I have had a strange conversation with ICSTIS and I was wondering whether those on this site can confirm whether what I have been told is correct. If it is it is barking mad.

I was complaining about a premium rate number. ICSTIS have taken the complaint on (in fact they seen to think it is quite serious), but I don't see the logic in who they go after. I have spent a huge time on the phone arguing the logic of this. Let me explain without mentioning the names of those concerned.

Company A provides a service online. You pay for it by dialing a premium rate number. The cost as described is wrong (overcharged) and Company A just doesn't want to know so I complain to ICSTIS. Company A organises this premium rate number through Company B who inturn organisies the service from Company C. Don't ask me precisely what Companies B & C do and frankly I don't care!

As far as I'm concerned my contract is with Company A and any recourse is to them. If the company they have subcontracted to are not performing then it is up to Company A to sue Company B and so on. I have no agreement with Companies B & C and it is Company A therefore that my complaint is with. Basic contract law.

ICSTIS see this differently and they are after Company B and not interested in Company A at all. Why? It is Company A that is advertising the service and should be checking that Company B is doing what it is subcontracted to do correctly. Company B may well be at fault as well, but Company A should not get away with overcharging and not reacting to a complaint.

ICSTIS say that Company B should be checking Company A's web site to ensure it is being advertised in accordance with what they are providing. This seems rather onerous (actually impossible) if you are provding organisations with thousands of premium rate numbers and don't even know where they are advertised in the first place. How can you check them. Ridiculous.

They keep giving me a ridiculous analogy by saying you wouldn't expect Yellow Pages to check that all the services it advertises are accurate. Well I agree with them, but point out that this is not at all analogous. Company A is not advertising someone elses services so they are not like Yellow Pages. They are advertising their own service and I would expect then to check that their own service as advertised is accurate. In other words if Company A advertised in Yellow Pages they should check that their own advert is accurate which is analogous to them advertising on the web.

ICSTIS seem to be confusing the Premium Rate number with the service. That is they think Company A are advertising Company B's premium rate number. They aren't. They are advertising a service which is paid for using Company B's premium rate number. The premium rate number is not the service, but a means to an end, ie the method of paying for it.

Their misunderstanding was confirmed when they thought that Company B kept most of the money and Company A just got a small amount. I pointed out that common sense said the reverse was the case i.e. Company B would get a small fee for providing the service to Company A and Company A gets the lion share for the service it is providing. If not it wouldn't use this method for getting paid.

Weird!

One has little hope when they don't understand this basic method of commerce using Premium Rate numbers, which of course they should be specialists in..

But how does Company B check that Company A abides by the rules? If I am Company A I could use Company B's premium rate number to raise money for the service I provide. I might advertise that service in hundreds of local papers, leaflets put through doors and just about anywhere. How on earth can Company B check that? It can't.

As far as I can see ICSTIS should go after Company A (as can I in contract law). Company A may use as a defence that it didn't know that Company B was overcharging, however this is a weak defence as it should know if that was happening (it can check easily unlike the other way around), or if it didn't know should react when told it was happening (which it didn't).

However I accept that ICSTIS should also be able to go after Company B if Company B has mislead Company A and it is overcharging for the service and pocketing the difference.

As it happens in this case it does look as if it was Company C who actually was at fault (and who have sent me a refund) and whom no one seems in the slightest interested.

By the way I only found out who Company B & C were after I contacted ICSTIS so I had no means of going after them until I got this information. Again focusing back on the fact that my contract was with Company A i.e. I have no interest in Comanies B & C, my business was with Company A.