“Not only did this company target vulnerable people who had explicitly asked not to be called – they harassed them to sell call‑blocking devices,” Andy Curry, head of investigations at the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), said. “EAL showed a complete disregard for the law and the people they were hounding. This penalty should serve as a clear warning to any business that thinks the law does not apply to them - we will hold them to account for both exploiting people in this way and trying to avoid accountability.”
Elderly Aids Ltd: 758,053 unsolicited calls to TPS numbers
The company named in the ICO’s action, Elderly Aids Ltd (EAL), made 758,053 unsolicited direct marketing calls between May 27, 2024, and February 10, 2025. That total averages 2,916 calls per day over the recorded period. The ICO and the Telephone Preference Service (TPS) received 20 complaints tied to those calls.
According to the regulator, every one of the 758,053 calls was made to numbers registered with the TPS and to people who had not given Elderly Aids consent to contact them. Complainants reported aggressive and misleading sales tactics, callers failing to identify themselves, and at least one case where a caller pressured a son’s father into signing up for services that required a £139 ($188) sign‑up fee and a recurring monthly payment of £6.99 ($9.50).
ICO enforcement: a £190,000 penalty and refusal to engage
The ICO imposed a £190,000 ($258,000) fine on Elderly Aids Ltd for making the illegal marketing calls. The regulator said the company failed to engage with investigators, ignoring requests for information while continuing to place illegal marketing calls. The ICO framed the penalty as an accountability measure aimed at businesses that exploit people and try to avoid regulatory scrutiny.
The cyber insurance questionnaire just landed. Now what?
SOC 2, HIPAA, insurance renewals - someone has to own security strategy. Nubivance provides fractional CISO leadership without the full-time salary.
Get a security leadTelephone Preference Service and the Data & Marketing Association response
The TPS exists to allow people to opt out of unsolicited marketing calls; it is illegal for direct marketers to call a TPS‑registered number unless the individual has explicitly consented to be contacted by that specific company. Russell Roach, director of preference services at the Data & Marketing Association (DMA), urged responsible businesses to screen calling lists against TPS and Corporate TPS (CTPS) registers and to respect people’s choices about privacy.
Roach said cases like this demonstrate why those protections matter, warning that contacting people who have explicitly opted out — particularly vulnerable individuals — undermines consumer trust and risks causing significant nuisance and distress.
Companies House filings, strike‑off attempt, and recovery options
Public Companies House filings show Elderly Aids attempted to strike itself off the register three months after it began the call campaign; that strike‑off was suspended following an objection. The ICO noted mechanisms it uses when collecting fines: payment plans are available for debtors in “genuine financial hardship,” and organizations that can pay do not face formal recovery action. When directors try to skirt fines via insolvency, the ICO said insolvency practitioners can be called in, potentially initiating a multi‑year recovery process.
What this means for the ICO, the DMA, and affected consumers
- ICO: The regulator has demonstrated active enforcement of TPS protections by levying a significant fine and signalling it will pursue accountability even when companies refuse to cooperate. The ICO can offer payment plans or pursue recovery via insolvency practitioners where directors seek to avoid fines.
- DMA: The DMA’s preference‑services director reinforced industry obligations to screen calling lists against TPS and CTPS registers, pressing lawful marketing practice as a means to protect consumer trust and avoid regulatory action.
- Affected consumers: The record shows older and potentially vulnerable people were the targets; complainants report pressure, misleading sales practices, failure to identify callers, and financial commitments imposed after contact. The TPS remains the stated mechanism for those seeking to opt out of unsolicited calls.
The ICO’s action against Elderly Aids Ltd crystallizes a basic enforcement point: calling TPS‑registered numbers without specific consent is illegal, and doing so at scale — hundreds of thousands of times over months — can trigger substantial penalties. The fine and the regulator’s public statements aim to send a clear signal to marketers and to firms tempted to skirt accountability, while the Companies House strike‑off attempt highlights the practical complexities of enforcing those penalties in the face of potential corporate dissolution. Whether the monetary penalty is fully recovered or whether the case prompts further civil recovery steps will be determined by the financial and corporate‑recovery processes the ICO described.
