Adjudications and Informally Resolved complaints
Informally Resolved Complaints
There were 72 complaints against DMA members and non-members for the period of February – April 2010. There were 13 consumer complaints against DMA members – most of these were informally resolved. There were 49 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 were 10 business to business complaints.
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 – 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 future 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 constitute a further or more formal investigation.
Formally Adjudicated Complaints
DMC Board meeting – Tuesday 15th June 2010:
Business v Intelligent Data Services: this complaint 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.
DMC Board meeting – Tuesday 20th April 2010:
Business v Mailbox Nationwide: this complaint related to the concerns raised by a hotel who had employed Mailbox Nationwide to distribute 12,000 leaflets door-to-door. The hotel did not believe that the distribution was carried out with reasonable care and skill. The hotel had made a number of complaints about the service received; in particular they claimed that it had never been explained to them that shared distribution could result in their leaflet being inserted inside another flyer and they could not find anything to that effect in their terms and conditions.
It was noted that on the order form there was in fact reference to a shared distribution, but that following the distribution, an email from Mailbox Nationwide to the hotel had stated that leaflet distribution responses are at about one in ten thousand for a shared distribution, and that therefore the response received is perfectly normal. The Board considered that in this respect, Mailbox had not acted fairly and reasonably as they had not mentioned this response rate prior to distribution. The complaint was therefore upheld under clause 3.17 which states that in all their dealings with consumers, other businesses and each other, members must act decently, fairly and responsibly, fulfilling their contractual obligations at all times. Complaint upheld.
Consumer v BT: This complaint 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.
DMC Adjudication – Tuesday 9th March 2010
Consumer v SAS Fire & Security Systems - this complaint related to a consumer who, though she was registered with the Telephone Preference Service, had received a call from a salesman that had made her uneasy; she was told there had been a recent spate of burglaries/crime in her town and she was asked whether she owned her property and had a security system. The consumer felt that the use of “scare tactics” was wrong. SAS did not provide the Commission with all the scripts and assurances requested by the Commission and was therefore found to be in breach of the Code. In the absence of a satisfactory response the Commission upheld the complaint under clause 4.28 of the Code which states that a failure to respond will be considered a breach of the Code. Additionally, the complaint was upheld under clause 3.18 which states that members must not misrepresent themselves as carrying out research or a survey when the real purpose of the contact is to sell goods or services. The Commission also upheld a breach of clause 21.18 which states that members must not make unsolicited calls for direct marketing purposes where the individual has registered his objection with the Telephone Preference Service. Complaint upheld.
In addition to the complaint to the DMC over the scaremongering and mispresentative nature of a call made by SAS the Commission was told the company’s activities had been the subject of a further 753 complaints to the Telephone Preference Service.
The Commission asked that the Directorate bring this complaint to the attention of the ICO and Trading Standards.
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 Adjudication – December 2010:
Advertisers and others v Yell Ltd – this complaint 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.
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.
