Prevented From Trading by MOJ Because They Did Not Understand What I Do

[Amethyst]

Re: Prevented From Trading by MOJ Because They Did Not Understand What I Do

What I don't understand is why was it only me who has experienced this. Of thousands of people who are doing the same thing as I do, not one person has had the same bad experience.

I can understand your point as I can't see anything particularly different between your site and many others who do the same thing.

One issue I'm not understanding on what your sites do is what happens when someone completes the form, does the information get sent to you or direct to a specific CMC ? or did you collate databases of the information and sell it on to CMCs (ie how did you get paid ?).

I wasn't familiar with the term 'lead farming' although I can guess what it means. It sounds a bit dodgy and 'shotgun approach' to me. SEO marketing is actually the gentlest and least intrusive way to make a living from marketing because there is no sales process involved and it is the opposite of sales in many ways: the customers come to your site; there is nothing I actively have to do once the site is at the #1 position. There is no hard sell because there doesn't have to be. It is totally non-intrusive. I don't chase ambulances, for example, and I don't much like people who do either. The affiliate networks sign up SEOs like me because we can get to those #1 positions, not because we are pushy or able to stick our foot in the door or phone people up at home with an unsolicited sales pitch, however clever or shrewd.

[Amethyst]

Re: Prevented From Trading by MOJ Because They Did Not Understand What I Do

If I don;t reply over the weekend I'll be back online on Monday xx My main concern about fighting this is the length of time since the cause of complaint first arose, so if you can do a brief timeline for me that would be very helpful too.

[EXC]

Re: Prevented From Trading by MOJ Because They Did Not Understand What I Do

Yes I rather suspect that a maladministration claim would fall into the same category as a JR in terms of limitation ie 1 year.

[entseo]

Re: Prevented From Trading by MOJ Because They Did Not Understand What I Do

The website visitor would find my site through the search engine results listings, then click through to go to the specific page of the site that the search engine brought up according to the search query. If the visitor wanted to proceed they would fill out the web form on that page. The web forms are and were all specific to the client (the affiliate network); so I would be using the script that they provided which would send the data directly to them. I would usually get a verification of the person's name and address. In the case of one affiliate network they would send me a copy of the data that they received (simultaneous with the time they received it) so that everything was as transparent as possible.

I should perhaps say at this point that I'm registered with the Data Protection Register and I operate according to their guidelines and also to the principles of the Market Research Society which I also belong to. I regard all data as sensitive and private.

None of the data is shared with any party other than the contracted affiliate network. (There have been reports recently of some affiliates who operate a two-tier system whereby the first tier is paid for by a sale, and if the sale fails the affiliate pushes this through to a second network as a lead. This is clearly bad practice and, along with the vast majority of other affiliates, I do not do that, never have done and never will, though the practice seems to go on. Such people are easily identifiable within a short space of time and tend to be booted out of the network when such misdemeanours occur.) Each data profile goes to ONE affiliate network only.

Each lead then has to be verified. This usually means that they are contacted by phone by someone in the affiliate network (not by me: I never speak to any of my website visitors or have any contact with them in any way - this is one of the things I could not seem to make clear to the OFT). If the people named of the application form cannot be contacted then this is counted as an invalid lead and no commission is payable. Similarly, if the lead already exists in the network's database (i.e they have applied before through another website or some other means) then this, too, is counted as invalid on the basis that it is a duplicate lead and is similarly not payable.

At the end of every month I am able to see my cumulative commission, and I get a payment for this (usually by BACS) at the end of the following month. This is standard practice, with small variations, over all affiliate networks. Affiliates are considered as self-employed and responsible for their own tax and VAT (if applicable).

Hope this answers your questions thus far.

[carterjo]

Re: Prevented From Trading by MOJ Because They Did Not Understand What I Do

It is really very hard to assist without knowing the ins and outs of your business.

[entseo]

Re: Prevented From Trading by MOJ Because They Did Not Understand What I Do

Amethyst, Did the additional material I sent clarify things any better? I know there was quite a lot of it, but I felt that a truncated version would beg more questions than it supplied answers.

Should I go ahead with the Maladministration Claim against the MOJ, do you think?

Thanks.

[Amethyst]

Re: Prevented From Trading by MOJ Because They Did Not Understand What I Do

Hiya

The email chain was interesting thank you.

You're not going to be very happy, but I agree with the MOJ's assessment of your business and that you would be required to be regulated for the activities. You aren't simply an affiliate link site as you are collecting peoples data and referring them to CMCs and getting payment in return (from my reading of it)

The bit that isn't discussed much in the communication is why you can't be regulated yourself and what you'd need to do to become regulated, most of the discussion seems to be about how you shouldn't need your own licence.

[entseo]

Re: Prevented From Trading by MOJ Because They Did Not Understand What I Do

Thanks Amethyst.

The reason they gave for not giving me a licence was that I did not have a licence prior to my application for a licence.

Yes, you read that right. I have their own quotation somewhere which reads exactly the same, so I'm not just paraphrasing.

I did indeed embed my client's web form on my site; so have many other affiliates, and they continue to do so and derive an income from this. Yet I was the only one persecuted in this way and had my income stopped by bureaucrats for no particular reason which was ever made clear and logical to me (similarities to the OFT case, of course).

Thanks, anyway, for your consideration and work on this issue. I hope that this case has generated more light than heat!

Best wishes.

[Amethyst]

Re: Prevented From Trading by MOJ Because They Did Not Understand What I Do

Would you have an example of other affiliate sites which you think are doing the same thing but not being kyboshed by the MOJ for it?

Yes it is enlightening, it is daft how the MOJ of all people can't even commit to saying whether you would need a licence or not before you apply for one. We've tried asking them on various issues about whether licence is required or not before and getting a direct answer is nigh on impossible.

[entseo]

Re: Prevented From Trading by MOJ Because They Did Not Understand What I Do

The MOJ didn't seem to be aware of any. But I just looked at the main affiliate network I sent data to and there are nearly 5,000 members of the forum alone. That could mean about 10,000 affiliates altogether, each with at least one website.

Then consider the number of affiliate networks in the UK which would include claims management affiliate programs. It's a big number.

And, yes, getting them to give a straight answer to matters of liability is impossible. Yet when you start trading without a licence they pounce on you, make you pay for a licence, deny you that licence on the basis that you didn't have a licence before you applied for a licence, then take away your livelihood, then say it's not their fault.

I wonder if the DTI are aware of these practices?

[EXC]

Re: Prevented From Trading by MOJ Because They Did Not Understand What I Do

I would imagine that the reason you didn't get a licence was because you were initially engaged in a regulated activity without one and by you're own admission ''don't know anything about claims management'' to the point that you had difficulty filling out the application form and as such failed the fit & proper test the MOJ apply to all applicants.

[entseo]

Re: Prevented From Trading by MOJ Because They Did Not Understand What I Do

I am an SEO, not a CMC. I design and build websites for my clients. It is my clients' details which are on my website and I operate under their own licence. That is how it has always been in the affiliate marketing industry.

If I was asked by a dog training business to build a site for them, I would not need to have qualifications in dog training.

I worked for many years in the market research industry. We were asked to conduct survey research about washing powder, credit cards, semi-conductors, fork lift trucks and vivisection, among hundreds of other things. Would it surprise you to know that none of us knew anything about washing powder, credit cards, semi-conductors, fork lift trucks or vivisection? We simply went through the same procedures because the procedures were the same in each case, irrespective of the subject matter (the company concerned was National opinion Polls so we weren't exactly cowboys).

I am asked by clients to design, build and optimise websites because I know how to design build and optimise websites. If I am asked by a supplier of silicon chips to build a website for him I will be fairly certain that he has not singled me out for my knowledge of silicon chips.

When you have toothache do you go to the dentist or do you pay a visit to a fishmonger? Exactly.

I put my clients' details on my website because that was what was required by law to operate a website on behalf of that specific client. Thousands of other people do the same thing and are entirely within the law in doing so. That is what everyone else did; that is what I did. That was all that was required in law otherwise thousands of people would have been breaking the law by not doing so. ALL affiliate managers I contacted said that was the case. Not one affiliate manage said anything to the contrary.

I don't know anything about claims management because I didn't need to. I do not practice claims management but SEO. That is what I do.

There are thousands of similar examples I could give. The MOJ officer involved did not take this rational line of thinking until, clearly realising his error, he passed the buck to a different department and has never been heard of since.

And what about the thousands of other people who do and did the same as I did? Were they treated in this way? No.

[Amethyst]

Re: Prevented From Trading by MOJ Because They Did Not Understand What I Do

But don't you build lead generating websites that aren't tied to a specific company. You can't take peoples information and them not know what you are doing with the information.

If you were engaged by a company to build a site for them to collect their own information that would be SEO /site building work, the website would necessarily be branded as the company and belong to the company. From what you have said that isn't what you do.

Maybe you could explain the process of your business a bit more.

[Debt Camel]

Re: Prevented From Trading by MOJ Because They Did Not Understand What I Do

it is daft how the MOJ of all people can't even commit to saying whether you would need a licence or not before you apply for one. We've tried asking them on various issues about whether licence is required or not before and getting a direct answer is nigh on impossible.

That's the way regulators work. They don't know your business. How could they give you an accurate determination of whether or not you need a license before they see your completed application form? If you want to do something that you are not sure needs a license covers, you should consult a solicitor familiar with the area. It's not just the MOJ that does this, SFA/FSA/FCA is the same, HMRC will take the same standpoint on tax questions.

[entseo]

Re: Prevented From Trading by MOJ Because They Did Not Understand What I Do

Amethyst, I'm not sure why you think that I build websites without knowing what the purpose would be. I do not take peoples' information without any purpose; I'm not sure what the point of that would be.

Perhaps you could give me an example of why you believe that I do this.

Where I build websites within industries/sectors which require legal compliance I am always at pains to comply with legislation. In both debt management and claims management (which are the two sectors that I have websites in which also have compliance regulations, and which I have always observed) there are clear legal obligations which must be complied with, and from the affiliate's point of view it is necessary to display the appropriate licencing details on the website and have the merchant client inspect the website itself before such an affiliate relationship can exist which the affiliate network is able to undertake. Once the client approves the website content and arrangements and the proper publishing of the client's licence and any other legal requirements, then the affiliate website proceeds to collect data and return income for both the affiliate and the client (and the affiliate network).

In cases where licencing and compliance was demanded by statute, such procedures would always be observed. This has always been understood by me and by many other affiliates.

One issue with this case with the MOJ is that the officer concerned did not understand the meaning of the term 'branding'. I tried to clear up this anomaly and was passed to another officer who, after a while, agreed with me on the meaning of 'branding' as being the accepted meaning of the word by all media industries and academia and by historical precedent, and which was contrary to the original MOJ officer's interpretation of the word 'branding'. Therefore the original MOJ officer was incorrect in his inaccurate and, frankly, naive, assumptions as to what 'branding' meant. Yet this original officer was the person who insisted that I was a CMC (despite all evidence to the contrary) and that I needed a licence (which I clearly didn't because I was not a CMC) and threatened me with legal action if I continued to represent my clients without my own licence, even though I was covered by my clients' own licence in terms which were acknowledged and accepted by both my clients and by the affiliate managers who look after the account.