Some suppliers sell the same enquiry repeatedly over weeks. How recycling works, why it is usually contractual rather than dishonest, and how to catch it.
A recycled lead is an enquiry sold more than once over time, often months after the consumer submitted it. Brokers assume it means a supplier cheating. Usually it means a broker who did not read the exclusivity clause.
Four mechanisms, and only the last is dishonest.
The first three are contractual and disclosed somewhere in the paperwork. The fourth is a misrepresentation, and under the Fair Trading Act 1986 a trader must hold reasonable grounds for a representation at the time it is made, with trader intent being irrelevant.
The two questions that settle it: Is exclusivity permanent or expressed as a number of days? And what happens to the record when that period ends? Both answers belong in the supply agreement rather than in an email.
| Signal | What it suggests |
|---|---|
| Consumer says several brokers have called | Shared supply, or a window that has expired |
| Consumer says they enquired months ago | Aged data being resold |
| Consumer has already taken out cover or a loan | The enquiry resolved before you received it |
| Consumer is hostile from the first sentence | They have been called repeatedly |
| Record has no submission timestamp | You cannot tell how old it is, which may be the point |
The last row is the practical defence. A record carrying the consumer's submission time makes recycling visible on arrival rather than discoverable on the phone. Ask whether that field exists before you buy.
IPP 9 of the Privacy Act 2020 requires that personal information is not kept for longer than it is required for the purpose it may lawfully be used for. The Act sets no fixed number of months, so a supplier should be able to state a retention period and tie it to a purpose.
A supplier who cannot articulate why they still hold a nine month old enquiry is describing a retention practice rather than a retention policy.
How Lead Foundry answers this: Each enquiry is sold to one broker and is not resold when a period elapses, because there is no period. Records carry the source brand and the submission, so age is visible rather than inferred.
An enquiry sold again after an initial sale, often months later. It usually happens because a time-limited exclusivity window expired and the record returned to a saleable pool, or because an unsold record was re-offered at a lower price. From the consumer's side it is indistinguishable from being spammed.
Ask the consumer on the call whether other brokers have contacted them, and check whether the record carries a submission timestamp. Without that timestamp you cannot tell an enquiry made this morning from one made in March, which is frequently the reason it is absent.
Selling a record again after a disclosed exclusivity window expires is contractual rather than unlawful. Selling a record to several buyers while describing it as exclusive is a misrepresentation, and under the Fair Trading Act 1986 a trader must hold reasonable grounds for a claim at the time it is made, whether or not misleading anyone was intended.
IPP 9 of the Privacy Act 2020 requires that personal information is not kept longer than the purpose it may lawfully be used for requires. There is no fixed period in the Act, so ask the supplier to state their retention period and the purpose it is tied to.