Managed it  in a fashion, the content is in its entirety, just the logos missing.


PRICE OF TELEPHONE CALLS
I refer to your recent complaints and the resulting correspondence with officers
of this Service.
While there may be aspects of complaint which may contravene criminal law,
any action taken by ourselves must be proportionate to the severity of any
individual case. Government guidance recommends that action by enforcement
bodies is appropriate and not a burden on business. To this end this Authority
has signed up to the Enforcement Concordat.
Your complaint has been dealt with in line with Service policy derived from the
Enforcement Concordat by referral to the Home Authority for the companies
involved Any deviation from the Concordat would leave the Authority open to
challenge as in the R v Adaway appeal case. It is not appropriate under the
Home Authority Principle for us to supply you with the referral details of the
Trading Standards Services involved or for you to contact them directly.
I am sorry you do not see a role for Ofcom in this matter. As the watchdog
service for telecoms I am sure they would value your views. (I appreciate they
may not be able to deal with individual enquiries).
I hope this letter explains our actions in relation to your complaint. Further
information is available on the Enforcement Concordat and Home Authority
Principle on our website at www.tradingstandards.qov.uk/lancashire. From the
home page please follow the link to Business Advice.
Yours faithfully
^J-,

trevord wrote on Jan 28^th, 2006 at 3:34pm:

R v Adaway [2004] EWCA CRM 2831 was quoted above.  

Mr. Adaway was convicted in connection with a misdescriptions in the  building of a conservatory (vents and type of glass).  He was taken to court and fined £250 but on appeal the conviction was quashed.  Below is a quote from the Court of Appeal.  

Lord Justice Rose said:

Quote  .........

21. Indeed, when the learned Judge came to impose the fines upon the appellant, to which at the outset we referred, and to make the order in favour of the female defendant as to her costs, the learned Judge said this in a passage on which Mr Mayall places particular reliance at p 3 of the sentencing remarks:

"It is the responsibility of Wokingham District Council to ensure that they do not improperly or disproportionately use their powers of enforcement so as to cause oppression. They have, at their disposal, public funds and they should not mobilize the criminal law unless it is in the public interest to do so or when a warning or some form of caution would do as well.

In particular, the criminal law should not be mobilized to secure the settlement of private disputes which should more appropriately be determined in the county court or by arbitration or by mediation."

........

27. We add this. We have no information as to how much these proceedings have cost this local authority. We suspect that it must be many thousands of pounds. We cannot emphasize too strongly that before criminal proceedings are instituted by a local authority, acting in relation to the strict liability offences created by the Trade Descriptions Act, they must consider with care the terms of their own prosecuting policy. If they fail to do so, or if they reach a conclusion which is wholly unsupported, as the conclusion to prosecute in this case was, by material establishing the criteria for prosecution, it is unlikely that the courts will be sympathetic, in the face of the other demands upon their time at Crown Court and appellate level, to attempts to justify such prosecutions.

28. For the reasons which we have given, this appeal is allowed. The appellant's convictions are quashed.  

End quote

______________________________________________________

Unless fraud is evident, the above applies and a criminal prosecution will not take place.

If a Company makes a substantial amount of money out misrepresenting the cost of 087x/084x telephone numbers
and they have been warned before and continue the misrepresentation,
it would/may be possible, notwithstanding R v Adaway, to bring a prosecution.

derrick wrote on Jan 28^th, 2006 at 5:22pm:

The funds behind Norwich Union (strictly now "Aviva") is actually from shareholders, not policyholders. 

It ceased to be a mutual (with policyholders behind it) some years back, and subsequently got taken over by Commercial Union, who renamed the joint company 'Aviva' but kept the trading name 'Norwich Union' because they recognised that - at that time - that name had a good reputation.

In my humble opinion, their reputation plummetted when Commercial Union took them over - they kept the worst of Commercial Union instead of the best of Norwich Union!