Consumers were bombarded with more than six million nuisance calls and texts every day in 2017, according to research by Aviva.

Analysis of Ofcom data commissioned by the Norwich insurer shows 2.2 billion calls and texts relating to an injury-related claim, pension, PPI or other insurance-related matters were received last year.

Some 895 million calls and texts were made chasing an injury claim for an accident or other insurance queries such as pursuing a holiday sickness claim.

Nuisance calls chasing an accident claim were the most common concern reported by consumers to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).

Those behind cold calling – regardless of the purpose – have relentlessly targeted the over-65s. The age group received more unwanted communications than any other, with nearly one in three (30%) nuisance calls or texts targeting someone aged 65 or older.

It comes as MPs prepare to debate the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill – this proposes the creation of a single financial guidance body which will consider the impact of cold-calling on consumers and can recommend a ban on cold calls to the secretary of state, who will have the power to introduce it.

Aviva has called for a ban on cold calls relating to a pension, PPI, insurance claim or other similar issue where there is no established relationship with the consumer.

Meanwhile a survey of more than 2,000 adults on behalf of Aviva showed 85% supported a ban on nuisance calls.

Rob Townend, UK claims director at Aviva, said: 'Enough is enough. Nuisance calls are a national epidemic which must be stopped. Whether it is a call chasing an injury you may or may not have sustained in an accident, or a pension scammer attempting to con unsuspecting individuals out of their hard-earned retirement savings, there is no place in our society for them.

'Aviva is urging the government to put a swift end to these cold calls. The Financial Guidance and Claims Bill currently before parliament is a terrific opportunity to ban these unsolicited calls once and for all. If the government is serious about protecting all members of our society, including the most vulnerable, then it should take decisive action and ban them.'