Phone-paid Services Authority

Procedure Type

Latest documents

Heidi Corkhill trading as Call Support (Case reference: 185532)
This case was brought against Heidi Corkhill trading as Call Support (“the Merchant”) under Paragraph 5.4 of the 15th Edition of the Code of Practice (“Code 15”).The merchant is based in the UK and provides an Information, Connection and Signposting Service (“ICSS”) to consumers in the UK (“the Service”).The Service connects consumers to a variety of organisations including, the DVLA, EON, Department of Work and Pensions (“DWP”) and Scottish Power.The concerns regarding the Service were first highlighted to the PSA by way of a complaint received on 4 March 2020. By 2 April 2022 the PSA had received 161 complaints about the Service.The nature of the complaints received were that consumers were misled into using the Service, that they were not made aware of the costs of the Service and that they were unaware that it was a premium rate call connection service, as well as expressing concerns regarding the customer service provided by the Merchant.The Tribunal concluded that the seriousness of the case should be regarded overall as very serious.Sanctions imposed:a formal reprimanda requirement that the Merchant submit all categories of its services and/or promotional material to the PSA, for compliance advice from the PSA for a period of three years. Any compliance advice given by the PSA must be implemented within 14 days to the satisfaction of the PSA. The PSA may require payment of a reasonable administrative charge by a relevant party for compliance advice it provides pursuant to this sub-paragraph.a requirement that the Merchant is prohibited from providing or having any involvement in any PRS or promotion for one year, starting from the date of publication of the Tribunal decision.a requirement that the Merchant must refund all consumers who claim a refund for the full amount spent by them on the Service, within 30 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 £1,150,000 broken down as follows:Breach 1 - Rule 2.3.1 – Fair and equitable - £250,000Breach 2 - Rule 2.2.7 – Pricing prominence and proximity - £250,000Breach 3 - Rule 2.3.2 – Misleading - £250,000Breach 4 - Rule 2.6.1 – Complaint handling - £150,000Breach 5 - Paragraph 4.2.3 - Failure to provide information - £250,000.Administrative charge recommendation: 100%
Connect You Limited (Case reference: 188306)
This case was brought against Connect You Limited (“the Merchant”) under Paragraph 5.4 of the 15th Edition of the Code of Practice (“Code 15”).It concerns an Information, Connection and Signposting Service (“ICSS”) provided by the Merchant (“the Service”). The Service was a Type 1 ICSS which connects consumers to 29 different organisations, including HMRC, DVLA, British Gas, O2 and Apple. The calls to the Service cost £3.60 per minute plus the network’s access charge.The PSA received 408 complaints regarding the Service. The first complaint was received on 6 August 2020. The main complaint period was between September 2020 and May 2021. However, the most recent complaint was received on 11 October 2022. The complainants alleged that they did not see pricing on the promotional material and landing page for the Service. They also allege that they thought they were contacting the advertised organisation directly. The Tribunal concluded that the seriousness of the case should be regarded overall as very serious.Sanctions imposed:a formal reprimanda requirement that the Merchant seeks compliance advice from the PSA and implements it to the satisfaction of the PSA in relation to the operation and promotion of this Service and any future Services, for a period of five years from the publication datethe prohibition of the Merchant from any involvement in any PRS or promotion of PRS for a period of three years starting from the date of publicationa requirement that the Merchant must 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 £750,000 broken down as follows:Breach 1 - £250,000Breach 2 - £250, 000Breach 3 – £250,000.Administrative charge recommendation: 100%
Matthew Penny (Case reference: 193709)
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 Matthew Penny pursuant to paragraph 5.8.5(g) of the Code.The case related to a previous adjudication against Embill Services Limited (case reference: 187522). The previous adjudication involved a sexual entertainment service and was adjudicated on 18 January 2022.The Tribunal decided (unanimously) to prohibit Mr Penny from providing, or having any involvement in, any premium rate service in the UK, and to do so for a period of five years, taking into consideration the severity of the breaches upheld against the Provider and the importance of the legitimate aims of the regulatory scheme.Administrative charge recommendation: 100%.
Adrian Smith (Case reference: 193951)
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 Adrian Smith pursuant to paragraph 5.8.5(g) of the Code.The case related to a previous adjudication against Moblix Media Limited, the merchant provider (case reference: 189274). The case involved a subscription alert service and was adjudicated on 24 November 2021. The Tribunal that considered the case on 24 November 2021 recommended the prohibition of Mr Smith, a director of the Merchant provider and contact on the Phone-paid Services Authority’s Registration Scheme for the Merchant provider.The Tribunal decided (unanimously) to prohibit Mr Smith from providing, or having any involvement in, any premium rate service in the UK, and to do so for a period of five years, taking into consideration the severity of the breaches upheld against the Provider and the need to protect the public from harm in the future.Administrative charge recommendation: 100%.
Kalastia Consulting Limited (Case reference: 191534)
The Phone-Paid Services Authority (‘PSA’) opened an investigation into Kalastia Consulting Limited (‘Kalastia’) on the 27 April 2021. Kalastia contracted with a number of merchant providers who provided subscription-based alerts service.Between January 2018 and 14 November 2020, the PSA received a combined total of 3,047 complaints across the relevant merchant providers. A number of investigations were opened in respect of the merchant providers, some of which resulted in Tribunal adjudications which upheld breaches.The PSA noted that while all of the merchant providers were separate legal entities who operated different premium rate services, the nature of the complaints being received as well as the nature of the potential non-compliance as evidenced within those complaints raised concerns regarding the level of due diligence, risk assessment and control that was being performed by Kalastia.The parties agreed that the following sanctions should therefore be imposed:formal reprimand under paragraph 5.8.5(b) of Code 15a prohibition on Kalastia Consulting Limited from providing or having any involvement in PRS or promotion for five years and/or until all sanctions have been complied with, whichever is the later under paragraph 5.8.5(g) of Code 15a fine of £350,000 under paragraph 5.8.5(d) of the Code 15 comprised of the following amounts for each breach:- Breach 1 (failure to disclose information pursuant to paragraph 4.2.3 of the 14th Edition of the Code of Practice) - £150,000- Breach 2 (concealing and providing false and misleading information pursuant to 4.2.2. of the 14th Edition of the Code of Practice) - £200,000the parties also agree that Kalastia is to pay the PSA’s administrative costs in the sum of £8,225.Kalastia Consulting Limited consent order signed
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%
Dynamic Mobile Billing Limited (Case reference: 157665)
The Phone-paid Services Authority (referred to as the ‘Executive’) opened a ‘Track 2’ investigation under the 14th Edition of the Code of Practice (‘Code 14’) into the intermediary provider Dynamic Mobile Billing Limited (‘DMB’) in July 2020.The investigation was triggered as a result of the high number of complaints that were being received on a number of merchant providers (referred to as Level 2 providers under Code 14) who were offering subscription services.Between January 2018 and 14 November 2020, the Executive received a combined total of 3,047 complaints across the relevant merchant providers.A number of investigations were opened in respect of the merchant providers, some of which resulted in Tribunal adjudications which upheld breaches.Having considered the settlement proposed by DMB including the submissions made in respect of breach severity and the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Executive agreed with DMB that the final sanctions imposed should be:a formal reprimanda requirement that DMB submits to a compliance audit on its Risk Assessment and Control. Such audit to be conducted by an approved third party to a standard prescribed by the PSA, the costs of such audit to be paid by DMB and recommendations implemented within a period specified by the PSA (paragraph 5.8.5(k) of Code 15)a requirement that DMB remedy the breach by fully implementing all recommendations arising from the compliance audit (paragraph 5.8.5(a) of Code 15)a fine of £250,000 (paragraph 5.8.5(d) of Code 15).The parties also agreed that DMB would pay 100% of the PSA’s administrative charges in the amount of £6,555.Dynamic Mobile Billing Limited Consent order signed by both parties
Darren Hodes (Case reference: 192920)
This case was brought against the associated individual under paragraph 5.8.12 of the 15th edition of the Code of Practice (“the Code”).The tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) has been asked to consider imposing a prohibition against Mr Darren Hodes, pursuant to paragraph 5.8.5(g) of the Code.The case related to a previous adjudication against TCS Combined Solutions Limited (the “Merchant”) (case reference 150301). The previous adjudication involved an alert subscription service and was considered on the 9 and 10 December 2020. A review adjudication took place on 14 June 2021. The Tribunal that considered the case on 9 and 10 December 2020 recommended the prohibition of Mr Hodes, the primary contact on the Phone-paid Services Authority Registration Scheme and sole director of the Merchant.The Tribunal decided (unanimously) to prohibit Ms Hodes from providing, or having any involvement in, any premium rate service in the UK for a period of five years. The Tribunal considered that such a prohibition was appropriate, proportionate and justified due to the proven conduct of the Merchant and the Tribunal’s finding that Mr Hodes was knowingly involved in the same. The Tribunal took into account the deterrent effect of the sanction and the need to ensure that such non-compliant conduct would not be repeated by Mr Hodes.Administrative charge recommendation: 100%