Service Provider

Service Title and Type

Fixed-line – Debt recovery

Breaches upheld against

Procedure

Standard

Case reference 830425

Summary 

PhonepayPlus received one complaint and was forwarded six further complaints by Consumer Direct in relation to a debt recovery service operating on the premium rate number 0904 1941410. All of the complainants stated that they had received a letter from the Information Provider known as ‘Eurocover’, claiming that the recipient had an outstanding debt. This correspondence informed the complainant that he or she had seven days to pay the amount due and failure to do so would result in legal proceedings. The correspondence also stated that the complainant could direct any queries to the premium rate telephone number 0904 1941410.

PhonepayPlus monitored the premium rate telephone number and spoke to an operator on two occasions at a cost of £1.50 per minute and on one occasion was diverted to an answering machine enabling callers to leave a voice message. PhonepayPlus noted on calling the premium rate telephone number that the cost of the call was stated, but the correspondence received by the individual complainant had failed to provide this information.

PhonepayPlus was concerned in relation to the harm that such a letter could cause to consumers and the lack of pricing information and contact information. PhonepayPlus formed the view that these contravened the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice (11^th Edition Amended April 2008) (‘the Code’) and raised the following potential breaches under the Code:

• ^{Paragraph 3.2.2 – Request for information}
• ^{Paragraph 5.3.1b – Harm and offence (Inducement of fear and anxiety or distress)}
• ^{Paragraph 5.4.1a – Fairness (Misleading)}
• ^{Paragraph 5.7.1 – Pricing information (Cost)}
• ^{Paragraph 5.8 – Contact information}

^{The Tribunal upheld all of the breaches raised, except paragraph 3.2.2 of the Code. The revenue generated by the service fell within the low range of Band 6 (£1 to £5,000).The Tribunal considered the case to be serious, issued a Formal Reprimand and imposed a fine of £1,000. The Tribunal commented that it expected claims for refunds to continue to be paid by the Service Provider for the full amount spent by complainants, except where there is good cause to believe that such claims are not valid.}

Administrative Costs awarded: 100%

Service Provider

Service Title and Type

Fixed-line / 070 number

Breaches upheld against

Procedure

Standard

Case reference 835326

Summary 

PhonepayPlus received a complaint regarding the number 070 99837507.

PhonepayPlus monitored the service and established that calls to this 070 number were being routed through to a live adult (sexual) 1-2-1 chat service belonging to a different, unrelated company called Livelines UK Limited (an established live entertainment provider known to PhonepayPlus).

During the course of its investigation, PhonepayPlus contacted Livelines UK Limited and it denied using the 070 number. Furthermore, PhonepayPlus was informed by the Service Provider that the 070 number in question had been set up for its client, Daniel Hill trading as ‘Blue Track’ (the Information Provider), as a reseller and that it had recently discovered that the number was being routed through to an adult service. As such, the Information Provider was depriving Livelines UK Limited of its revenue in relation to its adult services by channelling traffic through the 070 number in question.

The Executive recognised that the service was not on the designated number range for adult service and that the Information Provider did not have Prior Permission to operate such a live 1-2-1 chat service.

The Executive believed that the Information Provider had contravened the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice 11^th Edition Amended April 2008 (‘the Code’) and, therefore, raised the following potential breaches of the Code:

• Paragraph 3.3.1 - Designated number range
• Paragraph 6.1.1 - Prior Permission

The Tribunal upheld each of the breaches raised. The revenue generated by the service fell within the upper range of Band 5 (£5,000 to £50,000). The Tribunal considered the case to be serious, issued a Formal Reprimand and imposed a fine of £45,000.

Administrative Costs awarded: 100%