Data protection scofflaws failed to pay £2m in fines from UK watchdog – and 68% of penalties are still outstanding
- Reference: 1604578508
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/11/05/ico_fines_unpaid_research/
- Source link:
Between January 2019 and August 2020, the ICO issued a total of £3.2m in monetary penalty notices but just £1.03m has been paid, according to research from SMS API biz The SMS Works.
"The ICO continues to struggle to effectively collect the fines that they issue," sighed The SMS Works co-founder and director Henry Cazalet in a [1]blog post about the regulator's woes. "Companies are still finding ways to wriggle out of their responsibilities." He also asserted that 68 per cent of the total sum issued in fines had not been paid on time.
When measured as a percentage of the fine amount, nuisance-call operators were the least likely to have paid their fines, with The SMS Works finding that just 13 per cent of penalties handed to such firms had been paid.
The figure follows similar research from 2019, [2]where, £7m in fines was outstanding from the previous four year. Since then some have been collected while later penalties remain due.
An ICO spokeswoman conceded that enforcement of fines against nuisance-call firms was proving difficult, telling The Register : "Many nuisance-call companies fined under the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations go into liquidation. While in some respects, a firm going into liquidation marks a frustrating end to our investigations, it's worth noting that when nuisance-call companies go out of business, they stop making calls. And that's a successful outcome."
She added: "Since January 2019, nine fines have been paid, seven fines are in the process of being recovered and five are under appeal. Over the same period 16 directors have been disqualified for 94 years and a sole trader also signed a Bankruptcy Restriction Undertaking for six years in connection with ICO fines."
Otherwise, the data obtained by The SMS Works showed that the introduction of GDPR had led to fines declining: there were 89 fines handed out in 2017-18, compared to the post-GDPR period of 2019-20 where only 29 were handed out. For the early part of 2020 the ICO shut down because of the COVID-19 pandemic, though the regulator is now operating again.
ICO monetary penalty notices normally state that the fine is payable within one month of hand-down, though companies can appeal against them to the First-Tier Tribunal's General Regulatory Chamber. Nonetheless, some companies take fine evasion to extremes: nuisance caller IT Protect Ltd [3]simply ignored its ICO fine and not only carried on trading until the regulator secured a winding-up order but even funnelled tens of thousands of pounds to its director and his family.
"The ICO's Financial Recovery Unit seeks to recover assets from all companies avoiding fines; this can involve serving statutory demands; obtaining orders for recovery from the courts; and petitioning for the winding up of companies or bankruptcy of individuals," concluded the regulator's spokeswoman. "We actively exercise our rights as a creditor, including nominating insolvency practitioners whose investigations can result in personal claims against directors. We also work closely with the Insolvency Service in these cases, to support action to disqualify the worst offenders from running companies in the future."
That may be so, but for now some offenders are continuing to stick two fingers up at the ICO. ®
Get our [4]Tech Resources
[1] https://thesmsworks.co.uk/ico-fines-crisis-deepens
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2019/11/25/ico_7m_in_fines_uncollected/
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2020/09/29/ico_it_protect_fine_enforcement/
[4] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: So why not...
Those corporate entities will just respawn as another "brass plaque" enterprise with no assets, to do exactly the same again. Hit the board with the fines, even it just bans them from holding another position until it's paid.
Re: So why not...
There is literally a recent law that allows the ICO in particular to do exactly that - chase the former company directors as a personal liability.
They just don't use the damn thing.
Re: So why not...
"So why not start fining the controlling persons rather than the corporate entity itself?"
Exactly the sort of thing I tried to get the Minister to accept twenty years ago as a possible way of preventing the typical scenario where a limited company goes bust owing me money, and then starts up as a new company the following day in the same premises with the same people and the same stock - much of which I had supplied and never got paid for.
The Minister was not persuaded. Apparently I did not "assist my case" by claiming that this sort of thing goes on all the time, providing evidence only from about a dozen companies who had done it to me in the past couple of years.
Anyway, after a long and fruitless correspondence the Minister was sent to prison for perjury.
Yes, that Minister.
It was more or less at that point that I gave up on the whole fucking lot of them.
Send in the Bailiffs
then sue the directors. Put them on the banned list.
It seems that the ICO says 'Job Done' when they get issue the fines. They really need to be more agressive in chasing up the scumbags.
Good luck getting the scumbags to pay
Every week or so I get a call to my mobile with "I understand you were involved in an accident that wasn't your fault. Is that right?". Previously I've either played along to wind them up or just told them to go f**k themselves. I note that if you continue there is a delay of a few seconds then you find yourself talking to someone in an Indian call centre. No chance of stopping or fining them. Different number every time. As I do get some legitimate calls from unknown numbers, I can't really block all unknown numbers.
Interestingly, after the last such call, the penny dropped that the pleasant sounding woman making the initial call with an English accent is really a bot. Her question is loaded to get a yes or no reply. Until now I've just told them to go f**k themselves and hung up, but it is clearly wasted on a bot. So the correct response is to say "Yes, that's right" and when she says "Can you tell me a little bit more about the accident" the bot is probably looking for keywords related to an accident. So I plan to test this theory on the next call by saying "I was driving to work last Saturday and stopped at a junction when the traffic lights turned red and I was hit from behind by a speeding elephant". If the call then gets transferred to an Indian call centre it will confirm the initial conversation is with a bot. Then I can proceed as normal and question the man in the call centre about his sexual deviant habits.
"it's worth noting that when nuisance-call companies go out of business, they stop making calls. And that's a successful outcome."
Except they phoenix and carry on
fucking jobsworths
Freeze 'em
Why not give the ICO the power to freeze the company bank accounts and put a lien on all property at the time the judgement is handed down? Even better, when the court case is started, add a lien on all property and bank accounts to prevent disposal of assets afterwards.
It's a bit draconian but we could also look at giving the directors criminal records and putting personal CCJ's against the Directors or owners.
Unless more real power is given to the ICO then it is just a waste of time and (our) money.
Scofflaws have failed to pay nearly £2m in fines
They should apply for covid discount, and keep re-applying, until the fine's reduced to near zero.
Really?
"it's worth noting that when nuisance-call companies go out of business, they stop making calls. And that's a successful outcome."
They don't set up another company to do exactly the same thing?
ICO is a useless quango and should be shutdown and a replacement with a enforcement agency with teeth and deadline set in stone for payment of fines and more. Time scum companies start taking privacy for real.
So why not...
So why not start fining the controlling persons rather than the corporate entity itself?