Adjudications and Informally Resolved complaints
Informally Resolved Complaints
There were 54 complaints against DMA members and non-members for the period of November 2009 – January 2010. There were 15 consumer complaints against DMA members – most of these were informally resolved or referred, but two are still undergoing investigation. There were 23 consumer complaints against non-DMA members – many were referred to other trade bodies, such as the ASA, OFT and OFCOM or informally resolved by the Directorate. There are two consumer complaints undergoing investigation. There were 16 business to business complaints, three of which are undergoing investigation.
Those complaints which are resolved informally without the need for any formal action concern only minor breaches of the DM Code of Practice – 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 Directorate deems it necessary to ensure the company is fully aware of its obligations. The Directorate must be satisfied that appropriate remedial action has been taken, and that the matter is not judged to be sufficiently serious to contitute a formal investigation.
Formally Adjudicated Complaints
DMC Board meeting – Tuesday 9th February 2010:
Business v Intelligent Data Services Ltd – this complaint 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. Additionally, having analysed the data, he also had several concerns about the quality of that data, particularly in relation to the percentage of ‘generic’ emails. The Board of the Commission examined the materials from both parties and concluded that there was no evidence to show that the order had not been carried out reasonably, and that no documentation from either party provided evidence of a breach of the Code of Practice. Complaint not upheld.
DMC Board meeting – Tuesday 10th November 2009:
Consumer v Clear Contact – this related to the receipt of a marketing call on the consumer’s mobile phone. The consumer had asked how his mobile number had been obtained as he claimed he had only given it to a small group of friends and family. He was given the details to contact head office. However, he claimed head office were unhelpful and would not divulge how they obtained his number. The consumer considered this poor practice. This complaint was upheld as it is a breach of direct marketing standards not to address consumer and business complaints. Complaint upheld.
Consumer v Baron Lynskey – this related to a claim from the consumer that she had been contacted by phone several times a day about a loan that the caller said she had applied for. The consumer denies applying for a loan. She had requested that the calls cease and had been told on three occasions that her details would be removed. She also claimed that she was told there was no manager for her to speak to and that when she asked to remain on hold she was told this was not possible and the call was then terminated. The consumer said she had tried to register her complaint about being harassed but was then told she was lying. This complaint was upheld as it is a breach of direct marketing standards not to address consumer and business complaints. The company were informed of the standards of direct marketing practice in relation to the provision of a prompt, efficient and courteous customer service and that companies should not make unsolicited calls to customers who have requested not to receive those calls. Complaint upheld.
DMC Board meeting – Tuesday 21st July 2009:
Consumer v BT Customer Street – this related to a sales call during which the 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.
Business v Tudor Distribution – 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.
DMC Board meeting – Thursday 4th June 2009:
Consumer v Cornhill Direct – 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.
Business v Mailbox Nationwide – this related to a door-drop delivery of 5000 leaflets which the complainant company claims was not delivered during the agreed dates. This complaint was upheld as it is a breach of direct marketing standards not to address consumer and business complaints. Complaint upheld.
Consumer v Mobiles For Free – this complaint related to the receipt of silent calls on the consumer’s mobile phone. This complaint was upheld as it is a breach of direct marketing standards not to address consumer and business complaints. Complaint upheld.
Consumer v BT Customer Street – 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.
