Call-blocking firm fined after making 758,053 nuisance calls

A company that sells protection from nuisance calls has been fined for making hundreds of thousands of nuisance calls of its own. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) said Elderly Aids Ltd made 758,053 cold calls between May 2024 and February 2025 while attempting to sell call-blocking devices. The calls were made to people whose numbers were registered with the Telephone Preference Service, which is intended to prevent unsolicited marketing calls. Around 20 complaints about the company were submitted to the ICO and the Telephone Preference Service. According to the complaints, some callers were aggressive or misleading and often did not identify themselves. One person said their father had been persuaded to pay £139 upfront, followed by a monthly charge of £6.99, for a call-blocking service the complainant said the company was not authorised to sell. The ICO said the company targeted people who had specifically asked not to receive marketing calls. It also said Elderly Aids Ltd continued making cold calls after the regulator began investigating and repeatedly failed to respond to requests for information. The company attempted to strike itself off the Companies House register after learning it was under scrutiny, the ICO said. It is now registered at a default address. Alongside the £190,000 penalty, the ICO ordered Elderly Aids Ltd to stop making illegal marketing calls. Under the rules described by the regulator, companies cannot make live marketing calls to people registered with the Telephone Preference Service unless those individuals have separately agreed to receive calls from that specific company. Russell Roach of the Data & Marketing Association said businesses must respect people’s privacy choices, particularly when contacting vulnerable individuals. He said ignoring opt-out preferences could cause nuisance and distress and damage consumer trust. If the fine is not paid, the ICO said it may take further steps to recover the money, including seeking to disqualify the company’s directors.