ICO - Monetary penalty Leads Work Limited

From GDPRhub
Revision as of 18:27, 20 March 2021 by Pua (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{DPAdecisionBOX |Jurisdiction=United Kingdom |DPA-BG-Color=background-color:#023868; |DPAlogo=LogoUK.png |DPA_Abbrevation=ICO |DPA_With_Country=ICO (UK) |Case_Number_Name=M...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
ICO - Monetary penalty Leads Work Limited
LogoUK.png
Authority: ICO (UK)
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Relevant Law: Article 4(11) GDPR
Article 6(1)(a) GDPR
Article 7(1) GDPR
Article 7(2) GDPR
Section 122(5) Data Protection Act 2018
Section 22 Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003
Type: Complaint
Outcome: Upheld
Started:
Decided: 01.03.2021
Published:
Fine: 250000 GBP
Parties: Leads Work Limited
National Case Number/Name: Monetary penalty Leads Work Limited
European Case Law Identifier: n/a
Appeal: Unknown
Original Language(s): English
Original Source: ICO (in EN)
Initial Contributor: Hrvoje Novacic

The ICO (UK) has fined Leads Works Ltd 250000 GBP for sending more than 2.6 million nuisance and unlawful direct marketing text messages to customers without their valid consent.


English Summary

Facts

2670140 mail messages have been sent between 16.05.2020 and 26.06.2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic. Members of the public have made to the ICO (UK) highest number of compaints to date, over 10000. ICO (UK) has also issued to Leads Works Ltd a 30 day enforcement notice.

Dispute

Customers did not give their direct and valid consent to receive direct marketing messages by mail. Examples of the messages sent include: “In lockdown and want to earn extra cash? Avon is now FULLY ONLINE, FREE to do and paid weekly. Reply with your name for info. 18+ only. Text STOP to opt out.”

Holding

Simple reliance on assurances of indirect consent alone without undertaking proper due diligence is not acceptable.

Comment

Share your comments here!

Further Resources

Share blogs or news articles here!

English Machine Translation of the Decision

The decision below is a machine translation of the English original. Please refer to the English original for more details.

                                                           •

                                                           ICO.
                                                           Information Commissioner 's Office


                    DATA PROTECTION     ACT 1998


   SUPERVISORY    POWERS OF THE INFORMATION       COMMISSIONER



                    MONETARY    PENAL TY NOTICE




To:  Valca Vehicle and Life Cover Agency Limited

Of:  281 Palatine Road, Manchester, England M22 4ET

1.   The InformationCommissioner ("Commissioner") has decided to issue

     Valca Vehicle and Life Cover Agency Limited ("Valca") with a monetary

     penalty under section SSA of the Data Protection Act 1998 ("DPA"). The
     penalty is in relation to a serious contravof Regulations 22 and

     23 of the Privacy and Electronic Communicatio(EC Directive)
     Regulations 2003 ("PECR").



2.   This notice explains the Commissioner's decision.


     Legal framework


3.   Valca, whose registered office is given above (Companies House

     Registration Number: 11013461) is the organisation stated in this
     notice to have transmitteunsolicited communicationby means of

     electronic mail to individual subscribers for the purposes of direct

     marketing contrary to regulation 22 of PECR.


4.   Regulation 22 of PECRstates:




                                   1                                                           •


                                                           ICO.
                                                           Information Commissioner's Office
"(l) This  regulation  applies  to  the   transmission   of  unsolicited
     communications    by  means    of  electronic mail   to  individual

     subscribers.

(2)  Except in the circumstances referred to in paragraph (3), a person

     shall neither transmit, nor instigate the transmission of, unsolicited
     communications   for the purposes of direct marketing by means of

     electronic mail unless the recipient  of the electronic  mail has

     previously notified the sender that he consents for the time being
     to such communications  being sent by, or at the instigation of, the

     sender.

(3)  A person may send or instigate the sending of electronic mail for

     the purposes of direct marketing where-

        (a) 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;

        (b) the direct marketing is in respect of that person's similar
            products and services only; and

        (c) the recipient has been given a simple means of refusing

            (free of charge except for the costs of the transmission of

            the refusal) the use of his contact details for the purposes
            of such direct marketing, at the time that the details were

            initially collected, and, where he did not initially refuse the

            use of the details, at the time of each subsequent
            communication.

(4) A subscriber shall not permit his line to be used in contraventioof

     paragraph (2)."





                                2                                                              •

                                                              ICO.
                                                              Information Commissioner's Office

5.    Regulation 23 of PECRstates that "A person shall neither transminor
      instigate the transmission of, a communicatifor the purposes of

      direct marketing by means of electronic mail -


             (a) where the identity of the person on whose behalf the
                 communication  has been sent has been disguised or

                 concealed;

             (b) where a valid address to which the recipient of the

                 communication  may send a request that such
                 communications  cease has not been provided

             (c) where that electronic mail would contravene regulation 7 of

                 the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002;
                 or

             (d) where that electronic mail encourages recipients to visit

                 websites which contravene that regulation."



6.    Section 122(5) of the DPA 2018 defines direct marketing as "the
      communication  (by whatever means) of advertising material which is

      directed to particular individuals". This definition also applies for the
      purposes of PECR(see regulation 2(2) PECR; and Schedule 19,

      paragraph 430 and 432(6) DPA18).


7.    Consent is defined in Article 4(11) the General Data Protection

      Regulation 2016/679 as "any freely given, specific, informed and
      unambiguous indication of the data subject's wishes by which he or

      she, by a statement or by a clear affirmative action, signifies
      agreement to the processing of personal data relating to him or her.



8.   "Individual"is defined in regulation 2(1) of PECRas "a living individual
      and includes an unincorporatedbody of such individuals".

                                    3                                                              •

                                                              ICO.
                                                              Information Commissioner's Office


9.    A "subscriber"is defined in regulation 2(1) of PECRas "a person who is
      a party to a contract with a provider of public electronic

      communications  services for the supply of such services".

10.  "Electronic mail" is defined in regulation 2(1) of PECRas "any text,

      voice, sound or image message sent over a public electronic
      communications  network which can be stored in the network or in the

      recipient's terminal equipment until it is collected by the recipient and

      includes messages sent using a short message service".


11.   Section SSA of the DPA (as amended by the Privacy and Electronic
      Communications  (EC Directive)(Amendment)  Regulations 2011 and the

      Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendment)  Regulations
      2015) states:



     "(1) The Commissioner may serve a person with a monetary penalty if
          the Commissioner is satisfied that -

             (a) there has been a serious contraventioof the requirements

                 of the Privacy and Electronic Communications(EC
                 Directive) Regulations 2003 by the person,

             (b) subsection (2) or (3) applies.

      (2) This subsection applies if the contraventiwas deliberate.


      (3) This subsection applies if the person -

             (a) knew or ought to have known that there was a risk that
             the contravention would occur, but

             (b) failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the

                 contravention."




                                    4                                                              •

                                                             ICO.
                                                             Information Commissioner 's Office

12.  The Commissioner has issued statutory guidance under section SSC (1)
     of the DPA about the issuing of monetary penalties that has been

     published on the ICO's website. The Data Protection (Monetary
     Penalties) (Maximum Penalty and Notices) Regulations 2010 prescribe

     that the amount of any penalty determined by the Commissioner must
     not exceed £500,000.



13.  PECRimplements European legislation (Directive 2002/58/EC) aimed at
     the protection of the individual's fundamentright to privacy in the

     electronic communications sector. PECRwas amended for the purpose
     of giving effect to Directive 2009/136/which amended and

     strengthened the 2002 provisions. The Commissioner approaches PECR

     so as to give effect to the Directives.


14.  The provisions of the DPA remain in force for the purposes of PECR
     notwithstanding the introductionof the Data Protection Act 2018 (see

     paragraph 58(1) of Part 9, Schedule 20 of that Act).


     Background to the case


15.  Phone users can report the receipt of unsolicited marketing text

     messages to the GSMA's Spam Reporting Service by forwarding the
     message to 7726 (spelling out "SPAM"). The GSMA is an organisation

     that represents the interests of mobile operators worldwidThe
     Commissioner is provided with access to the data on complaints made

     to the 7726 service and this data is incorporated into a Monthly Threat

     Assessment (MTA) used to ascertain organisations in breach of PECR.


16.  Valca are a company specialising in lead generation for financial
     products. They currently operate as 'Debtquitto generate leads for



                                    5                                                              •

                                                             ICO.
                                                             Information Commissioner's Office

     Individual Voluntary Agreements ("IVA's") and other debt management
      products.


17.  Valca came to the attention of the Commissioner after an initial 22
     complaints were received via the 7726 complaints tool about

      unsolicited text messages between 15 June 2020 and 23 June 2020.
     These text messages contained, or contained slight variations of, the

     following text:


      "*firstname*Affected by Covid? Struggling with finances? lost job
     /furloughed? Were here to help! Gvnmnt backed support see if you

     qualify http ://www.debtquity.org"


18.  It was noted that these texts did not offer individuals an ability to 'opt­

     out' of future unsolicited text messages.


19.  An initial investigatiletter was sent to Valca on 24 June 2020,
      highlighting the Commissioner's concerns with Valca's PECRcompliance

     and requesting informationrelating to the volumes of texts sent, the
     source of data used to send said texts, details of any due diligence

      undertaken, together with questions regarding the lack of an opt-out in

     the text messages for which there had been complaints.An appendix
     detailing the complaints received was also sent to Valca.


20.  The director of Valca provided a partial response on 24 June 2020
     stating that "all data we use is fully compliant and purchased from

     credible UK data suppliers that we carried out full due diligence against

     prior to point of supply, in relation to not listing an opt out on said SMS
     messages this is down to human error and has been amended now for

     future broadcasts, we are happy to send out an opt out message to the
     complaints made to date which is a total of 23 from a one of broadcast

     of 30. 000 lines of opted in data. We only commenced the sms

                                    6                                                                •

                                                               ICO.
                                                               Information Commissioner's Office
                         th
      campaign on the 15   June 2020 so we have nipped this in the bud
      extremely early" [sic].


21.   The Commissioner, on 25 June 2020, advised Valca not to contact the

      complainants again, but to add them to a suppression list, and asked
      that Valca respond to all of the initial questions asked by the

      Commissioner in full.

22.   A further substantive response was provided by Valca on 7 July 2020.

      This response advised that two platforms were used to send Valca's

      direct marketing messages: _,and_,                 with reports being
      provided to show the volumes of messages sent via those platforms.


23.   Valca confirmed that its data was purchased from a third party: •

                  Limited (the "third-partydata provider"), and that
      regarding its due diligence with the third-padata provider, it

     "matched our campaign and Company requirements      against fully opted
      in data, due diligence wise we run various checks on any Company that

      we consider using from the ICO MOJ and other governing bodies to

      ensure that there are no outstanding concerns relating to them as a
      potential supplier, we also look at financials, recommendatiofrom

      other Companies within this arena and finally check out any online
      listings for any bad press".


24.   In terms of evidencing how consent is obtained by the third-partdata

      provider for Valca to engage in direct marketing, Valca advised that it
      is "on privacy policy and other privacy policies allow for third party

      marketing also" [sic].


25.   The Commissioner directed further enquiries to Valca on 8 July 2020,
      requesting information as to the data purchased, and the agreement

      with the third-partdata provider. An updated complaints spreadsheet


                                     7                                                              •

                                                              ICO.
                                                              Information Commissioner's Office

      was provided to Valca, showing that there had now been a total of 68
      complaints recognised in relation to its text messages.


26.  Valca provided a further response on 17 July 2020 stating that it had
      purchased 100,000 records from the third-partydata provider which

      were "fully opted in for SMS". Valca was unable to produce a contract
      as it had been a "trial order" but did produce an invoice between itself

      and its third-pardata provider dated 16 March 2020 confirming the

      purchase of 100,000 leads, and payment for a 'privacy policy edit' to
                      '. Valca produced updated 'outbound SMS' reports for

      its-and       -         platforms, although it noted that_
      had been used for just one day. Valca also produced a document as

      purported evidence of consent for the initial 22 complaints, with each

     of the 22 complainant's data having been obtained through



27.                   requires users to register with it to use its services
     and operates by offering 'deals'. At the point of registrausers

     agree to a consent statement where they are able to select whether

     they wish to be contacted by email, SMS, post, and/or telephone,
     together with a further option to agree to being contacted by 'the

     following partners' using the agreed methods.The 'Partners' link takes
      users to a 'brands page' which lists 16 distinct companies, none of

      which are Valca. There appears to be no option for users to

      select/deselect partners.

28.   Upon viewing                   Privacy Policy, users are told:


      "Once you register with the our website you consent to
     its sponsor question clients and website sponsors being able to send

     you communications   via the channel(s) you selected as part of the sign



                                    8                                                               •

                                                              ICO.
                                                               Information Commissioner's Office

      up until such time as you exercise your right to opt-out of receiving
      such communications"


29.   The Privacy Policy proceeds to provide two further lists of companies: a
     'marketing  service providers' list containing 7 distinct companies, and a

      list of 'direct clients' containing 443 distinct companies. The Privacy
      Policy's 'Data Collection Notice' advises that             and its

      partners operate in over 40 areas, spanning a wide range of sectors

      including fashion, automotivegambling, construction,legal services
      etc. The Commissioner noted that Valca were not visible at all as of

      checks carried out on the website's privacy policy separately on 22
      June 2020 but were visible as one of the 443 'direct clients' on 21 July

      2020. The precise date on which Valca became visible is not known.


30.   On 22 July 2020 the Commissioner served a third-party Information

      Notice ("3PIN") on -                      -       to establish, inter
      alia, the number of connected messages sent by Valca between 1 June

      2020 and 20 July 2020.


31.  The response to the 3PIN advised that there had been 104,550
      messages sent by Valca between 15 June 2020 and 20 July 2020, of

      which 95,004 were delivered to a subscriber.

32.  The 3PIN also provided details of the content for each of the messages

      sent, of which a trend could be identified that none of the messages

      sent contained an opt-out link until 25 June 2020 - the first day
      following the Commissioner's initial investigatletter.It can

      therefore be determined that between 15 June 2020 and 24 June 2020
      there were 24,995 text messages sent without an opt-out link, of which

      18,393 were delivered.




                                     9                                                              •

                                                             ICO.
                                                             Information Commissioner 's Office

33.  The Commissioner is aware, from information provided by Valca on 7
     July 2020, of a further 2,025 text messages being sent by Valca over

     the period of contraventionusing the -       platform, although this
      platform was used for just one day, and the number of received

      messages is unknown and is unlikely to be obtainable.


34.  As of 20 July 2020, the Commissioner was able to identify a total of
      114 complaints concerning Valca's unsolicited direct marketing text

      messages over the relevant period.

35.  An 'end of investigationletter was sent to Valca on 21 July 2020.


36.  The Commissioner has since identified that between 21 July 2020 and

      13 November 2020 there were a further 165 complaints made about
     Valca via the 7726 service.


37.  The Commissioner has made the above findings of fact on the

      balance of probabilities.


38.  The Commissioner has considered whether those facts constitute

      a contraventionof regulations 22 and 23 of PECRby Valca and, if so,
      whether the conditions of section SSA DPA are satisfied.


     The contravention



39.  The Commissioner finds that Valca contravened regulations 22 and 23
      of PECR.


40.  The Commissioner finds that the contraventionwas as follows:


41.  The Commissioner finds that between 15 June 2020 and 20 July 2020

     there were 95,004 unsolicited direct marketing text messages received

                                    10                                                              •

                                                             ICO.
                                                             Information Commissioner's Office

      by subscribers.This resulted in a total of 114 complaints being
      received via the 7726 service. The Commissioner finds that Valca

     transmitted the direct marketing messages received, contrary to
      regulation 22 of PECR.


42.  The Commissioner is satisfied that the contraventicould have been
      higher, with a total of 104,550 unsolicited text messages being sent

      over the relevant time using the-platform,     and a further 2,025

      being sent using -·

43.   Of the messages known to have been received, 18,393 (i.e., all of

     those received before 25 June 2020) did not contain an opt-out link,
      contrary to the requirements of regulation 23 PECR.


44.  Valca, as the sender of the direct marketing, is required to ensure that

      it is acting in compliance with the requirements of regulation 22 of
      PECR,and to ensure that valid consent to send those messages had

      been acquired.


45.  Valca relied on consent obtained by another organisation for its own

      purposes, i.e., 'indirect conseThe Commissioner's direct marketing
      guidance says "organisationneed to be aware that indirect consent

     will not be enough for texts, emails or automated calls. This is because
     the rules on electronic marketing are stricter, to reflect the more

      intrusive nature of electronic messages."


46.  It goes on to say that indirect consent can be valid but only if it is clear
      and specific enough. Moreover, "the customer must have anticipated

     that their details would be passed to the organisation in question, and
     that they were consenting to messages from that organisation. This will

      depend on what exactly they were told when consent was obtained".



                                    11                                                               •

                                                              ICO.
                                                               Information Commissioner's Office

47.   Consent will not be "informedif individuals do not understand what
      they are consenting to. Organisations should therefore always ensure

      that the language used is clear, easy to understand, and not hidden
      away in a privacy policy or small prinThe Commissioner is concerned

      that at the point of consent being obtained, subscribers are asked to

      tick a box which gives a misleading impression that only a limited
      number of 16 organisations may contact them (duly named within the

      'partners' link on the registration pagHowever, it is only if

      subscribers drill down into the separate privacy policy that they are
      advised that any one of 450 companies may in fact contact them, none

      of which the subscriber has any ability to refuse contact from.

48.   It is the Commissioner's position that consent will not be valid if

      individuals are asked to agree to receive marketing from "similar

      organisations", "partners""selected third parties" or other similar
      generic description.Further, and relevantly, consent will not be valid

      where an individual is presented with a long, seemingly exhaustive list
      of general categories of organisations. The Commissioner finds that

      450 organisations, concerning 40 sectors, is far too exhaustive a list to

      enable individuals to give valid consent.

49.   During the course of the investigatioValca provided an invoice dated

      16 March 2020 between it and its third-partdata provider to

      demonstrate that it had paid to be added to the privacy policy for
                      , the website from which its third-pardata provider

      obtained data. The date on which Valca were added to the privacy
      policy is unclear, however the Commissioner has evidence that it was

      not listed as a 'direct client', or apparently at all on

      by 22 June 2020, by which point Valca had already sent 16,759
      unsolicited text messages using data obtained from that site. In any

      event, even after Valca had been added to the privacy policy, the


                                    12                                                             •

                                                            ICO.
                                                             Information Commissioner 's Office
     Commissioner has concerns that any consents relied on by Valca

     cannot be said to be valid.


50.  There is nothing immediately in the consent statement at registration
     that would inform an individual that by agreeing to the privacy policy

     and terms and conditions, they are in fact agreeing for their data to be
     passed to 450 companies spanning 40 various sectors. Whilst there is a

     third-partyconsent opt-in box, this only lists 16 companies at the point
     of consent and gives individuals no indication that for a more

     comprehensive list they will need to consult the privacy policy. This
     cannot constitute informed consent.



51.  The Commissioner is therefore satisfied from the evidence she has
     seen that Valca did not have the necessary valid consent to send the

     95,004 unsolicited direct marketing messages received by subscribers.
     This constitutes a contraventioof regulation 22 PECR.


52.  The Commissioner is also concerned that 18,393 of those received
     messages (i.e., all of those received before the Commissioner's initial

     investigation letter) did not contain an opt-out link. As such, the

     Commissioner is satisfied that the actions of Valca in respect of these
      18,393 messages have also contravened regulation 23 PECR.


53.  The Commissioner has gone on to consider whether the conditions

     under section SSA DPA are met.


     Seriousness of the contravention


54.  The Commissioner is satisfied that the contraventiidentified

     above was serious. This is because between 15 June 2020 and 20 July
     2020 a total of 95,004 connected unsolicited direct marketing

     messages were received by subscribers, resulting in 114 complaints.
                                   13                                                             •

                                                            ICO.
                                                             Information Commissioner 's Office


55.  Valca has failed to provide any evidence of valid consent for any of the

     95,004 unsolicited direct marketing messages received by subscribers.

56.  In addition, the Commissioner is concerned by the content of the

     unsolicited text messages which reference the Covid-19 pandemic and
     appeal to individuals whose finances have been adversely affected.

     This, in the Commissioner's view, is a clear attempt to capitalise on,
     and profiteer from, the national health crisis.


57.  The Commissioner is therefore satisfied that condition (a) from

     section 55A(l) DPA is met.


     Deliberate  or negligent contraventions


58.  The Commissioner has considered whether the contravention identified

     above was deliberate.


59.  The Commissioner considers that Valca deliberately set out to
     contravene PECRin this instance. The data relied on by Valca was not

     validly opted-in, and beyond paying a small sum for its inclusion on a
     privacy policy there is no indication that they sought to undertake any

     additional steps to ensure protection of individuals' privacy rights, i.e.,

     by observing the 'customer journey'doing so would likely have raised
     concerns with Valca regarding its reliance on the data being obtained.

     It is also concerning that Valca continued to send its unsolicited direct
     marketing text messages (albeit with an opt-out link) even following

     the Commissioner's initial investigation correspondence which
     highlighted real concerns with the organisation's compliance with PECR.





                                   14                                                              •

                                                              ICO.
                                                              Information Commissioner's Office

60.   Further, and in any event, the Commissioner has gone on to consider
      whether the contraventionidentified above was negligent. This

      consideration comprises two elements:


61.   Firstly, she has considered whether Valca knew or ought reasonably to
      have known that there was a risk that these contraventionwould

      occur. She is satisfied that this condition is met, not least since the

      issue of unsolicited text messages have been widely publicised by the
      media as being a problem.


62.  The Commissioner has published detailed guidance for those carrying

      out direct marketing explaining their legal obligations under PECR.
     This guidance gives clear advice regarding the requirements of consent

      for direct marketing and explains the circumstances under which

      organisations are able to carry out marketing over the phone, by text,
      by email, by post, or by fax. In particular it states that organisations

      can generally only send, or instigate, marketing messages to
      individuals if that person has specifically consented to receiving them.

     The guidance is also clear about the significant risks of relying on

      indirect consent, as Valca did in this instance.

63.  The Commissioner also notes that the company's sole director, in a

      self-writtebiography on f6s.com, describes himself as a 'serial
      entrepreneur with vast experience in sales and marketing'.


64.   It is therefore reasonable to suppose that Valca should have been
      aware of its responsibilities in this area.


65.   Secondly, the Commissioner has gone on to consider whether Valca

      failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the contraventioAgain,
      she is satisfied that this condition is met.



                                    15                                                                •

                                                                ICO.
                                                                Information Commissioner's Office

66.   Valca used a bought-in list of data and relied on indirect consent for its
      unsolicited direct marketing messages.It claimed during the

      investigation that it had carried out "full due diligence", however the
      Commissioner has seen little evidence of this in ensuring the veracity

      of the data being purchased aside from the production of an invoice to

      show that Valca were to be added to the privacy policy of
                       on an unknown date (which was, in any event,

      evidently not before 22 June 2020).


67.   Whilst Valca advised in the course of the investigation that "due
      diligence wise we run various checks on any Company that we consider

      using from the ICO MOJ and other governing bodies to ensure that
      there are no outstanding concerns relating to them as a potential

      supplier, we also look at financials, recommendationsfrom other

      Companies within this arena and finally check out any online listings for
      any bad press" [sic], such checks do nothing to ensure that the data

      being obtained by Valca is compliant for its own marketing purposes.

68.   Such reasonable steps which the Commissioner might expect in these

      circumstances could have included ensuring a comprehensive contract

      was in place with the third-partdata provider for the provision of the
      data to be relied upon, to ensure its reliability and valiItwould

      also have been reasonable for Valca to carry out its own checks as to
      how consent was being obtained via the                   site,

      notwithstanding any assurances by its third-partydata provider - such

      checks would have alerted Valca to the inadequacy of the consents
      being obtained via this site for the purposes of third-padirect

      marketing.  In short, simple reliance on assurances of indirect consent

      alone without undertaking proper due diligence is not acceptable.

69.   In the circumstances, the Commissioner is satisfied that Valca failed to

      take reasonable steps to prevent the contraventions.

                                     16                                                                •

                                                                ICO.
                                                                Information Commissioner 's Office


70.   The Commissioner is therefore satisfied that condition (b) from section

      SSA (1) DPA is met.


      The Commissioner's    decision to issue a monetary    penalty


71.  The Commissioner has also taken into account the following

      aggravating  features  of this case:


   •  Valca failed to include an opt-out  in its unsolicitedirect marketing

      messages up until the Commissioner's     initiainvestigation letter,in
      direct contraventionof regulation 23 PECR;


   •  Thereafter, despite being under   investigation by the Commissioner

      where concerns were raised regarding its PECRcompliance, and where
      it was notified that a number of complaints had already been received,

      Valca continued to send unsolicited messages to its data set during the
      period of contravention;



72.   For the reasons explained above, the Commissioner is satisfied that the
      conditions from section SSA (1) DPA have been met in this case. She is

      also satisfied that the procedural rights under section SSB have been
      complied with.



73.   The latter has included the issuing of a Notice of Intent, in which the
      Commissioner set out her preliminary thinking. In reaching her final

      view, the Commissioner has taken into account the representations

      made by Valca on this matter.


74.   The Commissioner is accordingly entitled to issue a monetary penalty
      in this case.


                                     17                                                            •

                                                            ICO.
                                                            Information Commissioner 's Office


75.  The Commissioner has considered whether, in the circumstances, she

     should exercise her discretion so as to issue a monetary penalty.

76.  The Commissioner has considered the financial representatiomade,

     and the likely impact of a monetary penalty on Valca. She has decided
     on the information that is available to her, that a monetary penalty in

     the figure proposed remains an appropriate and proportionaresponse
     to the contravention.


77.  The Commissioner's underlying objective in imposing a monetary

     penalty notice is to promote compliance with PECR.The sending of

     unsolicited marketing text messages is a matter of significant public
     concern. A monetary penalty in this case should act as a general

     encouragement towards compliance with the law, or at least as a
     deterrent against non-compliance,on the part of all persons running

     businesses currently engaging in these practices. The issuing of a
     monetary penalty will reinforce the need for businesses to ensure that

     they are only messaging those who specifically consent to receive
     marketing.


78.  For these reasons, the Commissioner has decided to issue a monetary

     penalty in this case.


     The amount of the penalty

79.  Taking into account all of the above, the Commissioner has decided

     that a penalty in the sum of £80,000(eighty thousand pounds) is
     reasonable and proportionategiven the particular facts of the case and

     the underlying objective in imposing the penalty.




                                   18                                                             •

                                                            ICO.
                                                             Information Commissioner 's Office
     Conclusion



80.  The monetary penalty must be paid to the Commissioner's office by
     BACS transfer or cheque by 23 March 2021 at the latest. The

     monetary penalty is not kept by the Commissioner but will be paid into
     the Consolidated Fund which is the Government's general bank account

     at the Bank of England.


81.  If the Commissioner receives full payment of the monetary penalty by
     22 March 2021 the Commissioner will reduce the monetary penalty

     by 20% to £64,000   (sixty-four thousand pounds).   However, you

     should be aware that the early payment discount is not available if you
     decide to exercise your right of appeal.


82.  There is a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (InforRights)

     against:


     (a) the imposition of the monetary penalty

         and/or;
     (b) the amount of the penalty specified in the monetary penalty

         notice.


83.  Any notice of appeal should be received by the Tribunal within 28 days
     of the date of this monetary penalty notice.


84.  Information about appeals is set out in Annex 1.



85.  The Commissioner will not take action to enforce a monetary penalty
     unless:




                                   19                                                          •

                                                          ICO.
                                                          Information Commissioner's Office
        • the period specified within the notice within which a monetary

          penalty must be paid has expired and all or any of the monetary
          penalty has not been paid;


        • all relevant appeals against the monetary penalty notice and any
          variation of it have either been decided or withdandn;

        • the period for appealing against the monetary penalty and any

          variation of it has expired.

86.  In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the monetary penalty is

     recoverable by Order of the County Court or the High Court. In
     Scotland, the monetary penalty can be enforced in the same manner as

     an extract registered decree arbitral bearing a warrant for execution
     issued by the sheriff court of any sheriffdom in Scotland.


Dated the 18tday of February 2021


Andy Curry
Head of Investigations
InformationCommissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 SAF















                                 20                                                           •

                                                           ICO.
                                                           Information Commissioner's Office

ANNEX 1


        SECTION  55 A-E OF THE DATA PROTECTION      ACT 1998


  RIGHTS  OF APPEAL AGAINST     DECISIONS   OF THE COMMISSIONER


     1.    Section 55B(S) of the Data Protection Act 1998 gives any person

     upon whom a monetary penalty notice has been served a right of

     appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (InformRights) (the 'Tribunal')
     against the notice.


     2.    If you decide to appeal and if the Tribunal considers:-



           a)   that the notice against which the appeal is brought is not in
           accordance with the law; or


           b)   to the extent that the notice involved an exercise of

           discretion by the Commissioner, that she ought to have exercised

           her discretion differently,


     the Tribunal will allow the appeal or substitute such other decision as
     could have been made by the Commissioner. In any other case the

     Tribunal will dismiss the appeal.


     3.    You may bring an appeal by serving a notice of appeal on the

     Tribunal at the following address:


                General Regulatory Chamber

                HM Courts &Tribunals Service
                PO Box 9300

                Leicester

                                  21                                                         •

                                                         ICO.
                                                         Information Commissioner's Office
           LEl 8DJ



      Telephone: 0300 123 4504
      Email:     grc@justice.gov.uk


      a)   The notice of appeal should be sent so it is received by the

      Tribunal within 28 days of the date of the notice.


      b)   If your notice of appeal is late the Tribunal will not admit it
      unless the Tribunal has extended the time for complying with this

      rule.


4.    The notice of appeal should state:-


      a)   your name and address/name and address of your

      representative(if any);


      b)    an address where documents may be sent or delivered to
      you;



      c)    the name and address of the Information Commissioner;


      d)   details of the decision to which the proceedings relate;


      e)   the result that you are seeking;


      f)   the grounds on which you rely;


      g)   you must provide with the notice of appeal a copy of the

      monetary penalty notice or variation notice;


                               22                                                     •

                                                    ICO.
                                                    Information Commissioner's Office
     h)    if you have exceeded the time limit mentioned above the
     notice of appeal must include a request for an extension of time

     and the reason why the notice of appeal was not provided in
     time.


5.   Before deciding whether or not to appeal you may wish to consult

your solicitor or another adviser. At the hearing of an appeal a party
may conduct his case himself or may be represented by any person

whom he may appoint for that purpose.

6.   The statutory provisions concerning appeals to the First-tier

Tribunal (InformatiRights) are contained in section 55B(S) of, and
Schedule 6 to, the Data Protection Act 1998, and Tribunal Procedure

(First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009
(StatutoryInstrument2009 No. 1976 (L.20)).

























                            23