Pahonea, Bianca (Case reference: 192312)
| Case Number | 192312 |
| Year | 2021 |
| Published date | 08 December 2021 |
| Adjudicated Party | Pahonea, Bianca |
| Procedure Type | Naming Case (Phone-Paid Services Authority) |
1
Tribunal meeting number 286
Case reference: 192312
Case: Prohibition of an associated individual
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’).
Background
1. The tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) has been asked to consider imposing a prohibition against
Ms Pahonea, pursuant to paragraph 4.8.3(g) of the Code.
2. The case related to a previous adjudication against the level 2 provider, Taptronic FZC,
(‘the Level 2 provider’), heard on 17 August 2021 (case reference: 152741) (‘the
Adjudication’). The Adjudication concerned a subscription-based fitness service,
Fitguru (‘the Service’), operated by the Level 2 provider. As part of the Adjudication
against the Level 2 provider, a tribunal (‘the Previous Tribunal’) recommended that the
Executive consider initiating the process which may lead to the prohibition of Ms
Pahonea pursuant to paragraph 4.8.3(g) of the Code.
3. The Service provided consumers with fitness training and nutritional videos. The
Service operated via direct carrier billing, using two value chains and two shortcodes:
64055 and 80206.
4. The Executive received a total of 410 complaints concerning the Service between May
2018 and February 2020. Complainants variously alleged that they had not signed up
to nor agreed to be charged by the Level 2 provider and that they were unable to
successfully complain to the Level 2 provider.
5. In the Adjudication, the Previous Tribunal upheld the following breaches of the Code
by the Level 2 provider:
• Fairness – rule 2.3.1.
• Consent to charge – rule 2.3.3.
• Complaint handling – rule 2.6.1.
• Registration – paragraph 3.4.14.
• False and misleading – paragraph 4.2.2.
• False and misleading – paragraph 4.2.2.
6. The Executive had raised a third alleged breach of paragraph 4.2.2. However, that third
breach was not upheld by the Previous Tribunal.
To continue reading
Request your trial