Group (UK) Ltd today, I have to assume that the call from a man claiming to be calling from Verso Group (UK) Ltd on 17th March was actually lying, and was not in fact calling from Verso Group (UK) Ltd and was, in fact, an imposter.

I do sincerely apologise for making this assumption.

The blog post makes it clear that the call was only apparently from Verso Group (UK) Ltd, and I hope that my apology here meets with the approval of Verso Group (UK) Ltd and clears up this misunderstanding.

I appreciate that it can be frustrating when this sort of thing happens - we have had A&A customers get pop-ups claiming to be a survey by A&A and then being a scam, and they too are nothing to do with us.

I am really struggling why someone would impersonate Verso Group (UK) Ltd, and to what end, but that is what they are suggesting has happened. You have my sympathies, Verso Group (UK) Ltd. Clearly you are not the sort of company that would flout rules on calling people on the TPS, or laws on company names on web sites and emails, or any of those things, oh, wait... No, really, it was not you calling, obviously.

The good news is that, now that we know the call was definitely not made by Verso Group (UK) Ltd, it is clear that there can be no issue with my posting the recording - here it is again for you to listen to. Remember, it is apparently not actually Verso Group (UK) Ltd making the call, so no matter how daft they sound, you should not form any bad opinion about Verso Group (UK) Ltd when listening to it. Even so, it does not even appear to be defamatory of Verso Group (UK) Ltd in its content from what I can hear - it is the exact business they are in - lead generation, and exactly the sort of call people report as having received from them on various forums. I made it clear in the call that it was being recorded to post on Facebook (which that link is) and he said "yes" and continued with the call. Verso Group (UK) Ltd have no say over the call recording as it was not them making it, not that they had much anyway, but they can't claim the employee was not authorised to agree to publication as it was not their employee.  They cannot claim it is private or confidential as it was not them making the call. It may be useful evidence for them if they have an issue with people passing off as them and I am happy for them to use the recording for that purpose if they want to pursue legal action against the actual caller.

---

Anyway, now that is out of the way, it is interesting to report on some aspects of my day...

Last night A&A got an email, claiming to be from Verso Group (UK) Ltd,  threatening legal action, claiming that the recording is private and confidential and Verso Group UK Ltd do not give any permissions for the recording to be posted on a public domain. Well, permission was obtained in the call, listen. But this seems at odds with the claims today, apparently from Verso Group (UK) Ltd, that they never made the call. If they never made the call they cannot claim it is private or confidential to them! Maybe this email was also from an imposter! Or was it the calls today that were from an imposter. How could I know?

Today we got calls from someone claiming to be from Verso Group (UK) Ltd. Again, threatening legal action against A&A, saying "I'm going to come down to your office", suggesting that I am "hiding behind a social media page" and that he would "rather the guy had a bit of balls and contacted me". Oddly, calling back his office twice this afternoon he was in meetings or on a call and did not call back - maybe it is not his turn for the balls today? (I assume these are like executive stress balls or something).

With both written and verbal legal threats against A&A, we had our solicitor on site all day as he said "I'm going to come down to your office" after his 10:30 meeting. We waited, and waited. Solicitors are not cheap, so I hope he does not mind the the bill if this does go any further against A&A. Hopefully he'll consider the matter settled with the above apology. I wonder how many of the complaints on the various forums and even the Verso Group (UK) Ltd Facebook page are actually by imposters! What a terrible situation to be in.

As I own copyright in the recording I am saying now that people can copy and repost it as much as they like and laugh at the irony of a company (even if it was not in fact Verso Group (UK) Ltd) trying to sell me better broadband!!!

Call apparently from VERSO GROUP (UK) LIMITED - junk calls

Getting pissed off with junk calls today.

Two so far.

One was apparently from IDENTITY PROTECT LIMITED. Listen here.

The second, and much more amusing, was apparently from VERSO GROUP (UK) LIMITED. Listen here (posted with permission granted in the call recording itself). It seems that they were actually trying to sell me broadband. Wow!

I am not sure they were not the same person calling even, but that may be my being a tad racist... Listen and try and work it out yourself.

Update: Corrected first company name which was mistyped/linked.
Update: Clarified that second recording published with permission given within the call itself.

Update: For more details on why only "apparently" from Verso Group (UK) Ltd, see later blog post.

Calling from OFGEN? Really?

Got an anonymous call claiming to be from The Energy & Climate Department, or is it OFGEN...

I suspect not. I suspect a scam call.

How do these people sleep at night? I am sure ICO will not bother to do anything.

Have a listen: MP3

P.S. In case you are worried, we are getting the insulation all changed, but probably to some nice Celotex and boarding on top, like I have in the man-cave.

Watches2U really are scum

Not only did they offer me "5% off my order", having ordered a "sale" watch, with no stated catches on the offer, and then not honour it (adding catches after I did what they said)...

Not only did they add me to a mailing list without my consent...

But having confirmed they have removed me from their mailing list, it looks like they did not, and I am getting email from another domain (toffgroup.com) trying to sell me more watches (I only have one left wrist) so clearly I am on their mailing list.

I'd complain to the ICO if I thought the ICO were actually any use!!!

More scum?

This pops up for customers from time to time and we are getting sick of explaining that they are not us and we did not ask them to survey our customers. It appears to be a scam, in my opinion. It just happened to me having followed some click-bait from Facebook.

Technically they claim to just be a third party, no association with us, and so on - it is all in the small print.

But I have to wonder what legally we can do to stop this. It is upsetting our customers and abusing our good name.

I am unsure if they are actually breaking any laws here. It "feels" wrong, but maybe it is all legal. I simply do not know.

I am actually surprised they worked out my IPv4 at home is Andrews & Arnold Ltd. It is listed as Thrall Horde on RIPE and the route entries show it via two separate ISPs, only one of which is A&A.

Who's the data subject?

Making unsolicited marketing calls to TPS numbers is unlawful.

Continuing to hold and process personal data when requested not to, and having no reason to, is unlawful.

So either way, unwanted "junk" calls should be possible to handle somehow.

Sadly someone has given my number with her name on a loan application. I am now being constantly hassled (asking for her).

These are not marking calls (as such) as far as I know.
These are not unsolicited - in that someone asked them to call.
And the contact details they have do not have my name.

Am I even the data subject? My number on its own is not really personal information as it does not allow me to be identified (as reverse phone lookups are meant not to be allowed). The name is not me. So even if together they are personal information, I am not the data subject?

I'm not the intended recipient of the calls.

Are they breaking an regulation or law by constantly calling for this person? Even harassment, they are intending to harass this other person, and not me!

Arrrrrg!!!!

ICO is total waste of time

I am getting a lot of junk calls, and have reported around 5000 calls to the ICO now, and they have chosen not to take any action in relation to these calls.

It seems that even the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman agrees that they do not have to do anything if they don't want to.

What the hell is the point of a law that bans something if NOBODY will take any action on it.

The Ombudsman said I could take civil action, but I know from personal experience a judge will consider the nuisance of calls and emails to be insignificant and not valid as a cause of such action.

Just to give some idea how totally pointless this regulation is, today, we got a call at the office from a company calling themselves Media Planet. Listen (MP3)

The call was to our "press" number, published in one place on our web site, which is where we also make it clear that we are listed in the TPS and that we do not want junk / marketing calls.

To our surprise this is a company that has apparently been in business 12 years and never heard of the TPS - they had no idea that they were meant to check their calls against TPS, and no idea that what they were doing is unlawful (Alex went a tad far saying criminal we think, but that is beside the point).

What is the point of these laws? They are a total and utter waste of time and need fixing.

An incredibly simple change would be to make it possible to take civil action for some minimum amount without justification, e.g £50, just based on the fact that you are the recipient of the nuisance call or email. That would allow civil action to work, and if the ICO really are so inept and uninterested, that would allow some real action on this from people affected. It would not be a burden on the courts as those breaking the rules would soon learn they have no defence, and pay up without need of court action. With any luck they would then change their behaviour.

We also need any contract formed as a result of such a call to be void, allowing people to "play along" in order to identify the caller properly so that they can sue them for the £50.

We need the law fixing!

Day in court

So, suing a spammer today, and to be clear, he did send an unsolicited marketing email to me, an individual subscriber - sadly I lost the case. But as ever, it works out a cheap lesson in how the civil justice system works.

Neil Brown was kind enough to observe and make detailed notes, here. Thank you. It is worth noting that the judge was very happy that this was a public hearing and so there were observers allowed. Indeed, the defendant asked his wife to come in when he realised.

There were a couple of interesting procedural points which are worth noting. For a start, even though the defendant had refused an arbitration call, and even though the judge agreed that is normally considered in costs, the judge award expenses against me!

As for the expenses, it seems it is very worth while bringing all your receipts to the hearing, including, it seems, the cost of recorded delivery postage for the defence and paperwork to the court and other party. I had no idea you could claim such things, but the judge was happy to pay documented expenses, and even 45p a mile for travel. So I'll be doing that in future.

Sadly the point of whether I am an individual subscriber was not addressed, which is a shame. The judge went straight for the idea that I had no evidence of damages and hence that I have no claim. She also said that you cannot claim for distress.

This is a worrying view, as it basically makes regulation 30 pointless in almost all cases.

The good news, of course, is that such cases are not a precedent, and the next judge may well have a different view.

So what to do next...

1. I need a nice clear summary of the recent cases, which do set a precedent, which make it clear that you can claim for distress in cases like this. Had I got this with me I could have countered the assertion that the judge made. There have been several cases where traditional damages were indeed nominal (and £1 awarded) but distress was substantially more (hundreds of pounds).
2. I need to look in to how the value of distress is normally calculated, and then show those calculations for the basis of my next claim. This may, of course, mean I end up claiming more.

Of course, once we have this, I can post details on my blog here for anyone else to use (not legal advice, obviously).

Oh, and obviously, I should report this incident of spam to the ICO and request that they exercise their enforcement function. Sadly they will do nothing as usual.

Distressing

Well, looks like we will actually be going to court over the latest spam.

21 pages, FFS, waffling on about my connection to Dedicated Programmes (from which I buy the email address in question). Whether or not I am an individual subscriber is a matter of fact - it is whether I have a contract with a CP as an individual for the service, simple as that. Even if I was director and shareholder of DP, it would not matter if I, as an individual, had a contract for the service. As it happens, Simon, who runs DP is just a friend and I have never worked for or been a shareholder of DP, but none of that matters. He thinks the invoice was sort of made up - well yes, long before he sent his spam, after previous spams, Simon and I agreed that DP would actually charge me, and properly invoice me, for the email address which he had previously provided free (or in exchange for some help from me). That made it a clear contract, ensuring there was no doubt as to the fact that I contract as an individual for the service and as such am an individual subscriber.

Anyway, I'll have to go through in detail. He has quoted loads from my blog, which is, of course, a breach of my copyright for which I can sue him (sadly I can't in this case).

What is in no doubt is that this is distressing, and it is distress for which I am claiming. I have just checked my blood pressure after looking at this letter from the guy and it is through the roof. I am already on medication for blood pressure. I may take the meter with me when I go to court, as I have to be a bit careful. It will take me a while to calm down now! I can be pretty sure I will lose sleep over this now.

What I have to remember is, that even if the judge throws out my case for some reason, I will have learned something useful and at most paid his costs for getting to court. Small claims has limited costs, and the fact he refused to consider an arbitration call may even get the costs removed anyway, we'll see.

Case on the 15th!

When is junk mail not junk mail?

As I reported recently, a company selling training courses on email marketing emailed my titanic email address (for which I am an individual subscriber). Yes, ironic isn't it. What is interesting is that he has engaged in some lengthy debate on the matter during this week (something to do whilst I'm off sick). We have finally agreed on a £75 settlement. But some of the points that have been raised are interesting.

Even though a UK business, he had not provided the details of his legal entity on the web site or emails (as required by the Companies Act 2006). This is a pain as it makes suing him somewhat harder. He also uses a correspondance address in London, not a real office. I was expecting to hear nothing and hence be able to do nothing. To my surprise he did reply. Even so, I have reported this to Trading Standards, and they are in fact investigating. It seems that they are a partnership, and the best I got was an initial and surname for each of the two partners and no other address, which, sadly, seems to comply with the rules. The difficulty with actually suing and enforcing a judgement is one reason I ended up agreeing a settlement. Fortunately most spam like this is from UK limited companies providing a proper company number in the initial email.

Another interesting issue is that he had emailed 7 times before. He claims not to have received any of the email replies I had sent, and suggests that my IP is on some sort of black list. Needless to say no emails bounced. He initially offered £25, and I said fine, and £25 for each of the other 7 makes £200. But he wanted to offer £25 for all emails. I pointed out my letter before action clearly related to just one email and that is all I would be taking to court this time. Depending on the outcome I could take action for the other 7 at a later date. Maybe, in hindsight, I should have got settlement of the £25 for this one email first and then gone after him for the other 7.

At every stage he disputes any liability, and keeps saying that he complies with all regulations. I have tried pointing out that this is factually wrong. There is no doubt he sent an unsolicited marketing email to an individual subscriber, which means he did not comply - matter of fact. Interestingly he claims that "subject to certain requirements they do permit us to legally email what we reasonably understand to be business email addresses". When I asked him to back that up, he referenced an ICO guideline which did not actually say that at all. It seems to me he genuinely thought that he was within the regulations if he believed the email address was not an individual subscriber, and if he removed the email address when told otherwise. Reading the regulations I am very much of the opinion that this is not the case, and that even one such email, regardless of intent, is a breach of the regulations.

He also said that they are trying to get clarification from the ICO on the "ambiguity" over individual subscribers and corporate subscribers. I guess, if in the business of email marketing he might like to clarify that. I don't think it is ambiguous, just something the sender cannot know. Even so he raises one interesting point, which I was a tad unclear of. Is the subscriber in "individual subscriber" the person that contacts for the "email service", or the person that contracts for the "line" over which the email is delivered? However, I think I have worked it out now...

The PECR states: “subscriber” means a person who is a party to a contract with a provider of public electronic communications services for the supply of such services; “electronic communications service” has the meaning given by section 32 of the Communications Act 2003;

Now, looking at the section 32 of the comms act: “electronic communications service” means a service consisting in, or having as its principal feature, the conveyance by means of an electronic communications network of signals, except in so far as it is a content service.

Now, an "electronic communications network" is a transmission system for the conveyance, by the use of electrical, magnetic or electro-magnetic energy, of signals of any description

A signal is (a) anything comprising speech, music, sounds, visual images or communications or data of any description; and (b) signals serving for the impartation of anything between persons, between a person and a thing or between things, or for the actuation or control of apparatus.

An email service does indeed use such a network, and I think signal covers an email. So it seems to me that the subscriber in relation to an unsolicited marketing email is the subscriber to the email service.

Anyway, once again, this means no case in front of an actual judge. We'll get there eventually.

Update: Interesting point from the comments, I missed the "public" part in the above, which is: “public electronic communications service” means any electronic communications service that is provided so as to be available for use by members of the public; 

What is interesting is the "use" part. If you run a mail server for a domain, you are allowing members of the public to "use" that service by allowing members of the public to send you email. It does not say you have to allow members of the public to "subscribe" to the service. It uses the word "use". So to my mind, pretty much any mail server is a "public" electronic communications service.

Reach Recruitment Services Ltd

How dumb can you be?

1. Unlawfully junk mail me to my personal (individual subscriber) email address.
2. Ignore my notice before action replying that I obviously have too much time on my hands
3. Get sued by me for £200
4. Ignore that and get judgement against by default
5. Ignore that and get bailiffs knocking on the door
6. Pay a total of £295 including court and bailiff fees
7. Then... Get this... JUNK MAIL ME AGAIN to same email address

That is just special.

Meta spam

FFS, just got junk mail trying to sell me a course on junk mailing people, with things like "What the legal implications really are" as the first key point in the agenda!

I think this one will get a notice in the post as well as email this time.

The same bunch sent emails before so have had the standard email reply from me - that zaps any excuse of having taken reasonable measures to avoid breaking the law as they actually knew my email address was that of an individual subscriber when they sent this one. In fact they have emailed 9 times since July 2013 and had my standard reply each time. I hope they agree to settle, as I'll then use that as basis for claims for the previous 8 times.

Update: Grrr. Letter sent but it is a mailing address in London and nothing on the email or web site actually says who they are as a legal entity. So, for now, reported to trading standards for that.

Update: Arrrg, Trading Standards web site says the trading standards email address for Westminster, but the email address does not work and bounces. So I have ended up writing to trading standards. This means I have spent an hour today, two letters with attachments, one of which is recorded delivery, two emails. Is it any wonder I am asking for £200 for this spam in the first place?!

Update: I did think of registering for the course, and then cancelling for a refund. They say they allow a refund up to 14 days before the course. That would allow me to follow the money to work out who they are. But, of course, none of the courses they list are for which I can book are more than 14 days in the future! It is tempting to book someone on a course and send with hidden camera though.

Paying to a charity to settle a claim?

This is one on which I am really interested in feedback. I hope people appreciate that some of my blogs I do not even think I have all of the answers and am keen to learn what others think...

The background is simple, I have sued a spammer under The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, as you do. I sued for £200, as per my normal notice of action emails. This is an interesting one as we are pretty sure the guy called my email provider (not A&A) to suggest someone was using his domain for a scam, and claiming that my email was a known scam, all over the Internet! I think I blogged on it. But I cannot be 100% sure it was him, as I emailed more than one spammer that day, and he refused to identify himself on the call. This is one to which I did get an email reply though, and oddly he stated two things (a) that he bought a mailing list (which confirms that I did not give him permission to send the email, and so not a good thing to have admitted), and (b) that he has insurance for this (odd, and suggests he knows that what he is doing may incur charges for which he should be insured!).

Anyway, simple matter, county court claim, and out of the blue he responds by email to me as a without prejudice negotiation.

He offered to settle, with no admission of guilt, by paying £100 to NSPCC.

I replied pointing out that if I did not feel I had suffered damages then the claim would have been invalid anyway. This is not punitive as that is not allowed for county court claims or the PECR. I am happy to negotiate the level of damages as most are "intangible" losses to me, and would accept £100 (plus my £25 court fees) as settlement, but that paying to a charity makes no sense to settle my damages claim.

He then replies, with a screen shot, to confirm he has paid £125 to NSPCC. I did reply explaining that doing such was silly. He says he will defend the claim. Yay!

Now this is what I do not get. I have seen this a couple of times before - some claim or some debt - I think we have even had people A&A are chasing for a debt say this, that someone would pay to a charity rather than to "me" as a means to "settle" the claim!

I really do not understand this. What am I missing here?

How could paying money to a third party (charity or whatever) be a sensible "offer" in any way to settle a claim for damages?

Update: 16th Jan

He has filed a defence, which predictably says he bought a list that was meant to be opt in, etc... Nothing surprising there, but what is odd is that he says he offered to pay £100 to NSPCC, that I refused and said I wanted £125 paid to me (as I did), that we did not agree, and that he has now paid £125 to NSPCC. I was going to use that, and thought I could not as without prejudice negotiations, so he has made my life a lot easier now!

What is also odd is that he has said no to a mediation call and written "I HAVE MADE AN OFFER". That seems odd, as you would expect that to mean a mediation call is a good idea.

I have written to the court stating that I accept the amount offered and that I would simply like an order to pay *me* the amount offered (£100) to settle the claim. We'll see what happens.

The defence is a tad funny as it states "I believe that [defendant] have shown due diligence and a commitment to abide by the rules of Electronic communications in order try and to grow their business. Therefore I feel Additional Resources Ltd should be protected from this claim by section22 (3) of The privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulation 2003", well 22(3) is nothing to do with "due diligence", it starts "that person has obtained the contact details of the recipient of that electronic mail in the course of the sale or negotiations for the sale of a product or service to that recipient" which simply is not the case and not something he has claimed, so 22(3) simply does not apply.

This should be fun if we go to court. I have the facts clear that I am an individual subscriber (I have an invoice for the email in my name). I have the admission that he bought in my details rather than got than as part of a sale/negotiation (so 22(3) does not apply). He is clearly in breach, leaving only the amount as the problem area, and for that I have the figure he has placed on this (£100) which I am happy to accept.

Notice before action

This is my current notice before action email which is sent to those that spam me.

Important - the regulations cover emails to an individual subscriber - this is where you have a contract with the email provider/ISP for the email services as yourself as an individual (not simply a contract with your employer or a university, has to be a communications provider).

It also has to be a marketing email. There are many other types of emails, such as those confirming email address for an opt-in, or even a survey, which are not covered.

Also, you must not have opted in for the emails from the sender or requested emails from the sender (opting in for someone else is a different matter, and I believe does not apply).

Also, this is UK only. Yes, the rules apply EU wide, but chasing someone in another country is harder and rules may be subtly different. In general the spam I am targeting has clearly stated UK company details in the marketing email.

The usage of the email address, e.g. is it a work email address, is not relevant. What matters is who exactly has a contract with the ISP for the email, and if they contract as an individual.

I am not a lawyer, and welcome constructive comments, but you are free to use this text if you wish...

Basically, if you can be sure they got this, and they do not sort a settlement or agreement within 14 days, you can move on to a county court claim. I believe this meets all of the requirements for a pre-action notice. In general, I only go on to a county court claim if they have clearly identifiable UK company details and have replied to my notice email thereby confirming receipt. Occasionally I'll post this notice and then pursue action.

[This is edited after some comments, so is the current version. Sorry if that makes some comments seem odd. Thanks for the feedback everyone]

---

This is not a scam - you have acted unlawfully and I am entitled to
claim damages - so do not ignore this email assuming it is just a scam.
I have previously made successful claims via the courts.

NOTICE BEFORE ACTION

You have transmitted, or instigated the transmission of, an unsolicited
communication for the purpose of direct marketing by means of electronic
mail to an individual subscriber contrary to section 22 of The Privacy
and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003.

Feel free to look up those regulations on www.legislation.gov.uk

I, as the recipient and individual subscriber, have never given you
consent to send me marketing emails and I have never provided my email
address to you as part of a negotiations or sale by you to me in the past.

For the avoidance of doubt - this is not a Data Protection Act issue, or
one where you have the option of relying on an "unsubscribe" link -
sending just one email, as you have, is a breach of the regulations.

Section 30 of the regulations permits me to take civil action to recover
damages suffered as a result of your breach of the regulations. It is
difficult to assess damages exactly but your email has used resources on
my computers and my Internet connection, wasted some of my time, caused
distress and annoyance which has interrupted my chain of thought and
concentration, and so disrupted work I am doing. Looking in to similar
cases for such damages it is clear that claims range from £270 to £750.
In this instance I feel that £200 would constitute a reasonable level of
damages for the hassle you have caused me by your breach of the regulations.

In accordance with section 8.2(1) of the Pre-Action Conduct Directions
of the Civil Procedure Rules, I would like you to consider Alternative
Dispute Resolution to this matter by means of discussion and
negotiation. I therefore invite your comments and any offer of
settlement or other negotiation.

You have 14 days to reply. Ignoring this notice may lead to proceedings
starting without further notice, and will increase your liability with
the addition of costs. Your attention is drawn paragraph 4 of the
Pre-Action Conduct Directions located on www.justice.gov.uk

Should this matter go to court I will rely on the email you have sent
and associated headers, whois data and other resources identifying the
sender. If you believe you have evidence that shows I did give *you*
consent to the sending of that email I ask that you forward this to
me by reply.

I look forward to your prompt reply.

-- 
Adrian Kennard, [my address as required by pre-action protocol]

Don't spam me

It is not wise to send me spam, and even less wise to ignore the notice before action I send back, but ignoring the county court claim is just dumb.

Reach Recruitment Services Ltd spammed me in September. i.e. they sent me an unsolicited marketing email addressed to my personal email address for which I am an individual subscriber. This is unlawful as it is a breach of section 22 of The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003. Section 30 allows me to claim damages, which I estimated at £200 based on the annoyance the spam caused me and disruption to my work (which costs me as I own the company).

I emailed back with a notice before action, and they replied saying I should just click on unsubscribe. I replied explaining that this was too late, they had already acted unlawfully and would they like to negotiate a settlement of shall we go to court. The reply was :-

Ha ha.... You obviously have far too much time on your hands.

Have a good day

I plan to have a good day now that bailiffs have collected from them £200 claimed, plus £25 court fee plus £70 bailiff fee. Thank you very much, and maybe they won't spam people in future.

Merry Christmas.

Claim, as filed at moneyclaim.gov.uk

Worst kind of spam?

OK, technically, I am on the Blizzard mailing list, so not spam as such, but an advert.

An advert for something I am already paying for and they know it.

An advert for something that doesn't fucking work yet.

Really Blizzard, why rub salt in to the wound? Why?

P.S. the most obvious problem is the garrison instance. As I understand it that is a single player instance, it is your garrison/fort/town. So why the hell is that not run on the client and not an instance server which clearly cannot cope?!