I agree 100%. Why on earth companies were allowed the loophole of not being required to consult the TPS register if they use a pre-recorded announcement is almost beyond me. I say "almost" because, of course, the TPS is financed by the telemarketing companies themselves so perhaps there's a conflict of interests there. The ICO - or certainly the department responsible for this - always respond with a rubber-stamp email which gives the impression that they don't want complainers rocking the boat and upsetting their cushy little number.

There are two major problems with the existing call "filtering" system: 1. Companies seem to buy blocks of telephone numbers. In the past week, I've received five calls from the same boiler installer but they used a different 0845 number each time. This makes it impossible to block the caller's number automatically and difficult to ignore the call if you're answering it yourself. 2. Companies have effectively circumvented the spirit of the entire TPS system by switching to pre-recorded announcements which are exempt from the TPS requirements. Advising us to "If you have received an unwanted sales call, please report it to the ICO" is a non-starter. They won't even log the complaint unless you can prove you are being constantly harassed by the same company. Since I retired, I can receive up to 5 unwanted calls a day so I've given this some thought!. A MUCH more effective solution to unwanted marketing calls would be to remove the loophole which exempts companies from the requirements of the TPS register who use pre-recorded announcements. In other words ALL marketing/sales calls should subject to the requirements of the TPS regulations, not just those using a 'live' salesperson.

I'm glad that someone agrees Whilst I admit I don't know exact figures, let's say there are 40 million homes in this country. Out of those 0.5 million are potentialy liable - ie 1 chance in 20 million. To date, only 1 of those has been shown to be actually liable. The actual figure has to be much less than that and, of those, the number who would actually be required to pay is even smaller. Seems like there's slightly more chance of being hit by a meteorite yet very few of us live our lives in paranoia as a result! Edit: I'm sure my maths is complete rubbish there! But I think the principle still stands

Hopefully, the insurers will add it. It seems unlikely to go away in the near future. As you say, at least, at present, there is some cover available. It's just a "shame" that this sort of thing gets thrust on people pretty well out of the blue just at a time when their nerves are likely to be already nearing breaking point. (Mine certainly are!) I think a little bit more publicity wouldn't go amiss... I mentioned it to the manager of my Estate Agents this morning and he had a vague recollection from a tv news item but was unsure what it's implications were. I had it thrust on me as a last-minute question from my buyer's solicitors without so much as an explanation (from my solicitor) as to what it actually meant. Someone without the benefit internet research could be floundering for days......

I read your car insurance analogy further up the thread and I'm not convinced it holds water. It's more like an insurance company offering you insurance if you currently don't own a car but there's a slight possibility you might get one during the year; but you definitely can't have insurance if you already have a car even if you've owned one for 20 or more years and never claimed. I read somewhere that about 500,000 houses are potentially at risk - I'd bet that the Chancel Check kicks up a much higher percentage of enquiries than that figure would suggest but, if the "true" risk of actually being "called upon" - even if you are "eligible" must still be sufficiently small else the TV adverts would be swarming with companies offering to take your money by now and every householder in the country would have been bombarded with junk mail. A question I think that needs to be answered is what proportion of houses that are potentially at risk are actually liable. (The other question: Of those that are liable, what percentage will be "targetted", is, obviously un-answerable).

As a vendor, I've just become aware of this archaic law on the day I was supposed to have been exchanging contracts - having lived in the property in blissful ignorance for over 20 years! The fact that you can get insurance if there is the potential for liability but not if there is liability seems a typical British rip-off to me considering the actual risk to an individaul property is still very low. Anyway, I've instructed my solicitor to pay up to £100 for insurance for the purchaser -- and noticed that Downing Street now has 829 signatures on the petition!