header-logo header-logo

22 September 2017 / Ellis Pugh
Issue: 6672 / Categories: Features , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

Junk mail: what's your preference?

Giselle Davies & Ellis Pugh report on the Fundraising Preference Service—the new weapon against ‘junk’?

  • The Fundraising Preference Service was introduced to ensure the public has more control over the contact received from charities.

Developed from a recommendation in the Etherington Report of September 2015, the Fundraising Preference Service (‘FPS’) was intended to ensure that members of the public would have more control over the contact they received from charities. Launched on 6 July 2017 by the Fundraising Regulator, 6,305 ‘suppression requests’ have been received in its first month of operation.

To the dismay of some, the FPS does not work in the same way as the Telephone Preference Service (TPS), Mail Preference Service (MPS) or the Royal Mail opt-out from unaddressed mail. However, in conjunction with these pre-existing weapons may well successfully add to the arsenal that the public can use in their war against unwanted communications or ‘junk’.

In simple terms the FPS works by allowing members of the public to list charities from whom they do not wish to receive direct marketing.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll