Lyons, Peter

This case was brought against the Level 2 provider under Paragraph 4.8.6 of the 14^th edition of the Code of Practice (“the Code”).

The Tribunal was asked to consider imposing a prohibition against Mr Peter Lyons pursuant to paragraph 4.8.3(g) of the Code.

The case related to two previous adjudications against the Level 2 provider, PowerTel Limited, ‘the Level 2 provider’, one dated 18 September 2018 (case reference: 128953) that involved a directory enquiry service, and one dated 17 July 2019 (case reference: 162293) which related to a failure to comply with the financial sanctions and administrative charges imposed by the Tribunal on 18 September 2018. As part of the first adjudication, the Tribunal recommended that the Executive conduct an investigation into the potential prohibition of Mr Lyons pursuant to paragraph 4.8.3(g) of the Code.

The Executive recommended that Mr Lyons should be prohibited 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 Executive asserted that this was a proportionate outcome due to the severity of the breaches that had been upheld in the two previous adjudications.

The Tribunal noted that Mr Lyons had indicated that he did not wish to return to the premium rate services market. In light of this, the Tribunal considered that the impact of a prohibition on Mr Lyons would not be substantial, though it could still result in some reputational damage. After carefully considering all of the facts of the case, including Mr Lyons’ submissions, the Tribunal decided that a five-year prohibition was both proportionate and appropriate despite the potential impact it could have on Mr Lyons. The Tribunal was of this view given the severity of the breaches that had been upheld by the two previous Tribunals and as a result of the need to ensure that any sanction served as a credible deterrent.

Accordingly, the Tribunal decided to prohibit Mr Lyons 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 also considered the administrative charge recommendation as a result of Mr Lyons’ submissions in relation to the financial impact of the previous proceedings and the impact of the debt recovery proceedings that the Executive had initiated. The Tribunal was of the view that the impact of the administration charge could be detrimental to Mr Lyons, but that the case had been properly brought by the Executive and so the administrative charge recommendation should be 100% and that the matter of debt recovery was one for the Executive to consider.

Administrative charge recommendation: 100%