DMC Complaint Outcome
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.
A precisely detailed complaint involving 57 businesses who advertised in the Yell Your Town Lichfield Directory resulted in this brief outcome report on the Direct Marketing Commission website in December 2009:
This is the text as it appears:
Yell Ltd – complaint about direct marketingDecember 2009
This complaint from a number of advertisers related to a door-drop delivery of a Your Town Lichfield. It was based on the concerns of a number of businesses who had taken advertising space in the directory that there was a failure in terms of the delivery. The Commission concluded on the balance of probability that there had been a breach of Clauses 3.17 and 3.21 of the DMA Code of Practice and reminded Yell of the obligations on members of the DMA . The Commission welcomed the actions taken by Yell to address the concerns of all those advertising in the directory in question.
If you believe a DMA member is in breach of the Direct Marketing Code of Practice then contact the Direct Marketing Commission – you can alert us to an issue you see
Supposedly this was intended to address the complaint by over 50 businesses. By placing the “judgement” by the DMC on their website they have made their only public statement concerning the complaint. It falls so far short as to be derisory. The businesses provided compelling evidence that Yell had failed to meet their contractual obligation. The initial response from the DMC came after many months and was woefully inadequate. The Action Group therefore appealed on behalf of all those businesses who had been let down. This Appeal process was dealt with by the Appeals Commissioner…..
The DMC told the advertisers that the delay in posting the outcome was caused by their having to seek legal advice about the wording. Presumably there was a valid reason for omitting to mention:
- the number of advertisers (57 party to the official complaint)
- the fact that the Appeals Commissioner judged on a balance of probabilities, that Yell failed to fulfil the contract with regard to the delivery of the Yell Your Town directories.
At the time of the complaint process, Clause 3.17 was:
3.17 In all their dealings with consumers, other businesses, and each other, members must act decently, fairly and reasonably, fulfilling their contractual obligations at all times.
3.21 Members must adopt clear terms and conditions of supply, including fair contracts. Contracts with consumers must be drawn up to take into account the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994.
Whereas in June 2009, the outcome found Yell to be in breach of Clause 3.22
“Members must ensure that they do nothing that could damage the public image of direct marketing or the Association” – this was not upheld by the Appeals Commissioner. Bizarre that a company can be found on a balance of probabilities, to be in breach of contractual obligations, yet this is considered not to damage the public image. Perhaps it is that the DMC thinks the public at large has no interest in business to business failure. The businesses involved are all members of the public as well as being consumers of marketing! Bizarre also that the Commission should praise Yell’s actions to address the concerns of all those advertising in the directory. The reality was quite the reverse, Yell fought all the way to deny any failures.
Yell ( & Link Direct) claimed to have distributed 19528 directories, which just happened to be the Post Office Address file figure for Lichfield at that time. Thus, they claimed 100% distribution when they had received many complaints of non-delivery. They only made any attempt to communicate reasonably with the advertisers following the complaint to the DMC. Yell had chased advertisers via debt collection agencies – even where the advertiser was in dispute due to evidence of non-distribution. They called off the debt collection agencies when it was pointed out that there was a large scale complaint to the DMC by an action group of the advertisers who were not satisfied with Yell’s response.
The Direct Marketing Commission appears to be a toothless watchdog, more concerned with protecting the image of its own members and marketing generally than providing on its website meaningful statements in response to complaints.
The Yell salesmen were of course not in any way to blame for the failure to fulfill the contract. The blame must fall on the shoulders of Yell, Link Direct (sub-contracted distribution agent) and Distribution Direct of Stourbridge (distribution company contracted by Link Direct).
The process of making an official complaint to Yell and then to the DMC was protracted. Yell, from beginning to end, denied any failure in the distribution of Your Town. They never gave full refunds to all advertisers. The DMC has done a good job in protecting Yell’s reputation. By producing such a minimally worded outcome on their website, they rendered the complaint process fairly worthless.
Email sent on behalf of YYTLDAAG to DMC 28 October 2009:
Hello Caroline,
Since our meeting held in Lichfield on 6 August with yourself and John Bridgeman, we have yet to hear any of the conclusions. I understand that there was some delay in being able to set up a meeting with Christian Wells and Yell staff due to summer vacations and annual leave. However, given that we have already evidenced quite clearly that if there was any distribution at all in Lichfield it was minimal – it is hard to see what evidence Yell were able to provide the DMC with. Can you please let me know why we are still waiting. 57 Lichfield businesses are party to the complaint to the DMC.
I think it is reasonable that we should have received the outcome by now. We have provided clear evidence that there was a failure by Yell to fulfil the contract with regards to the distribution.
Yell reluctantly gave out partial refunds and a form of “goodwill gesture” to all of the advertisers in Lichfield in January this year. As you know, there has never been any acknowledgment by Yell of any failure in the distribution. This is despite the fact that they were provided with the same evidence that was given to the DMC. It is beyond comprehension that the door to door marketing “expert” engaged by the DMC was unable to conclude one way or the other that the contract regarding the minimum circulation distribution was or was not fulfilled. 83 of the 92 advertisers able to be contacted fully within the designated postcodes in Lichfield confirmed NON-RECEIPT. Not a single District or City Councillor received a copy. The Yell contract states that as far as reasonably possible the directory would be distributed free to every household and business.
Yell and Link Direct claim to have distributed the Post Office Address file figure of 19528. The Distribution Direct form and the Link Direct certificate is quite clearly a false claim. They made the same claim for the Cannock Your Town Directory, where not a single advertiser received a directory – nor colleagues, clients, customers etc.
I would appreciate an update on the progress of the Appeal. We have I think been very patient, but it is disturbing that after many months we have yet to hear anything.
Yell has I understand recently given refunds to 24 Cannock businesses, where there was evidence of another failure by Yell to distribute the Your Town Directory 2007. There are also doubts about the distribution of the Stafford Directory and I understand that a complaint was received by the DMC.
The use by sub-contractor Link Direct of (they allege) 2 different companies : Distribution Direct of Stourbridge, and Maitrix Distribution of Leicester resulted in many businesses paying for advertising that was not distributed to the contracted minimum circulation.
We waited many months for the poor and inappropriate outcome for the DMC complaint. It is now 5 months since the letter of Appeal was sent to Mr Bridgeman Appeals Commissioner. Tomorrow it will be 4 months since our meeting with Mr Bridgeman in Lichfield. Surely that is long enough for an outcome and a report on the Appeal?
Regards,
On behalf of YYTLDAAG
The advertisers waited such a long time to get some justice, but it never came!