Court finding sets out the fax for advertisers
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A SOLICITOR has won pounds 5 damages and pounds 50 costs against a company that sent him 'junk' faxes, in a case thought to set a precedent in UK law.
Jeremy Teare, of Hendon, north London, wrote to three London-based companies - Fingerprint Investigations, London Central Communications and the Rosebery Partnership - after receiving faxes advertising their services.
'I do not object to all unsolicited faxes, some of which are necessary and proper communications. The problem is one of not having one's assets nibbled away by other people. If it were to become acceptable that fax machines could be used for any form of unsolicited mail then I might face 100 faxes a week, which would cost me an awful lot of money.'
He has calculated it costs an advertiser 59p to send a sheet of advertising material, but only 27p to send the material by fax. A recipient faces costs of 4p, covering the expense of fax paper, ink and machine maintenance.
Mr Teare's case reached Willesden County Court, where the Rosebery Partnership paid 20p into court and London Central Communications agreed to pay pounds 5 costs. Fingerprint Investigations failed to appear and the judge ruled against it.
Mr Teare said: 'The court accepted that an unsolicited fax transmission for advertising purposes was a trespass to goods and a conversion of materials for the sender's purposes.'
He still receives advertising faxes, although one company recently tried to make amends by sending him replacement sheets of fax paper.
Several American states have made junk faxing illegal and Mr Teare wants Britain to do so. The defendants in his case said Mr Teare placed his fax number in law directories, so cannot complain when people use it to contact him.
The direct advertising industry is setting up a telephone version of the Mailing Preference Scheme, to register consumers who do not want to
receive 'junk mail' from member companies. The service would cover telesales calls, but not unsolicited faxed advertisements, which the industry sees as less of a problem.
Last year, Oftel received 11 complaints of unsolicited faxes, and 39 about telephone sales. But Mr Teare warned: 'You wait until more people have faxes in their own homes, then the complaints will start to come in.'
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments