Consumer Protection Regulations

[Gandhi]

Hi , I am sort of in a similar situation to most here . What happened in my situation was last month ( Nov) my nephew (12 years old) apparantly needed to do some homework and use the internet. So nephew came round and used my router for about 2 hours then left and I thought no more of it . Two days ago, the sister is phoning up because his laptop has some pop up screen on it that won't go away , can i fix it . He is always messing up that laptop with virus's and all sorts of dubious downloads and whining to me about it. So they bring this laptop round and I see this pop up window they are on about . The 3 day trial and pay now etc , I didn't read it all but got the general gist of it . So I got rid of it and the laptop is now clean . I did notice my I.P number on this window thou , so I asks him what was he doing to get this latest virus . Downloading some music video .  Ok , so off he goes with his clean laptop and I'm left with this problem I seem to have dumped on me regarding this IP address and someone thinks I owe them money .

So, first off I am thinking on how to stop the brat from getting my IP number on his misdemeanors around the internet ever again . I look at the router and it has these handy URL keyword and website filtering options . That is a good thing , so I put all these words in that will stop him ever going to sites not involved in homework  .. like Movies and Music and warez and screensavers etc , I got down about 160 words in the end , he will barely move on the internet next time he comes here . That was the keywords sorted , now onto blocking specific websites . So I google the problem, see if I can find out where he went . Ie 'music' and 'scam' and '3 days' , 'pop up' .. and I soon find a plethora of websites about this problem , including this forum .

So, I read on here that there is a chance they could find me from my IP address . What I am interested in , is even if their business practice is deemed legitimate by the OFT , is the method that they would use to make good their attempts on recovering this 'debt' equally legitimate ? Is the OFT looking only at the legitimacy of installing this software and not at the legitimacy in the application of the software ?

From the OFT's own publication :

2.2 Examples of unfair practices are as follows

f. contacting debtors at unreasonable times
Like this pop up may occur at 3 am in the morning , for example

g. ignoring or disregarding debtors' legitimate wishes in respect
of when and where to contact them, for example, shift workers who
ask not to be telephoned during certain times of the day

When do you have any kind of choice of when to be contacted when you have random pop ups asking you for money ?

2.4 Examples of unfair practices are as follows

b. falsely implying or stating that action can or will be taken when it legally
cannot.

Like they can take a 12 year old to court for not paying their fees to log onto porn sites or whatever else they are selling that is adult content only

f. pursuing third parties for payment when they are not liable

That would be me , in this case .. should they start chasing my IP number

Physical/psychological harassment
2.5 Putting pressure on debtors or third parties is considered to be oppressive.
2.6 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:
a. contacting debtors at unreasonable times and at unreasonable intervals

Self Evident

Deceptive and/or unfair methods
2.7 Dealings with debtors are not to be deceitful and/or unfair.
2.8 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:
a. sending demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that
they are the debtor in question, for example, threatening debt recovery
action to 'the occupier' or sending a payment demand to all people sharing
the same name/date of birth as a debtor in the hope that contact with the
correct debtor will be made.

If somebody else uses your pc , you so called 'debt' is plastered all over the screen. They are contacting the 'pc' in the hope they get the right 'person' , which is not guaranteed.

b. disclosing debt details to an individual when it is uncertain that they are
the debtor in question, for example, disclosing details to 'the occupier' of
an address.

They send letters addressed to "the computer owner"

d. contacting debtors directly and bypassing their appointed representatives

What if I want to deal with their claim through a lawyer , do I need to get my lawyer to come and sit at the pc/laptop with the pop ups ?

There is more in that document that could be applied . Not to mention harassment laws . And also :

Consumer Protection Regulations 2008

Aggressive commercial practices
7.—(1) A commercial practice is aggressive if, in its factual context, taking account of all of its features and circumstances—

(a) it significantly impairs or is likely significantly to impair the average consumer’s freedom of choice or conduct in relation to the product concerned through the use of harassment, coercion or undue influence.

(2) In determining whether a commercial practice uses harassment, coercion or undue influence account shall be taken of—

(a) its timing, location, nature or persistence

(3) In this regulation—

(a) “coercion” includes the use of physical force; and
(b) “undue influence” means exploiting a position of power in relation to the consumer so as to apply pressure, even without using or threatening to use physical force, in a way which significantly limits the consumer’s ability to make an informed decision.

-----

Nobody willingly signs up to be harassed , and harassment is harassment , signed up or not . Same as murder , I could say it is fine to shoot me , but if they do it is murder nonetheless.

Whatever happens , they aren't getting a penny out of me . If it goes to court I will want to know how a minor can access this facility for 3 days free to watch porn films if they wanted . Surely the age check, ie CC identification must come first , not hidden in some dormant pop up mugging software 4 days later .

[ForumFriend]

Gandhi, there's a lot in your post, and I won't attempt to respond to it here, but I would ask you this:  Have you (or will you) be putting these points to Trading Standards and the OFT?  I believe you should.

In fact, I believe every disgruntled 'consumer' should raise issues with these bodies if they think they have had a raw deal from Platte (or any other company, for that matter). 

[Gandhi]

I could do . Is there a contact at OFT that deals with this issue ?

They are also contrary to Administration of Justice Act 1970 (c.31) s(40)

Part V
 Miscellaneous Provisions
40 Punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors(1)A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract, he—
(a)harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;

(2)A person may be guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such action as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment


(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than £100, and on a second or subsequent conviction to a fine of not more than £400.

and :

Protection from Harassment Act 1997
1997 CHAPTER 40

1 Prohibition of harassment (1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct—
(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.


2 Offence of harassment (1) A person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1 is guilty of an offence.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.
(3) In section 24(2) of the [1984 c. 60.] Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (arrestable offences), after paragraph (m) there is inserted—
“(n) an offence under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (harassment).”

I do not know exactly the nature of what goes on with these pop up , their frequency and duration etc. All I have seen is the pop up window I looked at for about 20 seconds on this laptop. But going by what I read here and whines of the nephew, sounds like harassment to me .

[ForumFriend]

Gandhi:  I'll definitely get back to you on this one and will try to do this tomorrow.

[Gandhi]

Ok thanks )

Maybe add this one in too : If downloaded application can be seen as an electronic communication

Malicious Communications Act 1988
1988 c. 27

1. Offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety.— (1) Any person who sends to another person—
(a)a [F1 letter, electronic communication or article of any description] which conveys—
(i) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;
(ii) a threat; or
(iii) information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or
(b)any [F2 article or electronic communication] which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,
is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.

[Gandhi]

What is this about needing to send them a birth certificate if a minor is involved ? What would that prove , who is going to send porn merchant company a document like that anyway . I'm not sending them a thing . I know they make some hardware identification of the actual pc/laptop being used at the time and I know that identification won't match any computer in my possession . It will match the one the child has and has a receipt of purchase for and ongoing insurance policy for under the childs parents name . I'd like to know where in law it states the registered 'owner' of an IP address is legally responsible for all users using that connection . Has there been a case in law where this was proven to be the case ? I don't know of any.

[Gandhi]

You aren't supposed to remove their software ? Well, I didn't sign up for it and it's not on any of my pc's , and the child being under under 18 makes it all null and void anyway on the laptop , so I don't see who is responsible here to maintain their application in working order on this laptop at all . I'm not obligated to read all their terms and conditions and abide by them , what do I know or care about the latest junk the brat downloads and what it says . Anyway it's gone , so thats that .

If I were obliged to read what it says on this particular file because it is my IP, I am obliged to read every single file he downloads when connected to my router. Not just me , everybody who has an IP number registered against their name would need to read and understand and be liable for every single file downloaded by every single user . Every exe file, ini, cab, txt, xml, html,  dll .. the lot .Councils , hospitals.. schools.. librarys ... and they would need to see these files before anyone ticked the 'i agree' box or run the program. Can anyone imagine a farcical system like this actually in operation ?

That is the problem with using somebodys IP number as authentication in the same way as a signature . With an IP number , it doesn't necessaily mean you have witnessed any such contract you are supposed to bound by by virtue of your IP number attached to it . 

I'm in two minds about complaining about them to the OFT , since the OFT have sanctioned them to do this . I want to complain about the OFT for not protecting the 'consumer' .. or at least .. providing the opportunity for a company to  produce a consumer out of thin air when there wasn't one before , and the subsequent or potential costs to that 'consumer' by the OFT's negligence or oversight in providing any kind of protection for people in situation like this. Be the MP for me. I will let the child's parents complain 'to' OFT .. about this platt media , it is their son's laptop which got into this porn site with no age check beyond ticking a box.

[Stiffed]

Gandhi,

Don't waste your time complaining to the OFT. They have bigger fish on their hooks like the greedy banks, energy providers and oil companies etc.

They can't be bothered with the likes of Platte Media right now as they are not a national issue.

Just bide your time... Platte Media will not come back providing you have not given them any personal details.

Just keep your head down!

[Gandhi]

I don't want to complain 'to' the OFT , I want to complain 'about' them . I don't care if this platt media chase me up either , let them take me to court . I'd like to see how they work out how and when a cause of action began or the agreement I signed where I failed to pay the interest due within the 21 days plus one month to enable them to initiate that cause of action . I'd like to see this particular business method end up in court , how somebody 'in charge' of an IP number is legally responsible for a minor 'signing' some e-contract or whatever it is , how I am responsible for platt media engaging in an agreement with somebody failing the capacity to contract . I'm not even the parent or guardian , where does it say in law I got to go protecting these brats laptops . Why should I pay for that . Where does it say I got to put protection on my router to stop minors getting to these sites in law ?  There is protection on it now , but only to curtail these activities on the internet for my benefit .. and the brats i suppose , but I didn't put them on to protect this platt media or for their benefit in providing censorship so it relieves them of any responsibility to carry out an effective age check .

And if they get my details .. who gave them permission to process them ?.. I didn't . They would be in contravention of the data protection act to hold that kind of information without my consent . I would be complaining to the information commissioner about this straight away . Platt media will get a section 10 dpa desist notice , subject access request and a formal complaint along with it , in accordance with their complaint procedures of course which by law they must have  . And if it is not removed and my complaint resolved , I'll take it to the financial ombudsman who will charge them (platt) £400 just for the privilege of investigating my complaint .

Data Protection Act
 
10 Right to prevent processing likely to cause damage or distress (1) Subject to subsection (2), an individual is entitled at any time by notice in writing to a data controller to require the data controller at the end of such period as is reasonable in the circumstances to cease, or not to begin, processing, or processing for a specified purpose or in a specified manner, any personal data in respect of which he is the data subject, on the ground that, for specified reasons—

(a) the processing of those data or their processing for that purpose or in that manner is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him or to another, and

(b) that damage or distress is or would be unwarranted.

(3) The data controller must within twenty-one days of receiving a notice under subsection (1) (“the data subject notice”) give the individual who gave it a written notice—
(a) stating that he has complied or intends to comply with the data subject notice, or
(b) stating his reasons for regarding the data subject notice as to any extent unjustified and the extent (if any) to which he has complied or intends to comply with it.
(4) If a court is satisfied, on the application of any person who has given a notice under subsection (1) which appears to the court to be justified (or to be justified to any extent), that the data controller in question has failed to comply with the notice, the court may order him to take such steps for complying with the notice (or for complying with it to that extent) as the court thinks fit.