The law must protect us from cold-callers

IN a chilling investigation, the Mail today exposes how some of the country’s most respected charities use ruthless cold- calling techniques to prey on society’s most vulnerable.

True, we’ve grown all too used to stories of payday lenders and unscrupulous salesmen seeking to extort money from the elderly, confused and hard-up.

But it is shocking when organisations such as the British Red Cross, Oxfam, the NSPCC and Macmillan Cancer Care are caught using immoral methods to target the defenceless.

After three weeks undercover at a call centre used by 40 leading charities, our Investigations Editor reports that fundraisers are instructed to be ‘brutal’ and ‘ferocious’, accepting ‘no excuse’ from the sick, the elderly, the disabled, the unemployed or those in debt.

Even when donors say they suffer from Alzheimer’s or dementia, call centre workers are told to press them for more.

In a grimly ironic touch, they are also taught how to handle questions about Olive Cooke, the 92-year-old poppy seller who took her own life after being inundated with charities’ demands.

Indeed, most frustrating of all for those who are pestered and persecuted is that they’re offered no escape from the barrage of calls. Those who agree a monthly amount to donate may be phoned again within just six weeks and urged to give more. As for those who refuse, the charities won’t take No for an answer – in some cases ringing as many as four times.

Meanwhile, the British Red Cross keeps donors’ data for up to three years, contacting them repeatedly after they have stopped contributing.

The calls often keep coming even after supporters have registered with the Government- approved Telephone Preference Service, which is supposed to protect us from unsolicited approaches. Last night, the Information Commissioner’s Office vowed an immediate investigation into the Mail’s evidence, saying the charities involved could be breaking the law.

How much longer must the vulnerable be left to suffer before the law on cold-calling is rewritten to spell out that No means No?