UK CPM and IAS Appeals both lost

jronnquist

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Send a Data Rectification Notice to the DPO at the PPC notifying them of your new address for service and requiring them to ERASE your old data. Find the e-mail address on the privacy page of the PPC.

I have sent the email. Thank you for your help!

jronnquist

Just read up on the PSA (Phone-paid Services Authority) Code of Practice. According to them:

"2.2.7
In the course of any promotion of a PRS, written or spoken or in any medium, the cost
must be included before any purchase is made and must be prominent, clearly legible,
visible and proximate to the premium rate telephone number, shortcode or other means
of access to the service."

UK CPM do not display the cost of calling the PRS number on their signs. To me this would be another point in my favour, no?

The_Deep

It is certainly worth raising with your local Trading Standards Department. Have you complained to your MP?

Umkomaas

jronnquist wrote: »

Just read up on the PSA (Phone-paid Services Authority) Code of Practice. According to them:

"2.2.7
In the course of any promotion of a PRS, written or spoken or in any medium, the cost
must be included before any purchase is made and must be prominent, clearly legible,
visible and proximate to the premium rate telephone number, shortcode or other means
of access to the service."

UK CPM do not display the cost of calling the PRS number on their signs. To me this would be another point in my favour, no?

Of no relevance to any court case. It doesn't make the claim against you any more or any less legitimate. It's not your showstopper.

I agree with The Deep.

jronnquist

Okay, I jumped the gun a little on that one. The signed UK CPM contact number (0845 463 5050) is not actually regulated by the PSA as a Premium Rate Service. It's a Business Rate Number, and as such is regulated by Ofcom. In 2015 Ofcom made it mandatory for anyone displaying a 0844 or 0845 number to provide details about the cost of calling, breaking the information down into an "access charge" levied by the phone company and a "service charge" paid to the organisation they are calling.

Needless to say, the UK CPM signage provides no such information or breakdown.

Umkomaas

Contact Ofcom.

jronnquist

Umkomaas wrote: »

Of no relevance to any court case. It doesn't make the claim against you any more or any less legitimate. It's not your showstopper.

I agree with The Deep.

I understand your point, but I don't see how it can be irrelevant. UK CPM's entire case rests on the information provided by its signs and the assertion that I should have contacted them on the listed number to obtain permission to place the van where I did. If that contact number is itself illegally displayed, how is that not a legitimate complaint in the case?

Umkomaas

jronnquist wrote: »

I understand your point, but I don't see how it can be irrelevant. UK CPM's entire case rests on the information provided by its signs and the assertion that I should have contacted them on the listed number to obtain permission to place the van where I did. If that contact number is itself illegally displayed, how is that not a legitimate complaint in the case?

Try it if you wish, it won't cost you anything, but I suspect a Judge will react as they have to issues raised about lack of planning permission for pole mounted cameras and advertising consent for signage (the latter being a criminal offence) and people have argued ex turpi causa non oritur actio but Judges have told defendants to take it up with the proper enforcing authorities - the local authority relevant to the car park.

Just saying!

jronnquist

Umkomaas wrote: »

Try it if you wish, it won't cost you anything, but I suspect a Judge will react as they have to issues raised about lack of planning permission for pole mounted cameras and advertising consent for signage (the latter being a criminal offence) and people have argued ex turpi causa non oritur actio but Judges have told defendants to take it up with the proper enforcing authorities - the local authority relevant to the car park.

Just saying!

Fair point. The case of the number is a side issue, of course. The main issue is that the sign could easily contain the line: "Under some circumstances it may be possible to obtain a temporary exemption for the purpose of loading and unloading. To inquire about the possibility of obtaining such an exemption, please call the number listed above".

Omitting such a statement is, of course, entirely in keeping with UK CPM's business model, which sees ambiguity as a resource rather than a shortcoming.

Castle

jronnquist wrote: »

I understand your point, but I don't see how it can be irrelevant. UK CPM's entire case rests on the information provided by its signs and the assertion that I should have contacted them on the listed number to obtain permission to place the van where I did. If that contact number is itself illegally displayed, how is that not a legitimate complaint in the case?

Which would have meant it being a distance contract and subject to the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.