2010 Phonepayplus 'fines': licence to scam or consumer 'protection'?
01 October 2009
Information provider N/A - Network Operator Case
Service provider N/A - Network Operator Case
CASE REFERENCE: 777583/JI
THIS CASE WAS BROUGHT AGAINST THE NETWORK OPERATOR
UNDER PARAGRAPH 9.1 OF THE CODE
BACKGROUND
In July 2008, the PhonepayPlus Executive (the ‘Executive’) received complaints from members of the public regarding missed calls being made from 070 prefixed numbers which were operating on the Hotchilli Communications Limited network. Hotchilli Communications Limited changed its name to Plaza Telecom Limited on 8 August 2009.
The complaints were linked to six separate service providers and, as a result, six separate investigations were initiated by the Executive in relation to the following service providers: Starwire Limited (Case reference 748452); Speedreview Limited (Case reference 765871); Jay Singh t/a JST Promotions (Case reference 774947); PCB Telecom Limited (Case reference 766056); Enbel Limited (Case reference 767427) and Symtek Communications Limited (Case reference 751193). All six service providers were found to be in breach of the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice (11th Edition Amended April 2008) (‘the Code’).
The Executive was concerned as to the apparent failure of the Network Operator to comply with its due diligence obligations under the Code and specific directions issued by the Executive which enabled the six service providers to operate in breach of the Code.
[]
SANCTIONS
In determining the sanctions appropriate for the case, the Tribunal took into account the following aggravating factors:
There were outstanding service provider fines from previous adjudicated cases which breached PhonepayPlus’ Code as a result of the Network Operator’s due diligence failures. Starwire Limited (Case reference 748452) which was fined £250,000; Speedreview Limited (Case reference 765871) which has an outstanding fine of £57,848; Jay Singh t/a JST Promotions (Case reference 766056) which has an outstanding fine of £25,657.48; PCB Telecom Limited which was fined £500,000; Enbel Limited (Case reference 767427) which was fined £110,000; and Symtek Communications Limited (Case reference 751193) which was fined £250,000;
There was material consumer detriment given the large gross revenue attained from consumers of the above services, which was in the approximate sum of £1.5million.
The Network Operator’s breach history.
Formal Reprimand;
A fine of £175,000;
ok so Hotchilli didn't withhold and hand over the £1.2M revenue ('fine') to Phonepayplus
so
Phonepayplus has decided to ban some of the directors involved in the missed call scams.
04 March 2010
Information provider N/A Associated Individual: Khushbinder Singh Abhol
Ground 1
Case reference 751193 – Symtek Communications Limited (‘Symtek’)
As the fine and administrative charges issued to PCB Telecom were not paid, further breaches of the Code were upheld against the Service Provider,
--------------------------------
Ground 2
Case reference 766056 – PCB Telecom Limited (‘PCB Telecom’)
As the fine and administrative charges issued to PCB Telecom were not paid, further breaches of the Code were upheld against the Service Provider,
------------------------------------------
Sanction The Tribunal decided to prohibit Mr Khushbinder Singh Abhol from involvement in, or contracting for, the provision of any premium rate service for a period of five years, under paragraph 8.9.2g of the Code.
Information provider N/A Associated Individual: Ranbir Singh Kaloya
Ground 1
Case reference 766056 – PCB Telecom Limited (‘PCB Telecom’)
As the fine and administrative charges issued to PCB Telecom were not paid, further breaches of the Code were upheld against the Service Provider,
---------------------------------------------------
Ground 2
Case reference 774947 – Jay Singh t/a JST Promotions (‘JST Promotions’)
The Tribunal found that Mr Ranbir Singh Kaloya, by virtue of his role as the company secretary of PCB Telecom Limited and as principal regulatory contact for JST Promotions, was an associated individual, who had been knowingly involved in a series of breaches of the Code, in respect of the following matters: Jay Singh t/a JST Promotions Limited (Case ref. 774947) and PCB Telecom Limited (Case ref. 766056).
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sanction The Tribunal decided to prohibit Mr Ranbir Singh Kaloya from involvement in, or contracting for, the provision of any premium rate service for a period of five years, under paragraph 8.9.2g of the Code.
Information provider N/A Associated Individual: Darshan Singh
Ground 1
Case reference 765871 – Speedreview Limited (‘Speedreview’)
As the fine and administrative charges issued to Speedreview were not paid, further breaches of the Code were upheld against the Service Provider,
-----------------------------------
Ground 2
Case reference 774947 – Jay Singh t/a JST Promotions (‘JST Promotions’)
The Executive referred to the fact that the services operated by Speedreview and JST Promotions both used numbers associated with the company, Promotions Today, and that the scripts for these numbers mimicked one another. The Executive therefore asserted that, on a balance of probabilities, Darshan Singh, the Director of Speedreview, was knowingly involved in the breaches for this service.
----------------------------------
Sanction The Tribunal decided to prohibit Mr Darshan Singh from involvement in, or contracting for, the provision of any premium rate service for a period of two years, under paragraph 8.9.2g of the Code.
but would they have banned them if Hotchilli had paid the fines?
well here's one of the individuals that Phonepayplus believed was involved in the missed call scams and unpaid fines.
Information provider N/A Associated Individual: Jaipal Singh
Ground 1
Case reference 765871 – Speedreview Limited (‘Speedreview’)
Ground 2
Case reference 774947 – Jay Singh t/a JST Promotions (‘JST Promotions’)
Ground 3
Case reference 751193 – Symtek Communications Limited (‘Symtek’)
Ground 4
Case reference 767427 – Enbel Limited (‘Enbel’)
Ground 5
Case reference 766056 – PCB Telecom Limited (‘PCB Telecom’)
Ground 6
Case reference 712724 – JJ Trading Limited (‘JJ Trading’)
Ground 7
Case reference 710286 – Airwaves Telecom Limited (‘Airwaves Telecom’) and JJ Trading
Ground 8
Case reference 266343 – Airwaves Telecom
Ground 9
Case reference 62029 – Airwaves Telecom
Ground 10
Case reference 59060 – Airwaves Telecom
In relation to Grounds 2, 3, 4 and 5, on the basis of the Tribunal’s finding in relation to Ground 1, the Tribunal said it was not satisfied that Jaipal Singh was knowingly involved in the breaches of the Code by Speedreview Ltd (Case ref 765871), Symtek Communications (Case ref 751193), Enbel Limited (Case ref 767427) and PCB Telecom Ltd (Case ref 766056) as the Executive’s case in relation to these providers all hinged on establishing that Jaipal Singh was the same individual as Jay Singh t/a JST Promotions.
In relation to Grounds 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, the Tribunal considered the evidence and found that Mr Jaipal Singh was an associated individual, who had been knowingly involved in a series of breaches of the Code, in respect of the following matters: JJ Trading Limited (Case ref 712724) and Airwaves Telecom Limited (Case ref. 710286, 266343, 62029, 590060). On each occasion, Mr Jaipal Singh had been an appointed director of the relevant company. The Tribunal dismissed the respondent’s argument that he had not been ‘personally involved’.
The Tribunal found that Mr Jaipal Singh had been an associated individual involved in a series of breaches of the Code in relation to grounds 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
Decision: UPHELD on grounds 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
SANCTIONS
The Tribunal decided to prohibit Mr Jaipal Singh from involvement in, or contracting for, the provision of any premium rate service for a period of two years, under paragraph 8.9.2g of the Code.
so why are Phonepayplus only now naming and banning Jaipal Singh?
why didn't they name and ban him when his code breach history originally became apparent?
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...=585598&page=3
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...=585598&page=4
was it because his Phonepayplus breach history wasn't for not paying fines but only for his involvement in scamming the public.
Last edited by El Gringo; 18-March-2010 at 22:39.
|
18-March-2010, 20:39
Hybrid Mode
Similar Threads