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 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?