Naming Case (Phone-Paid Services Authority)

This case was brought against a person alleged to be an associated individual under paragraph 4.8.8 of the 14th edition of the Code of Practice (“the Code”).The Tribunal was asked to consider imposing a prohibition against [name redacted] (“associated individual”) pursuant to paragraph 4.8.3(g) of the Code.The Tribunal unanimously concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, that there was...

This case was brought against a person alleged to be an associated individual under paragraph 4.8.8 of the 14th edition of the Code of Practice.The case related to a previous adjudication against the Level 2 provider, Taptronic FZC, heard on 17 August 2021 (case reference 152741).The Adjudication concerned a subscription-based fitness service, Fitguru, operated by the Level 2 provider. As part of

The Tribunal considered whether to impose a prohibition against Mr Howard pursuant to paragraph 4.8.3(g). The case related to an adjudication against the Level 2 provider, Premier Ventures Ltd, the Level 2 provider, which was heard on 13 November 2019 (case reference: 141951). The adjudication concerned a call-connection service operating on premium rate numbers 09055952952 and 09055958958. As...

The Tribunal was asked to consider imposing a prohibition against [name redacted] pursuant to paragraph 4.8.2(g) of the 12th edition of the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice (the “Code”).The case related to two cases investigated by the Executive which concerned the promotion and operation of adult video download services.The Tribunal concluded that [name redacted] was an associated individual in...

The Tribunal was asked to consider a prohibition against Mr Tajinderpal Singh Ratta pursuant to paragraph 4.8.2(g) of the 12th Edition of the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice (the “Code”). The case related to an adjudication against the Level 2 provider So Much Cheaper.com Limited (24 January 2013, case reference 11083), which concerned a premium rate virtual chat service.On 24 January 2013, the...

The Tribunal was asked to consider a prohibition against Mr Foley under paragraph 4.8.2(g) of the 12th Edition of the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice (the “Code”). The case related to an adjudication against Marcus Foley (a sole trader) trading as IT Expects Midlands (21 February 2013, case reference 14282), which concerned a premium rate scam involving classified advertisements for fictitious...