Wander, Leon

The Tribunal was asked to consider imposing a prohibition against Mr Leon Wander pursuant to paragraph 4.8.3(g) of the 14th edition of the Phone-paid Services Authority (“PSA”) Code of Practice (the “Code”).

The case related to an adjudication against the Level 2 provider, IT Zone Limited. This adjudication took place on 11 October 2019 (case reference: 154674). The adjudication involved a subscriptions alert service operating under the brand name ‘StarSign Alerts’ on short code 60770.

The Tribunal decided to prohibit Mr Wander from providing, or having any involvement in, any premium rate service in the UK for a period of five years from the date of publication of this decision.

The Tribunal considered Mr Wander’s offer to voluntarily suspend himself from the PRS industry and believed that this offer was relevant when considering the likely impact that the prohibition would have on Mr Wander. The Tribunal felt that the impact on Mr Wander would be low since he had informed the Executive that he had decided against pursuing any further activity in the PRS industry and wished to voluntarily suspend himself for a five-year period. The Tribunal considered that a prohibition of this duration was justified due to the conduct of the Level 2 provider and the very serious breaches that were upheld by the earlier Tribunal which included a consent to charge breach. The Tribunal took into account Mr Wander’s actions and bore in mind the deterrent effect of sanctions and the need to ensure that such non-compliant conduct would not be repeated by Mr Wander or by others in the industry and that responsible persons knowingly involved in a series of breaches of the Code may be prohibited. The Tribunal considered that the prohibition was a proportionate sanction, having considered all the facts of the case and the nature of the five breaches of the Code that had been upheld by the earlier Tribunal.

The Tribunal considered whether to reduce the administrative charge in light of Mr Wander’s offer to voluntarily suspend himself. The Tribunal decided against this given the very late stage at which the invitation was made.

Administrative charge recommendation: 100%