Complaints about automated nuisance calls reached 3,684 in September,
up from 1,374 in July, according to figures published by the UK
Information Commission’s Office on 9 October. The regulator said the
September total was the highest since 2021.

August accounted for 2,178 complaints. The figures therefore rose in
both monthly comparisons, rather than reflecting a single September
jump. The ICO said it was investigating the increase and encouraged
people to report suspicious automated calls.

The announcement matters to businesses using telephone outreach
because it puts complaint handling, campaign identification and calling
practices under renewed scrutiny. It does not establish that every
automated call is unlawful or that every complaint represents a
confirmed breach.

What the figures can
establish

The published totals measure complaints received by the regulator.
They are not a count of all automated calls placed in the UK, unique
recipients or proven offences. The ICO warned that many incidents are
not reported.

The release also referred to concerns about AI-enabled calls and
attempts to obtain personal information. It did not provide a numerical
breakdown separating AI-generated calls from other automated calls. The
totals should therefore not be described as a measured increase in AI
calling specifically.

Analysis: keep the
campaign traceable

For a marketing manager, the practical question is whether a disputed
call can be traced back to a specific campaign. A useful internal review
starts with the calling system, message version, sender identity,
selected audience and the permission evidence used for that
campaign.

A contact file and a campaign record answer different questions. The
file identifies the intended audience. The campaign record explains how
that audience was selected and why the business decided the particular
communication could be sent. Keeping those records separate makes it
easier to investigate an objection without guessing which export or
message was involved.

Suppression handling deserves the same attention. A team can test its
workflow by recording a controlled opt-out, importing a later contact
file and checking whether that number remains excluded. This is an
operational recommendation, not a claim that the ICO announcement
introduced a new legal testing requirement.

Database buyers should also distinguish number validation from
permission for a particular calling method. A number that passes a
technical check does not, by that result alone, establish permission for
a recorded marketing message.

For further operational context, our suppression-list
reimport controls guide explains how to stop excluded contacts
returning through later uploads.

Reporting source

The complaint figures and the regulator’s statements come from the ICO’s
9 October announcement. The operational analysis above is Latest
Mailing Database’s interpretation; this article does not report an
interview with the regulator.

Publisher disclosure: Latest Mailing Database sells
marketing contact data. This article discusses practices relevant to
that business and its customers. Corrections can be requested through
our Contact Us
page, under our Editorial &
Corrections Policy.