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

[entseo]

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

Would you say you did the following ?

• Advertising for or seeking out persons who may have a claim. This includes (but is not
limited to) operating a website.

• Referring details of a claim or claimant, or a cause of action or potential claimant, to
another person. This includes the provision of data or the generation of leads.

Amethyst,

I do not advertise to anyone. It is they who seek out( and find) my website, because my websites tend to be near the top of the search engine listings. If the regulators think that "owning a website" is the same as advertising then they have obviously never owned a website, as the procedures are very different and the results more so. However, if I were to involve myself in online advertising such as Google Adwords (which I think the regulators might be confusing "owning a website" with because far more website owners use Adwords and other PPC methods than classic SEO) then I certainly would be advertising because I would literally have started a PPC campaign. But I don't.

I do not refer a person to anyone. It is the website visitor (who I never see, speak to or communicate with in any way) who fills out the web form him/her self. These details then go via a secure server to the client who is a regulated CMC. The web form is a piece of code which belongs to the CMC. It sits on my website only because the CMC allows it to be placed there on condition that I act in association with the CMC's own licence and conduct, under the umbrella of the CMC. This is why the CMC's details are on the home page of my website. This is why I am licenced to act as an agent of the CMC. It is as if my website was an extension of the CMC's own website. This is something that the original MOJ officer actually agreed with, until he realised that he had misused the term "branding" and had to find some way of backtracking out of it without invalidating his original (incorrect) premise.

[Amethyst]

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

Okay brick wall sorry.

You make the website and work on the SEO to get it to the top of Google ( thus advertise ) so people search the thing you want, find your site, you offer ' reclaim your PPI now ' etc losely worded and invite them to complete the form (by having it there) and send it on (ie REFER) (whether it is automatic or manual matters not) to a CMC

We don't ''advertise'' LB but if we started asking people for details (by way of having a form to fill in ) and then sent their details to a Claims Company ( referred) then we would need a licence.

[entseo]

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

Hmmm. I suppose this partly relates to the definition of advertising. Getting an SEO-built website to the top of the Google organic results is the result of creative energy and researched input. The organic result listings are not to be confused with the Google Adwords ads which litter the top (sometimes) and the sides of the results pages. These are no more than classified ads, which people have paid for, on the basis that the more they pay, the more people see them because the higher up they are in the results. Now that is advertising.

Many clients want to be put in contact with SEOs because they know they can get good results. I think these clients would be disappointed if they knew that their SEO suppliers had to have the same licence as they had, or be unable to build the websites that everyone (clients and SEOs and people who wanted to see the offers) wanted.

No doubt in the future I would have to turn down offers of work to build websites for dog training products because I'm not a qualified vet!

But the MOJ is missing out on a "nice little earner" here. All they have to do to raise over a million pounds is to do to all other claims management affiliates what they did to me. But of course, they wouldn't be able to do that because the outcry would be unbearable for them.

It's much easier, if you're a big government department, to bully one person. To bully more than one must be a bit scary.

Anyway, thanks for your help. The corollary of that interpretation of the law leads us to a Monty Pythonesque absurdity in many respects (although I'm not saying you're wrong).

[Amethyst]

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

Sorry bit of an anti-comment but

But the MOJ is missing out on a "nice little earner" here. All they have to do to raise over a million pounds is to do to all other claims management affiliates what they did to me. But of course, they wouldn't be able to do that because the outcry would be unbearable for them.

Wouldn't be outcry from here, we'd love to tighten up control on the industry.

( That's not affecting what I'm saying about your case and needing a licence, unfairness is unfairness which ever way it's from)

[righty]

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

But I'm NOT developing a database to sell onto debt collecting companies. That would be in breach of my contract to my client (a CMC) and also, as far as I can see, a breach of my ICO responsibilities. But most of all, I wouldn't do it because it would be WRONG to do it.

The MOJ cannot just assume that I'm doing something wrong. They have to prove it. They have no proof that I have done anything wrong, yet I have ample proof that they are making presumptions which are mistaken.

Furthermore, acting on their mistaken presumptions, they have taken away my livelihood, charged me for my licence, not given me the licence I paid for, and pocketed the money I paid for the licence.

On top of that, they have not done that to anyone else - just to me.

Does that sound like "Justice"? It doesn't sound like justice to me.

In retrospect it doesn't sound like justice to the original MOJ officer either, who - after he realised his error - refuses to engage in a conversation about this and asks me to talk to another department (who, of course, won't know anything about it).

I know that, YOU know that, but the MoJ DON'T know that AND yes they can make assumptions as they appear to have done with you

[wales01man]

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

Maybe I am thick.
Before Google we had things like yellow pages to find a company or service entries on there were adverts?

Now we have Google where people pay to advertise if anyone is on Google they are advertising ?

[Amethyst]

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

Advertising: ''the act or practice of calling public attention to one's product, service, need, etc.,''

[entseo]

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

I know that, YOU know that, but the MoJ DON'T know that AND yes they can make assumptions as they appear to have done with you

Which is why they need to be taken to task, and to change their procedures if necessary.

[entseo]

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

Maybe I am thick.
Before Google we had things like yellow pages to find a company or service entries on there were adverts?

Now we have Google where people pay to advertise if anyone is on Google they are advertising ?

PAYING for Google Adwords is, by definition, advertising, in that it constitutes laying out an advertising budget to fund a campaign on the Google online media pages.

I do not pay a penny in advertising; therefore I do not consider myself to be an advertiser.

Lots of people flock to art galleries to see specific works of art: were/are those artists advertisers? Well, I think most people would say they were not. Leonardo and Botticelli did not pay money to put their works up for display. Instead, people just came to look at them.

Similarly, the Yellow Pages is/was a directory. All businesses were listed in the directory. But you could pay extra money for an advert which could see your business advertised in bold, or in a 250 x 250 box, or a half-page or whole page spread if you wanted it. That's advertising, because it is paid for. But the directory listing isn't advertising, because it is unpaid. The same is true of all listings magazines which rely on their revenue not by advertising but by payment per issue sold (unless the Editorial of the Times is also classified as advertising then presumably the presumption that editorial is editorial and not advertising will not change).

[entseo]

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

Advertising: ''the act or practice of calling public attention to one's product, service, need, etc.,''

" especially by paid announcements in newspapers and magazines... " [my own emphasis].

[wales01man]

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

Instead of arguing on here you should concentrate your efforts on the MOJ if you are in the right you will win opinions on here will not win the case for you a good Solicitor and Barrister may .
Obviously the MOJ will fight you with taxpayers money if this gets to Court you need to prepare for a long hard fight I do not expect that anyone on LB can predict the outcome but Good luck