Adjudications and Informally Resolved Complaints
There were 79 complaints against DMA members and non-members for the three month period of November 2011 to January 2012. There were 20 consumer complaints against DMA members, and during that period two previous complaints were formally investigated and proceeded to adjudication (see below). There were 49 consumer complaints against non-DMA members many of which referred to other trade bodies, such as the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), Information Commissioners’ Office (ICO) and Trading Standards offices. There were 10 business to business complaints, 4 of which were made against non-DMA member companies and 6 against members. Issues raised by consumers and businesses included the following areas of concern: unwanted emails, mailings and telephone calls, privacy & data protection concerns, contractual disputes and claims of unclean data.
Those complaints which are resolved informally without the need for any formal action may or may not concern minor breaches of the DM Code of Practice – they would concern issues that are not regularly reported against one specific company or do not affect large numbers of consumers and where the companies involved demonstrate their willingness to take expedient remedial action. However, on occasions we formally remind a company of its obligations to adhere to the Code. This may occur where there are minor breaches, but the Secretariat deems it necessary to ensure the company is fully aware of its future obligations. The Secretariat must be satisfied that appropriate remedial action has been taken, and that the matter is not judged to be sufficiently serious to constitute a further or more formal investigation.
This case related to complaints from consumers who had made an order over the telephone for a product advertised on a television shopping channel. At the time of order they had been additionally sold a free trial for one of Rocket’s annual membership discount schemes. Concerns had been raised about the vulnerability of the consumers, [...]
The complaints brought to attention of the Direct Marketing Commission in relation to B2B Data Lists Group/Data Providers UK involved breaches of fundamental Code provisions, and the Commission concluded that the appropriate sanction would be to recommend to the DMA, that the company were removed from DMA membership. In the period from October 2010 the [...]
This complaint from a business related to an order of data for 10,000 records. The data had been used to send out a letter to recipients asking if they wished to give up smoking. There had been a large number of letters returned as ‘not based at this address’ and many complaints from people who [...]
This case related to telemarketing activity undertaken by Phruit. The Commission investigated following a complaint from an individual consumer who was registered with the Telephone Preference Service (TPS). The consumer had been contacted with the offer of will-writing services having previously been contacted by Phruit in what seemed to be a lead-generation exercise carried out in the guise of research. The investigation involved contact with the original complainant, a review of TPS and other web-based complaints and an attempt to validate compliance with TPS cleansing. Over 100 complaints involving people who had registered with TPS were attributable to Phruit directly or to companies using their data. The Commission had access to over two years of dialogue between the DMA’s compliance team and Phruit that was anchored in ongoing concerns over TPS compliance and the misrepresentation of research.
This door to door complaint related to a claim by a business that their leaflet to 16302 properties was not delivered satisfactorily. All parties had undertaken back-checking and it was clear that some evidence had been provided to show delivery had taken place, though there were differences in the data and in the timeframes over which this was collected. The Commission recognised that 100% delivery cannot be guaranteed and a number of factors can affect recall of an item. These include who is interviewed and the timing and performance of the checking and the nature of item, and its design and impact.
This complaint related to a claim from a business that information online lacked an element of specificity and detail. The company in question had amended their website once the complaint was raised, and in addition, offered a full refund. In conclusion, the Commission did not consider that there was a deliberate attempt to mislead clients, and did not uphold the complaint under clause 3.17 which asks that members act decently, fairly and reasonably. A full refund had been offered and there had been no further complaints. However, there were claims from the complainant that the revised edition of the website was still not sufficiently clear, and as this aspect of the case fell more appropriately under the auspices of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), the complainant was advised to take his complaint further with the ASA if required. Complaint not upheld.
This complaint from a business related to an order of email records for which there had been a high hard bounce rate. Following discussion, the Commission concluded that Intelligent Data’s measures for managing and cleansing data overall appeared generally satisfactory. The company had now offered a refund to the complainant at his request, and the case was considered resolved and closed.
This complaint from a consumer related to unwanted marketing mailings received. BT had suppressed the consumer’s details when she first complained. However, the consumer then received a second unwanted mailing due to a timing issue in that the direct marketing received was the output made two days previously to her being added to the suppression list. A third mailing had then been received which was the result of an external data mismatch. The Board noted that BT had agreed to review their external data process and make improvements to ensure this type of issue did not occur. Should this type of complaint against BT become more prevalent we would further investigate their procedures. BT were, however, formally reminded of their obligations under the Code to suppress, as soon as possible, a recipient’s data from their marketing database should that customer request not to receive any further commercial communications. Reminder of obligations under the Code.
This complaint from a business related to an order for 4,700 email marketing contacts. The complainant claimed that it had been agreed that the mailing lists would be for decision makers in those companies. However, only 3,128 records were received and the complainant had been advised he had 1,572 credits on his account though he claimed he had never agreed to a credit.
This complaint from a number of advertisers related to a door-drop delivery of a Your Town Lichfield. It was based on the concerns of a number of businesses who had taken advertising space in the directory that there was a failure in terms of the delivery. The Commission concluded on the balance of probability that there had been a breach of Clauses 3.17 and 3.21 of the DMA Code of Practice and reminded Yell of the obligations on members of the DMA . The Commission welcomed the actions taken by Yell to address the concerns of all those advertising in the directory in question
This related to a sales call during which a consumer agreed to sign up to a three month trial period. The consumer did not wish to proceed beyond the trial period, but claims monies have been taken from his account without his consent. This complaint was upheld as it is a breach of direct marketing standards not to address consumer and business complaints. Complaint upheld.
This complaint related to a door-drop delivery of 4,500 leaflets. Whilst the company who made the complaint understood that their leaflets would be distributed with the leaflets of two other companies, they alleged there were a number of different leaflets which they claimed the distributor inserted inside a magazine. The Commission concluded that Tudor’s documentation did not show a limitation or guarantee for the number or types of items to be delivered at the same time, and no evidence was found that they had deviated from their standard contract by accepting other items to be delivered at the same time. However, their services document clearly stated that items would not be tucked inside something else, and it was felt that this would have raised a reasonable expectation that the leaflet would not be tucked inside another item. The Board therefore upheld this aspect of the complaint under clause 3.17 of the Direct Marketing Code of Practice which relates to fair behaviour. Complaint upheld.
This complaint related to the receipt of unwanted marketing emails despite the consumer having opted-out. Following investigation, the Commission were informed that this was due to a data mapping error with a maximum of 310,000 records potentially affected. This complaint was upheld under Section 3, Clause 3.10 on compliance with relevant legislation and under Section 14, Clauses 14.4-14.5 on consent and passing email to third parties. Cornhill Direct have been asked to provide written assurance that they will in future comply with the Code. Complaint upheld.
This complaint related to an unsolicited sales call which the complainant claimed to be deceptive and misleading. The Commission acknowledged the consumer’s claim that the operative who had made the call had been discourteous and BT were reminded of their obligations under the Code to be at all times courteous and efficient during sales calls. However, the Board concluded that the telephone script used for the putposes of these calls was satisfactory and the complaint was therefore not upheld. Complaint not upheld.
