Phone-paid Services Authority

Latest documents

  • Telecom2 (Case reference: 191951)

    The Phone-Paid Services Authority (‘PSA’) opened an investigation into Telecom2 Limited (‘Telecom2’) in August 2021.The investigation into Telecom2 concerned the adequacy of its due diligence, risk assessment and control (“DDRAC”) measures over a 7-year period. The period commenced when the 14th Edition of the Code of practice (“Code 14”) was in force and continued for some time after Code 15 came into force. During the investigation a second breach was raised due to Telecom2’s failure to fully respond to a direction from the PSA.The parties agreed that as the case severity overall is very serious the following sanctions should be imposed:formal reprimanda total fine of £255,000 comprised of the following amounts for each breach: Breach 1 (Risk assessment and Control pursuant to paragraph 3.1.3 (a) and (b) of Code 14 and paragraph 3.9.2 of Code 15) £180,000. Breach 2 (failing to provide information pursuant to 4.2.2. of Code 14) £75,000.a compliance audit to be carried out by a third party approved by the PSA and to a standard prescribed by the PSA, the costs of such audit to be paid by the Relevant Party. The audit must be completed and the recommendations implemented within 12 months. Telecom2 agrees not to resume its ICSS services until completion of the audit.Telecom2 to pay the final administration fee £13,977.50 in full.Telecom2 consent order signed

  • Kalastia Consulting Ltd (Case reference: CAS-196596-J1X9T1)

    The Phone-Paid Services Authority (PSA’) opened a breach of sanctions case against Kalastia Consulting Limited (‘Kalastia’) on the 3 November 2023.On 26 July 2024, the Tribunal hearing for the breach of sanctions case (‘the case’) was adjourned to enable certain matters to be removed from the PSA’s Enforcement Notice.Following a subsequent review of the case, the PSA decided to change its initial recommendations in relation to it and requested that the Tribunal gives permission to withdraw the case.On 17 October 2024, the Tribunal granted permission for the case to be withdrawn.This does not affect the sanctions agreed through settlement as set out in the Consent Order dated 5 June 2023, all of which remain in place (case reference 191534) having been agreed and imposed prior to the case.

  • GMTech Media OU (Case reference: 196267)

    This case was brought against GMTech Media OU (“the Merchant”) under Paragraph 5.4 of the 15th Edition of the Code of Practice (“Code 15”).The horoscope/astrology service was advertised as a personalised horoscope service, asking users a list of personal questions including their date of birth, and then asking them to call an 09 premium rate number to hear their personalised horoscope. The Service was promoted via different marketing and social media platforms including Google ads, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok. The Service started operating under the Merchant on 29 April 2022. Prior to this date, the Service was provided by a company registered in Estonia which, although part of the same umbrella group, is a separate legal entity to the Merchant and fell outside the scope of the PSA’s investigation.The investigation therefore relates to the period between 29 April 2022 until 10 November 2023 when the Service was disconnected by the Intermediary Square1 Communications.This enforcement case was opened on 10 November 2023 and concerns transparency and pricing, fairness, misleading promotional material and registration.Following completion of our enquiries and investigations into this matter the PSA asserts that the Merchant has failed to comply with the Code in regard to pricing prominence, ensuring the service was fair and its promotion was not misleading to consumers, and complying with registration requirements.PSA published settlement and The Tribunal concluded that the seriousness of the case should be regarded overall as very serious.Sanctions imposedHaving regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal decided to impose the following sanctions:a formal reprimandthe prohibition of the Merchant from any involvement in any PRS or promotion of PRS for a period of five years from the date of publicationa requirement that the Merchant refund all consumers who claim a refund for the full amount spent by them on the Service, within 28 days of their claim, save where there is good cause to believe such claims are not valid, and provide evidence to the PSA that such refunds have been madea fine of £650,000.Administrative charge recommendation: 100%

  • Stripey Giraffe Limited (Case reference: CAS-194493-X5H9D6)

    The investigation into Stripey Giraffe concerned a number of potential breaches of Code 15. The period of the breaches commenced when the 14th Edition of the Code of Practice ("Code 14") was in force and continued after Code 15 (collectively the "Code") came into force.Stripey Giraffe is a Merchant Provider based in the UK and provides the "Stripey Offers" service ("Service") to UK consumers using short code 88222. Stripey Giraffe first registered with the PSA on 17 July 2018, and the Service itself was registered with the Executive on 22 October 2018.The "Stripey Offers" service was charged at £1.50 per message received, with a maximum of three messages received per week. The Respondent contracted with SB7 Mobile Ltd (the "Intermediary Provider") who in turn, during the period under investigation, contracted with Dynamic Mobile Billing Limited.The Service is promoted predominantly through Google Display Network Advertising, and to a lesser extent through co-registration site partners.The PSA became aware of potential breaches of the Code through complaints received from consumers. Following initial service monitoring the PSA considered it necessary to take Enforcement Action against Stripey Giraffe.During the investigation, the PSA relied on evidence from monitoring the service, information supplied by Stripey Giraffe and its intermediary SB7 and consumer complaints. To date the PSA has received 503 complaints from consumers relating to this service. The issues identified in these complaints were reflected in reviews observed on an external review website.Having considered this evidence, an Enforcement Notice was issued to Stripey Giraffe in December 2023.The parties agreed that the case severity is overall “serious”, and that the following sanctions should be imposed:total fine of £275,000refunds to all consumers who apply, for the full amount spent by them for the servicecompliance advice on future promotions to be sought and implemented to the satisfaction of either the PSA or Ofcom prior to re-starting the service.The Parties also agreed that Stripey Giraffe will pay a fixed amount towards the PSA's administrative charge in the sum of £100,000 inclusive of VAT, and that both the total fine and the administrative charge will be paid within 30 days of publication of the consent order and this statement.PSA v Stripey GiraffeConsent Order

  • Ben Dewhurst (Case reference: 195457)

    This case was brought against an associated individual under paragraph 5.8.12 of the 15th edition of the Code of Practice.The Tribunal was asked to consider imposing a prohibition against Mr Ben Dewhurst pursuant to paragraph 5.8.5(g) of the Code.The case related to a previous adjudication against Connect You Limited (the “Merchant provider”) (case reference 188306). The case related to an Information, Connection and Signposting Service (“ICSS”) provided by the Merchant (“the Service”) and was adjudicated on 17 March 2023. The Tribunal that considered the case on 17 March 2023 recommended consideration of a prohibition of Mr Dewhurst, a director of the Merchant provider and contact on the Phone-paid Services Authority’s (“PSA”) Registration Scheme for the Merchant provider since it registered on 16 December 2019.The Tribunal decided to prohibit Mr Dewhurst from providing, or having any involvement in, any premium rate service in the UK. However, the Tribunal determined that a period of three years was an appropriate and proportionate length for the prohibition taking into consideration the sanction imposed on 17 March 2023 in relation to the prohibition imposed on the Merchant and the actions of Mr Dewhurst. The Tribunal accepted that during the course of the investigation he had, at times, attempted to achieve compliance, albeit incompletely, and engaged with the PSA to this end. This had to be balanced against the severity of the breaches and the limited value the Service offered to consumers.Administrative charge recommendation: 100%.

  • SB7 Mobile Limited (Case reference: 195400)

    The Phone-Paid Services Authority (‘PSA’) opened an investigation into SB7 Mobile Limited (‘SB7’) on 8 March 2023.The investigation concerned SB7’s failure to comply with a direction for information issued in accordance with paragraph 6.1 of the 15th Edition of the Phone-Paid Services Authority Code of Practice (‘the Code’). In particular, SB7 did not provide a response within the specified timeframe or the extended deadlines agreed by the PSA. However, SB7 did eventually provide a response to the direction. SB7 also provided details of exceptional circumstances and mitigation which the PSA has taken into account in reaching this settlement.The PSA had originally classified the overall breach severity as serious. Taking into account all relevant factors the parties agreed to the lower breach severity of significant, based on the mitigation and exceptional circumstances - particularly that:SB7 did respond to the Direction in fullthere was not a lengthy delay in the other investigation due to the breach, andthe exceptional circumstances relating to the unforeseen family health emergency which impacted on the ability of SB7 to respond in time.It was also agreed that due to the mitigation and exceptional circumstances, the fine should be set at a level lower than the usual bandings.Final agreed sanctionsThe parties agreed that the following sanctions should therefore be imposed:a formal reprimanda fine of £10,000.The parties also agree that SB7 is to pay the PSA’s administrative costs up to the sum of £10,000.SB7 Consent order signed

  • Ian Conway (Case reference: 195092)

    This case was brought against the associated individual under paragraph 5.8.12 of the 15th edition of the Code of Practice. The Tribunal was asked to consider imposing a prohibition against Mr Ian Conway pursuant to paragraph 5.8.5(g) of the Code.The case related to a previous adjudication against Numbers Plus Ltd, the Network operator (case reference 179345). The previous adjudication concerned the adequacy of the risk assessment and risk control (DDRAC) measures put in place by the Network operator between April 2015 and 18 February 2022. The case was adjudicated on 7 October 2022. The Tribunal that adjudicated the case on 7 October 2022 indicated that they were minded to prohibit Mr Ian Conway, the primary contact on the PSA’s Registration Scheme and director of the Network operator.The Tribunal decided (unanimously) to prohibit Mr Conway from providing, or having any involvement in, any premium rate service in the UK for a period of six years.Administrative charge recommendation: 100%

Featured documents

Add as a preferred source on Google