Quick Tax Claims Ltd v Information Commissioner

Quick Tax Claims Ltd v Information Commissioner

The Appellant breached Regulations 22 and 23 PECR by sending unsolicited direct marketing SMS messages without valid consent and without providing a mechanism to opt out; consent mechanisms via third-party data sources were not freely given, specific, informed or unambiguous; the ICO correctly exercised discretion...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Quick Tax Claims Ltd; Respondent: Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Consent, Direct Marketing, Opt Out Mechanisms, Enforcement Notice, Monetary Penalty Notice
Data Protection Privacy Electronic Communications Consent Direct Marketing Opt Out Mechanisms Enforcement Notice Monetary Penalty Notice

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Quick Tax Claims Ltd

Appellant

Information Commissioner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether recipients provided valid consent for direct marketing by SMS under PECR
  2. 2 Whether SMS messages provided a means to opt out as required by PECR
  3. 3 Whether the ICO exercised discretion appropriately in issuing the Enforcement Notice

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellant breached Regulations 22 and 23 PECR by sending unsolicited direct marketing SMS messages without valid consent and without providing a mechanism to opt out; consent mechanisms via third-party data sources were not freely given, specific, informed or unambiguous; the ICO correctly exercised discretion in issuing the Enforcement Notice.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Enforcement Notice upheld; Appellant required to comply with PECR by not transmitting messages in breach of Regulations 22 or 23.