The Information Commissioner’s Office has fined Elderly Aids Limited £190,000 for making nearly 760,000 nuisance cold calls to TPS-registered numbers between May 2024 and February 2025, promoting call-blocking devices.

The ICO found 758,053 unsolicited direct marketing calls were made during that period, despite complaints and efforts to halt the activity, with around 20 complaints recorded with the ICO and the TPS.

The calls averaged about 2,916 per day, targeting numbers on the Telephone Preference Service list without consent.

The ICO notes that payment plans may be offered for fines in cases of genuine financial hardship, while other recovery actions may follow if organizations try to dodge payments through insolvency.

ICO official Andy Curry stated the company exploited vulnerable individuals and that the penalty serves as a warning that the law applies to all businesses.

Industry voices, including the Data & Marketing Association, stressed the need to respect TPS opt-outs and warned that ignoring privacy preferences damages trust, especially among vulnerable people.

The ICO criticized EAL for continuing calls during investigation, ignoring information requests, and attempting to strike itself off the Companies House register to avoid scrutiny.

The enforcement requires EAL to cease illegal marketing calls and comply with caller identification and TPS/privacy rules, as calls to TPS-listed numbers without explicit consent are illegal.

All the calls were to individuals on the TPS list who had not consented to contact, underscoring the breach of direct marketing laws and opt-out protections.

Complainants described aggressive and misleading tactics, including failures to identify themselves and at least one case of an upfront £139 sign-up fee plus £6.99 monthly charges for a call-blocker service.

The ICO action follows broader enforcement waves against nuisance marketing, including recent raids on firms behind large volumes of motor finance texts, signaling intensified scrutiny of aggressive marketing practices.

Regulators highlighted that EAL targeted vulnerable individuals who had explicitly opted out, indicating a pattern of disregard for consent and regulatory requests.