Chris Syston (Case reference: 09049)
| Case Number | 09049 |
| Published date | 24 October 2012 |
| Adjudicated Party | Chris Syston |
| Procedure Type | Naming Case (Phone-Paid Services Authority) |
THE CODE COMPLIANCE PANEL OF PHONEPAYPLUS
TRIBUNAL DECISION
Thursday 11 October 2012
TRIBUNAL SITTING No. 111 / CASE 3
CASE REFERENCE: 08346
THIS CASE WAS BROUGHT AGAINST THE NAMED INDIVIDUAL UNDER PARAGRAPH
4.8.6 OF THE CODE
BACKGROUND
(i) Summary relating to Mr Chris Syston
The Tribunal was asked to consider a prohibition against Mr Syston under paragraph 4.8.2(g)
of the 12th Edition of the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice (the “Code”). The case related to
two previous adjudications against Alpha-Telecom Limited, one dated 26 April 2012 (case
reference 08346) that involved an 070 missed call scam and one dated 5 July 2012 (case
reference 03379). The decision of the Tribunal on 5 July 2012 related to a failure to comply
with the sanctions imposed by the Tribunal on 26 April 2012. On 5 July 2012, the Tribunal
recommended that the Executive consider initiating the process which may lead to the
prohibition of Mr Syston (an associated individual) under paragraph 4.8.2(g).
(ii) Relevant Code Provisions
Paragraph 4.8.6 of the Code states,
“If a Tribunal considers that it may wish to make a prohibition under sub-paragraph 4.8.2(f),
4.8.2(g) or 4.8.2(h) in respect of any named individual, PhonepayPlus shall first make all
reasonable attempts to so inform the individual concerned and the relevant party in writing. It
shall inform each of them that any of them may request an opportunity to make informal
representations to the Tribunal and of the right of any of them (or PhonepayPlus itself) to
require an oral hearing.”
Paragraph 4.8.2(g) of the Code states,
“The Tribunal can apply a range of sanctions depending upon the seriousness with which it
regards the breach(es) upheld. Having taken all relevant circumstances into account, the
Tribunal may impose any of the following sanctions…“prohibit a relevant party and/or an
associated individual found to have been knowingly involved in a serious breach or a series of
breaches of the Code from providing, or having any involvement in, any premium rate service or
promotion for a defined period.”
An associated individual is defined at paragraph 5.3.9 of the Code,
“Associated individual’ is any sole trader, partner or director or manager of a premium rate
service provider, anyone having day to day responsibility for the conduct of its relevant business
and any individual in accordance with whose directions or instructions such persons are
accustomed to act, or any member of a class of individuals designated by PhonepayPlus.”
SUBMISSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Knowing involvement in a serious breach or series of breaches of the Code
To continue reading
Request your trial