Ratta, Taj (Case reference: 16809)
| Case Number | 16809 |
| Year | 2013 |
| Published date | 18 September 2013 |
| Adjudicated Party | Ratta, Taj |
| Procedure Type | Naming Case (Phone-Paid Services Authority) |
Code Compliance Panel
Tribunal Decision
18
Tribunal Sitting Number 133 / Case 2
Case Reference: 16809
Case: Prohibition of an associated individual
THIS CASE WAS BROUGHT AGAINST THE NAMED INDIVIDUAL UNDER PARAGRAPH 4.8.6 OF THE
CODE
BACKGROUND
(i) Summary relating to Mr Tajinderpal Singh Ratta
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 Tribunal recommended that the Executive consider initiating the process which
may lead to the prohibition of Mr Ratta, (an associated individual) pursuant to 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 singularly or in any combination in relation to each breach:
(g) prohibit a relevant party and/or an associated individual found to have been knowingly involved in
a serious breach or series of breaches of the Code from providing, or having any involvement in, any
premium rate service or promotion for a defined period.”
• Paragraph 5.3.9 of the Code states:
“‘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 the Tribunal and of the
right of any of them (or PhonepayPlus itself) to require an oral hearing”.
SUBMISSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Knowing involvement in a serious breach or a series of breaches of the Code
To continue reading
Request your trial