By continuing to browse our site, you are consenting to the use of cookies.
Click here for more information on the cookies we use. Hide

Quick Links

Adjudication

Publication Date
06 February 2014
Case Reference
30361
Procedure
Track 2
Adjudicated Party
CommandM PTY. Limited
Service Type
Entertainment - non-adult
Tribunal's final assessment
Very Serious
Sanctions
Code 12 para 4.8.2b - Formal reprimand and/or warning
Code 12 para 4.8.2g - Prohibition all PRS
Breaches raised
Code 12 4.8.4 (b) Sanctions
Code 12 4.10.2 Administrative Charge
Summary

A service provided by the Level 2 provider CommandM PTY Limited was the subject of a PhonepayPlus investigation and adjudication (case reference 18061), which resulted in sanctions being imposed by a Tribunal on 11 July 2013. The sanctions imposed by the Tribunal included a fine of £250,000 and a requirement that refunds be paid to all consumers who claim a refund, for the full amount spent by them on the service, within 28 days of their claim save where there is good cause to believe that such claims are not valid, and provide evidence to PhonepayPlus that such refunds have been made. In addition, an administrative charge of £8,197.00 was imposed.

The Level 2 provider failed to pay the fine and co-operate with PhonepayPlus regarding the administration of the refunds in the time period specified.

The Executive raised the following potential breach of the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice (12th Edition) (the "Code"):

  • Paragraph 4.8.4 (b) – Failure to comply with a sanction
  • Paragraph 4.10.2 – Non-payment of an administrative charge

The Tribunal upheld both of the breaches of the Code. The Tribunal considered the breaches to be very serious. It issued a formal reprimand and a prohibition on the Level 2 provider from providing, or having any involvement in, any premium rate service for a period of three years (starting from the date of publication of this decision), or until the breaches are remedied by payment of the outstanding fine and the original and instant administrative charges, whichever is the later.

Click here to view the Adjudication decision