back to article Ofcom slams slammers: Telcos fined for switching punters' phone lines without their knowledge or consent

Ofcom has slapped two small telcos, Guaranteed Telecom and Met Technologies, with a financial penalty for switching the home phone services of more than 100 people without their knowledge or consent. The businesses used a particularly aggressive style of mis-selling – slamming – to transfer customers to their services without …

  1. Da Weezil

    They’ll all be declaring insolvency over the next few days then.....

    1. CountCadaver

      followed by met2 telecom ltd trading as met telecom...........

      1. DomDF

        Having purchased the previous company's assets for £1

  2. mark4155
    Thumb Down

    Shameful!

    Disgusting behaviour - especially towards vulnerable member of our society. Hope the owners rot in hell. Ofcom should, if they haven't already, remove their license to operate. £35K to go to the treasury, should be also £350 quid to each affected subscriber.

    The thieving, lying, scam merchant bastards!

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    A&A

    Another tick in the Andrews and Arnold feature list, can select to block any switch away attempt so the slammer gets slammed.

    1. Ian Johnston Silver badge

      Re: A&A

      Andrews and Arnold are so generally fab that I live in fear that they will close down or get taken over. I have one FTTP, one VDSL and two VOIP accounts with them and It All Just Works, beautifully. The only company to come close were PlusNet, before BT ruined them.

    2. BenDwire Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: A&A

      +1 for A&A.

      The Anti-slamming option has been enabled since I changed over to them years ago. Money very well spent.

    3. mark4155

      Re: A&A

      A tick if you can afford their service. Fancy website, but all fur coat and no knickers. Shame really.

  4. Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse Silver badge

    £35k in total?

    Yeah... that'll show 'em!!!!!

    1. Anonymous Coward Silver badge
      Meh

      Re: £35k in total?

      ~3½ years profit. It's gonna sting.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: £35k in total?

        It would, if they ever considered paying it.

      2. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: £35k in total?

        companies like this arrange the books very carefully to not show profit. Renumeration to the director will be much higher

        Don't foget that Linited liability only limits SHAREHOLDER exposure. Directors or management can and should face the full legal wrath that comes from their decisions

  5. Filippo Silver badge

    This practice ought to be classified as fraud, with the attending penal consequences. Civil liability is obviously insufficient to stop it, as companies can just be folded up and restarted.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Yeah, but you can't afford to be efficient, now can you. Never bite the hand that feeds you, efficient control and dissuasive fines would be against everything lobbying generally stands for.

    2. Alan Brown Silver badge

      It is fraud and the people slammed have the option to file personal claims against the company + directtors too.

      The Ofcom decision will be rather compelling in a court

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022