YellScam.org

The complaint lodged with the Direct Marketing Commission in January 2009 by a large number of advertisers  about Yell’s abysmal failures  resulted initially in a feeble outcome. This prompted the Action Group to appeal. As a result of the Appeals process, and a meeting with the Appeals Commissioner John Bridgeman, in Lichfield and following a long wait – there is a Final Outcome This outcome will be published shortly by the DMC on its Website.

Oddly, the original DMC outcome  finding Yell to be in Breach of 3.22 relating to bringing the DMA and marketing into disrepute, was overturned. Mr Bridgeman also commended Yell for the way in which Directors from Yell (Christian Wells, Debbie Hayward and David Case) had met with complainants and in agreeing financial settlements.

He agreed that on a balance of probabilities Yell had not fulfilled the contractual obligation in terms of delivery levels quoted to their customers.  No mention has been made anywhere of the fact that Yell maintained that they had managed to deliver the Post Office Address File figure of 19528 thus exceeding the minimum circulation figure of 17600.  No mention has been made anywhere in the report of Link Direct, the sub contracted delivery company who clearly failed to deliver and are equally to blame for the contractual failure. Link Direct are like Yell,  also members of the Direct Marketing Association. The  complaint did not specifically refer to Link Direct as the advertisers believed their complaint could only refer to their contracts with Yell.  This was perhaps an error of judgment as it appears that Link Direct’s reputation will go untarnished – though clearly they were at fault in failing to ensure proper standards of distribution.

The advertisers Action Group demanded full refunds at a meeting held with Yell back in March 2008. Months later, in January 2009 Yell made a “goodwill offer” and managed to  hold on to the custom of many of the advertisers only because they had offered 50% refunds of monies paid, or advertising in Yellow Pages or yell.com for 100% of the amount billed for the Your Town advertising.  This was accepted by many as they believed it was the best offer they were likely to receive from Yell.  Some received 100% refunds but mostly for Yell’s administrative errors in contracts.

Quite why Mr Bridgeman feels that Yell is to be commended in any way raises questions.

The final outcome is now more just:  “In the light of the Appeals Commissioner’s findings, the DMC accepts that, on a balance of probabilities, Yell failed to complete the contract in terms of the delivery levels quoted to advertisers and therefore did not fulfil its contractual obligations to its customers. The DMC therefore revises its original adjudication to uphold a breach of paragraph 3.17.”  This is what the advertisers had been saying since as far back as January 2009. It does not take any kind of expert to see that when 82 of 93 business advertisers who pay for a publication to be delivered DOOR TO DOOR in 5 designated postcodes and 82 did not receive a directory – it was not properly delivered.

The Action Group were told by Mr Bridgeman that as a result of their complaint about Yell, it was inevitable that the DMC Code of Practice as it relates to door to door distribution would be revised. One has to hope that they will apply more common sense in future so as to avoid any repetition of the shambles that was the Yell Your Town Directory distribution in Lichfield. The Cannock Directory distribution was also a failure in the previous year. One Cannock business that had been billed almost £2000 for adverts went along the route of taking Yell to the Small Claims Court. Yell settled with them out of court for an undisclosed sum at the latter part of 2009.