Just when you think you know everything there is to know about stopping junk mail you get a question that opens an unprecedented can of junk mail worms:

"We have registered with the two opt-out schemes for unaddressed mail and have a no junk mail sign on the door. Two political parties have put stuff through our door and when confronted, the candidates have claimed that they are exempt due to 'national importance'. Could you please confirm if this is the case and if so, is there any way to make them stop putting election flyers through the door?"

The claim that political leaflets have 'national importance' is pompous and false. Here's how the three opt-out regimes for unaddressed mail items treat political leaflets:

1. Royal Mail's Door-to-Door Opt-Out is rather vague about political leaflets. On its website, Royal Mail states that election material is not delivered via the company's the door-to-door scheme and that it's therefore not affected by the opt-out scheme. However, when I recently checked if a booklet from the Electoral Commission about today's local elections and the referendum on our voting system was also being delivered to households registered with the Door-to-Door Opt-Out I was told that it was not. Although the booklet was clearly "election material" it was affected by the opt-out…

   As far as I'm aware the only type of "election material" that can't be stopped by the Door-to-Door Opt-Out are so-called 'election communications'. At a general election all candidates are entitled to have one political leaflet distributed free of charge by the Royal Mail, and this leaflet is delivered to each and every household in the candidate's constituency, including households that are registered with the company's Door-to-Door Opt-Out. Any other political leaflets distributed by Royal Mail are probably not exempt.

2. The Your Choice Preference Scheme for Unaddressed Mail stops all political leaflets distributed by companies that are a member of the Direct Marketing Association. Straightforward as that may be, the Your Choice scheme is hopelessly complicated in other ways. One of the problems with Your Choice is that you usually have no way of knowing whether or not a particular leaflet was distributed by a member of the Direct Marketing Association. And even if you're confident that a leaflet was pushed through the door by a representative of a political party and that the political party is a member of the Direct Marketing Association, you'll probably find you can't lodge a complaint because political parties are not distribution companies. (Making a complaint is still worth a try, though a better option is to follow…).

3. So how about 'No Junk Mail' signs? Although there's no agreed definition of 'junk mail' it's more or less accepted that the term refers to unaddressed, unsolicited and commercial advertisements. In other words, a 'No Junk Mail' sign should stop commercial items such as take-away menus and calling cards from local businesses, but not non-commercial items such as a leaflet from the local Council about bin collections around bank holidays or a leaflet from a neighbour about a missing cat.

   Political leaflets don't advertise a commercial product and should therefore be classified as 'non-commercial' mail items. So, the candidates whose actions we're discussing are correct; they can ignore 'No Junk Mail' signs when delivering leaflets. That said, any claim that this is because political leaflets have 'national importance' is ludicrous. Many decades ago political leaflets might have been a vital part of the democratic process but such an argument is nonsense nowadays. Few people rely on unsolicited leaflets for information, and the average political leaflet contains nothing but negative campaigning and information about horse races. To many people political leaflets are like a red rag to a bull, and politicians know it.

It seems obvious, then, that the decent thing to do for political parties is to simply respect people's wishes. If someone contacts a political party directly to stop unwanted leaflets, why not comply? Not only is insisting on delivering unsolicited political leaflets needlessly provoking, it also contradicts the spirit of the Direct Marketing Association's Code of Practice:

"Members must have in place a structure to enable every effort to be made to respect a householder's wish not to receive unaddressed items, whether such requests are made directly to the member or via any industry schemes approved by the Association." (13.23 - Requests not to receive unaddressed items).

The three main parties are members of the Direct Marketing Association, and so the Code of Practice applies to them. The best best way to stop election flyers from any of these political parties is therefore to make a complaint to the Direct Marketing Association (which you can do via the Direct Marketing Commission).

Will it work? Personally, I find the above article 13.23 of the Direct Marketing Association's Code of Practice not very reassuring. It reluctantly talks about 'having a structure in place' and 'making an effort' - it doesn't say that it's an offence to deliver junk mail to people who have asked not to receive any. Still, it'd be interesting to see how the Direct Marketing Commission would deal with a complaint about candidates who insist on pushing junk mail through the door because of 'national importance'.

"I've asked 'The Book People' 27 times to stop sending catalogues to a previous occupant. They won't listen."

If the above sounds familiar you'll be pleased to know that junk mail addressed to a previous occupant can be stopped. Under the Data Protection Act 1998 all UK organisations are required to process personal data in accordance with eight data protection principles. These include requirements to ensure that personal data is adequate, relevant and not excessive (principle 3); that data is accurate and up to date (principle 4); and that data is not kept for longer than is necessary (principle 5). Ignoring a request to stop sending junk mail addressed to someone who doesn't live at your address clearly constitutes a breach of the Act.

Before you lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner's Office - the body that enforces the Data Protection Act - you should always give the sender the change to put things right. There's no point complaining if you haven't asked the sender to remove the previous occupant's details from its mailing list. It's always best to make such a request via e-mail as you'll have a copy of it. Also, it's a good idea to refer to the Data Protection Act in your e-mail. Junk mailers tend to ignore requests to stop sending junk mail; it's not unlike asking a butcher to switch to a vegan diet. A mention of the Data Protection Act makes it a lot more likely that your request is taken seriously.

If a polite request doesn't work your next step is to go to the Information Commissioner's Office. On its website you'll find a page with information about when and how to complain as well as a complaints form.

As an aside, the complaints form is currently only available as a Microsoft Word document. If you don't have Word and you're not prepared to buy the programme you can download an open source alternative for free. I'd recommend OpenOffice. Also, it's perfectly alright to just send an e-mail to casework@ico.gsi.gov.uk. Just make sure that you'll include all the relevant details (the name and address of the sender, information about the junk mail etc.).

A not-so-good alternative solution

Another option is to register the previous occupant's name with the Mailing Preference Service. In the case of The Book People this is useless as the company isn't a member of the Direct Marketing Association (something you can check on this page). The Mailing Preference Service can only prevent junk mail from organisations that are a member of the Direct Marketing Association.

Even if a sender is a member of the Junk Mail Association, registering a previous occupant's name at your address is still unlikely to stop the junk mail. Most addressed junk mail is sent to people who have given the sender permission to do so. Of course, people often are unaware that they've 'opted in' to receiving junk mail; failing to tick an opt-out box hidden in the small print is enough to give a sender permission to do with your personal details whatever they fancy. Still, opting in is opting in, and giving a junk mailer permission to send you junk mail always overrides a registration with the Mailing Preference Service. See it as your punishment for not ticking opt-out boxes.

That said, there's something not quite right about how Mailing Preference Service deals with junk mail sent to previous occupants. When you register with the opt-out scheme you're asked whether or not you're registering the name of a previous occupant. You'd expect that members of the Direct Marketing Association would use this information to check if its mailing list contains any previous occupants. Not so. In the words of the Direct Marketing Association:

"If the previous occupant has previously dealt with or made enquiries with the company then MPS would not be effective in stopping their mailings since 'customer' listings do not need to be run against the MPS file unless the details are being supplied onto third parties."

The Direct Marketing Association will however take up any complaints about junk mail sent to a previous occupant if the sender is a member of the Direct Marketing Association and the previous occupant has been registered with the Mailing Preference Service for at least three or four months. In that case the Direct Marketing Association would contact the sender, "which would normally result in them confirming that their records have been updated."

Here's a comment / query that was left on the old blog. I'll answer the query here as I don't have the person's e-mail address and because it may help others as well…

Dear Junk Mail Campaigner,

I've noticed a rise in Media Providers sending letters with made up names on them, e.g. Sally Black, B Sally, Jake Maker. And I'm sorry to say a few that would not be appropriate for this site (very racial and rude). And, they are coming from the most popular media (TV / Broadband / Phone) providers.

I've lived here for 30 years and no-one has lived here with such names. I think they are using Royal Mail to get their Junk Mail through the letter box.

Kind regards, BG

It seems someone is trying to be funny by subscribing you to junk mail using silly / racial / rude names. Contact the companies you're receiving the junk mail from and explain the situation; they should be able to prevent you get any further silly mailings. Contacting individual senders can be a real pain if you're getting junk mail from lots of different companies but it's the only way you're going to get the junk mail stopped.

In addition you could register the made-up names at your address with the Mailing Preference Service. If you go to the website stayprivate.org you can at the same time register the names with the Telephone Preference Service (just to prevent they also start phoning you). It probably won't make a difference though; the Mailing Preference Service can't prevent advertising mail that has been explicitly requested (the fact that you didn't request the junk mail is irrelevant as far as the Mailing Preference Service is concerned). Still, registering is free and can't hurt.

Finally, there are laws to protect people from harassment and racism; if you feel strongly about the junk mail you could consider contacting the police. The companies that send the junk mail may be able to trace the person(s) who subscribed you to the junk mail.

The quick answer to the question is 'no'. Targeting people with 'direct marketing' is a legal pastime in the UK; the Environmental Protection Act 1990 doesn't change this.

In the case of addressed junk mail this makes perfect sense. Royal Mail has a legal obligation to deliver all addressed mail. Your postman is not going to decide on your behalf whether or not this or that mail item is actually wanted. If it has got your address on it and sufficient postage has been paid it will end up on your doormat. End of story.

But what about unaddressed junk mail? Why is it an offence to shove a half eaten pizza through your letterbox but is it acceptable to deliver a pizza leaflet? Would I actually commit an offence if I shoved a half eaten pizza through your letterbox, or would I get away with it as long as I argue that it's an "innovative way of advertising" that "engages the recipient in a totally unique way"?

It seems there is no clear answer to these questions. Article 87 of the Environmental Protection Act, the Offence of Leaving Litter, states that you're not allowed to "throw down, drop or otherwise deposit […] anything whatsoever […] as to cause, or contribute to, or tend to lead to, the defacement by litter of any place to which this section applies". However, the places to which the section applies are "public open spaces". It's alright then, it seems, to thrown down, drop or otherwise deposit litter in a private space.

A while ago, Independent columnist Tom Sutcliffe wondered whether or not tucking a leaflet under your car's windscreen wiper is legal. Does it count as private delivery, or is this particular type of 'direct marketing' just as illegal as dropping leaflets on the pavement? The law, it seems, is unclear. Junk mail / direct marketing is regulated by the industry itself. If the Direct Marketing Association sees delivering half eaten pizzas to householders as a unique variation on the good old free sample then it probably is. Of course, self-regulation should prevent such excesses as the industry would in all likelihood loose its privileges in no time if it endorsed such practise. But it can get away with not having an opinion about leaflets tucked under windscreen wipers. Or, for that matter, junk mail piling up in hallways.

Sutcliffe's conclusion is that legislation dealing with littering is failing to address the underlying causes of litter and that we need a law to stop the litter being printed and distributed in the first place. I'm not too sure about this. Do we really need legislation for everything? Wouldn't it be better to have some sort of Ombudsman for this, some organisation that can give its common sense verdict?

"I keep getting junk mail from Virgin Media that is not addressed to me by name but to 'The Occupier'. This is despite the fact that I have been registered with the Mailing Preference Service for a number of years. My question is: is this a ploy by Virgin to get around the rules, and will contacting them directly work, when they do not seem to know who lives at my address?"

This was one of a couple of queries I got about 'To the Occupier' junk mail sent by Virgin Media this week; it seems company is currently bombarding the country with such junk mail. So, is it a ploy? And, more importantly, can it be stopped?

First of all, 'To the Occupier' junk mail can't be prevented by the Mailing Preference Service because of the 'To the Occupier' loophole. The Mailing Preference Service sees any junk mail with a generic address (such as 'To the Occupier', 'To the Householder', 'To the Pizza Lover' etc.) as unaddressed junk mail. As the Mailing Preference Service can only prevent addressed junk mail the opt-out scheme can't stop mail addressed 'To the Occupier'. In case you're wondering, it's not allowed to register the name 'Occupier' with the Mailing Preference Service.

What about the Door-to-Door Opt-Out, then? This is Royal Mail's opt-out scheme for unaddressed mail items delivered by the postman, so if Virgin Media's leaflets are delivered by Royal Mail (which they are) then perhaps signing up to this scheme would stop them? Well, no. The Door-to-Door Opt-Out will only stop junk mail with a generic address if it doesn't also include an address. To visualise, it would stop a leaflet that is addressed like so:

To the Junk Mail Lover

But if the item shows an address the Door-to-Door Opt-Out will not prevent it:

To the Junk Mail Lover
10 Downing Street
LONDON
SW1A 2AA

Royal Mail sees any mail items with an address as addressed mail. The company doesn't care whether an item is addressed to 'Mr Smith', 'The Occupier', or indeed to nobody at all. Mail is deliver to an address (in technical terms a 'delivery point'); the name of the addressee is irrelevant.

So, you can see the ploy unfolding. If a piece of junk mail has a generic addressee and an address it cannot be stopped by either opt-out scheme. The Mailing Preference Service sees it as unaddressed junk mail, the Door-to-Door Opt-Out regards it as being addressed. You can't win…

Are there any other solutions? Data Protection Notices spring to mind. Under the Data Protection Act 1998 you have a right to ask any organisation in the UK to stop (or not begin) using your address for direct marketing purposes. But, the Act only deals with people's personal details. Unless 'To the Occupier' happens to be your name you can't really issue a Data Protection Notice. It may be worth a try though; the organisation targeting you with 'To the Occupier' junk mail may feel its better to be safe than sorry and take your details off its mailing list.

Which leaves us with contacting the sender directly. Will asking a company like Virgin to stop sending advertisements addressed 'To the Occupier' do the trick? Judging from the e-mails I have received it doesn't. People have phoned Virgin time and again asking to be left alone, only to be ignored. To be fair to Virgin, they're no exception; all companies that send 'To the Occupier' junk mail ignore people's wishes.

I'm not saying you shouldn't try contacting the sender, but it is important to realise that the sender has no legal obligation to comply with your request. It's also useful to understand that the motivation for sending junk mail to generic addresses is that it's the cheap option for the sender; they don't have to purchase an expensive mailing list with names and addresses, they don't have to check their mailing list against the Mailing Preference Service and they don't have to spend money on targeting the advertisements at people who are actually potential customers. It's all about sending out as much junk mail for as little money as possible, and it's unlikely the sender is willing to spend resources on cleaning up its mailing list. That said, it's still worth a try.

Another way of contacting the sender is to return the items. Simply cross out your address and write 'Return to Sender - Junk Mail' on the envelope or leaflet and put it back in the post, unstamped. If the item doesn't include a return address, Google the sender and write the address on the item. Again, you don't need to use a stamp. Let them pay for their cheeky ploys!