Call-Blocking Firm Receives Massive Fine For Making Nuisance Calls
A company selling technology designed to stop nuisance calls has been fined £190,000 after the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) found that it had itself made more than 758,000 unlawful marketing calls, many of them to elderly and potentially vulnerable people.
What Did Elderly Aids Do?
Cardiff-based Elderly Aids Ltd promoted call-blocking devices and related services, but an ICO investigation found that between 27 May 2024 and 10 February 2025 it made 758,053 unsolicited direct marketing calls to numbers registered with the Telephone Preference Service (TPS) or Corporate Telephone Preference Service (CTPS).
The TPS allows people to register their telephone numbers to indicate that they don’t want unsolicited live marketing calls. Businesses generally mustn’t call numbers on the register unless the individual has specifically told that particular organisation that they are willing to receive its marketing calls.
In this case, the scale of the activity was substantial, with the ICO finding that Elderly Aids made a whopping 1.86 million outbound calls during the wider period it examined, of which 758,053 went to numbers that had been registered with the TPS for more than 28 days. The regulator found no evidence that those people had given Elderly Aids valid permission to contact them.
Why Was The Case So Serious?
The irony of a business selling call-blocking services through nuisance calls is only part of the story, because complaints received by the ICO and TPS also raised concerns about how some of those calls were conducted.
The regulator said complainants described callers as aggressive or misleading and reported instances where the company failed to identify itself properly. One complaint involved an elderly man being persuaded to pay £139 upfront and £6.99 per month for a call-blocking service.
Andy Curry, Head of Investigations at the ICO, said: “Not only did this company target vulnerable people who had explicitly asked not to be called – they harassed them to sell call-blocking devices.”
He added: “EAL showed a complete disregard for the law and the people they were hounding.”
What Rules Did The Company Break?
The ICO concluded that Elderly Aids breached Regulations 21 and 24 of the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003, better known as PECR.
Regulation 21 restricts unsolicited live marketing calls to people whose numbers are registered with the TPS or CTPS, unless those individuals have specifically indicated that they do not object to receiving calls from that company. The ICO also found that Elderly Aids had failed to meet caller-identification requirements under Regulation 24.
Importantly, a general agreement to receive marketing is not necessarily enough. The ICO’s penalty notice explains that permission must show a clear willingness to receive telephone marketing and must relate specifically to the organisation making the calls, rather than vague categories such as partners or selected third parties.
The Investigation Made Matters Worse
The size of the fine also reflects what happened after the ICO began investigating, with Elderly Aids repeatedly failing to provide substantive responses to requests for information while continuing to make unsolicited marketing calls.
The regulator also discovered that the company had applied to be voluntarily struck off the Companies House register after becoming aware of the investigation, prompting the ICO to lodge an objection. The penalty notice lists this, together with the company’s lack of engagement, aggressive and misleading calls and continued marketing activity, as aggravating factors, while recording no mitigating factors.
The ICO ultimately concluded that Elderly Aids should reasonably have known about its responsibilities and had failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the breaches. It described the £190,000 penalty as “reasonable and proportionate” given the circumstances and the wider objective of encouraging compliance with PECR.
More Than Just A Fine
Alongside the financial penalty, the ICO issued an enforcement notice ordering Elderly Aids to stop making unlawful marketing calls and comply with the rules requiring callers to identify themselves properly.
The regulator has also made clear that companies cannot simply ignore financial penalties, with unpaid fines potentially leading to formal recovery action. The monetary penalty notice itself gives Elderly Aids the right to appeal, while also setting out mechanisms through which unpaid penalties can ultimately be recovered through the courts.
What Does This Mean For Your Business?
For any business using telephone marketing, the case is a reminder that TPS and CTPS screening should be built into the campaign process before calls are made, rather than treated as something to check only after complaints arrive.
Organisations should also keep clear records showing where contact data came from, what permission was obtained, whether that permission specifically covered telephone calls and whether it applied to the organisation actually making them. Also, calling teams should be trained to identify themselves properly, and internal suppression lists should ensure that people who object to marketing are not contacted again.
The wider point here is that direct-marketing rules are operational requirements rather than administrative formalities. As the ICO puts it, unsolicited marketing calls are “a matter of significant public concern”, and businesses that ignore clearly expressed privacy preferences risk not only financial penalties but considerable damage to customer trust.
