Monday, 19 March 2012

More on ADR

Arrg, every time I try to drop it, more comes up.

There is a lovely bit in the Communications Act, which the Ombudsman kindly referenced in their reply to my recent questions.

52 (6) (a) says that the ADR stuff does not apply to someone that is himself a communications provider. It then also defines only consumer or small business as 10 or fewer employees.

The definition in the Act of "communications provider" is very wide, and IMHO, covers anyone with a DSL router, but this specific case related to someone who's business was live streaming video and that is a business which is in no doubt whatsoever a "communications provider".

So once again, the ombudsman should not have taken the case, as the end user was, quite simply, not eligible for it.

Arrrrrrrrrrrrg!

5 comments:

  1. Employ someone full time to badger everyone until they correct this mess?
    Startup your own ADR company that does it right?

    ReplyDelete
  2. So you already have your ADR optout built into your standard business practises: the bit where a customer has the option of stating that they buy servixes from you as a communications provider

    ReplyDelete
  3. Am I right in thinking that for ADR to qualify you have to have +10 employee's? if that's the case, why not create a separate company called "AAISP Support", which handles support for AAISP who deal with the sales / service/ etc.... would this then make each company AAISP & AAISP Support be less than 10 employee's? :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, even if you are a one man band you have to be in an ADR scheme if you provide communications services to the public.

      The 10 employees is to take a case to ADR. You have to be not a communications provider and not more than 10 employes.

      Delete
  4. Have you Considered Judicial Review ?
    From Wikipedia
    Judicial review is a procedure in English administrative law by which the courts in England and Wales supervise the exercise of public power on the application of an individual. A person who feels that an exercise of such power by a government authority, such as a minister, the local council or a statutory tribunal, is unlawful, perhaps because it has violated his or her rights, may apply to the Administrative Court (a division of the High Court) for judicial review of the decision and have it set aside (quashed) and possibly obtain damages. A court may also make mandatory orders or injunctions to compel the authority to do its duty or to stop it from acting illegally.

    Also the grounds for review are lsited as
    3 Grounds for review
    3.1 Illegality
    3.1.1 The decision is taken by the wrong person (unlawful sub-delegation)
    3.1.2 Error of law or error of fact
    3.1.3 The powers used for the purpose different from the one envisaged by the law under which they were granted
    3.1.4 Ignoring relevant considerations or taking irrelevant considerations into account
    3.1.5 Fettering discretion
    certainly items 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 seem to be relevant ?

    if there are costs involved is it somthing all ISP's might have an interest in persuing ?

    ReplyDelete