Naming case (Case reference: 18486)
| Case Number | 18486 |
| Year | 2013 |
| Published date | 12 June 2013 |
| Adjudicated Party | Naming case |
| Procedure Type | Naming Case (Phone-Paid Services Authority) |
Code Compliance Panel
Tribunal Decision
1
Tribunal Sitting Number 127 / Case 1
Case Reference: 18486
Level 2 provider
Marcus Foley trading as IT Expects Midlands
Type of service
N/A
Level 1 provider
N/A
Network operator
N/A
THIS CASE WAS BROUGHT AGAINST THE NAMED INDIVIDUAL UNDER PARAGRAPH 4.8.6
OF THE CODE
BACKGROUND
(i) Summary relating to Mr Marcus Foley
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 electronic and white goods.
On 21 February 2013, the Tribunal recommended that the Executive consider initiating the process
which may lead to the prohibition of Mr Foley, (an associated individual) under paragraph 4.8.2(g)
of the Code.
(ii) Relevant Code Provisions
• 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…
(g) 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.”
• 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 continue reading
Request your trial